Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Skeksis

Members2
  • Content Count

    620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by Skeksis

  1. Story Mode, well there’s something in that….....hmm can it be done..... yes, via a 'Journey' system. How a journey system works is by completing achievements, a list, creating a story. Later cut scenes could be introduced and they would activate upon achievements - could be as simple as pictures with voiceovers, like Drachinifel videos. Journey achievements/triggers e.g. Researched tech. Captured ports. Built ships. Achievement e.g. HMS Dreadnought. Trigger: Dreadnought I hull, x5 twin 12” guns, x27 3" secondaries, 20000-21000 tons
  2. Dev’s are also very much aware that Custom Battles is played by every single player, especially for those who seek historical content. They must know relaxing its development wouldn’t go down well. Players would be (and are) anticipating both the campaign and Custom Battles saves as indicated in January's roadmap.
  3. I kinda think that if difficulty modes aren't ingrained into all the systems by now it's probably alittle too late, like it's going to take a major reprogramming effort to do it, every system would be effected e.g. auto-designer, enemy/allies AI behavior, battle generator, maybe even the campaign AI, all are pretty big systems. Campaign resource limiting is the easy part or the easy way out but any band-aid approach upon those resources after the fact would look messy/unprofessional/unpolished. So on one hand I'm hoping but on the other we'll probably have to be realistic about it -
  4. 100% agree about easy mode. Difficulty levels: Challenging. Normal. Novice. Guys who just want to design/build and not necessary want to engage in long and drawn out battles. Guys who can't or are not capable of playing at under normal or challenging combat/campaign conditions or modes. Guys who just want to go through the campaign smashing up everything.... ME, I'm one of these guys, well for the first campaign run anyway, like work the campaign/designs etc. but steamroll everything else - much more fun. Guys who want to do c
  5. I understand. I once sang the same song too (raising the arcade flag!) but I believe at some point you have to except the game for what it is or realize that some things aren't going to change and move on. As for realism there are realistic components, realistic weather, realistic ammo, realistic ballistics, realistic targeting, realistic pen mechanics, realistic weather effects, etc. and for realistic visibility it's obviously based on the fog of war or the perception of thee. I guess it's up to the user if they except what realism the game is offering.
  6. There was mention of aircraft as non-interactive entities, the same as subs, if this is still on the cards then small caliber weapons would/could contribute to the influence upon aircraft, as destroyers do upon subs. This would give late small caliber weapons purpose, such as recently added bofors.
  7. The fact is destroyers are very large ships and in RL they can be seen all the way to the horizon, thus all ships should be seen to the horizon, no stealth at all and that would be a somewhat static visibility mechanic to have. What we do have is even more dynamic than RL, a ‘summons of tactics’ if you like, more stuff to think about in battle, nothing static about blind-firing. Not only that but we have to think about designing ships for spotting, like purposed built ships to deal with blind-firing adversaries. Even for us to design blind-firing demons. Every game has its special
  8. Doesn’t matter. I play alot of campaign simulations (my best guess of what they might be!) and I know that battles do take a long time, I end many of them unfinished too. So I believe if not implemented already the feedback level of frustration would secure implementation, rather quickly too. It’s a given! But yeah, once the campaign is done I think there’ll be rapid advance in many features outlined..... and not outlined!
  9. These are good ideas. I think the games progress should move in baby steps though, like let’s get the consideration of basic prep screen first, division sorter, then move into more complex prep’s later such as overhead maps. Not exactly. If entrée into this division sorter is from the campaign then the battle generator would decide the makeup from whatever ships are available in that region. If from Custom Battles then the available ships would be from whatever ships you have set. Selecting ships from save files would have to be done before entrée into this screen, files or hand-p
