Jatzi
-
Posts
126 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Jatzi
-
-
RTW 2 is developing a dlc that brings the game back to 1890 like this one as well as changes subs a bit, missiles, add night fighters, AI wars, and other stuff. I'm looking forward to that not this anymore. I actually forgot this game existed until someone pinged a discord I'm in.
-
1
-
-
So I tried to make Espana on the Espana hull and I couldn't. I imagine this doesn't come as a surprise to people, it certainly wasn't to me but yeah. Kind of uncool.
There are consistently too few casemates on hulls. And look at the asymmetric nature of the design. Completely impossible to replicate. This ship had 10 casemates on each side. I don't think I've ever seen more than 7.
I tried to get the error to go away but the only way to do it was to move the middle cross firing turrets very close to each other which meant I couldn't get the funnel in there. Of course the towers and funnels don't match the hull which is to be expected at this point. Superstructure rarely matches up. Speed is a knot too fast and the armor isn't right either but it wouldn't have changed anything. I stopped with the turret arrangement error. I also saw errors in regards to a 5 in casemate making a 12 in turret unplaceable which is cool I guess. Went away when I switch to the 4 inches as is historically correct. Overall, sad.
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Tactical map view is currently not considered at all. Ocean visuals and mechanics are already in rework as we upgrade the new Unity Engine for future patches.
That's legitimately disappointing. We can't zoom out enough to get a solid view of a large sprawling battle, and they do happen. Consider a large fleet battle with the main lines engaging. There are likely to be scouts engaging far off and destroyer fights can often devolve into a circling mess. Any escort/light forces/scouts engaging run into the danger of getting left behind relative to the main line, this has happened to me already in custom battles. I really dislike having to jump back and forth between lots of different ships in different spots on the map just to see what's happening, not even to control them or give them orders. I've seen this happen on youtube videos made by alekius as well. There's basically no downside to a map view, no one has to use it and it would come in handy
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, coalminer said:
First off, good work on the new patch and on the designer changes. Heres hoping for more parts in the future.
Secondly, this is going to sound nitpicky but some points to consider:
- The claim of low/high freeboard offering more design choices is not appropriate. Armour is not accurately modeled to factor in coverage of belt/decks/below waterline nor does the weather/sea interact with the hull. Besides visual choice, freeboard does not matter at all (short of stat tweaking which is not at all related to the claimed freeboard difference) and i have not noticed any significant difference for existing hulls which do have some form of difference in freeboard. If freeboard affects damage calculations (e.g. impact angles due to larger belt area) then we must be given the ability to tweak freeboard values (even if its just between low, normal and high) with the respective impacts to flooding survivability and stability.
- Linked to the first point but it demonstrates clearly why the armour system needs a rework. Weight rebalanced against what? what historic data is there to back the rebalance? is it yet again another arbitrary change to armour effectiveness against X calibres because they offer the best balance of firepower/weight/cost? can we have the rationales and what has been changed in the armour numbers?
- Could we also explore 7" secondaries on armoured cruisers to allow accurate modelling of certain prewar designs where its all about slapping on the most variety of guns everywhere? (e.g. minotaur class, SMS Scharnhorst, etc.)
Here's hoping to more future patches to address the points the community has brought up.
I want 8" secondary options for early armored cruisers. I really enjoy using heavy secondaries on my predreads and early CA's to create kind of early pocket battlecruisers in RTW 2. 10 or 11" main battery with 8in casemates on like 13 or 14k tons, 22-24 knots, 5-6in main belt. They've always performed rather well, even standing in my main battle line against pre-dreadnoughts and in one case sinking one in a 2v1 fight. Or even 8in main battery with more 8 in guns in casemates, an interesting arrangement that I have rarely tried in RTW before but want to use more often. Not even close to being possible here even though it was a thing, the Omaha class CL's being a clear example with 4 6in twin turrets and 8 casemates making up it's main battery. It's effectiveness leaves something to be questioned most likely but I want the option
-
1
-
6 hours ago, roachbeef said:
Yeah, but that is not a defense of the game at all. The fix would be to have a button to wait to observe shell splash until firing the next salvo. It's implemented in War on the Sea, so maybe this game should just copy that (minus the bugs).
