Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/21/2020 in Posts

  1. I was hoping for Naval Battle Simulator style global map where we plot our fleet/s courses, set the makeup of those fleets and converge them against the enemy. In this case "how many miles", usage and fuel conveys would be a thing, like suppling fuel to ports to re-supply fleets/ships thereafter (logistics). But no, best guess is it's going to be arbitrary like, more to do with how far away a region you can sent a ship, as described in there regional fleet type system, even possibly how long ships can stay in that region. And as described we are more likely to get only auto-generated miss
    6 points
  2. IdAe TiMe. So when your creating your ship you can pick distance it can travel. Now in the campaign fuel is definitely is going to be a major factor. So my idea is to allow to see how many nautical miles each ship go and the distance it can go is altered by whatever ever specs the player has on it. In the game help menu it said that when your on the map you can pick a place to move your ships. So when complete your ship you get a preview of the world map and it shows how far the ship can travel and speed can it get maximum performance.
    6 points
  3. It's not a simulation because we can actively form a meta to the game. I.e. Designing ships to meet specific circumstances or exploit feature's for our benefit. Sims use real world designs that the player uses in a scenario. I dont know of any "Sims" that allow you to change aspects of the vehicle you are using to fit a certain criteria, sims usually make it so the player uses the vehicle within set parameters to the fullest not designing its own. Also this game literally can not be a sim and has never been advertised as a sim just realistic combat which many games offer their take on. T
    6 points
  4. Just an issue I brought up a while ago that makes sense to post here since the British (quad turrets) are coming. Any plans to group the aiming of main and secondary batteries by calibre alone, not by calibre + turret type + turret location? Building a KGV-type arrangement with these new turrets will be nerfed significantly if the single twin turret has separate targeting to the double quad turrets. Even the whole point of a uniform main battery in Dreadnought herself is faulty because the game requires centreline and side 12" turrets to aim separately.
    5 points
  5. Obviously Fuel is going to play a factor in campaign. But how much of a factor can we make it in the design of our ships? @CapnAvont1015 Had a cool Idea so I thought I would make a thread with a couple ideas I had. So obviously at the moment we have a slider bar for ship range. This provides to my understanding just a basic range the a ship type would travel while just taking away from the available tonnage we can work on with the ship. But maybe we can add another feature to the game. My idea would be fuel burn. So a ship could decrease fuel burn by Upgrading funnels
    5 points
  6. Ok so I assume when the campaign drops (when ever that will be) we will be able to scrap ships. If ship has served for I don't know 25 years I'm guessing it cant keep up with new ships unless you give a massive refit (which I hope will be a thing). But suppose you don't want to spend money on a refit or scrap it. So the other option is to make it a museum ship. So my idea is if you give your ship to a museum it will give a slight boost to your finances and if you want to go further boost your crew morale as well. Now the boost will depend on what the ship has achieved. If said ship won 50 batt
    5 points
  7. Anyways shush. Lets just start the prediction game again, since we don't have anything better to do. I say last week of October as i got clapped in my previous prediction, probs will in this one as well. I also reckon the campaign won't arrive till like march next year maybe april.
