Skeksis

Logistics Campaign Logistics by adding a ‘Supply Fleet’. - General Discussions - Game-Labs Forum (game-labs.net)

...

There's only one hit rate for both shells, you can't remove part of the equation if both shells are using the same equation e.g. "removing HE ricochet/over-pen" just for HE.

Damage is percentage based, guns don’t actually aim and try to hit the target. If removing ricochets%/over-pens% then the overall hit rate would be reduced for HE, so how does the game maintains its overall hit-rate percentage while switching between HE and AP? How do you even display that? Also reduced HE hit-rate would mean longer intervals between hits, less visual interaction.

The trouble with realistic boasting is that the hardware application is never included i.e. enquires into the limitations of the home personal computer. There has to be simplification of basic mechanics in order to produce the game intentions/core… "In the campaign you participate in an ongoing naval arms race and try to overwhelm your opponents by maintaining economic and technological superiority. You fully manage the fleets and naval construction programmes"..."set in a global scale"..."huge strategic board"..."includes rebellions”…”government from Monarchy to Democracy"..."as head of the admiralty"..."to manage the naval budget and"..."technological research, crew training, shipyard development and ship building". If you consider the overall intentions including all descriptions then simplification of low level mechanics makes sense. What counts is the vision of realism and the game is doing a fine job of that. WOWS and War Thunder sell themselves on the realism experience, why can’t UAD?

We will only really know when they want to start marketing alpha 10, no roadmaps you see. Guessing, I think it’ll be more about building more vessels for the campaign, a repeat of alpha 9, maybe the same for the next few alpha’s.

Yes very quiet, not a single acknowledgement since the hotfix. That makes me think they’ve gone back into the 'dungeon' and won’t be back out until their next task is done (could mean that allocation for more hotfixes is spent too), "it is the way". It would be bad for issues to linger though (this time).

...

@Nick Thomadis is this an issue? I mean do you think that we should be able to organize ships within the division or is this ship order a non-issue for the game, like something that is never going to be fixed/change? PS, could be fixed or valid if by sorting ships from heaviest to lightest every time a ship is added or removed. Or at least let us designate the flag ship.

We have ‘Line Ahead ‘and ‘Line Abreast’ but I think there’s room for a ‘Column’ setting. Ships to line up and sail 3 abreast for the length of the number of ship in the division. Ships sorted to: Heaviest to lightest (regardless of class). Heaviest 1/3 to form the centre column. Lightest 2/3 to form the port and starboard columns. It would be very quick and easy to sort, as fast as sorting polygons in the 3D pipeline. What this sort and mode achieves is that the utmost capital ships ends up in the centre column and the rest, the supporting ships, end up in the side columns. By allowing any class of ship into divisions now it has opened up the battle instance to some new tactics, to new formations/division modes etc. e.g. Currently (and previously) smoke screening ships had to be in another division and their course managed every time the main division changes its course. Any other auto formation mode doesn’t allow for smokescreens to be effective because there’s too much distance between those set formations, a 'Column' mode will provide smokescreens effectives on a automatic-mode level. I'm sure there will be many more such tactics to come about with this mode. e.g.

Open Quick access in File Explorer, right click on the screenshot – Open file location... and 'well hello there'.

Before detonations was introduced in alpha 6 no one used barbette upgrades nor considered applying those extra weights, suppressing ammo risk etc..., now everyone is armoring and protecting their ships against flash fires risk, using recourses to mitigate risk. That counts for something, it’s not conjecture at all. Flash fires/detonations protection is having a direct impact on designs 'right now', it’s working as a recourse sink. Frequency = resource expenditure.

But not the consensus.

A bug is just what it is, a bug – to be fixed, it’s odd language to “object” to that, to object to a bug because it is random. I’m sure Dev’s intentions are not to leave it unfixed. If you misunderstood, idle meant to mean: weapons that freeze/don’t firer for long periods, referring to the issue indirectly.

Admiral of the fleet wouldn’t be concern about the chief engineer mechanical problems per ship, only if the ship is serviceable or not. Serviceability per ship will be managed via the ship list on a global scale (if as to RTW2 or similar). The game should even be leaning towards diplomatic management, war/peace etc, there’ll be no room for *malfunction micromanagement. Except for crew management. Any machinery performance's would be better portrayed with crew experience, skills, perks and/or crew mastery but that still would be a wholesale ship value anyways.

If magazine detonations are too rare then losses over a campaign wouldn't impact the overall finances, nor designing protection nor the design process, recourses would be used elsewhere. Protection for magazine detonation would only be considered if there is frequent detonations, too which is working well currently! Strategizing, combat command, battling master AI, naval architecture. Idle turrets are already cursed, adding malfunctions wouldn't go down well, IMO.

@Steeltrap, @SonicB There’s more to consider… Battle time, how long are battles going to take, magazine detonations offer some expediency. Investment, buying protection will provide a campaign money sink. Design strategies, tanking or DPS powertech, BB or BC. Tactics, target lighter unprotected ships with larger weapons invoking detonations etc... The battle instance has to offer more than just a slugfest, magazine detonations does. Spotting a magazine detonation adds interaction, keeps the player involved, something I think is very important with a largely AI based battle instance.

...

I know. Then all that nations would represent is a flag. I was just trying to think of how many games that have different national properties/traits, actually there’s alot of them, all of them, harder to come up with games that don't differentiate. Choosing a nation to play its style of ships would be a feature, not only that, it’s the crux’s of the genre and realism. IMO more people would be looking to play a nation and its ship types/styles opposed to picking one based on geographic location alone. I like to think that Dev’s haven’t got the volume of required hulls yet, heck there’s even a dreadnought 1 hull being pasted as a CA hull. It’s not what we have but more of a case of what we don’t have yet, hull-wise, variation-wise, and it's bringing about similarities. Also if you look at earlier dreadnought era, there's not that many cruiser and destroyer variations, there maybe some RL restricting elements aswell.

For this part... Styles should be nation based. What this does is that it ensures replayability, play one nation building style, then play another nation ship building style, the whole time battling different styles, different ships, different nations, very good this way. If to have freedom to cross-dress nations, it would reduce all styles to the 'year of', very bad. Worst for the campaign too, ships may start to look the same, for every nation, for every class, for every battle, that is called 'rinse and repeat' gameplay, no thankyou to that boredom please. However Custom Battles should only be limited to the mind's eye, that's for sure!

Theoretically if there’s no tech upgrades, advancement or regional movement, then procedural generation would produce the exact same ship, so no you wouldn’t face different ships in the immediate foregoing battles.

The battle generator (i.e. procedural generation). It’s my guess that when you look at the nations data and see that a nation has 6 battleships, it will be exactly that, a number, then when a battle is called those battleships would be designed/generated there and then. That enemy design will be built to the nation tech, player criteria and maybe some randomizing to counter too. This setup should solve the ‘endlessly self-perpetuating balance problems”, simply because they won’t be progressive.

And you can use the enemy icons/cards at the top, just scroll over them and the info tab will show. Also Dev's with the new right click to expand division cards then shouldn't this be echo for the top enemy cards/icons? to keep the UI consistent.

Depends on how large the battles might get, 40-50+ ships in 3+ hour sessions, then “hand holding” sound notifications would be welcome by most players. PS: IMO, RTW2 style campaign might not suit all of the current audience that we have onboard today, I suspect Custom Battles will be a bigger hit for most players anyway (once develop some more), and so bells and whistles would most likely to be more popular for such a audience.

I do, voiced (or bells and whistles) alerts would lift the game’s atmosphere, something every game tries to do with sound. Having the sound of silence between the player and game would impair immersion.