Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Faolind

Members2
  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Faolind

  1. What is the "Common Alliance Mechanic," and when will it be reinstated/fixed?
  2. You could add CVs the same way you add Submarines- Simply an invisible strategic resource that deals attrition. If Sonar and Torpedo blisters help you deter submarine attrition, then AA and your own CVs helps deter CV attrition. Airbases are simply cheap immobile CVs per the system. Add generic Submarine and CV tech levels, Airplane tech levels (similar to Torpedo tech levels) and you're done! This way our battles don't get screwed up but we still get to take AA design into account and get beautiful AA hedgehog ships per WW2 design. Slowly towards the end of the timeline, Aircraft and Submarine techs may begin to deal significant attrition (your whole fleet in 2-3 years, or so), and thus showcase the end of the dreadnought without EVER taking away gameplay.
  3. I think the most unique suggestion I can offer is to add Camoflage/paint options when building ships. Visual differentiation would make the visuals a lot more appealing. You can make them period accurate of course, and perhaps allow repaints with (perhaps) refits. I have previously made suggestions in the core patch feedback post, which I don't want to go to the labor of reiterating here. I do hope you read all of those that were made before you made this post. They are less likely to be repeated.
  4. I think something that obscures this in the strategic map would add meaning to the ship identification process. Theres several things that make the ship identifty process meaningless at current: - The strategy map tells us what we are facing - the tactical instance environment allows us to zoom to the enemy ship and personally "pre identify" it the second it is visible. Especially if we have prior experience with that enemy ship class. There are a few solutions to this diver in the rule structure: -ignoring the issue is possible. There is an additional relevant effect already (displayed enemy ship detailed stats), so you can see the identity process as roleplay as opposed to rules. - obviously, changing the ship identification visual process to something different that is more in line with the "open information" policy carried through the rest of the design is another simple solution. Something lile displaying the actual ship class, Then the identification process, like: (BB, identified as Warship), or, (DD, identified as CL), or, (CA, Identified) for full recognition. -If we want to keep the ship identification game as current, and bring the game into greater coherence, then changes should be made to other systems, making ship numbers and total tonnage available on the strategy screen, but not the individual classes, for example, as well as restricting the WASD zoom of the player to a certain distance around their own ships, 2km, for instance (essentially imitating a spyglass from the deck of said ship). This also would have tr he side effect of making scouting more interactive and "real" feeling, but would also garner heavy complaints, as games that have done this in the past have experienced. In those instances, a request for a checkbox in the options menu was the most common and well accepted solution. Other solutions for the strategy page will exist in different versions of the overworld, whochbis not yet done. If we have visible fleets, showing a list of "possible enemy fleet in region" would allow stratheads the possibility Of playing the identification game while cross checking said "possible fleets" list on scratch paper, hoping to identify the specific fleet they are facing and thus devise the appropriate tactical response. This would be amazing.
  5. possibly an artifact of selecting Random nation disposition? Did you select Random? If so, maybe it selected Japanese AI, ans there's an issue with it tying up the name with that selection
  6. Relating to all of our frustrated Auto-evade feedback (AKA why my ship stop) I recently watched this documentary in partnership with Drachinifel where it specifically mentions this happening to a destroyer group 9one stopped in tracks), and also to 2 Cruisers dodging some destroyers (veered left into the enemy to dodge collision). So at least our frustrations also happened in real life! ...ha a lot of the stuff in this battle feels familiar after playing this game recently, in fact. I hope we get Night fights someday. and Japanese Night Sights vs US Radar would be really interesting. Outside that, it feels this whole battle could have happened in game! right down to the torpedo tactics and shot focus I myself would have used as the Japanese right at the end there. yey.
  7. I.. do this all the time. I don't have the effect you are describing. I'd like to know what I'm doing differently. I can ram enemy ships quite easily as well, including by accident. With friendly ships however, I do experience the dead stops you are describing, even at 100s of feet out. And it is annoying when I dead-stop and take a friendly broadside because the ship wont move even though *I got this* on the navigation.