    5 points
  8. I'd be absolutely up to contribute. I hope @Nick Thomadis and the rest of the dev team know we're so dedicated/such a pain in the arse (delete as appropriate) because we love this game, love the concept, secretly wish we were working on it too, and want it to be the absolute best it can be. But in the same spirit I'd like the opportunity to put on record what we do like compared to other similar games, and especially (for our older residents) the changes they've made that have really improved the game since early alpha. (In fact, since I've only been here a few months, I'd like to read that to
    5 points
  9. Agreed, except the problem as it stands is we are NOT doing that, not even close. It's still not clear to me what the "it's not meant to be a sim" minded people think of the list of issues I've pointed out. Do none of them trouble them? To be clear, I am not meaning that as any sort of slight for those less interested in somewhat more realistic mechanics, I'm simply curious as to how far from any claim to realism the game needs to be before it will trouble them. As I've said many, many times, I don't expect "realism" because there's no such thing with today's technology. But I won't
    5 points
  10. Maybe for you but IMO I think the main “appeal” here is the 3D assembly. Every game has some form of upgrades in which players adds to their game object. UAD does it in 3D and that’s unique, players get to be modelers at their level. And also that’s why I think Custom Battles will be the best asset (once develop alittle more) because it will utilize Designer Tool to its fullest potential. Along these lines a 'simulator designer tool' simply won’t reach its aptitude, as soon as you designate the game as a simulator is when limitations are applied (and everyone love those!!!), since with a
    5 points
  11. I have FREQUENTLY stated that I do NOT expect "100% realism", as though that would be possible regardless. What I DO want is patently ABSURD situations to be addressed. By which I mean aspects that are SO far removed from ANYTHING within even a very generous and broad definition of "reasonable" or "accurate" or, dare I say it, "at least makes some sort of sense". THOSE I want addressed. CLs and CAs that are nigh indestructible because of MAX bulkheads while the pre-dread BB next to them is sunk by 2 hits that cause flooding in the bow and stern and apparently the BB had no transverse
    5 points
  12. This right here is what everyone needs to understand. This is a very small team working on something big and fact is what they have so far is amazing considering how small the team is. As for realism, it's good to a degree. Like Bluishdoor76 said War Thunder did it and look what happened. People bloody hated it. So light ships such as DDs and CLs so be tough enough that they can take a few hits such as over-pens but not like how in WOWs they take them and they're completely fine. As for the limitations on ship designs, they have to get rid of that soon. It is literally the biggest thing going
    5 points
  13. Ok moar, pic of hitachi gave her some new metal materials but they seem a bit too shiney for my liking so ill adjust that tommorrow. Also a quick peak at the turrets for ORP as well! enjoy!
    4 points
  14. Made the hull brighter and with some werid pattern on it to make the other details stand out more, tommorrow ill give her a better material in-general.
    4 points
  15. I think another valuable piece could be stretching or breaking the treaty. For example, your "10000 ton"-limited cruiser might actually displace 11000 tons, or you might start building a new destroyer flotilla when forbidden by the treaty. Depending on their opinion of you, other nations might denounce you or otherwise become very mad if they figure out what's going on. Or they might shrug if off if they like you or it's really minor. Of course, maybe you might discover them cheating, too....
    4 points
  16. Honestly, initially they probably couldn't but later on I don't see why it wouldn't work. Like you said it just adds more replayability. Also maybe the player could make a treaty before the launch of the game. Now that would be awesome
    4 points
  17. Hi, Just got the idea that it woul'd be nice if every ship in campaign had it's own simple log (containing some info on engagenents fought) and a kill list. Like date when the ship was sunk, action in which that happened (and maybe link to specifications of the sunken ship). It woul'd add more flavour to the veteran ships. and also give some perks to it's crew (if certain ship sinks enemy ships exclusevely by torpedoes, then her's crew coul'd be torpedo experts, if the other ship takes severe beating in two or more battle crew of her excells in damage control).
    4 points
  18. one big problem is the game doesnt simulate anything other than the model of the turret hence ammo handling rooms and ammo logistics etc. are left out which a triple gun mount would need to support it. The game's use of model as the fixed definition of the space the gun requires also hinders it in that aspect. why bother with dual 15"(or whatever size) if the triple turret only weighs more and has the same size? single turrets are also out because its pointless to design monitor-esque vessels since if you have the tonnage for an 18" single, it might as well be a 16" triple since the 18" single
    4 points
  19. Yes yes, the French are one of a kind, but to me at least, it's what makes them so very fun!
    4 points
  20. How about port holes? These ships had rows of them along the hull and superstructure
    4 points
  21. Listen........I just wanna get my French Navy on.
    4 points
  22. sorta up in the air lol nobody really knows. Im hoping next week but idk
    4 points
  23. Very cool update! One note: “Captain quarters gun in recoiled position“ Gun would never be “recoiling” (i.e. in use in a fight) with the Captain’s quarters in this state. All of this (hammocks, curtains, furniture, doors and even cabin walls) would be removed and stowed away if the ship was in action. It would be impossible to fight with the guns if the ship were not properly cleared for action. Not the same deck, but illustrates a ship cleared for action: This contains some detailed descriptions of clearing for action: https://www.jstor.
