Niomedes
-
Posts
145 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Niomedes
-
-
5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
A Custom Battle editor will be offered. Removing any limits would not only break the system (because our auto-designer is programmed to act smartly for designing the AI ships, and without limits it would just create ugly looking ships with spammed assets) but teach the player wrongly about how everything works.
Further customization for guns and turrets is currently considered for next patch prioritization.
-
23 minutes ago, Celtic said:
That may be a post after mine - I haven't caught up to the end of the thread. See below:
I think that it would be great to have a sandbox mode. The naval academy is very guided and a sandbox mode with no limits would be great.
The campaign will offer the sandbox mode you desire. Campaign will be available as soon as possible, when we finish some needed features that are essential for making the campaign interesting.
That's old news. We're going to get a Custom Battle editor/skirmish mode within the next couple of updates now:
-
On 7/26/2019 at 7:57 AM, mitth'raw'nuruodo said:
Lack of multiplayer is one of the best things that can happen to a game like this.
It means developers will pay extra attention to AI behaviour, character system, chain of command, (relatively) realistic battle pacing etc that are essential for a game like this.
Total War series is a living example of how introduction of multiplayer gradually and inevitably converts a rich grand deep realistic tactical experience to a frantic fast-faced dumbed-down clickfest with after-thought AI favoured by multiplayer gamers.
As someone else already said, The Total war AI wasn't good to begin with.
Aside of that, quite a few games like Stellaris, Crusader kings and Hearts of Iron both have very deep and interesting Gameplay, comperatively strong AI and Multiplayer at the same time, so I don't see why Gamelabs should be incapable of delivering a good AI and a good Multiplayer. The people which play Ultimate Admiral have no problem with playing slow paced battles in the first place, else they wouldn't be here. What's so wrong about giving us the opportunity to play those battles with or against our friends ?
And while a vocal, casual, audience can sometimes corrupt devs into doing away with the more hardcore features of their games, this is far from inevitable. It's a choice. and I'm confident that Gamelabs knows its audience better than to destroy what makes their games good, no matter the amount of multiplayer they're going to offer. -
9 minutes ago, Celtic said:
The explicitely said they're not including one a few posts above mine and that the only form of "sandbox" gameplay will be via the campaign
Well, actually:
4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:The first functional Custom Battle Editor is planned for the next patches. We will provide more details later.
-
Hit chance is how likely the shells are to land in the area the target is SUPPOSED to be when they come down. You can maneuver out of the area you're predicted to be in after the shells are fired of course.
-
25 minutes ago, Squatter said:
- There's something amiss with the way divisions reorganise when a ship is disabled - often a whole division more or less comes to a halt or confused when the lead ship is damaged and pulls out of the line. Such a hit can essentially wreck a whole division of torpedo boats or DDs. Perhaps the damaged ship should auto detach from the division and have AI concentrate on it manoeuvring to avoid the oncoming ships left in the division? Obviously this can be done manually when it happens, but anything that reduces the need for micromanagement is a positive.
Ships already do that, unless you order them to drive into each other.
26 minutes ago, Squatter said:- It would be good if divisions could have several torpedo settings, ie target all ships/target cruisers and up/target only capital ships. Currently requires a lot of micro to avoid firing torps at unwanted targets, ie DDs or TPs.
Spend more attention to your fleet if you want to avoid that, you can disable torpedo fire for a ship by clicking on the torpedo Icon.
27 minutes ago, Squatter said:- Perhaps there should there be an 'auto torpedo evade' option whereby the AI will manoeuvre player ships which spot incoming torpedoes. I believe Distant Guns/Jutland from Storm Eagle employed this feature. Again, manually having to do this increases micromanagement. Fine when you are controlling a few vessels, less so when fleets are involved. Or perhaps ships that spot incoming torpedoes should display a 'torpedoes spotted' alarm signal on screen to draw the player's attention?
You can give the AI control over a division by clicking on the small captain's cap on the left side of the orders bar. AI controlled ships automatically avoid torpedos, if they discover them that is.
29 minutes ago, Squatter said:- Having further options in the 'screen' order would be useful. ie 'screen to the south/west/north', or perhaps 'close screen' vs 'detach and engage enemy escorts'
That wouldn't be usefull, it would be pointless. Your screen is automatically going to move against the closest hostile fleet no matter its position, and will automatically elect the enemy closest to your main fleet as its target. This usually already amounts to your screen attacking the enemy escorts, but you can obviously set targets for them manually if you don't like what they do.
33 minutes ago, Squatter said:- Are all the shells a little bit too much like glowing tracer? This is great for visibility, but reduces immersion a little.
