Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

223 Excellent

About Skeksis

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Weapons firing while badly listing and/or sinking… Water should be pouring in and flooding the casemates deck but as you can see, somehow the crew are still at their stations and even managing to firer off their gun! All the barrels are pointing into the ocean but somehow the shells still fly! ditto for when the barrels are aiming at the clouds, though they can still firer they shouldn't be on target.
  2. Suggestion... Let us 'place' depth charge components on ships to lift the level of ASW. Change ASW calculated effect from destroyers per fleet to ASW components per fleet. Currently these components are part of the hull and only on destroyers, ASW equipment was on cruisers too, without cruiser ASW equipment would leave a potential hole in cruiser designs, even overall ship/fleet designs. Should be easier for your design team, you won’t have to model depth charge components for every single hull, you would only have to add some placement nodes per hull. This would give players some more designing options and would add to the game's realistic theme, making it more practical. The more options players have the better the game is gotta be.
  3. Wikipedia explains it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon but there's not alot of reference material for 1914 dreadnoughts.
  4. But not so good for the ship that is out gunned. I've been researching this too, if just over the horizon and observers are at different heights, is the lower observer view obscured more by the curvature of the earth? haven't found an answer yet.
  5. IRL visibility is based on the ‘height of the observer’.
  6. It depends on Dev’s preference. FYI, in RL destroyers are actually really big ships, if we talking daytime with no weather they're easily spotted on the horizon, 20-25kyds. In 1914 black billowing smoke was also easily spotted on/over the horizon.
  7. This issue was brought up very early alpha but there was alot of support for RL accuracies at all ranges, thus it remains. But to the average gamer it makes no sense. However most of the realistic supporters have pack their bags and left, so maybe there might be more support for point blank range accuracies buff.
  8. Well there’s always going to be dedicated modelers, they will be working on something, of what they are working on we may influence. IMO peeps should be putting up as many of there idea's as possible.
  9. And for example, we would only need to build one Bismarck and deploy it multiple times, such a library would be a real time saver.
  10. The game would only need one Auxiliary cruiser model and a couple of superstructures, from those you could build a few variations for each side. From that Dev's could monitor there usage in-game and build more models if needed. Ditto for other types. It makes every sense to start the game off with as many 'base models' as possible. And as many people have found out recently, with R&D or more to the point, R&(Game)D, time isn't relevant! (within reasonable budgets).
  11. Your equation doesn't take in account of 'trajectory conditions' and 'gunnery conditions', therefore with such conditions increased, for example: a stationary to a moving target, it is harder to hit, in RL. That's what Nick is probably referring too.
  12. An update guide for the new team regrading Custom Battles development. Essential: Scenario saves (see note). Designing all ships (including enemies).* General: Cargo ship designing. Coastal maps. Set fleet locations and directions.** Set AI retreat level. Set submarine threat level (for each side). Set weather conditions. Multiple nations, with options to choose/set allies/enemy. Select the AI designer logic and priority weighting (e.g. Firepower, amour speed). by @SonicB. Other Options: Save ship library, for cross scenario deployment. Ironclads. Auxiliary cruisers. * If not possible to design every single ship, then what would be warranted is a cap for slots, at least 10 (0-9) designable slots, per side, 'of any class' so we can design a few different BBs, some different CLs etc. etc. etc. I’ve noticed CCs mostly uses Custom Battles for their video’s and I think it’s because scenario building can be varied across such a wide canvas, 1890-1939, TBs-BBs, it gives them the ability to keep producing different content. Add in 10 designable slots per side and all saveable, would turn Custom Battles into a long term repeatable content producing asset. ** Could be as simple as setting locations as north/east/south/west, direction north/east/south/west, for both enemy and your fleet. Coastal maps would work better with such settings. These settings could be used to setup a chase, intercept or charge scenarios (along with setting retreat level etc.). Note: Summary: When development is issued for Custom Battles we want to ‘maximize’ its ‘development allocation’ and so therefore everyone feel free to post and debate your ideas to build a collective guide for developers and help guide Custom Battles future.
  13. This is excellent, with more staff, to me this means the project can grow to its full potential. 🙂 I wonder what the extra developers are for, it actually sounds exciting. 🙂
  • Create New...