VarangianGarde
-
Posts
93 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by VarangianGarde
-
-
Backed in 2017. Do I need to send you my account, or do you already know it?
-
Did the most recent update delete our campaign progress? The campaign wasn't half bad, but I don't want to keep replaying 1890 every time there's an update.
@Nick ThomadisHow about making a few save slots so we can have multiple playthroughs going?
-
Nick, dude. He didn't use profanity. He didn't insult anyone's character. He did nothing wrong.
People have gotten a bit heated recently on the forum, but unless there are insults and abuse, people have a right to be critical. I certainly don't expect you to take every suggestion or criticism and give over to it. Follow your vision, keep making a great game, and don't take it to heart. When people get invested in a project, sometimes feelings can run high. I hope you'll take the good suggestions and improve the game, while maintaining the vision you had when you started the project. We're on your side, here.
-
4
-
-
This is going well.
-
2 minutes ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:
Honestly, I just don't want microtransactions to become the name of the game. I've got no problem supporting a game I enjoy by spending money on in-game items, after all, that's how games are able to progress/develop further and that's how the devs put food on the table. So long as they deliver a good, quality game that I thoroughly enjoy that isn't plagued by microtransactions...I'll be happy.
I hope you're right.
Hey @Nick Thomadis, are you still gonna be working on this or will the ball be passed to a Stillfront team?
-
From the press release:
QuoteAs a part of the Stillfront Group, the studio will continue expanding and improving its portfolio of premium games, but also expand into GaaS (games as a service) and free-to-play, with a clear focus on historical strategy and battle themes. The acquisition of Game Labs further strengthens Stillfront’s existing portfolio of mid-hardcore games in the strategy and action genre, addressing primarily the attractive 30+ male audience.
Get ready to Pay Per Shell™!
-
1
-
-
Quote
My major dissapointment is that we have no information about the campaign. There are no pictures about it. We don't know anything about it. I am waiting for it since Alpha 2.
New hulls..sure, why not. But lots of us sad that we need obsolete hulls, because the lack of variety. What we get? More modern hulls...I mean okey, a new game update is coming, but come on, give us more older hulls. When we start the campaign we won't have variety.
I completely agree. We've got a lot of near WWII era ships, but the Pre Dreadnought is so barren. We've written a lot about this, so I'll just link the discussions below @Nick Thomadis.
-
2
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, SonicB said:
I don't think so - the only modelling of damage effects on gunnery appears to be a temporary accuracy nerf.
As far as degraded performance goes, I'd welcome examples to the contrary, but iirc either a turret's rotation worked or it didn't (except early/light weapons which could be trained hydraulically or manually.) Individual guns could certainly be knocked out, and conditions in the turret, magazines or ammunition hoist could also definitely impede the rate of fire.
A potential list of temporary or permanent turret malfunctions:- One or two guns knocked out
- Decreased accuracy/range due to rangefinder damage (turret under local control)
- Jammed or restricted rotation
- Reduced ROF due to crew incapacitation or loading mechanism damage
I would expect a significant chance of one of these after a penetrating hit, yellow-red change in structure or a fire below the turret, and there should be a permanent malfunction applied after any ammo detonation.
I like these suggestions. Beyond the turrets themselves, there are so many interlocking systems that enable or improve turret operations, as you mentioned with magazines and ammo hoists.
-
Yeah, and certainly credit to the architect that designed the South Dakota. That being said, there were a number of hits that either destroyed or damaged rangefinders or fire control, which effectively made the South Dakota blind and unable to effectively fire. On the other side, Kirishima had 3 of her four turrets knocked out before she even went down, though admittedly those were mostly 16" hits from Washington. Kirishima actually did fairly well containing and avoiding a magazine explosion too (while she was afloat).
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf
Outside of this particular engagement, there are plenty of examples of turrets being jammed/ knocked off alignment by 8" and smaller shells. Anyhow, I agree that catastrophic detonations should be rarer than damage or disabling. Although if a turret takes a hit and turns yellow in the ship HUD, does that mean that the turret would train slower, lose a barrel, or reload slower? I don't think it does, but maybe it should.