Well, I'd rather see what the enemy is shooting at and what my ships are shooting at then being "fully immersed", if you will. It's kinda crucial for a strategy game to have the information concerning what's actually happening.
34 minutes ago, Squatter said:- When ships are on fire they can look as if they are catastrophically burning up, only for fires to be promptly put out. Perhaps less fire fx and more smoke fx in general, unless fires are extreme?
- More ambient smoke from funnels/fires/explosions on the seascape would be great, and realistic.
As a setting perhaps for high end Machines. But this is jus going to kill the framerate of most people.
Concerning your suggestions in general, most of them sound as if you'd like the game to basically play itself. Removing the need to watch out for and evade torpedos, automating the Screen option more than it already is, automating torpedo target selection etc. is just taking away the impact of player skill in favor of just having a pretty battle to look at over which one doesn't really have control anymore. If you'd like to play such a game, you should consider picking up Endless Space. I however, prefer this game just like it is, with all the micromanagement it requires. And it doesn't even require a lot of micromanagement in the first place. -
2 minutes ago, Schwieger said:
The hull type is independent of the actual armour thickness - it's just the overall base resilience of the boat. Because of this, I don't think that the resistance stat should really be all that different between the base BB and BC hulls - the hull form and stability should be the primary distinguishing factors with all the requisite differences to emphasize the BC's speed focus being what sets them apart. Ideally a battlecruiser that emphasizes speed and armour at the expense of other attributes (much like the German boats) should be able to show for it.
The german Battlecruiser concept was something entirely different. Their Battlecruisers weren't really battle cruisers, but rather a development of the heavy cruiser which emphasized survivability even more, and allowed them to partake in the line of battle. if you want to simulate them, you should pick one of the Heavy cruiser/Armored cruiser hulls. Their resistance is higher than that of the battlecruiser hulls, they can only fit lighter weapons and their speed is obviously still cruiser-like. They are far better suited to simulating german battlecruisers than the Battlecruiser hulls.
-
I'm experiencing similiar issues. My destroyers feel more vulnerable than those damn boats too actually.
-
11 minutes ago, Schwieger said:
Re: penetration -
Is there a reason it seems the battlecruiser hullforms are overall less durable than their battleship counterparts? I've built battlecruisers with equivalent or only slightly less armour than their battleship cousins, as per the style of Imperial Germany, and it seems that they still are far less resistant to damage. As far as I know, BC hulls weren't inherently less durable, just built with less overall armour.In addition to what Nick said:
Histocially speaking, Battle cruisers were meant to be a cheap and fast in-between version of the battleship and the cruiser which would bring battleship guns into the fight, but be much faster than battleships. This would allow the battlecruiser to venture onto the seas as soon as war was decleared and immediatly hunt down any enemy cruisers, which wouldn't stand a chance against battleship guns. Thereafter, the battlecruiser would either raid hostile trade lanes or be able to fullfill a multitude of missions for the battlefleet, including scouting, skirmishing with the hostile battle line, attacking the hostile screen or even joining the allied main battle line during battle, even though that would be more of a last resort due to the Battlecruiser's lack of armor.
As such, Battlecruisers aren't supposed to have the same armor as a battleship, so it makes perfect sense that their hull types would be less resilient. -
The game regularily clashes during the Mission "Super Dreadnought or Battlecruiser", no matter at what speed I play said mission.
-
9 hours ago, akd said:
They both fought major naval engagements in this time period. Of course they lost, but perhaps they won’t under your leadership.
By that Token, Bulgaria and Greece should be great powers too, due to the actions they fought against the Ottomans.
-
1 hour ago, DatShip said:
How did you manage those secondaries?
I mean, i can only make them facing outwards. Is there a command to change where the guns are facing?
Press R. It rotates objects you place
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Skoggatt said:
-AI designs: I know the game is about designing ships that didn't actually exist, and that extends to the AI as well. However, I think there should be a bit more limitation on what the AI will consider. I've seen some dreadnought designs with 12", 8", 7", 6", 5", and 3" guns mounted all at once. Even for a pre-dreadnought that many calibers of guns of similar size is pretty unlikely, and it goes against what the dreadnought is about. Maybe there should be debuffs to accuracy at medium/long range when multiple guns of similar calibers are firing at the same target to discourage this type of design for both the player and the AI. Historically it was difficult to distinguish the shell splashes from such similar calibers of guns, which is one reason the dreadnought beat out the semidreadnought
This penalty already exists.
