Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/06/2021 in all areas

  1. List of issues found, by mighty menhet on a discord i am on. Italy have not heavy cruiser 1894 - 1895 Astro-Hungary have no light cruiser in 1890 and not heavy cruiser in 1894 - 1895 Germany have no heavy cruiser 1909 - 1911 The double casemate slots on Semi-armoured Cruiser 1 and 2 allows for only one gun to be placed otherwise they overlap. Also on Semi-armoured Cruiser 1 (pictured here) the double casemate mounts in the middle is only 1 high and doesn't allow any casemate guns to be placed. There's missing casemate slot on the forward part of the
    4 points
  2. Yamato. Almost historical recreation. (It makes me wish the modelling team makes real Yamato main turrets... but these also look beautiful and similar.)
    1 point
  3. Ah, that explains it. However, using the example design I posted, even if you unmask the rear turret you won't get a target lock unless you manually retarget. If you don't, both turrets will fire independently with no lock benefits until the AI picks a new target. It's easy enough to confirm: Custom battle, 1 v 1 CA, give yours just two turrets, turn broadside after engagement and don't manually target anything. Your turrets will engage individually forever until you manually retarget the enemy ship.
    1 point
  4. I'm an idiot, I extracted to a nearly identical file name for Grand Tactician: The Civil War (1861-1865) (nice early access game imo). Thank you though, the mod works just fine now.
    1 point
  5. For what it is worth, a quad turret can successfully bracket a target by itself. The idea is that the next salvo is aimed by checking the farthest and nearest shell splashes from the last salvo. The splashes should surround the target. If the most distant shot in the salvo is on the near side of the target, then the salvo was short and the next one needs to fire at a longer distance. If the closest shot is on the far side of the target, then the salvo was long and the next one needs to fire at a shorter distance. When the extremes are on either side of the target, then probably the shoote
    1 point
  6. Well unless the guns are different calibers or number of barrels, they will be in the same group. So that doesn't work for most setups, but that's a separate issue. This I know is on the list to look into, so no worries. Back to the original issue, why would a ship lose target lock from 1 turret being unable to fire due to interference? We aren't talking about it taking longer to gain a lock with 1 (which is reasonable). The ship had lock, maneuvered in a way to mask one of the turrets, but now you have lost target lock. Just doesn't make sense since that has nothing to do with what the
    1 point
  7. HIRMS Tsesarevich Hull: Super battleship, Russian Empire, 1940 tech Modules: 99k tons, 25.5 knot top speed, long range, maximum bulkheads, oil 3 fuel, no boilers, diesel engines 2, auxiliary engine 4,shaft 3, Krupp 4, Barbette 4, antitorpedo 4, triple hull, reinforced bulkheads 2, antiflood 3, citadel 5, super-heavy shells, standard ammo, Increased torps, Lyddite 2 explosives, hydraulic turrets, standard reload, oxygen torps, 24-inch torps, stereo 5 rangefinder, no acoustics, advanced radio, gen 2 radar. Armor scheme: 15" belt, 8" belt extended, 8" deck, 5" deck extended, 15" co
    1 point
  8. IJN Banryƫ Hull: Experimental battleship, Empire of Japan, 1940 tech Modules: 72k tons, 27 knot top speed, long range, maximum bulkheads, oil 3 fuel, no boilers, diesel engines 2, auxiliary engine 4,shaft 3, Krupp 4, Barbette 4, antitorpedo 4, triple hull, reinforced bulkheads 2, antiflood 3, citadel 5, standard shells, standard ammo, TNT explosives, hydraulic turrets, standard reload, stereo 5 rangefinder, Sonar 3, advanced radio, gen 2 radar. Armor scheme: 15" belt, 8" belt extended, 8" deck, 5" deck extended, 15" conning tower, 18" turret, 8" turret top, 6" secondaries.
    1 point
  9. Nick, dude. He didn't use profanity. He didn't insult anyone's character. He did nothing wrong. People have gotten a bit heated recently on the forum, but unless there are insults and abuse, people have a right to be critical. I certainly don't expect you to take every suggestion or criticism and give over to it. Follow your vision, keep making a great game, and don't take it to heart. When people get invested in a project, sometimes feelings can run high. I hope you'll take the good suggestions and improve the game, while maintaining the vision you had when you started the project
    1 point
  10. This would definitely be a good feature to have! Especially with secondary armament on larger ships, which can run between 2" and 8" and which can only now be directed at a single target. Some finer control over gun targeting would be most appreciated - ideally by a) having separate targeting for each calibre of gun, and b) the ability to set primary and secondary targets, or allow turrets which have no line-of-sight to the primary target to fire 'under local control' at targets of opportunity.