  8. Seconded. If the battle ended with less than X% ammo fired and less than X% Crew losses (both, to seal up edge cases of immediate detonations and long ironclad slugging matches), then give an amount of VP to the defender. Something like 250VP
  9. wouldn't that be because the velocity involved makes it easier to aim down 1000 yds? (less lead required on aiming) In other words, its not that Range is the determining factor on Accuracy- rather, they are linked by the reality of velocity. So, 1k range is affected by velocity (which also affects range), but 1k accuracy is also affected by other things, like crew level, modules (some decrease it), and then also by aspect, speed, wind... etc I don't know that I'm right, but it seems you are making a simple logic error here.
  10. Just a fun report of how things are going in the tech race. I chose random/random and the initial outlay was as follows- My battleship was 2,000 lighter than theirs, they had 10"+6" broadside and I had 12"+4" broadside. I also had quad 6" Chasers so the strategy developed was to close rapidly from the flank (12+6 vs 10+6), cross their stern, and broadside their rear from close range. Initially this worked well- the opposing BB had ammo detonation problems and one BB of mine took out 3 successively (in separate engagements), however the 3d left her bruised badly. In the 4th fight I realized what was going on- the enemy crew training was rising rapidly, and now, faced with a crew 3 steps above my own, now only was damage quickly repaired, but the enemy 6" was also much more deadly. In the 4th, mine died. I think I have lost 2 overall. For Armored Cruisers we were identical, almost like we had copied plans, though the armor and some other small thing were a little different. Dual 9" with a pair of 2" chasers. Rudimentary, slow (or, standard for the time), and reliable enough. Nothing noteworthy happened in the interplay, they were too similar. However, I was better able to cover the weaknesses of this design than the AI. I have no idea how many I have lost, but I don't think its more than 5 My Light Cruisers were unarmored gunwagons with side mounted torpedo tubes and a slights swiftness in their build. The 2 I started with proved useless: too weak to incoming fire, not fast enough to bring the 6",3",2" array to bear. I did not build more. One has died. Their light cruisers, I have nicknamed "ghosts" for their tendency to slip away and vanish. Often they will flee the moment a battle turns, and, if alone, may surf just out of range, infuriatingly defying any attempt to end the fruitless battle. They are sirens, and the enemy loves to build them. Thankfully, though fast, they have barely any armament, a single 5", a pair of 3" chasers. They have landed lucky hits on me before, but their critical quality is their own elusive nature, denying me VP at every opportunity. When it comes to Torpedo boats, the enemy knew how to do it well- fast boats with 2 tubes, 2 torpedoes per tube. 4" gun. Minimum everything else. Deadly to any ship I care about not losing. They are a bane on my existence. Thankfully, my nation decided to give me the counter for free- my nation's TB is more aptly a GB, a gunboat, bristling with 3" and 2" guns, just as fast, with a single torpedo to its name, it may not kill a cruiser, but it will kill the torpedo boat screen, and it will also kill that cruiser's engines. These things are amazing. I love them. Its the only AI design I built more of (many more). I believe I have lost 5. The war situation did not develop well for me. The Battleship situation, which looked under control, quickly fell in the enemy's favor. Their Light cruisers swamped me, and their torpedo boats were a great threat whenever I did not have my own at hand (and the reverse was not true- I had the advantage only when we *both* deployed TBs). In response, I developed the following- A fast Battleship (20kts, with the top speed in theater being 23), with new 11" Mk2 guns, and a 4" broadside. She carried a rear torpedo tube as a balancing agent, but it could also be useful when in need of escape, or in breakthrough. I built 2 initially, but after one successfully defended a convoy from 6 enemy cruisers by herself (3CA/3CL, 2 CA dead, 1 CL dead), I built 2 more. Its been amazing so far, out speeding everything that could give her trouble except torpedoes, and being able enough to dodge those so far. The increase in accuracy specifically should give her great performance versus the enemy battleships, but I am unsure, as they have yet to face one, I think. However, it matches theirs in size, at least. Against cruisers she is a terror. An Armored Cruiser to go along with the Battleship, 20kts as well, armed as a charger, with frontal dual 9"s and chasing 4"s, and only a single 9" on the back. She has an experimental armor scheme, similar to all-or-nothing: 7"belt, nothing else. She bristles with 2", especially from the rear castle. This gives her a sort of "assault duck" look, which I have grown fond of with