Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ston5883

  1. Okay Skekis trust me dude I trust everything you are saying but something seems off to me man. I get what you said about thinking of DS as a wows idea but something seems off to me as just that gamer as to why a BC can remain invisible while the mission only gives me two DS to spot with and two BCs with are nothing more than very heavy cruisers. A BC firing with 16" guns should be visible. Im sorry man just something feels off to me.
  2. Ok so looking at this post I'm now back and looking at my pocket battleship mission design. Surface vis is 7500, tower spot is 8450, and Vis range is 10,078. So understanding everything as you put it i will always be outspotted before I spot. Now what is often times shooting at me is a BC. My ship is bare basic. We are talking a displacement of only 17,900 on an advanced armored cruiser II hull. Now I take into consideration the other ships spotting. Ok acceptable until once again we see that my DDs can't see his BC. So what is it in this program that is allowing a large ship with no smaller t
  3. I think I get what you're saying and I never thought about that. If the ship is just a blob on the horizon whatever armament that is casemate or mounted on the superstructure isn't going to matter. Now doing something like adding a radar will increase because even though it's also mounted on the superstructure it will technically increase the height even if we don't visually see it on the model.
  4. This is still a major problem and probably the one that will make me sit this down until the fix comes along. To me this is gamebreaking when I run a mission 5 times and get the same result. I did the pocket battleship mission. Now each time I tried to get my detection down while still maintaining a decent fighting ship. Even had the design down to the lowest tonnage possible for the hull. Still the enemy outspotted me and every time it would turn into I can't see them but they can shoot everything at me all day. I even had my DDs forward to spot. Look the system of open water stealth firing i
  5. Just looking at this as a average dumb gamer this could save so much work in the long run. You guys talked about how high the priority was and though it's not high, I wouldn't call it low either. They'd have to get started on it pretty soon to keep from wasting time on programming each and every new gun. As far as what Hissy said about the odd calibers, the only things I can see is the historical guys can get closer to recreation of their favorite ships and the let me build what I want guys can really play around. I mean why not mount a 82mm on a DD instead of a 76mm. 😁
  6. What about using the famous people as the AI type for the countries you don't control. Choose a few different ones for each country and then give them all different types of strategies. One might be cautious, one aggressive, so on and so forth. Then each campaign it ends up random who and what personality type you will face.
  7. So I think you guys are on to something here. I like the idea of being able to tie guns to a director over what we have now. We could assign the guns to a director in ship building. Otherwise any other gun would be self aiming. As far as the directors go I could see front, back, and secondary. I would go as far as saying the type of gun has to match director type. This would make front and back for main gun types only and they would automatically come on any superstructure we place after researching it. This way it could just be some text letting us know it's on there and what mark it is and j
  8. This looks as though the ship is more of a burned out hull than any real perforations in the hull. The structural integrity of the hull is weakened by the fires but the metal is still one piece.
  9. I could see them implementing something like this but on a simpler scale. So much total crew and then just things slowing down as crew die. As far as things like aiming we already have if a tower is knocked out it reduces our aim so all they would have to do is add a bit of crew loss to slow all other processes down and they have a basic crew system. I know you are recommending having a deeper system but I could easily see them going for the simple system over all the extras.
  10. I have no intrest in the wows style of a bunch of players. On the other hand of that a grand campaign would be of interest. Though I don't always want to control the enemy fleet. One thing I enjoyed about total war is I could sit back and watch how my friend handled his battles. Now if the AI government decides that our two nations go to war, well all bets are off and may the best one win.
