Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

killjoy1941

Members2
  • Content Count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

57 Excellent

About killjoy1941

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, there's this: I've been following these guys and playing their games since UG:G and they haven't missed yet. Every single game has been fun, highly replayable, and yet not quite what I expected. I fully expect them to deliver on this one as well, and when they say 1890-1940s, I expect them to eventually deliver on that too. Yeah, this one's been rocky, but even so it's still not even the equivalent of a Steam Early Access title so there's quite a bit of time for them to add early hulls and components. I mean, we could've gotten the Killerfish treatment with WotS, although that obvio
  2. Facebook is brain poison. Get out of Zuckerworld while you can. You're likely hours (from this post) from finding out. Today is probably patch day. Devs love weekends. Kicking out a patch on a Friday means they can take a day or two off and let the community roll in the suggestions and bugs, allowing them to plan a bit for the following weeks. Don't let new hulls get you down - they likely have one or more dedicated artists who can knock those out regardless of the overall game status. Let them do their thing and just accept the improvement. Let them know what you thin
  3. If they already have a design in place/in mind for submarine and mine warfare to be abstracted into the strategic layer, then it's not much of a stretch to do it with army and naval aviation too. There needs to be an effective late-game counter to sonar and radar-equipped, 20in-armed, 120,000t super-battleships that doesn't require reciprocal designs. Unlike submarines, you'd obviously have to add them as fleet assets so you could occasionally catch them on the surface, but you don't actually have to model aircraft and aircraft AI. It'd provide a nice justification for the continued existence
  4. I'd advise not even going down that route - we've actual fascists enough IRL. What possible benefit is gained from challenging any single online edge-lord extremist? Extend that to a group? Don't feed the trolls and let the game progress. 😉
  5. Having a little experience with how these things sometimes go, I find the following to be likely speculative and generalized reasons for the campaign delay: The initial design didn't function the way they envisioned it and they had to scrap and rebuild it one or more times. The campaign design had serious issues functioning in Unity and they had to create their own custom code from scratch to integrate it. Unity didn't have the some of the critical assets to build the campaign, so they had to create their own. Basically the inverse of #2. Any combination of elements fro
  6. No navy used maximum ROF outside desperate brawls anyway. Either they had set doctrine they used for firing procedures or it was every turret crew, or sometimes every rifle crew, at its maximum speed. For example, the Germans used A/X, B/Y. For an example of desperation, see the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, where battery commanders in many of the US ships were closing the firing circuits as soon as their individual crews had loaded. Basically, there's no reason batteries couldn't be unified by caliber and use the slowest ROF.
  7. Here's the relevant post, followed by another. Basically, that makes A/B, A/B/X, or A/B/X/Y the optimal design. X/Y would be reliable too, though I don't know why you'd build that outside some very early game exceptions which will have awful accuracy anyway. A/X/Y can cause problems unless you always run. A/X will always cause problems unless you fight broadside, and even then you'll have to manually retarget often. If you're using wing turrets, you need four total. If you're using a cross-deck design, you have to pay attention and manually retarget the cross-deck battery as necessary if
  8. I think what you're seeing is a variation of the target lock bug, which Nick confirmed exists because the aiming system is turret-based, not director-based, and requires a minimum of two turrets to function. In other words, it's more in undocumented feature territory than bug because it's introduced via mechanic. Because the game treats the 2x3 and 2x2 14s as separate batteries, they each have just two turrets. If one turret is obstructed, that battery will lose target lock, as you're seeing with the 2x3 battery - note the rear turret is unable to bear on your target. The current solution
  9. I... sure? I'd much rather formations just hello kitty up on their own to simulate poor signals and the player deal with that as they see fit, with diminishing chances of formation snafus as technology progresses. It'd also be a nice way to make radios and crew training more important. I'm not going to drag you for or argue over an opinion, it just feels like an artificial hurdle to me. My assumption is that skill you're seeking will come from designing your fleet to do a thing and then figuring out how to successfully fight it according to the strengths of that thing. As long as any
  10. It doesn't even have to be something complicated - it can be something as simple as Total War-style mini-maps which just enable the player to primarily change their view position with a click. I don't think skill/no-skill is a real argument. It's more about being able to efficiently transit the map and issue orders where required. Fewer clicks and actions to change the player view means more attention paid to the action, which is where this game will likely excel. That's a net positive and something I would like to see.
  11. Honestly I think there's a whole load of issues that are waiting for campaign feedback to get resolved. Formation AI performance, AI designs, battery accuracy, target spotting, weather balancing, etc. The more I see, the more I'm convinced the devs need to add the last variables for it all to come together in any meaningful way that can be improved. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised we have things like formation AI at all at this stage. There's just too much that affects it which isn't in our toolbox as users to meaningfully provide feedback right now.
  12. 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.
  13. Just tested free rotating turrets and target lock. Maneuvers no longer cause the lock to be lost, but an occluded turret does, so we're halfway there. This type of design will cause repeated lock loss if the rear turret is obstructed by the superstructure. It's 100% guaranteed and repeatable:
  14. Think in naval design terms instead of armor thickness and modifiers - i.e.: for a Fuso, penetration-proof your ship against your own guns at 10-15km or so. Using nice, round numbers for an example, if you have guns with 400mm of penetration at that range and your armor modifier is +100%, you want at least 200mm of armor. Yup. The BC will always have 17" or 18" guns and will always be faster than you, but will always have thin armor. It took a few attempts, but I did it by using an all-forward design and slapping as much armor on my ship as I possibly could with no torpedo
  15. @Nick Thomadis I'm pretty sure I found the target lock bug. It happens under the following conditions: Violent maneuvers combined with inadequate turret traverse to maintain a firing solution. When free rotating (i.e.: 360deg) turrets exist in a design. 1. I don't think this is all that important. Ships nearly always reacquire after a bit if they can bring their guns to bear on the target. 2. This is the real issue. Ships will immediately lose lock with almost any maneuver, no matter how small. Manually retargeting will force a target lock, but the ship will immediate
×
×
  • Create New...