Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Marcomies

Members
  • Content Count

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

71 Excellent

About Marcomies

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. I'd argue that US with its massive industrial capacity was probably the least limited by manufacturing when it came to testing and innovating. It's also not like all the 5"/38 turrets were same standard model either. That Wikipedia article alone lists 13 different production mounts, 7 of which are different enclosed dual-gun turrets for different ship types with weighs ranging from 34 tons to 77 tons and many of them were used concurrently. With aircraft dominating the naval warfare, dual purpose gun's weren't some low priority weapon system either. If the Navy's AA-firepower could have b
  2. Without getting into the subject of post-war developments and military priorities, I was never arguing against triple-gun turrets being the go-to primary weapon of 1930+ cruiser sized and bigger warships. If you look at the Cleveland-class that you mentioned for example, yes, it has triple-gun main turrets. A significant amount of space on a 20th century warship is usually dedicated to the primary weapon turrets so space isn't that much of an issue there. However, if you look at the secondary weapons on the Cleveland-class, those are are 5" guns in dual-gun turrets and they are packed tig
  3. Thanks for the example pictures disc. Those British 4" triples look really impractical. It does seem likely that UAD is currently too optimistic about the efficiency of triple turrets that haven't been up-sized. Reload penalty for smaller calibers could be one way to encourage more historical turret choices but at the same time it risks making the triple option entirely redundant even without the anti-air specific issues being a factor. I wonder how the various French multi gun turrets were arranged internally and how they compared size- and space-wise to similar caliber dual and tri
  4. I have been following the progress of this game for a while now. It mostly looks amazing but there have been two issues that have kept me from buying it. First issue was the high top speeds that could be achieved without really compromising anything else in a ship design. I'm no longer that worried about this as the achievable and practical top speeds have been toned down in couple updates. They still seem to be higher than what was historically common but maybe the requirements of campaign mode will address that. --- The second, and more significant, issue is the extreme prominence
  5. I don't see any problem with the 4th rates using only high grade notes. In my experience you can usually find gold cheaper than silver since so many players are sailing 5th rates and all crafted upgrades use mid grade notes. Having exceptional 4th rate use 2 mid and 2 high notes would probably keep the material price about same and only save 100 labor hours which is only about 2.2% of the total labor hour need. The suggested change could inflate the silver prices even further.
  6. Frigate being called Frigate is easily the most confusing ship name in the game. Cutter, Brig and 3rd Rate have bit of a same problem but nowhere near as bad.
  7. Having even just two positions for the guns without animation or one-dimensional animation without any more detail would be great in comparison to the guns not moving at all. Closed gunports is something I'd like to see in the open world mode for all ships and also many traders have their gunports open even though they can't have guns in those positions.
  8. Would be great to be able to fire a cannon salute on the world map, just couple visual puffs of smoke and sound. Currently the only way to greet a familiar player in the open world is through chat.
  9. I don't think nation/corporation difference has as massive part in the matter as the OP thinks but it would be nice and healthy for the game to make the borders between nations a little less absolute and to add some more concrete rivalry inside the nations. Letters of Marque could make the players of different nations a bit more fluid. Maybe clans could have some exclusive options (taxation, usage limitations etc) available in ports that it has taken and invested in.
  10. The game is open world MMO where ships and equipment can be lost for good and resources are limited. It's not an arena style game so PVP with only matching ships/BR is out of question. I think many of the players originally asking for completely even fights were hoping the final game to have a structure more similar to WoWS or the sea trials for example. While I enjoy an occasional 1 vs 1 encounter (and I have been ganked more times than I have taken part to ganking), even fight is rarely worth offering from a tactical or strategic point of view. I'm personally not completely against limit
  11. The main problems with AI traders always having escorts in the current game would be that the traders teleport out of the battle instance if they are not tagged so you can't deal with the escorts first. Also it's very implausible that a single small trader ship would be escorted every time or by anything more than one or two small ships. If the traders have more escorts than that, they should be forming convoys with several traders.
  12. I haven't played enough battles against the AI yet in this patch to give accurate feedback about this but giving AI unfair buffs is never a good way to compensate for its lack of tactics or "skills". It's very hard to have any sort of realistic predictions about the AI's capabilities in combat when it's not limited the same rules as the player. There is nothing more annoying than losing to an equal AI just and only because it has superpowers. The players can adjust the difficulty of their battles by picking enemies larger or smaller than themselves. There's really no need to give the AI un
  13. Ultimately I would like to see capturing ships being rewarded more to encourage more authentic tactics for the period (maybe more xp or additional drops for capping). However, before any of this is done I'd like to see the boarding gameplay developed into some more interesting form and the AI being better prepared for it.
  14. I'm not completely against anti-ganking mechanics but I think the current limit system will be exploited in various ways. The br limit should only limit the attacker side, not the defender and the post battle/invisibility system should be adjusted for this instead of having system like this adjusted for them. In general, if player is sailing in area where getting ganked is very likely (near an enemy capital for example) he should get ganked. Not taking the bait in front of enemy harbor is something players should just learn, it's common sense. Making PVE characters on PVP server should not
  15. While I do completely agree that taking ports is way too fast and easy as it is, port battles with this long warning would rely too much on the size of the nations and remove any real chance for diversion tactics. Every port battles would probably be a full port with as many and large ships as possible from both sides, small nation would probably not even be able to get their ships into a port of a larger nation when attacking no matter how remote that port is from the home waters of the defender. Lets say for example that small nation has enough players to get 30 ships into a port battle.
×
×
  • Create New...