    4 points
  24. Main issues that most people agree on *note its in order of what I believe is most important* Designer needs more features and freedom Balance changes of already implemented features. *which we cannot truly do until we have campaign other than obvious ones like zombie transports and the like* More communication *some people would like it, i've reported bugs and seen them fix it in the next update so im content but other are not so last for me* We are not opposed to realism in fact we love it. But the fact remains this is a game and when people say historically this didn'
    4 points
  25. Think some people are reading too much into the term "simulator" due to approaching it as a gaming term instead of a generic term. Yes gaming simulators seek to reproduce specific platforms/environments but that doesn't imply they are realistic either. So no this game isn't simulating command of a Yamato class battleship, but we are simulating the environment and physics that gave birth to it. And that is what everyone really wants. The chance to be the designer/chief of navy/admiral in that simulated world.
    4 points
  26. Yes, there are a couple small reasons. When a gun shoots, it creates vibrations and a shock wave at the muzzle, which will disturb the trajectory of other shells in the vicinity. The guns in a triple or quad tend to be closer together than in a twin or several singles. The blast of one gun may therefore interfere with the others to a higher degree, if they are all fired at the same time. The shells might also collide or "kiss" midair, per US reports. This would be less likely if the shells started farther away from each other. These issues could be reduced with delay coils, so that the gu
    4 points
  27. Agreed. I personally love WT realistic because it's actually harder to die though :P. I will say that this game operates in a sort of quazi history realm where you can literally change the course of history. And this game can't really be a sim because we make our own ships essentially. People are going to find meta's and more effective countermeasures in the game against various types of units because we have the opportunity to essentially create hundreds of variants and "test" them in combat. Which might not be historically accurate because maybe it's more cost effective for you to build torp
    4 points
  28. I just want functional and easy to place echelon turrets and the ability to build and then explode the USS Maine. Is that too much to ask?
    4 points
  29. Same, a bit sad they don't turn with your main guns on your ships, but eh i guess we will have to wait a bit for that.
    3 points
  30. Not at all! I created this thread so peeps could share designs in-general. Mostly your own designs and ones you've made in someway. But im not mental on what should be on this thread as long it follows general forum rules and keeps mostly to the threads topic and the first post (unless i change it). I actually forgot how to make a proper metal material lol, but i have one done. When im done with ORP jadwiga i might do 'camos' like wows for her. same for any other ship i've posted here.
    3 points
  31. Hello everyone I would like to open up thread to talk about battleship development in the 1920s and the pause of battleship construction from the Washington Naval Treaty and how it would affect this game. I don't want this game to fall into the same trap RtWs fell into in this era with AI ships templates going by treaty limits when the player has no reservations to be bound by a treaty that was never signed. The 1920s would've given birth to warships that are the apex of battleship construction and it would only grow from there because naval aviation was still in its infancy. While
    3 points
  32. Thanks, for posting it. I haven't notice it before. It really fits into the Devs descryption of the land in battle (they said that it will be present in some battles as ,,distant terrain'').
    3 points
  33. The funny thing is. In this Steam picture if you look way in the back you can a island of sorts in the fog. So either the campaign has been worked on since the beginning or this is just a background texture.
    3 points
  34. An option when beginning a new campaign to be "historical or ahistorical" should be essential. I believe Hearts of Iron has a similar option. Beyond that I like the ideas of something like a mini-game to create completely new treaties and consequences for signing/not signing.
    3 points
  35. Im making a thread about this right now with some ideas I have!
    3 points
  36. An interesting possibility would be player-influenced auto-generated treaties. Restrictions could be developed after a "treaty" event where the player provides input. The player and computer-led nations would be constrained by these values for a set amount of time, provided they signed said agreement. The computer should have a low chance to sign if a major potential enemy (eg the player) refuses to do so.