her stellar performance. Similar to the battleship, she is well able to control engagements now with her speed (except against ghosts, grrr), but with her "charger" configuration, bristling 2", and 4 torpedo tubes (all directions), she performs well "in melee". I use them as linebreakers often, and this has only resulted in the loss of 1 so far. Notably, they are good at dissuading TBs from approach. One saved an entire mission by forcing the last Torpedo laden boat to flee (with rapid 2" and 4" hits) with its already disabled fleet, leaving my own smoking flotilla alive and victorious. It destroys their cruiser, their light cruiser (if it gets close), and dissuades TBs. What's not to love? This cruiser has become my mainstay, and of the 8 I built, I have lost only 1. As of recently, I have risen from a 2,000 VP deficit (before new ships) to a 2,000 VP lead. Fleets are now: Me: 6BB/16CA/1CL/11TB AI: 6 BB/6CA/13CL/20TB (they have lost a LOT of CA recently)
  11. Alright! I've played a bit, time for personal feedback. UI actually looks good to me, despite the comments I saw, Perhaps simply needs some highlights and accents to make it pop better. UI was soothing, but... dull, I guess. Mission system- I don't know how to make a big big battle happen, but I'd like to. Convoy missions are the big gripe for me- Specifically, I should not "fail" when I kill all but one of the transports, then retreat so I don't take damage. The fact it counts as a fail also makes me fear that the transport losses are not recorded against enemy shipping. The game is not very clear about these sorts of things within the system (perhaps it is covered in the manual?) Anyways, Convoy in my opinion should only count against shipping and also record warship losses, buy not give any victory points to either side. It should just be an opportunity to speed up or mitigate transport losses over the war. There is a critical lack of warnings for things like - Leaving ships uncrewed, in-being, un-placed, etc. Battles- There are 2 times I have had a CA vs 1 CL, and the CL, rather than being decent and running away OR fighting valiantly, instead circled just out of 2" range, unable to fire at me (Except perhaps with a 3"), but with my large guns missing almost all of their 1.5% to-hit shots This was infuriating, as the cruiser slowly wore me down, but i persevered until I ran out of ammo with nothing to show for it, in the 1st case, and in the 2nd case, a permanently disabled engine allowed me to catch up and land a kill. (The CL repaired engines infuriatingly fast as well) This... should not happen. For player sanity if nothing else. Please program them to actually fight, or actually run. This half-kiting without firing nonsense is BAD. This concludes my thoughts for now. Everything unmentioned I either like or find acceptable.
  12. My immediate impressions are as follows- 1- Yes, as I felt beforehand, I highly recommend the next 6 months are exclusively devoted to cleaning up and improving the Campaign. There's a lot of work to be done here, campaigners will be your core intended audience going forwards, and there's already some glaring issues that need to be addressed. generally what I'm seeing from the community comment reactions on Youtube is the following- -GUI needs work, some feel it is cartoon-y (This is near universal, no one has defended the UI, It definitely needs to be addressed) -Historical setting was not historical enough (Britain had no battleships at 1890 start) -Some were upset it was too similar to Rule The Waves (They wanted more campaign mechanics, or different ones) -However, double that amount was happy for the same (so consider tweaking to be slightly more different but not too much) -Too many tooltips, and yet not enough (needs polishing) -One person recommended Nations getting specific mechanics (self addition- Government difference, politics difference?) As for my personal experience, as it is Thanksgiving, I will not have time to test it until tomorrow at the soonest.
  13. You don't. You constitute the loudest. There's a large variety of comments here, in style and form, and the majority of negative ones are being spammed by a single person (not you). You are loud, yes. Your posts are numerous. But the number of people posting optimistic messages is greater. ------------------------------------- I for one am happy to see what this campaign looks and feels like, and I wish the developers the best. I concur with the randomization idea on torpedo-tracking mentioned earlier, it will add a guessing element both to gameplay and also visibly the the character of the AI, making it seem less robotic. I also recommend to the developers that they focus more on campaign mechanics than on battle mechanics, ship design, or playable nation expansion with the next 6 moths of update. The campaign must be alive and playable in a real form before anything else can be built upon it, and now that it is here, this campaign is what people will mentally build their impression of the game from.
