Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

SiWi

Members2
  • Content Count

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

109 Excellent

About SiWi

  • Rank
    Midshipman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. but why there have to be "battle ratings" if all they do is creating artificial encounters? Wouldn't it be more natural that whenever a fight breaks out in an area, that ships in that area take part in that fight? Or at least join it? Or at least ships that were grouped together?
  2. Well I have no RTW 1 or " experience so I can't judge it, but overall I think that "when in doubt" it is better to have the BB's then the DD's because I would imagine that losing the big clashes, because you BB's can't handle it, is worse then smaller engagements or the effect that too few DD#s would have. Mind you taht I of course don't say "don't build DD in peace time", just that you can compensate low DD numbers better then low BB numbers. The way this game will generate battles in the campaign will make the game work or not. It should create challenging battles without f
  3. In big battles I do also assume that BB's will rule supreme: they have the fire power they are though enough. But I kinda hope that there enough smaller engagements where there no BB's present or very limited and other classes also gets to shine.
  4. The game does seem to favor quality over quantity (better control, also a CA doesn't seem that much cheaper then a BB), mind you that in a campaign this may change because you have to control waters. The same that alot of things could change in terms what is important (ammo account?, Range?). Of course alot is hard to tell, because we don't have the details, but I though it would be a nice chat. I hope that the game doesn't go too heavy in "BB and nothing else" route.
  5. apparently I have to modify my statements regarding TP: when they player controls the BB, then TP with 1,5km torps are almost no problem, but the player can use the "same" torps effectively enough to sink a BB, even with 2 CL as escort.
  6. Hi, I want to talk about possible building strategies for the campaign and know yours and your thoughts. Because we know "Navy strategy is building strategy". A strategy I will try is the "peace time BB, wartime DD" approach. The basic idea is the following: because BB's take longer to build then DD's, you can't afford to lack them before a war, because unless the war takes serious time (WW1 took 4 years which may be shorter then any new BB you try to build), you won't have them. DD's ad TP's on the other hand can be build relative quickly. Meaning t
  7. intresting. I kinda assumed that he is not happy that new updates don't come faster and that he demands the devs to "do something with the game you have". (which is always easier typed then done). But maybe this is a translation error.
  8. assuming that there is a universell best ship, build able yes. And that is more likely with no random designs. With random designs, which can dip into extremes, it is less likely that you have a universell answer, but rather you have to adjust. A ship design may be good against certain enemies but fail against others. Which is kinda the major point of this game btw. Only because you have other factors also adding variety, doesn't make those factors as effective then random designs. Money and technology for example will hardly change so much by a different play-through, that it even really
  9. money changes things because you will not just need good ships but also numbers. Or the fact that you may simply can't build the "best" ship (or it takes too long). In other words: money changes (probably) what the "best" ship is. Fix enemy designs take alot of change out if the Campaign, because you will know after a while the patterns and then simply build the same patterns yourself all the time, in every campaign. Other factors may add to it again, but that doesn't change the fact that taking variety out in the ship designer, the main feature of the game btw, takes away fro
  10. there is a vast difference between simply building the "better" ship or building the ship which perfectly fits the thread you encounter. Of course you can try simply to put the best of all (armor, firepower, survival, speed) into a ship, but chances are that you can't do it, especially on budget (right now, money is relative irrelevant in custom battles). In which case, you probably will try to set a focus point: are you going to sacrfice armor for speed and firepower? Or the other way around? And what kind of firepower do you want? many smaller guns or few more powerful ones? If you know
  11. except that a major part of the game is then to figure out the "one" combo you need for each timeframe to beat the designs you KNOW will come. With random design you are always "on edge" what your enemies are going to build. Personally I think a compromise could work: you can enable "complete random AI designs" for campaigns and get just that. Or you enable "historic blueprints" which would make the AI try to design ships roughly the sam as the real world ships. I don't think it is feasible from an AI standpoint, to exspect that the AI "develops" doctrines or
  12. For me this would be more about different starting positions and different challenges for the campaign. And if the devs chose so, they could add different mechanics to the single countries.
  13. For me personally I think that a DLC should bring contend not features. 1 is defiantly a feature for me, 3 as well. 4 would be kinda borderline, since it would be a big enough chuck that it could be satisfied. But then again I'm in the unpopular camp of people who view CV as necessary for the time period as it it (Sorry, CV's didn't spawn out of nowhere in 1941). Of course we can't have the case where the AI would have them and the player don't. 2. In principle it would be a classic skin DLC and if reasonable price, it could be nice (mind you that I would like some "standard pat
  14. you mention an important factor... the fact that it is a bit ridiculous how much we know about enemy ships. I mean what are the odds that you know the enemy has torps in the water, from 15+km away? without your sensors picking it up, that shouldn't happen.
  15. personally I don't think I would like to potentially lose a 40+ hours campaign because RNG decided that none of my shells actually worked... Sure this would be confirmation bias, but I think it would "feel" worse and it would probably feel worse then not hitting in the first place (thou also RNG). So if implemented, I would hope it to be optional. Having said that: it could be use to tipp the balance to "older" guns aka smaller guns, since one can argue that the most recent guns always should have the most failures. An other way to make it an balance feature would be that o
×
×
  • Create New...