Or just make it automatic. They used to have ships fire an initial 2 ranging shots automatically. They got rid of it I think cuz ppl said it was a bug. But yeah just have them auto switch to rapid fire once they've found the range
-
2 hours ago, Tousansons said:
We have already a few ranging shots when firing at long range against a target, this is automatic. We also have the option to separate Secondaries and main battery target.
I'm all for more options in game, on the other hand I'm not sure it would add anything than "more microgestion". Perhaps a toggle on the campaign map that allow to "conserve ammunition" or "always full salvoes". Definitely not an option per ships in battle though.
They removed the ranging shot thing in the last patch I think because ppl kept on saying it was a bug when triple and quad turrets only fired two rounds. I've pretty much stopped playing so I could be wrong but I think it's full salvoes now for ranging. Do they even have a rate of fire difference between ranging fire and continuous fire? I would say "rapid fire" would be cool to see. That's where individual guns fire as soon as they're loaded regardless of whether or not the rest are loaded. Not sure if that happened a lot with turrets, sounds like something from broadside ships of the lines. But yeah.
There are a lot of ways to fire a ships guns, half salvoes, full salvoes, double salvoes, all turrets at once or one after the other. Advantages and disadvantages to all the different ways and they each had their uses. This game doesn't care about any of that as far as I can tell. No rate of fire difference between types of salvos, no change in accuracy except for ranging shots slowly increasing the accuracy over time, but without the slower RoF associated with it. And of course everyone does the same thing which isn't realistic at all. As I said above they even got rid of the triple and quad turrets firing only 2 guns initially while ranging, a nice touch that I'm sad to see gone.
-
It does yeah. This is cuz of how they've set up the gunnery model. They've simplified it as much as they could. It was pointed out a lot last year early on. They said nothing so it's safe to say it's not gonna change. Is what it is I guess. They seem scared to go down either the overly simulator or overly arcadey route. They want to straddle the line and imo it hurts them but again is what it is.
-
3
-
-
18 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:
To be fair - we shouldn’t lose faith. Saving a design already works in Scenarios - now they only need to find a way to organize the feature in a way it will find you the designs which match the scenario Settings in a somewhat easy to read form.
On the other hand: For the campaign I would assume we need some sort of fleet management tool in any case. Repair, refit, assign and organize ships. I don’t think though that I need a design save feature for the campaign.
For that a tool to change some things on ships later on / refitting would be more important in my opinionThat's what I meant by it. A way to edit and refit designs
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, KiltedKey said:
So just to confirm that I’m understanding this correctly, the Custom Battle saver would mean we no longer have to rebuild our ships again and again every time we boot up a custom battle? Cause if so... I’d be a very happy man.
And is a ship design saver for the campaign in the works as well? So we can edit/improve old designs, and perhaps carry them over to other campaigns, even if we don’t have the technology to build them yet? That might be a tall order, but at least saving designs in a campaign would be massively appreciated.I mean saving designs in an absolute must for the campaign. Legit it's necessary so I hope they've got it set up
-
Being able to see some recorded stats from ships in the campaign would be nice. This ship has so many battles fought, this number of hits scored, this many hits taken. I'm not sure what else you could add, kills are hard to identify a lot of them unless it's like a one on one type deal which was rare.
-
1
-
-
If I had to hazard a guess I'd say it could maybe be shells that penetrate some of the armor but then explode maybe pushing a hole through the rest of the armor and causing some minor damage? Realistically in the game armor penetration is an RNG thing and depending on the relative armor and armor pen and maybe angles(?) there's a chance for pens, partial pens, and blocked or deflected shots. And if the partial pen wins out then the dmg of the shell is reduced by some amount and that's the dmg that gets applied.