  11. I honestly found this one easier than the monitor mission. I placed my main guns outside the hull and used the biggest available. I think they are 10 inch. This gave them almost a 360 degree of firing angle. I did kinda cheat the system by placing my rudder hard over and left it there. My ship basically became a floating fort. Between the main guns and the secondary guns I was able to sink one with fire and flooded out the other. I can only guess the flood was from waterline hits. I left the ammo choice on auto and from the color of the tracers I can guess it was AP that was hitting. The AP ev
  12. Just ran a little fast test on this. I can see where the concern for the campaign could come into play. I used a single DD against 5 BBs just to see how much damage I could put out before being sunk. I had torpedoes that could reach out to over 20km and I could carry 81 of them. I capped myself at 40knts though I could have gotten more out of her. I was able to sink 3 ships with one salvo each by staying out around 15 to 16 km. I got careless and decided to see how close I could get and was finally sunk at around 10km. At the loss of 1 DD to 3 Capitol ships there isn't much of a reason to buil
  13. Maybe someone can gave me a little insight here since I feel like something is way off. Just for testing I threw together a custom battle. 1940s tech on both of us 1 vs 1 battleships. I built a pure tanky ship. It is a very simple design with four turrets of triple 18s, has 20 inch (508mm) armor all over it with a +118% modifier. Now the enemy ship shows up with 14s they are mark 4 and TNT for the propellant. At 20km it says he can pen 18.3 / 16.4 and has an accuracy of 1.5%. Thing is the ship is easily penning me and hitting quite often. What gives? This was supposed to be just to test propel
  14. Not really sure what is going on with the damage in this patch. Yes I like that large ships can take a beating not but it just feels off to see a 14inch over pen for 17 dmg and then turn around and see an 18 inch full pen for only 27 dmg. Correct me if I'm wrong but a full pen in this is the shell penetrated, fused correctly, and then exploded inside. If that is the proper way of looking at a full pen then I don't see how that warrants only 10 more dmg unless there is something else I am missing.
  15. Thank you. I have to head to work but I can't wait to test this tonight when I get home.
  16. And see that's where I don't see history being the big factor. If I am the CiC and I'm deciding this then who says I have to have 10 CLs to cover my true capital ships with the large guns when I can throw a couple of other large ships in there with the same amount or more guns as the CLs would carry. I only used the battleship hull as an example because of space but anything with enough deck space be it BB, BC, or a very large CA could get the same effects. The design is not going to be historical in any means but it may be an alternative solution that still works to a degree. I'm sure many wo
  17. I've seen the talks about realism in here and I'm just going to weigh in real quick. I want it but I don't want them to go overboard with it. What I am talking about is more dealing with the campaign side of it. I don't want to repeat history exactly. If they put in naval treaties then put them in to where they can happen and the bases of them are more random. I don't want it to be the exact Washington or London treaty word for word or necessarily at the exact dates. Randomize it to make me think and throw me off my game a little. When it comes to ships I don't want to see missiles and lasers
  18. @pandakraut I'm glad to see you feel the same way as I do about land battles feeling clunky. I thought maybe it was just me or I got spoiled from UGCW. For all the things I would have liked to see in that game it at least felt decent with moving and placing units exactly where I wanted them.
  19. I don't get the ship hull argument either. We have enough base hulls as it is that people who get it on steam EA would have enough to test things even in a campaign mode. I'd think that they would most focus on balance and basics of playability to reach the target audience and draw in some extras that you might not necessarily expect to pick this up. Quite a few here (and excuse the term but it best sums up those who have a lot more knowledge in the era than I) are dreadheads and that's what drew them in. I got drawn in because of the ability to make something and test it against an enemy. I t
  20. I would be fine with escort missions and shore bombardment in support of landing troops. I don't think we should control the ground fighting though. We see the transports release the landing craft and the things go to shore but not see the actual ground fighting per se. We could see things like bunkers and gun emplacements but as far as the fighting they could maybe use a color system to show us how far our guys have pushed. Whatever targets are outside of this colored blanket are the things we should be targeting to help it move forward and cover more area. Once enough area is covered then it
  21. Mine will mirror some points others have brought up. 1. Freedom in placement of barbetts and height adjustment of said barbetts. 2. Freedom in placement of towers and funnels. 3. Ability to choose targets for our secondary guns while our main guns engage a different target. 4. An armor viewing mode that highlights the section of the ship we are adjusting armor thickness on. The last one I think is quite important to help most players. I know what the tooltip describes the extended armor as but I noticed in combat that a ship I made only took hits to the extended armor
  22. I was crossing the T on them so I understand bouncing on the hull but the mast ones kinda confused me.
  23. Better luck than I. My round shot was bouncing off the mast and hulls. If I remember correctly I had some 12lb guns too.
  24. I thought I read somewhere that when we go to war mines will be added to coastal areas and then slowly deplete over time after the war is over.
  25. I wouldn't want to see the larger CVs in game but I might be ok with the smaller escort CVs. Something with a smaller compliment of aircraft that isn't going to be able to send wave after wave or even large squadrons.They already said ASW would be handled outside of the battle screen and be based off of your training and ASW weapons. I see a problem with this as far as aircraft are concerned. If I built a ship to be an AA platform, (and you know there are those of us who are going to do it) it will be useless in any surface engagement I come across. I'll constantly be telling them to turn and
  • Create New...