Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

VarangianGarde

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    93

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by VarangianGarde

  1. VarangianGarde
    I don't think you can save a ship in Custom Battle. That's definitely something that'd be a good add to the game.
  2. VarangianGarde
    Bumping for input from more recent forum members.
  3. VarangianGarde
    @Nick Thomadis Do you think we could see transports, colliers, tenders, and the like in the Custom Battle section of the updated game?
  4. VarangianGarde
    Hi Folks! Love the recent updates, especially with late tech heavy cruisers. Although I'd still love to see a bit more national differentiation in hull types, the CAs of the 30's era are well done. @Nick Thomadis Any thoughts on development of Coastal Defense Ships, Gunboats, or Q ships?
  5. VarangianGarde
    Any update on when music will return?
  6. VarangianGarde
    In the absence of other orders, steam to the sound of the guns!
  7. VarangianGarde
    I think it would be more realistic. Historically, the only way an engagement would even start would be if ships came within sight of one another. Hell, at Jutland the engagement essentially ended once night fell and the fleets largely lost contact. Once RADAR was introduced, as noted elsewhere, contact ranges increased significantly. However, considering the vast majority of the game falls before 1930, I think its critical the mechanics for optically sighted engagements to be correct. As it stands, the current scenario just gives you a direction to head, then you have to just grind for a while to get there. If the battleships diverge, then its just a crapshoot if you'll find the other one in time. Having realistic sight ranges would essentially solve that issue, assuming that your crew would competently track the enemy formation in the pre-battle maneuvering, allowing you to act out the scenario itself. Check out this site for a quick horizon calculator: http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm @Nick Thomadis
  8. VarangianGarde
    Beat Beatty, or the Hipper ships will turn to Jelicoe!
  9. VarangianGarde
    Yes, although often sight range is not effective range for guns. Let's say (for simplicity) you're on a destroyer bridge at 10m height. You'd be able to see another ship along the horizon at 11.3 km. However, you'd still see the ship past this point (depending on size). If the air is clear enough, you'd see the ship "sink" below the horizon as it recedes. Let's say its another destroyer with a 10m conning tower. You'd see at least a portion of the ship out to 22 km. If you're using 5" guns, then you can see it, but you won't be able to hit it.
  10. VarangianGarde
    The same thing happened to me. I would suggest that most scenarios start with an "enemy in sight." It doesn't have to be in gun range, but it should be a definite contact.
  11. VarangianGarde
    I noticed this. When I shut down the game to reload, the game took about 30 minutes to reset from "in game." Edit: This happened again after exiting the game:
  12. VarangianGarde
    I really like your convoy raid scenario idea. I'd say the goal line should be "loss contact." Thus, better rangefinding and RADAR would improve the capabilities of merchant raiders, while faster ships and beefed up escorts could tip the scales to the "defender."
  13. VarangianGarde
    Well put. I agree that logistical support needs to be a factor that significantly enhances or penalizes fleet performance. To tie in with another idea, friendly minor powers with port facilities would be another diplomatic incentive in the game. Maybe support ships could operate from them, and depending on how good relations are, maybe even repairs and dry docking could be a possibility.
  14. VarangianGarde
    Yes, me too. But... with such late stage tech you won’t be doing any favors to your sim sailors.
  15. VarangianGarde
    I don’t know if the game will reach that level of specificity, but I think the shell weight options are on the right path. Maybe a bit more detail on range effects with each shell type?
  16. VarangianGarde
    Any ideas or feedback, guys?
  17. VarangianGarde
    Coastal defense ships!
  18. VarangianGarde
    Hi folks, What are thoughts on support ships such colliers, oilers, tenders, repair ships, and transports? Obviously we already have transports in Fleet Academy, but what would be the best way to render these ships in the campaign? I see two different approaches: 1. Support and Auxiliary Ships are rendered indirectly through a fleet "Costs and Logistics" tab, maybe requiring a friendly port in a sea zone to confer benefits. Fleet battles are largely between combat units, and would be a more "arcade" approach to the game. 2. These ships are included in game, with all the liabilities that brings. If a raiding cruiser or destroyer squadron manages to sink your oiler or collier, then your ships would be potentially short of fuel (with all the strategic liability that would bring). Losing your tenders of repair ships would mean that light units such as destroyers and light cruisers would degrade over time. Sinking transports may would directly harm national economies (and likely fleet budget as well). This would enhance the simulation aspect of the game, though it could be easy to get bogged down and lose the magic if the game turns into competitive spreadsheeting. @Nick Thomadis
  19. VarangianGarde
    Dazzle camo could potentially delay the identification of ships, especially in the WWI era.
  20. VarangianGarde
    Flattery will get you everywhere. Buy now!
  21. VarangianGarde
    One more: IJN Mikasa (Japanese ships continued to use the Chrysanthemum through WWII)
  22. VarangianGarde
    One of the things I'd love to see (especially on pre-Dreadnought era ships) would be bow ornaments. Let me say that I fully understand and appreciate if this will be a low priority, as it would have negligible impact on profile or any combat stats. If its free, then its just cool and aesthetic, or if it were to have a small cost, maybe it'd have some nifty (minor) bonus to fleet prestige in campaign, ala Great White Fleet. USS Connecticut USS Olympia SMS Kaiser Friedrich III ... and I ran out of space. I think bow ornaments would add a bit of national flavor to the game. Like I said, it'd be a neat little extra in the game, though I realize this may not be the highest priority. @Nick Thomadis
  23. VarangianGarde
    @Nick Thomadis That's a good list that covers about 90% of what I'd like to see. As stated elsewhere, it seems like the mechanic here will be based on major empires that at least had the potential to build their own ships, even if there were sales and tech sharing from time to time. I would suggest you might consider adding (at some point, maybe even an expansion): Brazil: Definitely the dominant power in South America, and usually possessed a sizable (if second rate) fleet. Lot of potential for the player to build off here. Ottoman Empire: Also a sizable power, though also with a fairly sizable second rate fleet. If the player could avert collapse in the WWI era, again a lot of interesting potential.
  24. VarangianGarde
    I was thinking that'd be interesting as well. Admittedly, some of the transports are armed with 3" and 4" cannon, but it'd be interesting to see a Q ship that mounted a 5" or 6." Especially if there was a "reveal guns" animation.
  25. VarangianGarde
    Well... I think that may be a lot of work for the devs. I love Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, and the like, but I’d rather have a well done cast of 8-10 major powers than 200 or so minor powers. By the by, Id love to see updates for possible regime changes: Qing China — Kuomintang — Communist China Imperial Russia — Soviet Union Imperial Germany — Weimar Republic — Nazi Germany Kingdom of Spain — Spanish Republic — Fascist Spain Ottoman Empire — Republic of Turkey Austria-Hungary — poof (JK, could be a neat opportunity for minor powers to gain major units) Etc, Etc
×
×
  • Create New...