Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/27/2021 in all areas

  1. Barbette and superstructure placement has improved on some hulls, but nowhere near enough. Please can we get stuff like this sorted? I'm really tired of having to compromise my designs because the AI (apparently) can't handle the freedom we were all advertised when buying into the alpha.
    5 points
  2. Who knows if they plan to implement an espionage mechanic, but that is a really good idea. It feels very metagamey to be able to see the basic type and shape of your opponents long before your ships officially ID them, but to know literally all the details as soon as they do. (I won't even start on how scummy it feels to see the reload times on enemy torpedoes, as that's another argument.) I'd be here for much quicker identification, but fewer displayed details on performance, construction etcetera unless you have good intelligence.
    4 points
  3. Let me just add to this. I'm seeing some arguments in this thread that (x autodesign complaint) is acceptable because a small minority of IRL vessels--let's say 10%-- were actually built that way. Never mind that most of them were not considered successful; the problem right now is that these should be statistical outliers in the designs we're seeing, but they're not. If anything, I see 90% fruity weird layouts of some sort, and 10% designs that are actually typical of the period. This is because there is no historical probability weighting (representing centuries of actual ship design e
    3 points
  4. Don't put words into other people mouth like that. That's insulting and I'm not going to stand for it. Having a design bank doesn't mean throwing the AI away. No one is talking about completely delete AI or whatever. We still need this "AI" to provide variety and I think at least most people here would agree with. What we do not agree with is the fact that the current "AI" is bad at designing ships that LOOKS authentic or competent half the time. We also do not agree with how the designer is being gutted just so this "AI" could barely work. Of course, you can't refute our designer complain
    3 points
  5. Well seems like the biggest complaints are AI, Designer, gunnery and i guess spotting as well maybe. Those four need either re-designs, updates, additions and changes to them to make them more fluid (so easier to edit and also flow better inside when playing the game for spotting you could have progressively more detailed models as the identification percentage goes up and/or by distance). We should also have, some ship details hidden unless we have spy's, backstabbers or whistleblowers who reveal these details (and also building said ship in your own docks). Once those are done
    3 points
  6. Sad truth is that WOWS playerbase is the no.1 target audience of most naval related things nowdayes including this game. Nothing has ever done as much harm to naval community as wows.
    3 points
  7. Ping me whenever the 1.0 Core Patch comes out. Thanks, everybody have a good month/few months.
    3 points
  8. No report of AI failure... The fact is that the AI is being allowed to cheat most of the time with superior tech, numbers, or whatnot. That's not hard because they build good ships, it's handicapping the players. Jesus Christ, do I have to spell it out to people in the year 2021? Read my arguments again. I, too, agree that there has to be variety. And "AI" <-- seriously, there's no "AI" it's just the program putting strings of code together - can help with that variety. All I'm saying is that there need to be MORE parameters that control how the "AI" is putting stuffs together. Adaptive
    3 points
  9. I agree about the weather. Look at Ultimate Admiral Age of Sail, the missions that take place during stormy weather is good game mechanic design that directly mimic real life condition during stormy weather for combat of the period if not a bit simplified. See, I'm fine with simplification of realism to make a game playable, but it has to be realistic in the first place.
    2 points
  10. Also we need a proper weather system and different sea states as its pretty difficult if not impossible to tell just by looking how calm the sea is half the time. So a dynamic weather system is a must.
    2 points
  11. Since the latest update I cannot play past the design phase of the game. There is no combat just my ship on the screen with the sailor hat in the upper right corner.
    1 point
  12. I'm a bit confused as to how an OPFOR destroyer - which is making smoke - can notice that I am - while also making smoke - am launching torpedoes several kilometers away and immediately react by going hard over to let a spread of five torpedoes whizz by totally ineffectually. It seems that the AI is as acutely aware of our actions during combat as it is in how our ships are designed in order to counter our tactics. Exactly what penalties in spotting is the AI suffering due to two smokes and at what range are the torpedoes of each type visible both in and out of smoke?