-
3
-
-
I gotta agree here. In reality damage sustained on patrol was rarely fully repairable until a ship reached port.
As an example here's the damage report for USS South Dakota after the second battle of Guadalcanal. This is a late period battleship with just about everything you could want in a ~1940ish design, and it was still almost completely incapacitated by small caliber fire.
-
2
-
-
I always imagined stokers just ramming it into the fuel tanks... then something something German wunderkind it works!
-
9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:
I hope we get this years April fools 'w'
@Nick Thomadis We're looking for an ironclad guarantee!
-
4
-
-
If you squint a bit, the Battleship II hull in shipbuilder is Massena-esque.
-
2
-
-
For those that may not have seen it, I'll just leave this here:
-
5
-
-
19 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
Would like a separate game dedicated to ironclad era.
Until now, not a single game of decent quality was made for them. I find it strange, as their rapid development and crazy experiments make them almost game-ready,
just put that on a game engine! Unlike dreadnoughts or modern navy that needs oh so many alterations to work as a game.A "Guerre de Fer," if you will?
As a gentleman of science and learned design, the player takes the role of a Jeune Ecole naval architect, wherein design points are awarded based on the gross absorption of snuff and cognac within the bloodstream, and design output determines available cognac and snuff. Pair with occasional society and bureau sidequests and you have an adventure game fit for a man of Blut und Eisen!
Bloat your portfolio!
Bloviate before the Board!
Leak to the press!
Wrangle contracts!
Get box seats at the latest Wagner!
🧐
-
3
-
-
Adding another era is definitely another big bite for the devs to take, and I understand if they want to stay focused for now on really nailing the Pre, Post , and Super Dreadnought eras. That being said, I feel like the basic game mechanics for ironclads about 1870 and after work about the same as the aforementioned eras. Yes, you'd have a lot of crazy experimental ships and brief moments where certain techs gain a big advantage, only to go completely by the wayside a few years later.
Would I push for ironclads to get their treatment before the devs have fully fleshed out the 1890 and after period? No. I understand there's a way to go yet on that front. I too would like to a polished game covering a shorter period versus an incomplete game spanning vast ages. What I would ask is that the devs keep in mind this fun and interesting period, as it nicely dovetails with the rest of the game and adds new content and variety. For now, I'd love to see a little gesture here or there in that direction, ala "The First Ironclads" scenario they put out last year. A neat mission involving a hypothetical HMS Devastation vs Caio Duilio, or perhaps HMS Polyphemus' Kronstadt scenario, would be an awesome and interesting addition to the game.
Perhaps we early adopters could be rewarded with an Ironclad expansion, once the main campaign is nicely polished, then sell that expansion to the market at large based on the success of the main game.
-
2
-
-
If you look close, all of them have some version of a ram bow, especially those wacky French designs. Also interestingly, you can see the divergence (or complete lack -looking at you, Italia) of belt armor designs in this period.
-
4
-
-
Here's a cool illustration of some of the ironclads we've been discussing:
HMS Devastation top-right.
RM Italia mid-left.-
5
-
-
@Nick Thomadis I heartily endorse an 1871 start to the upcoming campaign. Given the late hour and the dearth of information on the exact start year, it doesn't have to be right away. (I imagine something like how Crusader Kings II expanded the scope of its campaign over its development life) l I think ironclads are a worthy precursor to the Dreadnought era.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
HMS devastation would be excellent to have as i consider her the prototype to the pre-dreads and other ships after her, like overall mother of ships from then till now. Also yes would love starting around 1870-1875 as this would give us a longer period with pre-dreads and ironclads, although we will need quite a few ships for it too be more fulfilling as well.