Real life though I found this at http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.php-"Partial Penetration - The forward half of the shell penetrates the armor while the rear half is rejected; or, for hits over 45° obliquity, the nose and upper body are rejected while the broken lower body penetrates - only if the shell breaks, of course, but most will at such a high obliquity below the Naval Limit."
That site also mentions these definitions -
-
Holing Limit - The shell makes a caliber-width hole entirely through the plate without enough of its body weight completely penetrating to meet the Naval Limit definition. Hits that fail to meet this criterion can still cause limited damage, usually more localized to the area behind the struck plate, perhaps causing shock effects only.
- NL
-
Naval Limit - If undamaged, 100% of the shell's body weight achieves complete penetration (ignore the AP cap and windscreen); or in the case of a broken shell, 80% of the body weight penetrates. Beyond this, the shell's post-impact condition remains undefined; it may be capable of exploding, or it may not.
I'm unsure if the above partial penetration would cause too much damage but the hits that fail to meet the holing limit sound like the games partial pens.
That site seems pretty solid for at least some guns. @Nick Thomadis I'm sure you've got your own resources, especially at this point but another one(potentially) can't hurt right? It's penetration charts btw
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Kianoni said:
The auto avoidance system more often results in ships colliding with each other than actually avoiding each other while manually controlling ships in tight spaces. Please give us an option to turn it off.
eg. I have a CL I'm trying to cross paths with a BB - I'm slowing down the BB to say 15kt and speeding up the CL to 20+ - but the stupid auto annoyance system overrides my manual speed settings and actually stops the CL in front of the BB.It should not affect ships under manual control, it's only an annoyance and not helpful in any way. If I'm manually giving orders then let me, even if I mess up and make my ships collide - then I need to learn a lesson and be a better Admiral for my fleet.
I saw a video yesterday that had the lead ship in a formation turning in circles because the auto avoidance system detected that ships in the rest of the formation were getting messed up. Like cool, if you would just let the lead ship go then it could begin to sort itself out. I've tried to ram ships and the auto avoidance system makes it impossible. That was before their patch on it though, however that patch doesn't seem to have changed things at all
-
10 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:
While the ship movements in see may be quite pronounced I admit I prefer this to the “ships on rails” or “Tonks on water” we see in other games. Some movement in the waves makes the scenery much more lively in my opinion
Tie it to the sea state. That shouldn't be that hard. You create the calm animations and the not so calm animations and then do a simple if statement. If the weather is calm use this animation, if else use this animation. Probably more complicated than that I'm very new to coding and I hate it but yeah.
Yeah the most I do with the AI controlling my ships is to set up different formations as screens or scouts for a main battle line and then forget about them until I need them
-
There should be open mounts and turreted mounts and that should depend entirely on the armor you put on it. Main guns should obviously be turrets except on perhaps cl's and DD's. So maybe make it a caliber thing. 7 in plus is automatically put into an armored turret unless it's a secondary. Below that should be an open mount or an armored turret depending on turret armor and secondary armor. Like RTW really. It makes sense to me
-
11 hours ago, Faolind said:
I don't want the designer to change, and I am happy that the roadmap has no designer changes.
No offense to you my guy but I sincerely hope they don't listen to this at all. It's bad, like really bad
-
10
-
-
8 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:
Nick put up a roadmap and explained the next steps. Although it doesn’t mean that Alpha 11 is necessarily already one of the core releases he mentioned. However I agree it sounds like next we will see the skeleton of the campaign.
Why only two nations? He mentioned a North Sea Campaign - Germany vs UK which is a very good scenario choice for that era in my opinion.
I don’t mind having that for a starter and have that expanded later on. I am more concerned about how the campaign plays out, what actions you can perform, what options we have, how lively the environment is. Once that is settled for the North Sea you can easily expand to the North Atlantic, Pacific and such
Out of curiosity as I joined a little later - how were the ships directed strategically in the initial version?
