Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Intrepid_Arty

Members2
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Good

About Intrepid_Arty

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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)
  4. 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.
  5. Ah yes, taking the all-big-gun battleship concept to the logical extreme, I see.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. I'm actually just going to casually note, actually, that there were a number of experiments of blind firing throughout the 1920s and 1930s, which were more or less successful depending on the specific case. The best way to make it work in my opinion would be that you need some form of radio communication, along with (assuming that fire control computers become their own thing separated from the rangefinders, which they should), a sufficiently advanced fire control computer, something contemporaneous to, say, the Admiralty table.
  11. It looks like the AI ship designer may still need some work, tbh.
  12. And now, let's consider: in general, any caliber of gun can have any number of guns per turret, so a 20" hextuple turret would theoretically be possible with both your requests and mine. And now, we panic.
  13. I mean, really, what we need are 6 gun turrets, so that we can go all-out with craziness and make ourselves some Tillmans. That might be a step or 2 too far, though.
  14. I mean, so that you can make ships like the Lion and Tiger, or like Dunkerque, or so many other different ships that can't reasonably be replicated with the current selection of gun calibers. I'd have thought that that'd be obvious.
  15. What I'd like to request would be greater variety in gun calibers than just the inch increments that we have, to provide for one thing the possibility of using metricised gun calibers (like 460mm, 410mm etc. ) and also the possibility of gun calibers that don't fit neatly into 1-inch increments, like the 13.5" guns used on British super-dreadnoughts and battlecruisers.
×
×
  • Create New...