  14. I agree with the points Skepsis made on this, patching this issue could require a whole host of other patches, such as AI, formations, balance, optimization, targeting, UI, and so on. I can't look at their code so I can't tell you how nested it is, but it could be, and for that reason what I would say is to not expect it to change. I would also say its a bad faith argument to call the game "unacceptable to release" for that, when from my view, if it just had a functioning campaign mode, and didn't make my machine run hot, its absolutely ready. Your views are not a monolith, as demonstrated by others, just because you spend all your time on a forum. And if you don't want to look like the villains, act like heroes, and speak with grace. I'm not here to discuss it further as I've made the points I wanted to, and I mean.. well we're all just irrelevant here, aren't we? I mean, if skepsis is.
  15. I want you to take a moment and look at the hundreds of variables already present in the designer, from torpedo propulsion to armor scheme and type, engine, efficiency of ventilation, weight of shell, load of shell, propulsion of shell, hull bottom, torpedo belt, bulkhead type and number, range, fuel type, gun number, placement, and turret design, armor of individual elements... And you go ahead and tell me whether an increase in complexity is going to make the game sell more. Because in the end, the game has to sell. Not just to you and your friends- it has to sell enough to pay these people the wages they need to earn to feed themselves and their families. Any work they put into it has to be justified firstly against this reality. Is the work required to redesign the build system from scratch worth it in terms of sales numbers versus time and money spent? Probably not. It may be worth it to tweak the UI of the builder, or to add more assets to it, or to tweak the system as-is. I don't know what you mean by "People like me," but I'm an indie game designer myself. It's why I'm thinking about it in these terms. Honestly, its like you want the business to fail, acting this way. This isn't Creative Assembly or CDPR. They don't have the resources to start over on something if they screwed up. They also didn't screw up- The game needs to be able to be played by a wide audience. This isn't a one man low budget programming build like RTW. It's a full game and it needs to sell like one. The number of people not already on this forum that would buy the game this forum keeps proposing is slim. Lastly- a snap together model kit is exactly what was advertised in the early videos, and there are other people on this forum complaining this isn't snap-together enough for them. It wasn't advertised like say, Robot Arena 2, with the intricate placing of internal parts. That was never an option.
  16. It really feels like everyone wants the moon. I like the designer as is, I think most people who aren't so invested as to use the forums do too. Those using the forums are a class of people heavily invested in naval history and so want to see each little thing, when in reality its not realistic to expect that, I think. The designer as is captures the broad spectrum of design in high detail while maintaining a degree of accessibility to a naval novice. My fear is that any changes driven by above comments will lead to further obfuscation of the design issues at hand in dreadnought warfare, and thus to a loss of interest and playability in the populace at large.
  17. I don't want the designer to change, and I am happy that the roadmap has no designer changes.
  18. This is not a realistic request if you ever want the campaign mode. and I want the campaign mode. The Campaign is what will make this game playable and fun, not a designer overhaul. Think on this- any change to the designer means a change to the AI design programming, UI design, Modeling, game stats and balance, and subsequently Combat AI. It isn't feasible. The Designer is what everything else is built of of. If you want to design realistic ships of your own absolute design, I might suggest a 3D modelling program and perhaps an engineering degree. Its unrealistic to expect an indie game dev to produce these tools for you, and indeed if they did, it might take an extra year, and would come with its own compromises. When dealing with an indie company, everything is some sort of compromise. I'd like my Campaign please.
  19. That would be significantly less interesting, no thank you. I love fighting random designs and most of their designs are not "bad" and some are "good" They produce a nice spread of designs, just like humans tend to do. Further, I don't like the combative attitude expressed in OP.
  20. Uhh real quick, I just noticed I don't have mine on steam. I looked for an email and found none.
  21. Probably the advice it so wait so long after because many gamers' coffers are depleted after the sale. And you don't want to release during the sale at full price either. Not for a few weeks before the sale, as people will save their money in anticipation of the big summer sale event.
  22. I think youre missing the point. Our towers have torpedo spotting stats. That's useless unless they tell us they spotted them. If that's the range they appear on screen- that's dumb. Because if they've been spotted then the ships captain has been notified. Which means *I* have been notified.
  23. But the towers have torpedo spotting stats. Shouldn't we be notified when out towers spot torpedoes? Maybe not even show their location but at least *tell us* Nice review Absolute! I dont agree with everything but it was comprehensive and well thought out.
×
×
  • Create New...