-
3 hours ago, CajunNavy said:
Niomedes,
Well, obviously my game doesn't like me as much as yours likes you! LOL 😮😮
I outfitted exactly as you suggested. The HE shells were amazing. However, I ran headlong into two BB's with 457mm guns and a BC with 355mm guns. 😶 Also, I was under fire for 6 minutes before I sighted the first DD. I lost one BB before I had been able to ID the BB's by name.
Also, which hull did you pick to get all those secondary guns? I don't seem to be able to get that hull.
Thanks again for your advice. I'm getting closer to killing 70% of those suckers!
CajunNavy
I placed the secondaries indipendantly of hard points, this is just one of the standard dreadbought hulls, the IV I think. The mission is designed in such a way that you're always going to be spotted before you spot them if you go with battleships. As such, you best option is to drive straight at the origin of the shots and hope that you're not getting killed before you get there. A speed of 25 knots minimum is required to get into range fast enough to achieve that. That's why I used two large funnels, oil and induced boilers. You should always go with 100% funnel capacity if you can, but it's especially crucial here to prevent your ships from becoming sitting ducks.
-
Well, if anything, there are too many major naions. China and Spain weren't really all that important in a maritime sense between 1890 and 1930, with both having lost their world power status quite some time ago.
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, painless42 said:
4. Light craft feel too survivable against large caliber HE rounds. The max damage seems right but the damage range feels too variable. If the shell doesn't over penetrate and actually explodes, the damage should be pretty severe for >8" shell against something like a destroyer/torpedo boat. Light craft seem too survivable in general, I noticed in the Dreadnaught vs torpedo boat scenario, the torpedo boats had the maximum bulkhead setting, and I wonder if there should be a limit to the amount of compartmentalization on light craft.
Can't confirm this. In my experience, light craft explode sufficiently when hit with a huge HE round.
-
8 minutes ago, CajunNavy said:
Niomedes,
Thanks again for responding. I am obviously doing something wrong. I gave up some underwater protection to get 5 BB's. I had 8x16" guns and from 1.5-15'' armor. I got the best gun director I could and 24kt speed.
The closest ship to me was a CL, followed by a CA. By the time I got one enemy BB OOA, two of my BB's were sunk and one was OOA. I finally ran out of ammo without sinking one enemy ship. Both of my sunk BB's were torpedoed by DD's after suffering engine and steering casualties.
Frustrating! LOL
CajunNavy
I tried the same battle a few times again, and turns out you can actually even win it with only three Battleships. The hostiles never spawn with anything above of 379mm (at least they have never done that in my playtroughs), which means that getting even just 300mm Belt and 100mm Dekc with Harvey steel will suffice to make your ships nigh invulnerable in long range fighting. Furthermore, you should get 406mm's at least, with Heavy Shells. Those will shred anything. Also, you need to use HE instead of AP.
And the ship in the picture is the type I used when I did my run with only 3 ships.
-
8 hours ago, WT91 said:
I agree with most of the suggestions made already. I've been enjoying the game very much and am very interested in naval architecture. I have a 6 foot long Jean Bart model in my garage haha.
- Give us more freedom with the placement of towers and funnels so we can replicate Nelson/Richelieu/Dunkerque/etc style ships.
- Give us more freedom with the placement of the barbettes so we can stagger turrets in more locations.
- More barbette options for different heights and different turret diameters, for superfiring secondaries or smaller caliber guns on cruisers/etc.
- Let us chose to use a less advanced turret if we want. I noticed in one of the missions that some of the towers have a superfiring turret base built in. Awesome, love that for compact designs. It can fit a triple mk2 16" turret, but a triple Mk3 16" turret is too big for the mount and interferes with the tower. Let us pick and chose up to the maximum unlocked level, just like with engines/armor/etc so that way we can really customize our designs.
- More Superstructure options, perhaps even entire deck section options. Right now it would be very difficult to visually replicate a WW2 era refit Queen Elizabeth. There are some towers that are visually close enough, but they're entirely too short. Giving us the ability to place a "tower base" or something in the middle of the hull to step the whole thing upward would be very nice. So we can place our towers starting at the superfiring main turret level instead of having our ship's bridge being completely obstructed by a superfiring main turret. These bases could include casemate mounts, secondary turret barbettes, etc.
- A suggestion I didn't see yet that I would love: When you have your mouse over one of the armor sliders, show us on the model with a highlighted area what exactly we are armoring. This could work extremely well with the citadel schemes, especially "All or Nothing" so we can remove the belt edge and deck edge areas if we so choose to concentrate on the main belt and deck areas. This is, of course, assuming that the armor is placed on the ship in response to the location of items (engine rooms being underneath where the funnels are, magazines being underneath turrets, etc).
