Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/13/2020 in all areas

  1. Hello Admirals, We would like to share news about the progress we have so far and the status of the upcoming update. The team’s reorganization is working great and we are very happy with the results. These last 2 months we have touched upon all major aspects of the game with the new lead programmer (from formations to AI to ship designer) - and finally we can say - now the new team is more than ready to continue with the development of the campaign. We plan to add extra resources in November, which will help us to speed up the develo
    21 points
  2. Constant modifiers in relation to maneuvering are not changing. You will not see a bigger penalty due to speed, for example. Only the aspects that are utilizing target "bearing" and "range rate" will become more dynamic. So, for example, ships that are at large distance and move fast, will create bigger penalties to aim locking due to bearing change caused by degree difference between each aiming shot. Or ships that approach or increase distance with high speed, will cause more penalties to aiming procedure. As for the Destroyers and Torpedo Boats, they will still be as vulnerable as hist
    11 points
  3. Can I put in a vote to have 20in. guns on dreadnaughts? And the ability to put big ol' guns in every open space on deck? Edit: And gold accents, please.
    9 points
  4. @HusariuS@Koogus@Marshall99@IronKaputt@1MajorKoenig@Shiki@Aceituna@Shaftoe@Gangut@Skyguy1944@Airzerg Yes! Some news! Glad too see everything is going well as well. The new french hulls are very welcome indeed, wasn't expecting a patch this big either as well. Can't bloody wait now lol.
    9 points
  5. They got to add a Beam and Length slider because certain like the Tennessee class battleships where bloody THICC and i want to make them.
    8 points
  6. I'm absolutely with you on the rest of this post (and would add the fixed barbette/superstructure hardpoints as my personal bugbear) but just wanted to clarify, didn't they fix the accuracy/speed thing in the last update? It's still not perfect but it was a vast improvement on alpha-7. THIS! Torpedoes are ******* heavy and they're difficult enough to load when they're in the same room, never mind while maneuvring under fire. If this game is going to persist with ahistoric torpedo reloads being the standard for external launchers, please can we split the reloads between launchers
    7 points
  7. hope we also get quad gun turrets for WW1 designs like battleship Lyon and Normandie
    7 points
  8. Regarding Tsushima-like mission... Maybe it's just my russian blood speaks in me, but I would personally like more to take command of Russian fleet there.. Mainly, because IRL they were underdogs there, and had completely lost the battle, without even causing any significant damage to Japanese ships. So I really want to go against all odds and try if not straightforwardly WIN the battle, but at least inflict as much damage as I can
    7 points
  9. I would love to see an After Action type report after you finish a mission or custom battle.
    7 points
  10. Ok so the other day I notice something a little dumb. So I was playing with a replica of Tirpitz and I've almost used all my torpedo's. Near the end at the battle I had six torps left and reload indicator showed my torps are reloaded when I got in position to use to them they didn't launch. At first I thought my torpedo launchers got destroyed but then I realized they fully functional. Then I realized that the game divides the ammo left evenly so 3 for one launcher 3 for the other. The problem with is Tirpitz has quad torpedo launchers so they can't fire 3 torpedo's. I feel like the torpedo la
    6 points
  11. With the current limitations, It really forces you into the same design a lot. Which is why I wish they would just rid of a lot of this fixed points, or just add more of them for better designs. Theres no point in a build system at that point if you end up with the same designs over and over again.
    6 points
  12. I wouldn't recommend aiming for Shikishima specifically. takes deep breath, Japanese Navy nitpick is about to begin Shikishima emulates the final design studies for the A-150-type battleships in extremely few ways. In fact, she doesn't resemble them much at all, except in the number and calibre of the main battery - and even then, the shells are much heavier than they ought to be. What few surviving records of the A-150 that exist indicate - to point out a major difference - that she was to be armed with a homogenous dual-purpose battery of 10-cm guns, dispensing with the split LA/HA
    6 points
  13. I was thinking of stuff more like this............../s
    6 points
  14. I hope that the weight increase isn't by too much, as the primary historical advantages of the concentration of the armament was that it didn't weigh as much as something like four or five twin turrets, since one could shorten the length of the armoured citadel drastically.