    1 point
  13. As noted in another post, we are sorely lacking in new, unique hull models for the majority of what is possibly the most important and diverse type of ships one can represent in this game: cruisers. Whether heavy or light, armoured or protected, semi-armoured or scout, we have practically nothing for this important type of warship (for the sake of convenience we're ignoring the battle- prefix). They are your fleet screeners, your reconnaissance, your commerce escorts and their raiders, your destroyer leaders and the ones responsible for driving them off. This following list is what I beli
    1 point
  14. Welllllll if you really wanna stretch it you can say your crew is using some very good binoculars and have the eye sight of Superman in order to see the enemy loading the torpedo. But jokes aside it does feel a little unfair to the A.I that you can juke them just by seeing they're reloads.
    1 point
  15. @arkhangelsk, I appreciate your reply and how you’re engaging with my arguments and sources. Below is a short list of the texts I have read to provide feedback for the game: Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era Norman Friedman Empires in the Balance: Japanese and Allied Pacific Strategies to April 1942 Willmott, H.P. The Naval Warfare of World War II: The History of the Ships, Tactics, and Battles that Shaped the Fighting in the Atlantic and Pacific Charles River Editors Jutland: The Naval Staff Appreciation Schleihauf, William The Rule
    1 point
  16. I'm sure. But you know what? They'll almost always end up choosing to build a bigger, more expensive, more heavily gunned ship in the end. Right up until there's literally no money or the ships are starting to die in storms. Because no one wants to be the guy who made SMS Blucher when his opponent made HMS Invincible. No one wants to be the one who made USS Michigan just because they want to skimp on tonnage only to realize the world is moving to a 21 knot battle speed! By the way, give the names of the books you borrow text from. Brown, Warrior to Dreadnought. Isn't it? I don't thin
    1 point
  17. Check the clown car topic for one of the MANY I found yesterday while (re)completing the first half of the academy missions. They're getting better, but still nowhere near consistently realistic or competitive. (You probably won't see anything wrong with it, but we've disagreed in the past about what constitutes a dumb design choice, and I venture to say the naval history folks here will be in my corner.)
    1 point
  18. AFAIK there is no historic example for any warship taking more than three heavyweight (i.e. full size, for the time, surface ship or submarine torpedoes) torpedo hits and not sink... Musashi was likely sinking well before the number of torpedo hits went double digits, even with the smaller warheads of aerial toroedoes and contact fusing. The sinking of a hardened warship however can take a dozen hours or more (and be sped up by pile-on attacks).
    1 point
  19. Sonar/hydrophones in WWII didn't work at the kinds of speeds that destroyers in a fleet action would be moving... flow noise will blind modern sonars at moderate speeds on submarines - which exist in a much more stable environment that a surface ship's hull-mounted sonar. Remember, not only is it being plowed through the ocean at speeds in excess of 30 knots; it's also being slapped and slammed by wave impacts, picking up the flexing of the hull by conduction, ect. Sonars in WWII were not very advanced at all in the grand scheme of things. I mean, think about a voice recording of the era. Thos
    1 point
  20. "Contre-torpilleurs" translates as destroyer. Nevertheless, no problem, typical USN destroyers for you. We do not have a company, so this is all premature. AI may simply not research the necessary technologies and continue to build destroyers WW1 level all timeline. How does this relate to the game? So far player has no control over the board height and seaworthiness... it's even exists?