That's my point. The campaign was originally described as being basically RTW with graphics. And RTW doesn't have scenarios. And limiting a RTW style campaign to 2 nations doesn't really make sense. It's just not necessary, it's so much of a sandbox. Every campaign with all the different nations will be exactly the same except for the starting conditions- budget, colonies, tech advantages, straight up just location in the world. Those make it easier or harder but those are the only differences. After that you can do whatever you want. And that's what I saw when I played it with that alpha 1 bug. They've gone back and revamped everything and are only releasing two nations in a single sea zone? Seems to me like it's entirely different. Which is possibly fine, I'm very much pessimistic honestly, but hopefully it is. But yeah the two nation release makes it seem to me like the campaign won't be a sandbox. Instead there will be scenario's like you said, fight the WWI North Sea campaign. Stuff like that.
The initial alpha 1 version was basically an incomplete RTW 1 campaign. The tech tree wasn't complete and stuff like prestige was recorded but didn't really do anything. But it was a 3d clone of RTW. Random events set stuff up, you moved ships during each turn to different sea zones. The breakdown of the sea zones was similar to RTW. Once the random events lead to war a battle generator would set up a battle. It was far enough along that if they'd kept up with it I have no doubt we'd have a campaign already.
I'd honestly say a RTW campaign clone but done better would be perfectly fine to me. The strategic campaign in RTW is the weakest part of that game and there's a lot you could do with it. There's been some threads in the past about this and they had really nice ideas. But yeah the second I heard them say two nation initial release last year I figured they were moving away from that towards whatever. Their communication is so bad who knows what theyre heading towards.
I will say that from little tid bits here and there plus what I saw it really seemed like they were heading towards the RTW clone but better and it made me happy. I remember seeing the US confiscate a ship they were building for a minor nation, something that happened regularly and is sorely missing from RTW. In the sense that you can't do it. Other nations can build your ships and can confiscate them, but you cant do the same for other nations. And minor nations aren't a thing. If they've abandoned all that then I'll be sad honestly. Just like I was sad when they abandoned the initial ship designer. The fact that they did that makes me think they totally abandoned it though.
-
On 1/19/2021 at 11:18 AM, Cpt.Hissy said:
How cool it would be if visible models of ships corresponded to their current identification status
starting with vaguely ship shaped brick and slowly refining over time with some generalised elements, until popping in with full detail.
But eh. No rush, let's wait till most critical parts are done before pestering the devs with all these small wishes.Just make up a generic model for each class and have that be what you see until the ship is identified. And as I've said before allow for misidentification of ships.
I'm curious about the campaign. I feel like alpha 11 will be the campaign, they have to know the game is basically dead and the longer they go without it the more likely it's not gonna come back. What they intent to do with the campaign is what I'm curious about though. They've said they're revamping the whole thing. And it's limited to two nations which is interesting. There's very little reason to limit a campaign to two nations if it's really similar to the RTW campaigns. The only difference between those are the starting conditions. In the very first alpha when you could access the early campaign it was basically the RTW campaign with all the nations available. It seems obvious they've moved away from that because if they hadn't I feel we would have a campaign already pandemic or no. It was kinda playable. It was very bad, but it was kinda playable. I played as the UK and got into the war with the US and lost a pre-dread to some stupid TB's cuz it was alpha 1 and combat was horrendous.
So yeah I have to wonder what they're doing with it. I've seen lots of stuff on the forums and most of it sounds extremely unappealing to me so I hope they haven't listened to any of that.
-
Hey maybe some of the thoughts laid out here will get implemented now that they've got someone dedicated to just the ship designer.
Yeah how the heck did they go from that to what we got. Sad.
Also I don't know if someone was referring to me about wanting a warthunder clone but I've only mentioned that game in regards to the xray mode for armor. WoWs has it too and its honestly cool. And potentially useful here if we have better control over armor schemes. Immunity zone calculations should be done and shown off honestly. Simple thing, RTW does it, and it'd be very useful. I know we can do it in our head but it'd be nice to just have it shown off on the right among the other stats.
