Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Skoggatt

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Skoggatt

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I think one problem right now is that the best way to make your ship hard to hit is to make it fast. With how things are right now you can make a 40kt battle cruiser as easily as a 40kt destroyer. Combined with the fact that larger guns usually have much better accuracy than smaller ones. This means the larger ships are hard to hit, but have better accuracy against the smaller ones even with the relative penalties to aiming due to the size of the ships. In reality (unlike in WOWS) estimating target speed was actually the easiest part of getting a firing solution. Estimating range was much more difficult in this time period. Target speed should have an effect on accuracy, but it should be relatively minor compared to other factors. Target size/detectability should be much more important in calculating accuracy since a smaller less perceptible ship will be harder to range than a large battleship. Furthermore, maneuverable ships such as destroyers and torpedo boats should be extra difficult to hit; historically these ships were maneuverable enough they could chase the shell splashes of the ships firing at them, making it very difficult to adjust fall of shot. In game this could work by making larger slower firing guns unable to fully lock on to small evasive targets. This would give torpedo armed craft a chance to close the range, and give purpose to smaller faster firing guns as well.
  2. It would be really disappointing if all of the nations were completely balanced with each other. At that point the only difference would be the flag you get on your ships. I do think that some historical balancing mechanics are appropriate. Britain should have strict requirements as far as defending her empire, meaning you need to spend a lot on smaller cruisers to patrol the world, and split your main fleet between the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Austria Hungary will be rather poor, but can concentrate her whole navy in the eastern Mediterranean to challenge Greece, Turkey, or the Russian Black Sea fleet. Ideally a good player would be able to score some early victories with those smaller powers, and grow their navy to take on Italy or France later in the campaign. Just because you can't beat the UK at the beginning of the game doesn't mean the game wont be fun. The US in 1890 would get it's teeth kicked in fighting one of the bigger European powers, but you can certainly build up to win a war with Spain or one of the South American countries if they are included.
  3. I think the effect that Dreadnought had on previous generations of battleship is a bit overstated when historians say things like "it made every previous battleship obsolete overnight." While it's true it obsoleted other ships in a technical sense, it took many years for sufficient numbers of Dreadnoughts to be built to begin replacing the older ships. Better to have obsolete ships active in the fleet than the most advanced ships in the world sitting on the slips when war breaks out.
  4. While bulkheads in theory shouldn't reduce the chances of fires, in the game the bulkhead level represents the overall internal protection and damage control (for better or for worse). More advanced ships had better protection against flash fires, including both fireproof doors and valves to flood magazines should fire break out which should be represented either by the bulkheads or by another option in the ship constructor.
  5. A country like Italy can take on Britain by concentrating all of it's force in one area while Britain has an extensive empire to patrol. Tactics like commerce raiding and torpedo boat fleets will give smaller nations a fighting chance against huge fleets of battleships as well, and smaller nations could always find an ally to help against a bigger foe. You could also start out by beating up smaller nations like Greece or the Ottomans before taking on the larger ones. That's how I would like to see the campaign anyways. It would be good if the campaign is less random than RTW, and the fact there are more nations will help a lot. Ultimately each nation should play out uniquely, and some will be harder than other by their very nature. The US will start out small but grow exponentially, while AH will be a big challenge.
  6. I like the direction the game is going, but I do hope that an armor rework is one of the next changes. I don't think the campaign should be released before an armor rework, since changing armor will so drastically upset the balance of everything else.
  7. It really comes down to the main problem of direct drive turbines: They have terrible efficiency when running below full steam, so such a ship can be fast, but not long legged. In reality, very few actual warships were equipped with just the high speed direct drive turbines. I only know of a few early British destroyers, and those were basically tech demonstrators and not practical warships. There were a number of answers: the most common was to pair the high speed engines with a couple of smaller "cruising turbines" optimized for lower speeds. The French also tried pairing turbines with VTE engines, the Germans paired turbines with diesels, and the US implemented turbo-electric drives which solved the problem by running the turbines at full steam to generate power and throttling the shafts via electric motor. Ultimately, geared turbines solved the problem at a lower weight and cost once gearboxes that didn't explode were developed. By World War 2 everyone was using geared turbines for the most part, but turbo-electric and diesel electric drives were used on some US destroyer escorts as the electric drives allowed them to change course and speed more rapidly while making a depth charge attack. The use of pure diesel diesel propulsion on Deutschland was both for efficiency and because they required fewer men to maintain, both important for long raiding missions. Look at the difference in crew size between Deutschland and Hipper, a lot of that was due to the engineering requirements of the two.It also saved weight when the Germans were somewhat trying (and still failing) to adhere to the Versailles treaty. On the other hand diesel was more expensive per HP, required more expensive fuel, and more prone to battle damage. Honestly, the combination of factors that lead the Germans to use diesel power were so specific that I don't think diesel propulsion would very often be the best choice if it's modeled historically in game.