    1 point
  21. All you would have to do is skim any of the historical studies that are incessantly linked in these threads to see that navies of all nations realized that the ballooning cost and size of warships were causing tremendous difficulties for their building programs: This game is not just about building ships in the abstract - the strategic layer is about fleet building programs, not individual ships. If the AI designs ships that will bankrupt their nation, or are impractical, or have no doctrine that provides them with worth, then they are badly designed ships. Full stop. A design
    1 point
  22. Going back to the barbettes, why the F*** is this still an issue? (image by RedWing) Is it that hard to make a "tag" for "accepted callibers" so the AI doesnt F this up? I get the AI making glass cannons. I get them messing the designs on the "Idea" level. But I dont get them pulling this kind of stuff off because it simply is not possible for us. One of the most common feedback of this game is the AI. It makes impossible OP ships, it makes brain-dead ships, and it makes ships that overlap somewhat. And the most common solution is to make a list of presets that the AI ca
    1 point
  23. I think having AI design templates that scale displacement/protection/firepower but retain templates for layout might be the best path going forward. Getting AI to design ships from scratch does not seem to be working, but if the AI has a design that includes all of the essential systems, ratio of secondary to primary armament, appropriate armour thickness relative its gun power and speed, etc. then it would be much easier to have the decision left up to it to be which template turret layout, or if it should take 11, 12, or 13in guns etc. If the AI is picking from designs A-H above,
    1 point
  24. As you probably all know by now, Core Patch 0.5 dropped today. Overall, the opinion has been positive, but I personally hate this update. There's nothing wrong with it per se, and I like the features that it added, however it's the features that were removed that hurt me so much. For the longest time, I had been doing some experiments with the French Experimental Battlecruiser II hull to try to create my ideal ship: a fast, durable, and versatile platform that can kill cruisers like a battlecruiser should and compete toe to toe with battleships. This gave me the K-type Battlecruisers, a
    1 point
  25. Turret armor is only being reset in the tooltip at the start of each mission. It is non-existent in practice, so currently not working at all. Hence the 2" over-pens causing flash-fires. It's also why the Monitor mission is very difficult. Also, the conning tower armor is pointless as it counts the weight and cost and doesn't apply that armor to anything on the ship. Instead the superstructure armor is applying to the conning tower as well. Also tested with 2" overpens and in-mission penetration tooltip highlights (green/yellow/red.) I reported both along with details after test
    1 point
  26. Over and over again it seems like the insistence on AI designed warships is sabotaging everything else.
    1 point
  27. Armour values are down across the board, you might find enemy BSes don't like your 'friendly massage' Put 14" guns on my BCs and they were causing substantial damage enemy ships of all sizes. 15" super heavy shells do a lot of ouch.
    1 point
  28. > Plus, it's not the size of guns on a ship that affect it's speed, it's the weight of the ship and the shape of its hull. As long as we can fit the guns within the displacement limit of the hull, what's wrong with having an oversized gun for the ship class? Hell, real ships exist with battleship guns on the displacement of a moderately sized light cruiser (see HMS Erebus). A potential compromise you could make is to make beam restrictions for high-caliber turrets. Historically, turret placement (and turret size) was constrained by the beam of the ship in a given location due to
    1 point
  29. Oh come on, you personally convinced me that we have to revert this change in the upcoming hotfix
    1 point
  30. It definitely has been a while since I made one of these Glory to Arstotzka It is 1965. Arstotzka is at war with Kolechia over a piece of territory known as the Grestin strip. Out on the seas, fierce naval battles are raging between the belligerents. You can take command of either country's naval forces. If you choose Arstotzka: This nation's naval doctrine calls for large capital ships that are very well armored. your ship must have at least 15 inch belt, 9 inch belt extended, 8 inch deck, and 6 inch deck extended armor as well as maxed out protection modules in order to
    1 point
  31. I'm also experiencing this issue, started with Alpha 12 v 86. No problems with designing the ship, then upon launching to battle it freezes. Doesn't happen all the time. Many times I'll have programs open in the background, Firefox, Chrome, OBS studio and I'm thinking its a certain webpage (YouTube) that might, might, be causing this for me. But it was something which I noticed upon the update for Alpha 12 that I didn't have happen before. I've got Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4590 CPU @ 3.30GHz.
    1 point
  32. Finally! A naval game that is not focused on Japan and America as the first playable Nations.
    1 point
  • Newsletter

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