I totally agree. The more I think about it, you could have three conceptual eras during the time span the game covers. All ships of the period have to balance speed, armor, and firepower. Each era brings a different revolution in one of these facets. The game already covers the Pre-Dreadnought and Dreadnought period, but I think it'd be really cool to see the Ironclad era.
Ironclads: Excluding the 1840-60's variants, once all steam propulsion became standardized, you have the three major components of the game set. The ironclad era was marked by the initial dominance of armor. By the time of HMS Devastation, you have belt armor, Marine Steam engines, turreted guns, and recognizable superstructure and funnels, thus checking the initial dominance of armor by the growth of heavy guns and the "ram craze." I kinda love this period because there's such a wide and crazy variety of ships using all manner of different operating principles. This is also the time when the Jeune Ecole had its brief run. From small fixed mount gunboats to "torpedo rams" to early behemoths such as Devastation and Caio Duilio, this period probably has the most wild "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" feel to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat-iron_gunboat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Polyphemus_(1881)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_ironclad_Caio_Duilio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_cruiser
-
5
-
-
Is this because they released the Virginia and Monitor last April Fools? That was an awesome not-joke. I'd like to suggest HMS Devastation as the true starting point for the Ironclad era that plays well with the setting of the game. Devastation was the first oceangoing, internally powered, turreted warship of the age, and thus checks all the performance boxes the game can accurately represent without inventing whole new mechanics. Starting out around this tech level gives the campaign a long period to develop as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Devastation_(1871)
-
6
-
-
As priorities go, I tend to agree. I figure once the devs go into figuring veterancy during campaign mode, rescued crew stats could be imported from the battle instance to the "world map."
-
That would a be fun and interesting mechanic to the game. Especially as @Nick Thomadis are working on crew mechanics and veterancy, I think it would be a good way to add to the realism of managing the Fleet as a whole.
-
3 hours ago, Bigjku said:
I ran up against a cruiser with something like 160 torpedoes on board. No issue with a ship with 15 tubes carrying 30 total torpedoes. 160 was and is absurd. Have not tested heavy cruises much in new build yet to see if it still happens.
When that happens it creates tactical oddities. Say I have 4 each destroyers, battleships and cruisers. It isn’t unusual for the enemy cruisers and destroyers to unload full decks of torpedoes at my destroyers as they run in. This would be a giant tactical mistake in real life one would struggle to recover from. But it doesn’t impact here because they just reload and fire at the next target.
For deck tubes there really should be a hard cap of one reload set. 15 tubes you can have 30 torpedoes. 20 tubes and you can have 20.
Otherwise destroyers have to go back to a tender or base to reload the things. If you don’t have a base or gender close using torpedoes is actually a major decision in a protracted remote campaign.
The people commenting paid for the game knowing it was a work in progress. Many likely did it because we are fans of your prior work (UGCW is one of my favorite games). So don’t take it as criticism. But for those with knowledge of naval history it takes them out of immersion when a ship is volleying off full deck load torpedo volleys every few minutes until you can deal with it.
This does bring up the point of having auxiliary and support ships that are operational in game. Thus if your force depletes gun, fuel, and torpedo ammo as it moves over the ocean, you need to have logistical support in the form oilers/colliers, supply, and tender ships.
I got excited and brought this up a while ago, and would love to res the topic, found here:
-
1
-
>>>v1.4 Feedback<<< (1.4.1.1 Opt x2 latest version)
in General Discussions
Posted
This mechanic has essentially ruined my 1900 Spain campaign as well. By 1930, eternal meaningless war combined with the drag effects on the economy mean the economy is in a permanent -7% death spiral. It's reached a point where I literally cannot afford to send TFs to deal with the "wars" that have started. Oh look! China hates me for something something tension in Kerguelen (see bold quote above). Now I have another war. Italy is down to two provinces and yet just by being at war they keep my army mobilized, somehow pick off multiple merchant ships every turn despite having a single digit navy of DDs and SCs (which ought to be escorted by the larger number of DDs and CLs I can afford to keep active).
It's reaching the point of being unplayable.