Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

NuclearNadal

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NuclearNadal

  1. Custom battles are a great feature for testing our ships against AI creations but it also shows the AI designs weaknesses. For example Ai battlecruisers have appallingly bad armor. Even with some of the latest techs they won't create designs with armor better than HMS Indefatigable. If we could select designs for the AI to use in custom battles, we could have more "fair" fights.
  2. I mean that would make sense, guess the font is just weird. That or I'm blind, probably the latter lol
  3. I have noticed that during battles one of the range markers is "F1g". What does this mean? Is it a mistake? All the other ranges seem fine though such as 5in 11000m
  4. Before I start It's important to mention that the individual shell impacts are actually a really nice addition though two things seem apparent: 1. They are very metallic in color if that makes sense. It seems as though when a hit is made that the decal for the impact doesn't really match with the hull. I would expect some discoloration but not as much as in game. 2. Shell impacts are overly large I feel (Based of 16in guns). I feel like they could be a bit smaller. Overall a very good step towards a better damage model.
  5. The movie Downfall lol I feel like making a 11in/40cal gun and also an 11in/39cal gun an put it in the same turret just to get that nice shell dispersion.
  6. Das war ein Befehl! Der Angriff Steiner war ein Befehl! (This is German?! This Piece of Shiße is German?!) Anyone get the reference
  7. Ok so the hull used is that of the 'Old Predreadnaught". It seems like a French design but I can't find any that look similar to it? The main question however is that when upping it to 11500t, I can't fit in another 13in turret (Midships). The reason why I'm questioning this is because the Mk1 13in turret matches the profile of the ship and fits perfectly in the midships gun slot. Am I wrong about this? Was it only intended to have two turrets and the middle section was just left empty?
  8. I would expand on this by even having a dynamic damage model system in which you can click on an enemy ship, click on what shell hit the ship and see the damage it caused. That or take just a damage log function similar to RTW series.
  9. Press CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+A at the same time to bring up the cheat menu. Select "Ship Give All Parts/Techs" and the one below it (Unlock all parts I think). It won't allow you to have a true sandbox but it gives you all the tech and all the ship hulls currently in game in any of the missions that are thus far in the game. Suggest you go through each mission with the cheat menu to test against various opponents. EDIT: Grammar
  10. I am aware yes but for the sake of game mechanics it should be "Quadruple". I highly doubt that it would be modeled to include the historical reasoning behind it (prevention of one hit wonders screwing the entire turret). This is of course unless they change the "Gun damaged" mechanic to include specifics such as this.
  11. Quadruple turrets as we all know are quite characteristic of the Dunkurque and Richelieu (je ne pe parle francais lol). In game currently the maximum # of guns is a turret is three. Quadruple turrets I feel are important to the French (see Lyon class) and should be considered. Another small thing I have noticed whilst browsing videos of the Iowa class is that after firing, the guns come back down to be reloaded with the “auto” loader. I have also read up on the Des Moines CA in which it mentions that it’s auto loaded 8in guns could be loaded at any angle (say 45 degrees of elevation, they still can be loaded). This isn’t much of a priority but would this be an animation we will see in game at a later point in time?
  12. MTB generally refers to something like an Elco 81ft.
  13. Roses are red, Violets are blue, High Test Peroxide doesn’t go in the torpedo tube.
  14. Simple enough, what role are all these going to play in game? Are they going to be in game?
  15. So far the compartmentalization on ships is a good plus for the damage model but it doesn’t allow for certain things such as: -Capsizing -Large Holes in the sides of ships (currently the armor just buckled and blackens) -Turret Roofs being blown off -Masts and superstructure being toppled -Better Ammunition detonations Whilst it isn’t fair to expect all of the aforementioned things to be fixed, the main thing I can think of is capsizing. Personally, splitting the ship lengthwise down the middle in terms of the compartments would let the ship settle in the water to one side, possibly capsizing it instead of the endless times where the ship immideatly rights itself when at 0% Health (be it flooding or structural damage) and then sinks bow first or stern first almost always splitting in half. It would also allow for a more in depth graphical damage model. Better Ammo dets I would also like to see. There is video evidence of a BB having their magazine blow up (HMS Barham, the British Pathe has an excellent angle of it. I wouldn’t take the Arizona video footage though as it’s a lot less clear). I suggest having ammo dets mirror these as it just seems more realistic. The others that I have listed I couldn’t really think of them as a priority but it’s just something to think about. An example: HMS Lion (I think), SMS Seydiltz, and maybe SMS Derflinger all lost turrets due to propellant fires though not on the scale of which sank the ship. HMS Lion was only saved as the turret roof of one that was hit was blown off. This allowed the propellant to vent out rather than be contained within the ship and deteonate the aft magazine.
  16. I was wondering if we are going to see shell dyes? This occurred to me whilst watching a documentary on the Battle off Samar. This also asks the question of certain nations having severe disadvantages? Whilst I have seen that each nation will have their own characteristics, will this include (in this case) something like fire control RADAR for the Japanese? I also came across HMS Incomparable. Had it been built it would've had 20in guns. Is the game going to stick to historical gun calibers? If not then would we see such other things as the Tillman Battleship (T-III I believe) which would've had 6-gun turrets?
  17. A Pre-Dreadnought wouldn’t survive a 1v1. That being said when the Lord Nelson class were completed (in fact I’m pretty sure one of the academy missions uses Lord Nelson as a hull), a British report found that two of them could hold their own against some of the newer, actual, dreadnoughts of the time. Unless it’s a very specific situation, yes the B is unlikely to win.
  18. Magnetic pistols were in use with WWI U-Boats in 1917. British captured examples of them aboard UB-110 (I think) in 1918. No major warships were sunk with magnetic pistols. Merchant shipping was though, I have no idea where you got the “not a single detonation” came from. The US really only had bad magnetic pistols in the Mk.13/14 but around 44 they started to get decent ones and used them against the Japanese. The Germans had bad reliability for them but it was better then the US ones. An example of this was the KM# TIII, G7e torpedo. It specifically had an improved pistol for use with magnetic dets.
  19. What are some characteristics of campaign nations? For example: The British at Jutland had dangerously stacked Cordite outside the ships magazine. Will this have an in game effect? Another example: Austria-Hungary had lacklustre torpedo protection for Teggethoff. Will this be seen in game?
  20. As the tittle suggests, I’m curious as to whether this would be a good idea or not. The reason I ask this is due to the graphics of the big superimposed mount as an example. The big superimposed mount fits up to 14in guns but the medium superimposed only fits up to 8in guns. This means that if I wanted superimposed 12in guns, it leaves a gap between the turret ring and the edge of the barbette. Its nothing major but it might improve the look of the ships slightly.
  21. Indeed. I guess the question of whether to leave it as BB for pre-dreadnoughts is up to the devs/player base.
  22. Basing this off RTW as I have no idea what historically was used to classify Pre-Dreadnoughts after HMS Dreadnought but is a Pre-Dreadnought classified as a B or BB? RTW classes it as a B rather than BB. I personally like this as it makes it easier for quick glancing identification. Seeing BB at least to me makes me instantly go "Dreadnought" even though it could be a Pre-Dreadnought. Thoughts? Edit: Spelling
  23. Yes but in RTW II you can edit the BNAT.1920 file
×
×
  • Create New...