    3 points
  37. Hi Admin, Very cool update! Thank you and much appreciated! A few questions here. 1. Will there be a penalty to AI accuracy in dense powder smoke? 2. Wil be it be possible to shake a chasing enemy off at night by dousing lanterns and changing the course? What will be the chances of AI guessing this maneuver and how they are going to be calculated? What other factors will influence the success of such a maneuver? 3. Gun recoil animation is great! How about guns dismounting when hit? Will it be animated as well? 4. In the age of sail ship boats were normally towed b
    3 points
  38. This idea I like allot, especially as I had that kind of idea whenever I played a from the depths campaign with a few tweaks, where the ships would serve in a "museum fleet" but could be reactivated if needed. They were surprisingly effective against the final factions. Anyway I expect this to be great if say you have a pre-dreadnought that had one hell of a combat record, but don't want to keep it in your navy or scrap it, and refitting it wouldn't be worth it as it would still be horribly outdated.
    3 points
  39. So lets start off with a current aspect of the game that I think the Devs are going to address but im not sure. This games armor system is a bit...limited, and quite easy to exploit. As it stands armor layouts in the game are not accurate in the least. Belt lines cover the entire ship and extended belts and extended decks are far too easy to make impenetrable. Makes battleships and Heavy cruisers rather insurmountable to ships with smaller guns, and super structures dont really seem to get hurt as easily as they maybe should. As we all know the actual armor layouts of warships is quite the com
    3 points
  40. Well we definitely need more pagoda towers.
    3 points
  41. I think it will be the first week in November. But I hope that the update will come sooner. I just can't wait for it.
    3 points
  42. Here are the comparisons. A lot bigger than i was expecting lol. quite the chonk, at least if i need the historical hull i can just copy yamato's. Either way hitachi isn't a yamato, but it's own ship really, but looks similar to her.
    3 points
  43. Did moar on IJN Hitachi first of her name. As for ORP jadwiga i just need to sort out her normals on some of the models and then texture ill show case the textures and then ill make adjustments to the UV's were necessary, but i don't want too many texture maps as im already near the file size limit. Oh and i updated Hitachi's stats as well.
    3 points
  44. Realistic simulation (of the technological and physical factors that influenced ship design) is not the same as historical determinism (not allowing the player to make different choices under the same set of “rules” that are grounded in reality that were present historically). Kerbal Space Program, for example, has no connection to any actual history and clearly does not force the player to recreate a particular history, but is nonetheless is built on a fairly realistic simulation of spaceship design and the various physical constraints and real world trade-offs that influence it.
    3 points
  45. I am fine with realism but what I am most enthusiastic about the player creating they're own history. The Devs already said you have the chance to make the Chinese a major naval power. After WW1 the Spanish Empire ,Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Chinese Empire were knocked out of the naval race. If the player picks any three of those Nations and go pass 1918 they are already making a they're own history. I really don't want this game to be based on actual history because that will make it to predictable. Another reason I don't want this game to be to based on actual history is because this gi
    3 points
  46. With respect to the possible differences in fusing it's far more complicated than the issue of time delay alone, given there also are matters of base or nose and caps and a host of other things. Regardless, the explosion of an HE shell on the surface is NOT a penetration, yet the game displays such hits AS penetrations while allowing the same armour to produce a ricochet of AP (which itself is almost entirely BS under those conditions except perhaps in a vanishingly small number of cases). Yet AP bounces almost always, and HE never does. If an HE shell were striking very thin armour
    3 points
  47. I'll be happy with a more simulated approach, but even still i dont expect this to be 1:1 scale. The appeal of this game to me is how fleshed out are the ship designs and relation to its realism. I wasnt interested in the game when i thought it was going to be arcade create your battleship and pitch them into random battles type of game, but heard its going to be indepth naval strategy game with building mechanics i was sold.
    3 points
  48. That's a price that require/expect commitment. Could you give us any idea about what the price will be once the game is released and what we should expect from it? - subscription based? - how long it will be supported? - etc...
    3 points
  49. If it's not a simulation of the real factors that influenced ship design, then what is the point? The real driving interest here is how alternative designs perform in relation to historical designs. If the game is not grounded in that, I'm not sure what the appeal is in a historical wargaming market. Also, please don't compare to MP games. That is a completely different dynamic.
    3 points
  50. Ok I really hope when camos are added to the game I hope we can add logos and such on the decks like with Bismarck. Now I know in real life the reason they did this so aircraft won't get confused and attack they're own ships. The Italians are the best example of this they're red and white stripe decks.
    3 points
  • Newsletter

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