Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Tycondero

Members
  • Content Count

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

143 Excellent

About Tycondero

  • Rank
    Able seaman
  • Birthday 11/25/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Maybe UAD should use only hand made designs then. That way the devs can spend more time to improve the game in other areas, such as implementing new features and the campaign/tactical AI. I am pretty sure that the community would be happy to make plenty of good designs to be added as a library for the AI to use. However, before this can be done the designer should need to be in its final state.
  2. I am 100% in favor of expanding the designer to the level as displayed in the trailer prior to the public alpha. Furthermore, I still believe this can be easily done if designed right. Putting in different hull sections should not be much different from placing a superstructure, actually it is likely more simple as there are fewer variables. The thing the devs are clearly having issues with is AI and AI design. The more variables and with that degrees of freedom you introduce the more complex AI programming becomes. Especially considering the limited resources this indy developer faces,
  3. I hope for two things, either one would make me very happy: - First limited version of the campaign - New armor/citadel model
  4. This has been requested from day 1 when Alpha 1 started: the ability to fire both at port and starboard hostiles at the same time. At least we have independent fire for the main and secondary guns now, but I fully agree that we should be able to make use of both sides if sandwiched by enemies. I can understand it may be somewhat difficult to implement, especially for guns in the middle/centre.
  5. I am a bit in the middle with airpower in naval games, but I agree with @Skeksis that airpower can make things fresh (gameplay wise) again. I previously always hated carriers in games because carriers never looked as cool as battleships to me. I think most people that are naval enthusiasts share that feeling and that's why battleships are always the main attraction in these kind of games. However, when I watched the movie Midway (please don't beat me for liking this very Hollywood made movie) this feeling for the battleship started to shift with me. I still like battleships, but I also ca
  6. Well, it will for sure mean that carriers will need to be developed first before they can even attempt a modern naval game version of UAD. However, in general I wouldn't be very interested in playing a modern version, but perhaps that is also because I believe a modern version will lack variety.
  7. The devs stated that they are very keen on providing mod support in the future. They come from a modding background (I believe Thomadis made the Darth mods in the Total War games), so they understand the importance of it. Please watch the video in this thread as it will provide some more information related to your question.
  8. I hope that crew morale and captain personality will become a factor in the game, though this added amount of complexity may very much "mess things up" for the AI and lead to player frustration as it could be difficult to implement right. A ship's performance and ability to follow player orders should be affected within the game by the captain and the crew . I imagine that daredevil and/or highly respected captains should be able to maintain sufficient morale which allows some ships to go "beyond the call of duty" making these ships perform well even under intense enemy fire. Green crews
  9. I think this is a very good suggestion to expand the possibilities we have for firing in the game. Especially a double salvo or fire at will command would be great, however I would imagine that this should only matter if crew morale ever becomes a factor in the game. Double salvo is great to demoralize opponents by offering a more continuous amount of fire. However, sadly even the regular broadside salvo is not fully working in the game due to a bug. I think the devs should first try to correct this before expanding into other types of firing commands.
  10. True, there is some difference between WW1 and interwar BCs and between countries. If we look at the nation that developed most BCs (Britain) they went for high speed (usually 30+ knots) combined with BB batteries (-1 turret) and sacrificing armour to make it work (meaning somewhere between 6-10 inch armour usually). The Germans went the other way. If we can count Scharnhorst and Gneisenau as BCs, these ships were developed with BB like armour, fast battleship speed and comparatively tiny guns (11 inch). BTW, reaching beyond 32 knots for a big (and even small) ship should be really
  11. I agree, I would like to be able to set a position/area for the screens/defenders to focus on. Either the AI needs to be very good as in that the screens will start to sit in between the hostile and their escort and engage or keep between the two fleets depending on the size and severity of the treat or we should be able to manually assign sectors to screens as such that a division can be patrolling between 315-45 degrees (in front of to be escorted division), 315-225 (left), 225-135 (rear) or 135-45 (right) degrees of the heading of the lead escorted ship/division. Regarding division co
  12. Collision avoidance and torpedo avoidance still doesn't seem to work very well. Still observe ships getting in eachother's way all the time, especially destroyers versus other formations when set to screen duty. Also, when giving these general formation orders I noticed that the division's subordinate ships hardly ever try to avoid incoming torpedoes, even when they are spotted early or under full AI control. IMO, it still requires way too much micromanagement to deal with subordinate ships. Shouldn't these ships set to duties, such as follow, screen or scout not behave similar to AI control,
  13. I noticed in Alpha 10 that the broadsides of a BB do not fire all turrets in every salvo round. Haven't tested whether this applies to all vessels, but I could reproduce it for two different BB designs made. For some reason when having to fire both front and rear gun turrets one side (only front or only rear) does not fire all the time. I have the feeling that this is a sync issue during reloading, it seems that guns of either front or rear need to reload a bit longer than the other set. This generate a sequence that if you fire all turrets in cycle 1, cycle 2 has only one turret side fir
  14. Played a couple of custom and academy missions and have some things I noticed due to the changes made in this patch. I have the impression ships really do not sink so fast anymore. Perhaps this is also due to the fact that the AI designed ships come with more bulkheads now, but I also have the impression that flooding is very quickly handled if penetrating hits cause flooding. Also some smaller (e.g. CA, CL and DD) ships can take quite a beating, even by capital ship sized guns. They are not damaged as much. When designing DDs I also noticed that even though flooding was occasionally caus
  15. I think the system will be very much simplified. It will likely not be much different compared to RTW. The nation you start with will stay as is, but develop over time partially by your actions. You can probably only take and fight over territory outside your country (Imperialism). Perhaps you can win a war by occupying some home territories, which will reward you with land outside the main territory or some prestige or even interned ships. That said, I know as much as you, but judging from what I could read on this topic I would be very much surprised if this game would come up with a d
×
×
  • Create New...