-
6 hours ago, madham82 said:
You give to much credit to Kurita. He gets reports from his fleet, not decides what type of ships their spotters see. The Japanese "convinced" themselves they had found their primary target despite the facts they could see. Remember they were also shooting AP at those DDs/DEs from Taffy 3, despite them making torpedo attacks. Which of course doesn't jive with the facts that US heavy cruisers didn't have torpedoes. It was the ferocity of the attacks as you described that made them break off. The whole battle is a textbook example of the confusion that can be brought by the fog of war.
Yeah and I want stuff like that to happen here. I mean that situation is probably impossible to recreate organically in a video game but in RTW I have attacked ships that were misidentified and then greatly regretted it. That CA turns into a BB or BC? Now my cruisers are dead. The DD turns into a CL? Now my destroyers are dead. I like it. Makes me think, are those actually what they seem like. A lot of the time no. This is actually a big problem in night engagements in that game, a good problem I mean. Night battles are bad, very bad.
-
2
-
-
I mean a lot of the changes discussed here are reasonable. The ability to set the belt length was stated as unreasonable? How so? No one here is talking like deciding the length down to the last inch. Short, long, normal, high, low, flat, angled. That's simple stuff. A graphic representation of the armor layout would be very appreciated, something like WoWs and Warthunder's xray modes would be cool but anything at this point. RTW 2 does that sorta stuff for the belt; the exact same stuff. Normal, limited, extended are options for it as are inclined vs not inclined. Simple toggles in drop down menus. That is very much a realistic change and as others have said RTW 2 is this games direct competitor, really RTW 1 but RTW 2 is better so most ppl play that. This game has to at least match RTW's ship designer if it hopes to succeed.
@1MajorKoenig clearly put thought into making his changes kinda realistic. The ship is already broken up into sections for combat. Just present that breakdown in the ship designer and allow us to select which sections are for machinery. A simple click and the game stores that info for that class. Probably more complicated than that but it's far more simple than we would all likely like.
-
8
-
-
On 1/9/2021 at 7:55 PM, madham82 said:
Or your the Japanese at the Battle of Samar thinking DDs are BBs and CAs, and CVEs are fleet carriers 😁. Bad thing was the ranges were not that far one would expect to make a misclassification.
Well the commander made that mistake when the Yamato wasn't actually engaged. A torpedo attack forced the Yamato to leave the battle, I think they could have avoided that but I'm not sure and anyways avoiding torpedoes irl isn't easy. Regardless he was operating off of reports and I could see a commander with the force he had facing such heavy resistance, on the ocean and in the air because basically everything that could fly and attack the japanese did regardless of how effective they were, thinking he was fighting a superior force
-
What was wrong with the Age of Sail release? I like that game. I dont know how much replayability it has but I like it. They at least delivered what they promised with that game and out of all the sailing combat games it's probably the best one out there.
Yeah I've lost most of my hope for this game. I still have enough hope to stick around and keep the game on my laptop but I'm fairly pessimistic about things. If they'd just say what was up, where they want to go and explain some stuff then that'd be great. What are you wanting to do with this game? More arcadey? More realistic? Why will the campaign release be so limited? Where is the campaign? Clear and concise thoughts on the ship designer.
What's funny to me is if they heavily invested in this game and made it fairly realistic and then cranked up the price people would buy it. I'd buy it and I know others that would too
-
It was mentioned in the previous thread that even battleships on the horizon would be small and easy to miss without radar, when they still had visual spotters. So with calm seas and good weather you could have like a chance to spot a ship on the horizon, which would be every ships max spotting range and would be dependent on mast height, that would increase the closer the ship got. It would go to 100% fairly quickly, there'd have to be research on how easy it is to spot ships from the horizon moving in to judge where to put that limit and how granular the increases would be. Weather would just lower the max spotting range. The chance to spot a ship on the horizon would be dependent on the tonnage I think. That's a good indicator of size. I rather like the radar system from RTW and RTW 2. It just lets you see ships beyond your spotting range although they show up as just green silhouettes so you don't know what they are.
