Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Tankaxe

Members
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

About Tankaxe

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Recently back from a custom battle between a 1v1 battleship fight with 1918 tech and the results were concerning. AP damage and ship survivability is constantly beaten horse during the Alpha but its still something to take a look at. during my little test the enemy ship took over 32 penetrating hits from 14" guns in 1918. this is quite ridiculous as some can see and I wasn't able to sink the ship because it turned around leaving nothing to shoot at but the stern. As anyone knows when a battle turns into a stern chase it will be impossible to catch them because all of your penetrating hits will register no damage leaving the structural health bar alone. Even an ammo detonation did little to speed things along flooding after serious pounding dropped to %21 and rapidly clawed its way to %51 once it turned astern. This is currently the more frustrating issue in the Alpha and in my opinion should be the most pressing matter. Regardless I enjoy the game and wish the devs best of luck.
  2. 2nd tower is superior really because you have alot more space to place secondaries of your choosing.
  3. I hope everyone enjoys the new update but I feel it only tip toed to the larger issues. I recently experimented in the custom battles of a task force cruiser battle (1926) and unfortunately it was a mess. ships that were set to screen abandoned their charges and sailed bow first into the enemy. Since their were a lot of light forces present they all proceed to get hit by torpedoes and due to how clunky the formation system is their is nothing I could do about it. My personally designed heavy cruisers armed with 11" guns were pitiful when it came to engage the enemy. Starting at 12000m apart I've yet to see any of their accuracy percentages grow beyond %12. Destroyers were worse as my 5" armed secondary's struggled to hit and struggled to do damage. Even the main guns of 11" still do pitiful damage when they hit, I've rolled damaging hits that only gave 4.2dmg! Light forces still have major issues that need to be resolved because without torpedo spamming they don't do much I returned back to capital ship fights and the issues were still the same. Armor piercing, luckily, is much more capable of landing hits but almost never cause serious damage. I might knock out a chunk of health here and there but the process of just repeatedly banging an old ship with 18" gun fire is frustrating. I believe the issue is that since citadels dramatically reduce the chance for an engine or ammo hit its quite difficult to land a ship that can do a lasting blow The placement system leaves me unimpressed as the only major change I see is that Yamato has hardpoints for folks to try a Nelson style ship but not much else. The ability to move our structures without snaps would be nice. Also the towers we get is restricting on what secondary armament I can mount on a ship. Despite the doom and gloom I like the new hulls and the more modern turret designs for secondary's look great. I'll gladly follow along and see things improve and wish the devs best of luck
  4. I think it's important to remember that UA:D is already running a bit of alternate history. For an example "what if China was a competent naval power?" That's even stated in the main website Obviously this wasn't the case IRL the government was too corrupt and incompetent to wield a navy. But in this game is different enough that Spain and China wielding competent Navies isn't such a hard thing to believe. It seems in UA:D timeline the Spanish and the Chinese were able to be relatively put together with enough competence to wield a navy.
  5. USA would be unique as well Industry leader: the nations economic capacity grows at a faster rate than other countries. +%5 shipbuilding, constant economic growth. +%5 research bonus And for the negatives Money pinching government: The government is very reluctant in giving the Navy funding and prefer to keep it low for other programs. -%15 less funding than normal at low tension (will go away or be reduced when tensions become higher). Perhaps the negatives can be overcome by going to war multiple times and have an event where Congress recognizes the importance of a navy and removes the money pinching malus.
  6. Neat but I was thinking more of a hit going through the hull
  7. Neat, does anyone has any example of what an over penetration from capital ship armnements does to a lightly armored target be it a protected cruiser or destroyer. Having a visual effect of it would be worthwhile
  8. The ability to choose which nations flag you can fly on your ships would be a nice option to add
  9. Yes the RNG in RtW is a pain (don't you just love when the battle generator feeds your CLs to enemy CAs and having to convoy raid with a grand total of 3 destroyers that's escorted by CLs) One of my major beef with it is how it handles cruiser battles. You don't get a proper cruiser task force and instead get these incredibly odd 1v1 or 2v2 cruiser battles with a destroyer escort here and there. It doesn't make sense and since the AI can have up to 20 CAs and more CLs all these single cruiser actions can be very exhausting. Things like convoy raiding and bombartment missions should require an entire taskforce of cruisers if they expect a similar number of enemy cruisers in the area. So IMO if the game can make cruiser actions bigger with missions that are important would be useful
  10. Another advice is to slow your ships to full speed for the aiming bonus and you should start landing hits. I don't know about the above advice but I've had the enemy fleet completely focus on my CLs making them good to bait leaving my B unmolested. (Also check their speeds of it's 18kts restart as they can't do anything) If your using a BB only use 12" and above. You can fit these guns on the battleship hull by rotating it with the R key. But just as above you must knock out those CL because right when you start landing hits on the B the entire enemy fleet will run. Worse case scenario you cripple the semi-dread but due to damage model shenanigans you aren't able to land a killing blow because your shells keep hitting the destroyed sections. This will give the CLs time to escape and the enemy B has a rather significant chance to land a hit that will slow your ship and that's when you restart.
  11. Note that once Battlecruisers hit the scene they made armored cruisers virtually obselete and most nations had stopped production of such ships to focus on building battlecruisers. so the only thing that would remain relevant is Mass produced light cruisers and destroyers to cover regions and screen the battlefleet Light and heavy cruisers were only a thing because of the Washington naval treaty and without it cruisers would just be further enlarged Battlecruisers. While the player can also make enlarged armored cruisers as some sort of 'anti-cruiser cruiser' the time and money they'll take would give other nations an advantage in the Battlecruiser race. So either way it's quite realistic that BC and BBs are stronger against weaker opponents and their main duty's is protecting and projecting force with numbers
  12. Ah I certainly don't want to take too much time and resources. A road-map would be nice and thanks for the feed back. Now I feel bad because now I feel I was demanding.
  13. Honestly the priority dev blog should be campaign features since we have players jumping on board either without reading the website with only their own fantasy in their heads. Or they do read it but are just miss understood on how it works. This is my preference but if the devs prefer to do a dev blog on campaign once they have it close to working order I have no qualms about it. My next preferred dev blog is just their statement on how they plan to handle the topic of aircraft carriers and other advancements in the 1940s+. Since most players are mostly fascinated with the era or it's the only part of naval history they know.
  14. We really need more communication of the developers as discussions in the forums are going in all directions. We also dont really hear much from them besides acknowledging bugs and from what iv'e seen has recently stopped giving feedback to suggestions. I propose a dev diary so that we can see what the devs are focusing their efforts on so forum posts and tester can stay and keep relevant one topic at time. It should be moderated just enough to keep everything ontracks and not derail into a historical debate as we've seen multiple times. for an example say the developers release a diary on torpedoes on how they work and how they planned to go forward with it. Testers can give feedback to how they are and leave comments and suggestions for any proposed future development on one topic. This will help keep the community focused and focus feedback in areas that can be proven useful.
  15. The jump of damage from 8" to 9" is so significant that it isn't worth going lower. 8" and below should also be the focus on bringing their damage in working but perhaps once the accuracy issue is resolved we can see if they can produce actual results the way they are.
×
×
  • Create New...