- Right now the funnel capacity system is very obtuse. There is no warning that you are only operating your engine at 50% capacity due to insufficient funnels. There should be a yellow caution indicator advising that you are not at 100% funnel efficiency, so that new users learn about why funnels are important instead of just "You need 1". As it stands you need to scroll all the way down the right side info screen to get the funnel statistic, something I didn't learn until I was hours into the game.
I'm sure I'll come up with more as I play more, but you guys are off to a great start. I didn't realize how much I was missing a game exactly like this.
Yes to the funnel thing. This explains why my Battlecruiser never went up to the 32 knots I made his engine for ! Aside of that, I agree with everything you said. Let's hope that that more people do and that the Devs reconsider the more complicated designer.
-
2 hours ago, CajunNavy said:
Thanks for the response. Unfortunately I have had no luck whatsoever hitting the ship closest to me and working my way up. The ones closest to me are 4 DD's. If I took the time to deal with them, I'm two BB's down and still haven't hit an enemy capital ship. It makes for a long evening.
I will try to do as you say by running away from the DD's. Again, thanks for the response.
CajunNavy
That is odd. I didn't loose a single ship doing what I just described. You really need to keep your distance during that, yes. Never get closer to their battle line than 9 km. Also, you only really need one hit to destroy a destroyer if your Battleships are any good. The chance to hit at 10 kilometers is only about 3-5 % or so, but eventually, one of the shells is gonna land. Usually within the first 2 salvos.
-
7 hours ago, CajunNavy said:
Hi Guys,
Awesome job!! I absolutely love what I have seen. All the kudos in the world to you developers! 4.0
I would like to respectfully mention a few things for your consideration:
1) Fire distribution is a problem. I am stuck at "Sink a fleet". There must be a way for 4 BB's to fight 2 BB's, 1 BC, 1CA and numerous DD's without separating my BB's into single ship divisions to distribute fire among the major enemy platforms.
1a) I hate seeing all those beautiful casement guns blasting away at a BB while three DD's move in for a massed torpedo attack unmolested. Being able to assign targets for other than main batteries would be great. Or at least some design system that has them fire at the most dangerous (and close) enemy units.
2) I would absolutely love to have an option to see enemy range in yards. I would love it. I'm kinda old fashioned. LOL
3) I would love to see the enemy heading. I don't need bearing because I can see them. But it is really difficult fighting by looking at the enemy up-close and estimating their heading.
3a) I would love to be able to see my own ship's headings. I scramble all over the place trying to get my divisions aligned to the bearing I want. But it is pure guesswork. I would also like to be able to steer a course instead of "Right Rudder 10 degrees", but that may just be me.
4) I would love to be able to get a damage report, i.e. "We have one 14" turret, two 8" casement guns and one 2" gun out of action".
Anyway, thank you again for a superb job!
CajunNavy
1. There is. Focus fire on the ships which are closest to you and work your way up to those further away. I got this one in two tries, and there are probably a lot of people who only needed one. You just need to choose your targets better.
Aside of that, reaslistically speaking, focussing fire decreases accuracy, and the devs actually said that they're going to implement that further down the line. So what you did by distributing fire instead of concentrating it is at some point going to be the default and most efficient way to do battle. -
On 10/6/2019 at 5:48 AM, HoneyBaddger said:
Yeah I really enjoyed and still play his mods for the TW series. He is the MAN!
TW as in Total War ?
-
13 hours ago, ExGavalonnj1 said:
For curtain hull designs there would be a hard limit to how fast you could go. If you can lengthen a ship in a refit then it would greatly improve the speed-length ratio, if you can't there is no way you are pushing a short and stubby early warship to speeds much faster then low 20kts.
Yes there is. Adding several nuclear submarine powerplants until there is almost nothing else aboard would do the trick. You can achieve absolutely anything if you have enough energy at your disposal.
-
1
-
-
I mean, it would already be pretty cool to just have some historical battles akin to what the total war franchise does in the game.
-
2 hours ago, akd said:
In the campaign this is more naturally limited by technological progression. Some of the boost technology options in Academy unlock tech from beyond the pre-dreadnought era and allow you to apply it to these earlier hulls.
Exactly. I'm also opposed to artificially limiting speed of certain classes. If someone decided to add a modern powerplant to an old dreadnought hull, it just would go faster. And I'd really like to have the option to equip a Pre dreadnought with a diesel engine and have it go around at 30 knots+ just for the memes alone. USS Constitution also isn't limited to like 12 knots anymore due to a modern powerplant.
Hit chance and trajectory simulation
in General Discussions
Posted
You can actually see the factors which are being considered for this calculation during battle on the left side of your screenif you hover over the target while having one of your ships selected.