I like the idea of the ship model being something generic before you identify the ship. I've already said that I don't like how ships are identified in the other thread. Ship identification is dependent on key features right? Number of funnels, maybe number of turrets, and superstructure shape. I dont know the ranges where that kind of stuff begins to be noticeable but I'm sure they could figure it out. At whatever that range is ships begin to be identified. And there should be background factors that affect this. Number of classes in a navy. You only have one class of battleship? Should be fairly simple to identify your battleships then. Class features and how common they are in your navy. Does every class of destroyer in your navy have 4 funnels? Should be harder to identify which class it is.
I don't think we should see enemy ship names just ship class names. I also don't think we should see reload information for enemy ships. Or ammo counts. I've said this before and got some backlash so I guess make it a toggle? If ppl want to have literally all the information then fine, but there should be an option not to have it. Same with torpedo reloads I think although that's a separate thing.
Ships should sometimes be misidentified. However how this is presented would be interesting. It would mostly be a long range thing I think and would only really happen between similar classes. Would be kinda hard to think a 5 turret BB is a 3 turret CA for example. That would limit visual discrepancies which could confuse ppl. But if it happens there would have to be some discrepancies. Caliber of gun or armor thickness/speed.
-
4
-
-
Unfortunately none of this will happen. Both of those lists of ideas would greatly improve the game and wouldnt be that hard to understand for new players if there are proper tooltips. But I have a feeling the devs are mostly done with the ship designer beyond reworking armor a little. They'll shoot both lists down with the "it'd be too complex for the AI/new player" argument. Both are false as you can have a more restricted system for the AI, plus templates can be a thing for it to use. And legit this stuff isn't that hard to understand for new players. I like the first list better, for the devs, as it's more simple and it would be easy to learn. A certain kind of bow does this, a certain kind of stern does that. Changing the freeboard does this or that. Easy to learn.
Another argument for the devs ignoring this excellent advice would be that it would invalidate a lot of their work. They've seemingly ignored so much good advice, good imo anyways, that I'm sure they're not gonna just do a 180 even though they probably should.
Spotting is such a stupid thing in this game right now. The only thing that changes it is weather, mast height, and time. And radar. But like turrets increase spotting and it makes no sense. In the day you're gonna see the masts and funnels of a ship first and you're also going to see all the ships within visual range. Unless they're blocked by other smoke or other ships. The fact that destroyers can sneak up real close in some cases and then just pop up is stupid as hell. There's a horizon and unless weather changes things you're gonna be able to see anything up to the horizon. The only change is where the horizon is for you which depends on mast height. CptHissy put stuff about searchlights for spotting at night which would be really nice cuz right now that's got like no love. But yeah each ship should have a visual range, day and night, based off mast height, or currently main tower height, and spotlights or whatever for night time spotting. Then weather can impact that and radar allows detection, but not identification, of ships beyond the visual range. Anything inside that range should be detected at least. That's a rant just cuz I noticed spotlights in the post. Spotting mechanic is stupid, identification time is stupid too.
Hard to code IDing a ship realistically probably. Ideally it would be easy and quick unless you have a lot of similar ships. Maybe it could be based off of how many turrets and funnels you have? Like there's a flat ID time, which would be lower than it is now, and the number of classes you have with the same number of turrets and funnels in that type adds a modifier to that time. Camo paint would decrease it. I think I could code something like that and I suck at coding. Simple IF statements would be all thats needed. Add a chance to falsely ID a ship, tied to the same counter increasing the chance the more similar classes you build. Camo paint would also increase the chance. Minor details like that would be very cool
-
12
-
Game-Labs got bought
in General Discussions
Posted
Spending money on in-game items is the definition of microtransactions