Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

disc

Members2
  • Content Count

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

disc last won the day on April 28

disc had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

254 Excellent

About disc

  • Rank
    Ensign

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Missing two other scenarios: One side has a spotter plane and the other does not. One ship in a division can see the enemy, but the others cannot due to smoke etc. The blind ships can get spotting data from the one in visual contact using special equipment.
  2. We'll have to see how this current patch pans out. I am especially hopeful that the AI and fire changes will be useful. I'd rather development be slow than half-baked. I strongly suspect this patch focuses more on models because of division of labor. IE the programmer(s) is/are doing a ton of campaign stuff, where perhaps the modeler(s) don't. That said, I would like to see more pre-Dreadnought hulls. They are a bit restricted right now, both in number and customizability. I am not sure gunnery is that flawed. The armor and damage model certainly is, but the statistical app
  3. What sort of tradeoffs did it make for the speed? If the answer is "not many," then that's not too ideal! My own experience has been that the AI's fast "battleships" tend to be very fragile, but of course I don't know what you saw.
  4. Well, HMS Princess Royal was completed 1912 and made 28 knots. HMS Renown was completed 1916 and made 32 knots. So, sounds pretty close... for a battlecruiser, anyway. Though Princess Royal had armor broadly comparable to battleships of about 10 years prior. I'm still a bit uncertain how the AI makes range decisions, but I have seen them begin circling the player fleet if they are free to maneuver. They sometimes go well outside weapons range, and the destroyers -- not shooting or being shot at -- will launch smoke, giving away exact position and approximate heading. I think there
  5. It appears that a partially flooded compartment always will be pumped out eventually. However, if the water reaches the top of the compartment, the space is permanently flooded and can never be emptied. I believe this is why ships can recover from extremely extensive flooding. I am not sure if structural integrity (grey, green, yellow, red) is a factor. Weird mechanic.
  6. I'd say there was innovation, but it was in certain special areas. For example, the US with the combat information center and nuclear shells, the UK with the Admiralty Fire-Control Table MkX, France with the Jean Bart AA refit, Japan with incendiary-shrapnel shells. Everyone with radar. Post-war cruisers could carry the most advanced AA and ASW weapons and act as flagships, so the price of missile battleships just wasn't worth it. The proposals for extensive Iowa refits, for example, did not materialize. The exception being the Soviet Union. Stalin was still convinced new gun-battles
  7. There was precedent for decreased accuracy and rate of fire in multiple turrets. The French warship designer Emile Bertin particularly seemed to dislike dual turrets and favored singles. He reasoned that two guns would decrease accuracy due to off-axis impulses and disruption of the gunlayers by blast. Supposedly twin turrets would be a bigger target, too, although I think that is certainly wrong on a per-gun basis. However, it is also true that damage to a multi turret would disable more guns. It was also thought that twin turrets would fire slower, due to blast disruption a
  8. The "100%" accuracy I suspect is rounding from values exceeding 99.9%. I'm not certain how individual gun accuracy is modeled anymore, as they seemed to make big changes a few months ago (for example, shells can now hit nearby ships they weren't shot at). I'm not sure if shells curve in flight these days. I doubt that there is an intentional obfuscation of the numbers -- though of course I don't know that. There certainly might be bugs, though. I reckon the trouble may be the interface.
  9. I think this is due to the "loose" formation, because I have noticed it in light cruisers too. I don't believe I've ever noticed it in "tight" formation. Once again, I sure wish there was a testing mode!
  10. Anecdotal evidence is pretty bad when examining statistical phenomena. Leads to extrapolating to false extents. To make conclusions about RNG, then there must be either data-mined source information or solid tabulated results (gathered under known conditions) to make anything beyond an educated guess. This is not to say that the game's RNG is not flawed. There could easily be a horrible algorithm or a huge bug making issues. It's just very hard to conclude that right now with much confidence.
  11. Interesting. I certainly have not been experiencing this.
  12. I completed all of the missions. I was impressed at certain improvements. Nice patch. The reduction in bugs was noticeable. Loading bugs are better. The "red" placement bug has largely disappeared. The AI sometimes still has issues with bad gun arcs, but I no longer see ships with completely blocked weapons. I am happy to see that all hulls now have covers for unused casemates. This has been a long-requested feature. The AI is still dumb when it comes to maneuvers. Setting small ships to AI control leads to trouble. However, I think there is a definite improvement. I like t
  13. I think there are several quality-of-life changes and fixable issues that would make battles more fun. I've seen many suggested. Here's my list. Divisions, AI, and Smoke The player should be able to choose division arrangements and formations before the start of battle. It is irritating when ships are spawned in nonsensical places and weird groups. Damaged ships should not loop to rejoin at the rear of the division. This often leads to chaos and wastes time, requiring the player to remove them from the division. Perhaps they could simply move a bit to the side and slow down fo
  14. Navies were confident that a great rain of HE shells from QF guns would destroy the unarmored parts of the enemy and set fires. Big guns would usually also fire lots of HE up to the early Dreadnought era. The idea that HE should be better is reasonable. The trouble in the game is fivefold. We don't really have unarmored parts, aside from the superstructure and funnel. All ships have extremely tall belts, so there's less area for HE to work. Not as applicable to small ships, but important to big cruisers and battleships. Because of the strangeness of the armor model, the extended
  15. Another positive value to procedural generation is that the enemy will build ships appropriate to its research level and budget in the campaign. So, if a nation has Mark 3 12in guns, coal fuel, reinforced bulkheads 1, geared turbines, etc. it can combine these into a design. Player-designed ships would be nice too, but it would be harder to match them to campaign.
×
×
  • Create New...