Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

About Intrepid_Arty

  • Rank
  1. While this didn't have anything to do with accuracy, I do think it's also worth pointing out that the Austro-hungarians had issues with their triple turret design as well, specifically poor ventilation leading to gun crew passing out, which isn't exactly an ideal situation.
  2. An alternative compromise would be to keep it in the campaign, you have the option to research technologies, and you can start using them something like halfway through their development, but with a high risk of breakdowns (or with powder technologies, unplanned detonation), and further research decreases the risk of failure until it's gone.
  3. To be honest, it seems like a pretty large number of things are being added to the upcoming build. This, the campaign, presumably design saving, and so on and so forth. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a lot of smaller updates rather than singular massive ones. Obviously, though, I'm not a developer on the game, or in general, so there may be behind-the-scenes considerations as well.
  4. Lmao, nah, the nazi ships were frankly pretty trash. Like, take the much-admired Bismarck-class. You get a similar displacement to the Littorios for what exactly? Less armor, one less gun, and the same speed? the destroyers were top-heavy, the cruisers had significant stability issues or similar efficiency issues to the battleships, depending on the exact class in question. The only decent ships were the Scharnhorst-class, which were fairly small, and the submarines, which aren't represented at all in this game. As for Imperial Germany, well, they were on approximately the same technological l
  5. I mean, introducing better failsafes would make sense, to be sure, but let's not forget that friendly fire in that sense has plenty of examples throughout history. The obvious one coming to mind being the sinking of 3 Japanese ships by the cruiser Mogami at Sunda Strait
  6. It isn't *excessively* clown car levels, but the torpedo placement on this (generated earlier today) seems somewhat wonky to me.
  7. I mean, I'd say leaving the game incomplete might open them up to legal issues at the very least, so eventually, a final product will probably end up existing. I am worried about what this will mean in terms of the development, as others have noted, the company that bought game labs seems questionable.
  8. I'm going to be perhaps excessively snarky for a moment. Maybe there'd be more communication from the devs if any thread they made weren't overrun by people yelling about how awful they are. Mild exaggeration aside, though, people say they should communicate more, but, assuming the main priority is the campaign, what exactly should they be communicating? Like, one person said (paraphrasing here) 'just make a post every other week and things will probably improve', but, to use an obvious example, what if there *isn't* anything to report other than that they're making progress? Yes, I'd absolute
  9. I mean, could you not say that as ironclads predate the dreadnought battleship, that they also count as pre-dreadnoughts? (Sorry, couldn't resist the joke, I know that there's a difference between the pre-dreadnought and the ironclad)
  10. I'm not finding any information that the Nassau's had different guns in the wing turrets? The Kawachi-class certainly did, but from what I can tell, while the mountings were different, the guns themselves were a uniform 28cm/45 gun.
  11. Ah yes, taking the all-big-gun battleship concept to the logical extreme, I see.
  12. I don't think you realise how much effort goes into making a game. Bluntly, it would not surprise me in the slightest if they were already working as hard as they can, but seeing as the next update is going to be a fairly major one going by the roadmap, even if they were to cut out all effort to fix bugs, add aesthetic improvements, and anything else that isn't specifically introducing the campaign, it would likely take some time to get done. Because the campaign inherently has to be a pretty major change, adding new AI to control countries, a proper tech tree, and so on and so forth. And pers
  13. True, but there's also plenty of historical precedent for calibers that don't fit neatly into the 1" caliber increments that this game currently has. So a fleet could have some of these odd calibers as their guns, such as, for example, some 88mm or 274mm guns. Or even something like the British 7.5" gun, for example. And this concept would make setting such a fleet up quite a bit easier. I will also add, though, that there's some amount of complexity in there as well, for 2 main reasons. First one is of course that guns got lighter and more powerful as time went by caliber-for-cali
  14. Yeah, I mean, signal lights are something which would potentially be a bit complex, but definitely not worth a full-blown DLC. And Camo even less worth it, really. In terms of what *would* be worth an expansion, airplanes in general definitely fits alright, beyond that, potentially either expansions going further back in time, or expansions which allow for even more absurd ships than are currently possible. (something which allows you to create sextuple 16" turrets, for example). I would say expansions in those veins can't go further forward than the early 1950s at the latest, because otherwis
  15. On another note, something which might be interesting specifically for weird dorks like me, would be what I'd call 'complex mode'. Basically, continuing on from the idea of making ships modular, making gun turrets modular to at least a limited extent. This would include being able to input arbitrary gun calibers rather than having the 1" increments, to allow for unusual gun calibers like the 7.5" seen on ships like the Hawkins-class. This could potentially be coupled with being able to choose the size of a propellant charge and shell as well, maybe with some limitations for these to prevent co
  • Create New...