Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Mhtsos

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About Mhtsos

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. First battle seems was a tie as pretty much expected. The best part is that the most damage done and the almost one-hit-sink was when one of the two deployed Monitors hit and full penetrated the belt armour (most likely under the waterline because it started sinking) the other. It would be an absolute awesome moment, if that wasn't my fleet... Well, at least I now know that friendly fire works. 😛
  2. One of the most annoying problems until this point. The +118% (Krupp IV) buff leads to absurd armour values and tankiness in modern/superBBs that rivals shore the Antlantic Wall... The armour model is improved, but I do really hope they can make more realistic. It still is a box, with some variation, but a box nevertheless. | Speed is also still not really affected by hull shape. Stubby/chonky BBs can easily make 30kns+.
  3. After some testing I liked the changes, but some issues remain. The speed-daemons persist. Some crazy 30+knots BBs from early-to-mid 1900s hulls and other equally improbable designs appear from time-to-time. Also, I've seen again designs with 13" main and 10" secondary. | The damage/penetration model, although improved it again seems...monolithic? Huge areas are covered by armour and the APs are again under-performing when hitting areas that in theory could penetrate. I hope that is fixable (aka the damage model can be made realistic) and not just "re-balanceable". | Anyhow, I like that you try to improve things and see the feedback. Regards
  4. Tested again after the hotfix. The issues reported earlier still persist, although it was nice to see that now the BBs with minimal bulkheads didn't sink when the flooding contained in the first 1/3 of the ship. Although it was discouraging to see that the flooding did go on for the duration of the fight and went away just before the end of the battle. The fires are utterly harmless now, even with the anaemic damage control of the above ships. | As people mentioned before, the issues seem to be more systemic than something that needs hot-fixes. The damage model and targeting model really need addressing and overhauling. | Otherwise we are stuck in a very unrealistic see-saw of patches that over/under stress a value/effect. I personally prefer for the team to dedicate on these core issues, before venturing in the "new features" area.
  5. After the latest match, I can attest that secondaries now (in many cases) are far more accurate than the main battery. Eg. in a 1916 BB (undamaged) with single 6" @ 7-8km that had more accuracy than the main 13" vs a CL . Something that shouldn't happen, as in theory the single secondaries are under local aim and the main battery has a beefy tower/main controller. | I think that is a symptom of overcompensating "adjustments" to feedback from here, as is the return of the HE spam.
  6. Thanks for the update. Had a few of random battles. Nice additions to loading animations, hulls, barbettes and turret design. The ships also seem less agile (very positive in my book, no more wows stuff happening). Excellent that now you can assign secondary turrets to other targets. | Biggest negative/setback is that HE is again the ultimate winner when the enemy has armour (or you don't get an ammo explosion). The AP, even if achieves full penetration, does abysmal damage per calibre. The floods from common, became very rare even if the hit is on waterline (or below) and the fires are over before they began. Unfortunately, it is still possible to have capital ships with unrealistic speeds. My last battle the enemy BC was maxing to 45knots with 1930 tech hull, 8x15" guns and 9+in of belt armour... | Summarizing, some good stuff, some setbacks, but generally good update in my book.
  7. My priorities are: An armour model that makes sense. Now the ships are just armoured boxes. I would like to see real ships, not tanks in water. Damage model. The bulkhead number is the single most significant factor that will determine if the ship is going to be a damage sponge or a tin. DDs soak hundreds of 5-6" if they have maxed bulkheads. Also, I almost never seen a ship lost to extensive fire -even if it burns from end-to-end, all due to the aforementioned OP bulkhead modelling. Accuracy and the factors that determine it. Now is too abstract and in many cases it doesn't make sense. Shells that are actually modelled. Now they are only decorative and just pass-through ships that are not the target. More flexibility on ship design. Even if it is only for player. | I believe the above are the most important issues with the game that have to be solved before we go on the campaign.
  8. Another testing, custom battles 1902 USN BB vs austrian-hungary and french BBs (three battles in total). I must say that the secondaries are far more effective in early BBvsBB, but the ships themselves are very-very prone to sink via flooding. I mean I one-shot one BB with a single 12" hit. It went down via flooding in a few seconds (X3 speed)... My ship almost got down to 70% flooding after a 6" hit in the rudder area. In a BB with normal bulkheads, reinf. I bulkheads, double bottom and anti-flood... Maybe tone it down a bit? I mean it is very positive that now flooding is a real threat to BBs, but this is too much.
  9. Thanks for the fast update/hotfix. | Played a few custom battles with the new patch. A 1935 BC vs 1933/34 CA and CLs with a couple DDs. Second battle as French BB vs Italians 1922 CLs + DDs, after that another with same time/navies but CA vs CL + DDs. The ships indeed sink easier now, without the prolonged 5% sponge. Torpedoes are more lethal, especially when they hit smaller ships. My big 1930s BC took 6 toprs no problem. The small ships have much-much improved accuracy vs the big ships. Big ships' (BBs and BC) secondaries still have single digit accuracy vs the smaller ships in the same ranges. Eg. in a enemy DD push/attach at around 4-5km, they had almost 80+% accuracy for their 5". My 6" secondaries had 1.4%. The smaller 3" tertiaries had 1.9%. That was the case when I had only one 1920s CA vs their 1920s CL and DDs. I think that the border is the CL? Because my CA was quite minimal/small and comparable in size with a CL in all but better armour.
  10. Secondaries (>5") are quite effective against torpedo boats/DD/CL, IF they hit. That is the main problem for me. That you need to be in knife fighting range to hit anything with your secondaries, and that is not even the case with older designs that you cannot hit anything period. Armour in game is far more relevant for BBs/BCs vs BBs/BCs engagement, not regarding secondary effectiveness.
  11. Re-tried with modern (1940) US BC, 13"+4"+2". All maxed for accuracy. This time in the same range (2-4km) the 4" had around 50% and the small ones around...90%. I say that it should be more consistent because the other BC was tech from 1928, not a huge difference in that range. | Anyhow, I love the new barrel up-down when reloading, the penetration marks, the destroyed turrets and the slick new late-game main towers. Also, it is very positive that at last the almost-dead ships are not having excellent accuracy or even fight back when around 5-10%. The damage model for stern/bow to enemy should also improved, it took some dozens 13" and some hundreds 4+2" to sink a 1920/early 30 CA.
  12. This. In a test run, enemy CAs 8" done almost the same damage as my BCs 13". Both cases reported "penetration" and done around 15-20hp dmg and started a small fire. My ship at least used 13" AP Mk3. The above with the armour still being too OP, lessens the impact of having large guns apart from the latest monsters. Small guns are even worse, as they cannot hit a barn from point-blank. | Anyhow, I am glad that they included the additional stuff, especially the custpm battle.
  13. This. The game devs absolutely need to rework the damage model. IMHO one of the biggest problems with the game right now, along with the hit% of secondaries and the weird formation AI.
  14. I tried the all-tech-unlock cheat in the semi-dreadnought mission for the lols/variety. With a simple BC with good-decent towers/rangefinders/radar I and historical arrangement (3 X 2 12" + some 5") the enemy BB's accuracy is almost double. When it had 15-17% accuracy, my guns had only 8-9%. I use full speed, only small maneuvering/ course adjustments and no target change. The above numbers were after some time when the guns were locked. The best part is that beyond 8Km the BB still landed multiple hits almost every second barrage. What is happening? o.0 Cheating AI or just...works as intended?
  15. Why is that impossible? It was like that IRL, otherwise we might as well remove secondary guns. Now they are mostly dead weight.
×
×
  • Create New...