  10. This screen could also be where we setup divisions before battle... Plus/minus ships would not be able to surpass the fixed allowable nor the minimal limit of ships set by the battle generator, only change the number of ships per division. Go on go for gold!
  11. Emotions (of the player) and normal command dictates that admirals choose what ships to send into battle. Definitely for attack and even for defence by stationing ship into regions. RTW2 you are given a selection of ships by the battle generator, you can’t choose from that region list, it’s fixed! that sucks big time. Sure randomness might appeal to some but not me, I prefer to have total control, total command. At this stage (pre campaign) I’m thinking my fleets will be made up of a mix of designs, specialized ships or purposed built ships, of the same class, e.g. destroyers
  12. However, maybe there's a few things that could be done for easier understandings. 1) This hint (help info) is very confusing, "The minimum distance from which the ship becomes visible...", it's actually describing what 'Visibility Range' is doing. It should be describing spotting, "The distance when all enemies are spotted" (excluding smoke). Second explanation: The hint's author (of that line) is referencing the enemies attribute but there’s nothing written for users to make that association (except in the second sentence). The author knows the reference in their mind but use
  13. As a slogan, 'that's WOWS', to have DDs out in front spotting. Sure it's a tactic on the high-seas to location the enemy fleet but not so much when the battle starts. And the game isn't working that way, think of it as if the 'visibility is based on the height of the observer'. So naturally DDs are useless. Now instead of adding DDs to your fleet to spot, add a cruiser. Often CLs have greater spotting distances than there visible distances. And all will be better once we can design all our ships in Custom Battles - we'll be able to purposed cruisers for spotting.
  14. Heldibrand - 1927 Design. Other spec's... Dreadnought IV hull. Tall Advanced Tower V. Rear Tower VII.
  15. Lets have a look at some of games detection parameters. E.g. Tower Spotting, 17.6km... Heldibrand spots ?? at 17.6km. Using Gen I radar spotting bonus. Visibility Range, 14.6km... ?? spots Heldibrand at 14.6km. Surface Visibility, 7.7km... With radar removed, tower spotting (7.0km) is now less than the surface visibility (7.7km), so Heldibrand will use surface visibility to spot ?? at 7.7km. So 3 mechanics, 2 to spot the enemy, Tower Spotting & Surface Visibility (whichever is greater), and 1 to be s
  16. Just want to point out one thing, a reasonably large gap for Japanese CA hulls entrees between 1897 & 1920.
  17. Hull Timelines - Custom Battles Database (unlock: off). OP: Alpha 12 v86. Japanese BB hulls. Battleship I 1890-----1898 Battleship II 1899-----1905 Battleship III 1899-----1905 Dreadnought I 1906---------1917 Dreadnought II 1912-------------------1926 Dreadnought III 1914---------------192
  18. From that I can put into practice. Here the roll is at 5.3, placements I might have done prior... and here's the same guns but the roll is at only 0.8... This is very useful information to keep in mind, I appreciate this very much, thanks.
  19. Actual range should be shown in designer tool, no one should have to decompile code to find it!
  20. Sorry but I disagree here, IMO the best way is by general files, using windows file dialogs etc. Any index based system or in-game list like what's given to us in Academy Missions is restrictive and these type's of systems should be discourage at all cost. File dialogs or files listed by directory searches gives us the maximum user friendly choices, nothing else.
  21. I would like to know more about roll, If this is possible. Specifically the decompiled values that roll effects accuracies by, e.g. Single secondary turret: accuracies - Double secondary turret: accuracies - Tripe secondary turret: accuracies - Lately I’ve been trialing secondaries turret effects on roll (side placement) and whether using single barrels over duel is a worthwhile design, too improve main gun accuracies. But using known base figures would be much better.
  22. Used auto-snap, didn't manually move them off the snap point.
  23. German Hull Shapes and Superstructures, suggestions to fill the gap! Karlsruhe class cruiser (1911) Operators: Imperial German Navy. Type: CL. Game entrée: 1910. Displacement: Normal: 4,900 t (4,800 long tons) Full load: 6,191 t (6,093 long tons). In-game 4000-7000 tons. Reference: Karlsruhe-class cruiser - Wikipedia Magdeburg class cruiser (1912) Operators: Imperial German Navy, French Navy, Regia Marina (Italy). Type: CL Game entrée: 1912. Displacement:
  24. It's a different world without aircraft carriers! USS Lexington battlecruiser!... In-Game...
×
×
  • Create New...