    6 points
  15. 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.
    5 points
  16. Nah nah I mean where I'm imagining these things. I'm thinking of their "armor viewer" in the port as an example of changing the various thicknesses of armor. It's a very approachable presentation of how armor is laid out.
    5 points
  17. What'd be really cool in the future would be being able to select a portion of the ship and manually change the armor thickness, depth of the citadel and "bullet sensitive" components, shape of the citadel protection, etc. I admit a lot of this comes from playing wows, but these (armor designs of ships) were design choices that engineers made way back when, so with the freedom that this game allows, we should see what boundaries of creativity can be hit!
    5 points
  18. This is the strongest argument I've seen in this forum for the removal of limitations, causality, meaning we don't want the same effect every time, very nice.
    5 points
  19. I mean you got to admit, they have some really, really good looking ship models
    5 points
  20. I'm going to try to recreate a monster I made in RTW2 with the 20 inch guns. 4x2 front with 4x1 back 20" upgraded Alsace design now that I can. @Cptbarney Or maybe make this...............
    5 points
  21. After reading this I would like to ask. Does that mean that the campaing will be part of the next update (Alpha-10)? Anyway, thanks for finally giving us some informations. As Barney said - I didn't expect such a big update.
    5 points
  22. I agree, or better yet: modular hulls.
    5 points
  23. question, can one purpose built BB take on 99 early Bs? in a in the face, close range brawl? why yes. yes it can. and the visuals are glorious. i've never seen so many ammo detonations and turrets in the air at one time, once i dove into the enemy formation most of them ended up firing on each other.
    5 points
  24. @SteeltrapThey might introduce (and im hoping) changes to armour, bulkheads, gunnery (if needed), spotting (to get rid of stealth firing which is dumb) in the campaign update, but if not those above issues along with the designer and custom battles should be the next main focus of the dev team. Also things like, models not appearing, but gradually getting spotted and more detailed as well, would be very nice as that would get rid of the weird spotting mechanics, also smoke changing colour depending on speed, engine damage, engine type and era as well.
    4 points
  25. So after alpha 9 has gone through i wouldn't mind seeing a focus on, game mechanics such as bulkheads, the AI, gunnery and spotting since i have noticed cases where you can get spotted by the enemy and they can fire at your ships (this usually occurs below 1904) and you can do anything since they can't see them. Also we need a better armour system, and a more complex AI so that it is able to pull off various different tactics in the heat of battle or plan accordingly, on what the player has vs what they have (mainly the campaign as i don't expect the AI to retreat randomly in missions or
    4 points
  26. Personally I find this introduction of additional bling underwhelming. AI, damage model, armour model and damage control are where things have stalled. Second tier I'd add the other core factors of the gunnery model itself (any of you notice a ship doing 0.1kn can put the exact same penalty on your gunnery as a ship doing 30kn, for example? LOLWTF), manoeuvring (ship performance but also formation station keeping) and visibility (how do the devs justify early 1900's ships being able to shoot at ships they can't see simply because another of their ships can? I'd really like to know how tha
    4 points
  27. True, although if this game goes up to 1949-1950 we maybe could squeeze it in somehow. I mean if we get a des moines/Worcester hull then the game will have tech from that period as well. We will have too see what else they add in that's closer to the 50's so we can have a noice excuse to add it in lol. Could do with more pre-dread hulls and hulls from 1925-1875 too be honest doe.