  8. Royal Sovereign entered RN service in 1892 if I recall. Other navies would have true pre-dreadnoughts enter service a little bit later of course, so in the timeframe of the game ironclads should be the primary warships for a few years at least. By 1890 the primary ironclads in use should be turreted ironclads such as HMS Devastation or monitors such as USS Amphitrite, which are similar enough in mechanics to true pre-dreadnoughts that it shouldn't be too hard to add hulls for those kinds of ships. What will be more difficult to add will be legacy cruisers. Before 1890 almost all cruisers had full rigging for sail in addition to steam power.
  9. I want to be able to do this as well, but not to recreate historical battles. This is at its core a game about coming up with your own designs, but to me that means at a minimum it has to allow for all of the real world designs from the period with enough flexibility to come up with your own stuff. I personally won't recreate historical designs when I have the freedom to create my own, but if the ship designer can't model all of the different real world designs from this era then I won't feel like I can create all the designs I want to experiment with. I don't think there should be a hull for every single ship launched from 1890 to 1940, but there needs to be enough variety that you can recreate any of the crazy pre-dreadnoughts, semi-dreadnoughts, super large armored cruisers, and so on with every class. And of course having a better method of laying out turrets and a more detailed armor system is a necessary part of that.
  10. I'm fine with more BB hulls this update so long as the other classes "catch up" at some point in the future. I agree that there is a shortage of CL and DD hulls to play around with which makes it harder to really test how those classes should play out however.
  11. I've seen some others point out that there need to be more light cruiser hulls, particularly later ones, and I agree. However, I think destroyers need the most love. From what I can tell, all of the destroyer hulls are pretty much the same, the only thing that changes is the maximum displacement and some of the stats. The 1930's destroyer hulls still look like 1910 destroyer hulls even if they are larger. I think we should have more variety such as the US flush deckers.
  12. Perhaps they did not make the battleships obsolete, but they did make battlecruisers obsolete. An Invincible, Tiger, or Renown would have no hope against Iowa, Bismark, or KGV. Fast BBs were faster, better armored, and better armed. Hood would be a better match for the 30s/40s battleships, although still inferior as shown by history. And Hood is arguably more of a fast battleship than a battlecruiser anyways with her 12" belt.
  13. Would it make sense to distinguish fast battleships from dreadnoughts in that case? Since Fast BBs combine the speed of BCs with the protection of BBs it could be an important distinction. Iowa was faster than any battlecruiser, much better protected, and much better armed. Such ships obsoleted not only dreadnoughts, but also super dreadnoughts and battlecruisers.
  14. I think the it should be the same for both. Historically "dreadnoughts" were just an evolutionary step in the design of battleships, not a different class. RTW only distinguishes them so that the more powerful dreadnoughts can be worth more strategic points than older battleships.
  15. I've put maybe 20 hours into the game so far, and I'm impressed given this is the first available alpha. I don't want to rehash anything else that's been brought up in this thread, so here is what I would add: -Citadel: Right now Citadel is just a flat series of upgrades you can choose for any ship based on tech. Unlike armor composition though, it doesn't make sense that all your ships start with protected deck and work their way up through armored citadel and turtle back armor to all or nothing. Many of these configurations only apply to some types of ships. The protected deck scheme is what makes a protected cruiser a protected cruiser as opposed to an armored cruiser with a traditional belt. It would make more sense if these schemes were tied to the different hull choices. Protected deck for protected cruisers, armored belt for armored cruisers, battleships and later light cruisers. Add in turtleback or all or nothing armor on later versions of battleship or cruiser hulls as tech advances. I also don't like that all or nothing armor gives percent buffs and nerfs to different armor qualities and costs, when it should instead eliminate extended belt and deck armor while reducing penalties for damage to the bulkheads under those areas. -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 semi-dreadnought. Otherwise, I think the game looks great for the stage of development it's in. I want to get my hands on campaign and the tech progression before I judge the designer too much more.
×
×
  • Create New...