Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

disc

Members2
  • Content Count

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by disc

  1. For what it is worth, a quad turret can successfully bracket a target by itself. The idea is that the next salvo is aimed by checking the farthest and nearest shell splashes from the last salvo. The splashes should surround the target. If the most distant shot in the salvo is on the near side of the target, then the salvo was short and the next one needs to fire at a longer distance. If the closest shot is on the far side of the target, then the salvo was long and the next one needs to fire at a shorter distance. When the extremes are on either side of the target, then probably the shoote
  2. Seconded, this is a good question. Deck armor can be calculated about the same way, length times average width times thickness times density of steel (which is about 8g/mL, or 0.29lb/in^2). Transverse bulkheads would work the same as belts. Barbettes and turrets can be a bit complex, but an easy approach is to assign a diameter to each and treat them as cylinders and rectangular prisms. Then calculate armor weight based on surface area. This technique can be extended to conning towers and steering gear boxes. There would be some snarls with this approach. First, belt length an
  3. It is assuredly intentional. Those numbers neatly match with Imperial to metric conversions. One modern inch is equal to 25.4mm. The game ticks up by 0.1in at a time, giving increments of either 2.5mm or 2.6mm with rounding. 2in is thus 50.8mm, 3in 76.2mm, 4in 101.6mm, and so on. The example image "124.5mm" and "200.7mm" are rounded conversions from 4.9in and 7.9in, respectively.
  4. I think it may expand the "flagship near" and "far" radii. But I have never tested this. Often not worth it, I'd agree
  5. Nick Thomadis is the lead game designer. Maksim Zasov is his boss. Thomadis may have special privileges within the company, though. Game Labs is based in Kyiv, Ukraine. Total of 24 employees. Believe Thomadis works out of Athens. There are 2-4 other developers for Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts, probably in Greece or eastern Europe. Stillfront is headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden, and owns a broad number of internationally placed semi-independent video game studios. Most are focused on a F2P model. This deal was probably attractive to Game Labs because it provides a large amoun
  6. Based on the compartment viewer in battle, each ship is divided evenly into seven longitudinal parts. The first two and last two parts are covered by the extended belt. The middle three parts are covered by the main belt. I am less sure about the decks, but I think they cover the same areas respectively. I don't know how the extended belt is actually laid out. My suspicion is that it is considered to be at about 45 degree angles from the centerline, so that the belts form a hexagon in plan. It is unclear where the magazines are, but I think the idea posited is that they are directly
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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!
  16. 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.
  17. Interesting. I certainly have not been experiencing this.
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. Edited the list. Should be up to date with most suggestions I've seen.
  23. I think this is more relevant to the custom mode than to the ship designer itself, but I fully agree with you. Added this to the list. Excellent idea. I'll add it. I have noticed the tubes don't scale right. Also, we don't have variants of tubes (though this would basically be cosmetic only). For example, the crew shelter on some Japanese launchers was very distinctive. I think torpedoes in general should be a little dangerous to carry. Usually they have only splinter armor to protect them. Nice point. I agree with the first bit. You ar
  24. I think Numbers Don't Matter is much more difficult, personally. I ended up building three fairly high-speed all-forward battleships, so I could close in on the monster Dreadnought while constantly firing all weapons. It took many tries. Eventually, I won after getting an ammo detonation. Felt like I was just lucky. I had tried a torpedo-battlecruiser approach, but the Dreadnought can often absorb a large number of 21in torpedoes.
×
×
  • Create New...