    4 points
  28. Maybe they could also add taller barbettes for the main battery guns. So you can make Ships that have for example 3 main gun turrets at the front overlapping eachother in a Bow in set up.right now the middle gun cannot fire frontally because it is blocked by the front most turret in this setup. And if you put the middle turret on a barbette as well then the rear most turret is blocked from firing frontally. A barbette that is singnificantly taller would fix this issue. THIS. The game forces you mostly in the standard 2 bow,2 stern gun design. Making something like a Nelson BB
    4 points
  29. You know? Now that I think about it, an armor rework in the future is necessary. There is still armor places that are still missing it the game such turret side and back armor, funnel armor, conning tower top and side armor. If they add those armor types with the way armor currently is a lot of ships are going to be very heavy like the Yamato and Iowa classes. Secondly I don't like how barbette armor is at the moment. The way barbette armor is now I don't how thick it is, I think barbette armor should be in the category with the other armor types where you can type how thick it is. But what do
    4 points
  30. I'm hoping we get a new model for the 19" and 20" for the German turrets something similar to this, I really love the look of these turrets
    4 points
  31. I'm loving that in the first picture, a ship in the background fired and its gun flew off xD
    4 points
  32. Neat, I really look forward to building some Richelieu style battleships, as well as those first two new missions. Especially the battle of tsushima, both of those early battles should be rather interesting. That being said I'd still really like to see a lot more weight leaning on early era dreadnoughts and predreadnoughts.. all this top loading on WW2 era content is great and all, but I thought the game was suppose to start in 1890. Still looking for echelon turrets, open gun barrettes, hulls based off the USS Maine ACR1 or USS Brooklyn ACR 3, the battleship Pelayo or the coastal defense shi
    4 points
  33. Kancolle and Azur Laner very much share the same concept, Azur Lane brought ships from every major naval power in WW2 and a few extras while Kancolle is more focused on mainly the Japanese navy and the Pacific theater
    4 points
  34. The image idk, but that's Yamato from Kancolle
    4 points
  35. That's only if we're able to place guns on the rear, which it doesn't look like we'll be able to. Judging from the way it was presented, if we had been offered an Alsace-type hull as well, it would have been shown off along with the all-forward Richelieu model.
    4 points
  36. Well, we have Yamato, Iowa/South Dakota/North Carolina, Bismarck, and now Richelieu... that leaves just King George V, Sovetskii Soyuz, and Littorio for our cadre of modern battleships.
    4 points
  37. Hello all! Here are the latest news: Please follow the discussion in the new thread.
    4 points
  38. Mods, mods and more. Mods. Please
    4 points
  39. Something like this as well would be cool.
    4 points
  40. And some juicy tech for and against them I see my 20-inchers as 5,5 cal low-drag SAP, hopefully.
    4 points
  41. Some time before Half Life 3 is my bet
    4 points
  42. Will Capsizing be a thing in the game? cannot see anything confirming this on the Forums. Like for example if flood damage is so much on one side of the ship from multiple torps or waterline pens the ship just turns over and is disabled. ofcourse this depends on the size of the flood and the overall weight of the ship. a Yamato would be more difficult to capsize then a heavy cruiser,
    4 points
  43. 1. It is not a shortsighted tactical consideration in the context of a short war fought with on-hand resources, centred on a single decisive outcome between surface fleets. 2. It is both practical and feasible to go for the larger calibres in the case of the Japanese. As you've pointed out before, Japan's industrial base and resources aren't as sufficiently advanced as the Americans (the product of going from medieval to modern in the span of a decade) so they need the calibre gap to make up the disparity. Additionally, you never once mentioned 46 cm / 18 in. You said explicitly to go to
    4 points
  44. Well, shes basically done now. Ill see if i have time to upload her today, otherwise ill probs do it tommorrow anyways. Need the time to get things right in Both Blender and sketchfab.
    4 points
  45. I am realy looking forward to this update, because The battle of Tsushima was a huge battle between the pre-dreadnoughts. And I love the pre-dreadnought era, so finaly I can test more things in this mission. Also as for me, the 510 mm guns are very nice. I can't wait to design Shikishima, because to be honest I won't grind 31k steel for a pixel battleship in WoWs. Oh and of course I can design this battleship on my way. The quad turrets are very nice addition to this game, and these turrets are needed for historycal reasons and of course (for me at least) more guns are always good 😁
    3 points
  46. I feel if this game had a fully function modding and modding community it will last for years.
    3 points
  47. The fact you can pump a destroyer full of 16" and 18" and barely does any damage is beyond ludicrous imo. And 5" HE shells somehow doing more damage to the battleship then said AP/HE shell from the battleship to the destroyer. Shit like that just really killed the game for me.
    3 points
  • Newsletter

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