Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

rgreat

Members2
  • Posts

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

rgreat's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

27

Reputation

  1. Game is just not ready enough for me, yet. Waiting for a full release.
  2. If Player PC have enough memory, please keep assets in RAM. That will hopefully make loading close to instant. (After 1st time)
  3. So one Blacksmith is absolutely useless?
  4. I have small and fast ship, enemy have slow large ship. Even if i retreat to the edge of the map and lose battle, on campaign map my ship is still locked in battle.
  5. Weight distribution computations are completely broken. Smallest changes could move from +100% front to +100% aft. 😵
  6. You have to achieve a golden middle. Not too much, not too little. That's why I want "options/sliders". So I could adjust this one to fit my tastes. Did you try Jutland from SES? https://store.stormeaglestudios.com/product/133/jutland They managed to do it more or less right in campaign there. P.S. It is actually the best naval game I played, since Great Naval Battles series.
  7. Allow options/sliders for campaign to radically reduce amount of encounters. Playing 1890 campaign. I have 3-5 encounters per month, which is getting repetitive and tedious Only a year passed, but most of the enemy fleets are wiped out with these many encounters. Not even a single research is complete, but I feel like I'm already win. Not much space for progression. I would be also glad if extra sliders for economy/research/ship costs/maintenance costs would be implemented. P.S. In reality, in WW1 it was not so much fleet activity.
  8. Please allow time acceleration x5/x10/x30 at all times. Early betas had this option. I don't care, even if simulation would be a bit compromised at x30. I just would not use time acceleration when it is really matter.
  9. Yeah. I'd suggest allowing to "open" several divisions at once. Also, it would be smart to hide the division card when it is opened. Basic thin rectangle, with caption, around division ships would be enough.
  10. I'll only address the simulation part of the game. 1. Close range accuracy is still way too low. At 1 km it must be at least ~25% against slow broadside targets at normal sea state. And much more against capital ship size targets. Close to 100%. You just can not miss a target of that size on that distance. 100m target at 1000m is a freaking 1/10 proportion! (By the way: battleship height is 50+ meters and length is 200+ meters). To miss it from 1 km you should be blind or be a traitor. 2. Acceleration is weird. Ship deceleration is too slow. Cutting power to engines should decelerate pretty quickly to about 50% speed and then process should slow down from that. For now, it feels like ships have linear value of water friction, and too large inertia. Also, ship accelerate much faster then decelerate. And turning shafts to reverse should not instantly damage all your propulsion. It is not like engaging a transmission of a moving car in to an "R" position. 3. Engine damage is odd. Same like in pt.2: you lose one engine point - you lose like 50% of speed, and on 1/3 of power you just sit in the water like a dead fish. That's totally unrealistic. In real life, more power you add - less speed increase you get. As a result, losing 1/4 of power should only cost you a few knots of speed. And as long as you have at least 1/4 of power you should be able to maintain about 50% of speed. 4. Damage control: flooding is rudimentary and very arcade-ish. Damaged water tight compartments flooded insanely fast, and pumped out insanely fast too. Such fast water fluidity only realistic for smallest row boats or RC models. Field repairs fixing a hole in 1 minute? No fricking way! It takes tenths of minutes, if not hours. The only way DC can save the ship "in minutes" is by closing water tight compartments, pumping out water and counter-flooding. 5. On the other side of the coin: buoyancy of ships is insanely good. Only the lowest "floor" of the ship could be flooded, which is not in any case realistic. And if this is a simplification of game design and the only water displaceable level of the ship is the bottom one, then ships stay afloat with 75% of its compartments flooded. And that is complete nonsense which as a result cause weird effects, like unsinkable ships. You literally should make holes in hull from all directions to sink a ship. As a result, the current game flooding model could not be considered adequate for any "simulation" type of game. In fact, it could not be considered good even for naval arcades. 6. Please make time acceleration work all the time. Be it x5 or x10 or x30. To sweeten a pill a bit: at least in later patch gunnery model (while still a cringe inducing), more or less playable, from a game point of view. P.S. Developers, please hire an engineer.
  11. Default campaign is not fun. I can not alter starting year and at default one gunnery accuracy is way too low to be effective. I know it was only a few percents of hits in reality. But that was at long ranges, which is totally understandable! But inability to score hits at close range? In game even at point-blank range it is like 15% accuracy? WTF?! How you can miss at these ranges at all?!
  12. I actually tried to manually change between AP and HE. AP gave out better results with better damage and near the same chance of fire. And by the looks of it auto was equal to AP for me. So most of the time it was AP.
  13. That's completely unrealistic as even partial penetrations should cause armor plate dislocations, structural damage, fissures and leaks. Ship damage diagram shows below waterline part of the ships as completely destroyed, but still no leaks at all. Not to mention repetitive partial penetrating strikes against same armor plates should cause their progressive degradation to the point of complete breakdown. For now as I could 'partial penetrate' same armor plate indefinitely, and it still will work just like new.
  14. 173 partial penetrations should also count for something, no?
×
×
  • Create New...