    1 point
  11. Maybe it is just me, but that doesn't seem to match with real world. There are two directors (aside from local range finders on each turret). They can each provide sufficient ranging and engage separate targets reliably. In fact the ship in that post (Deutschland class) at the Battle of the River Plate was engaging separate targets reliably with each turret. The main disadvantage is fewer barrels on target of course, but it doesn't mean the unobstructed turret should have any loss of target lock. I get your explanation of why it happens, but there needs to be a better way to implement. Y
    1 point
  12. If you havent already heard of, Game-Labs Studio got bought by Stillfront Group, that now holds 100% of the shares, essentially putting the studio under their complete control. The problem? Stillfront stinks of microtransaction f2p mobile games (they even make it publicly). People are worried of what this will mean for Game Labs projects, especially UA:D. Will Game Labs just continue biz as usual? Will the new heads speed up and finish the development of UA:D in the way it would be preferable for us? Is UAD, for being rather incomplete, just end up going to the tr
    1 point
  13. They actually publicly show this?! Oh, so, dont give two damns to the user, make games free-to-play freemium crapfests to atract casual players (kiddies and vulnerable people), turn them into paying whales, and then convince them to stay to keep milking the wallet carriers costumers. I was already worried about this purchase, but I thought SF could be given the benefit of the doubt... Now I know I need to seriously worry.
    1 point
  14. As someone that works in this industry (game dev) I can attest that it's often a mixed bag with regards to who or what (IG) has acquired your current employer. At the end of the day Stillfront will be calling the shots, adjusting operational structures, and developing new strategies as they see fit. The Stillfront business model is typical of these IG's though. And by that I mean its grotesque. From their (QuEC) website. Can't get over them spelling hobby wrong...
    1 point
  15. Here's a transparent fish as a welcome back.
    1 point
  16. I know I'm somewhat grumpy at times, however I genuinely like just about everyone here, and furthermore I know exactly what I was doing and that my comments broke the rules however I'm pretty chapped seeing such crass abuse of some pretty good members. Someone had to say something and I'm always happy to speak my mind - damn the torpedoes and everything!
    1 point
  17. Sorry for this, I'm gonna be rather harsh, but are you two done with your discussion? This thread, as said already, is about the purchase of GL. I understand why that discussion came up and it was originally related to the topic (im not gonna take sides), but it has been going on for too long and now its just "poluting the forum", as a certain user once told me. If you plan to keep it going, then as I said above, you can do it on discord and do it there for as long and as loud as you want. But please, finish it here.
    1 point
  18. What gives me hope is that Stillfront also acquired Everguild in October 2020, the developers of Horus Heresy: Legions, a mobile game I like a lot and which I have played since the Beta. There were no notable changes since then and it still has a fair and non-cash-grabby ftp model, so apparently there was no interference from Stillfront.
    1 point
  19. You're right. We're all wrong, we get it. You are definitively not here to discuss anything. Any comment that is different from your point of view is seen as aggression, not only on your opinion but also on your person. This is internet, people don't care about your opinion most of the time, but they care even less about your person. If you want to talk about the many grief I caused you, do it in private. I'm done arguing with you in public.
    1 point
  20. Can you stop being disrespectful? Or is it realy that hard for you?
    1 point
  21. Thanks for responding. Its just that Stillfront's portfolio and the complete aquisition of GL left us worrying about the future of GL, plus it was unnanounced and a complete surprise. However, assuming SF doesnt intervene much on the development/designing side of things, and acts more as a marketing and finantial backer, then like you say, this aquisition could proove to be positive and give GL more resources to work on. If that happens, then its a decision I wont oppose (I dont have the right to tell anybody how to run their biz anyways), but it would be a worrying situation if SF starts
    1 point
  22. Please calm down, the thread will remain open for as long as the participants remain civil with each other.
    1 point
  23. Hey man! Respect other forum members opinion.
    1 point
  24. "As a part of the Stillfront Group, the studio will continue expanding and improving its portfolio of premium games, but also expand into GaaS (games as a service) and free-to-play," well, my friends, we are about to witness the death of a studio. Practically every EA-style gaming conglomerate just buys up a studio, milks it dry, then discards it when they have driven its IPs into the ground. This is why UA:D is probably the last new game (post-2014) I will ever purchase.
    1 point
  25. Spending money on in-game items is the definition of microtransactions
    1 point
  26. And the devs are still maintaining strict radio silence. What do they think they are? Merchant raiders?
    1 point
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...