SiWi
-
Posts
418 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by SiWi
-
-
1 hour ago, Jetu said:
I've seen the accuracy on the enemy BB. Note: With 457mm guns
At 18.5 kilometers it was 77% at the first ranging shots, and it rose to 100% on 24-29kn BB's. (after it switched targets)
Guess the best approach is not to be seen.
One other thing I noticed is the AI could place 203mm triples on the side nodes for secondary guns on the tower, which seems like an error because the Modern BB mission won't allow it?the ship hull isn't the same as "modern battleship".
Would be kinda strange if only 1 modern hull would exist.
I beat the mission with 2 BB with 2x 18x3 guns, radar 2, imminently spotted the enemy, and max out protection and deck armour and then won the long range gunnery deal while sending the DD's to they death.
-
2 hours ago, Fishyfish said:
read totdays patch notes...
-
13 minutes ago, Cdodders said:
Remember, searchlights work both ways
sure that is what make it a cool feature.
-
personal I would like to have a group of support ships for you freely to construct as well.
Not just tankers, repair and hospital ships but also balloon carriers or zeppelin carriers.
-
"normal" perhaps not but it can happen and I remember 18K damage rolles for myself.
-
yup I would also like skill trees for captains or admirals of your fleet.
Crew should gain experience yes but I also would like to set a certain standard in the ship building menu.
Aka this class the crew focus on the torps but on this one they focus on guns ect.
-
3 hours ago, SomeNewGuy said:
This, current issue I have is that they ONLY fire on who is targeted. If I sail through a convoy the guns don't open up on both sides, one side just sits there tying to look through the bulkheads when there a valid targets in front of it.
I really hope they fix this because it would make side guns pointless.
-
I haven't seen anything official about nightfighting, but should it be featured then yes, both starshells and searchlights would be required.
-
6 hours ago, Fishyfish said:
I can't really argue for or against the proliferation of 18 inch guns in the game, I agree that treaties will more than likely differ or depend on your performance during the various wars that bring them on. I have discovered though that between being first designed in 1915 by great Britain to 1940, eleven18 inch guns were built. Three of them were British BL 18 inch Mk I guns, eight were American 18"/48 caliber Mark 1 guns. After 1940 though the Japanese built 27ish. But I still believe that 1940 is outside this games scope. I digress, this is a thread on aircraft carriers.
With that being said, exactly 13 battleships were built between Great Britain, The USA, France, Germany and Japan between 1920 and 1939. Mind you these are battleships built during this era, not total battleships in service during this era. Of them five were American, one of which the USS California had a catapult spotter plane. The Nelson received 1 craned off sea plane, and the Rodney 2 after 1934. Both Japanese battleships Nagato and Mutsu received floatplanes in 1925, experimental catapults in 1933 and reliable catapults in 1935. Both French battleships Dunkirk and Strasbourg were completed with 2 float planes each in 1937 and 1938 respectively. And Both German battleships Sharnhorst and Genisenau were completed with aircraft in 1938 and 1939 respectively.
I admit that I have no counts or numbers on pre-treaty battleships that were modernized and given any sort of float plane or catapult plane or cruiser classes. With the exception of the Hood, which was finished with a float plane that was later deleted. I did though find that catapult aircraft were first implemented in 1924 on capital ships in the form of a gunpowder propelled catapult but I have no data on how many excluding the warships I've listed above. And of those listed above four really shouldn't be considered given how late they came into being.
Again, to me these numbers just don't have enough weight behind them to realistically see them implemented. Also in regards to your comment on armor penetration mechanics - nice strawman. ts.
as DarkTerren has pointed out, your argument that they shouldn't be included because only 13 were build just became more hilarious with also you pointing out that there weren't many BB's build either. So I guess that after 1918 you can't build more then 3 BB as germany in game, according to your logic.
Its also nice to know that you competently ignore cruisers with planes. And of course you also miss the point of the game: having the freedom to do things differently then history.
Aka building ships with catapult more earlier or maybe have even the catapult "carrier" concept that sweden used (Gotland build 1934).
And given that it falls into the timescope of the game, more then radar which first test were made 1935 and that was a far cry from the radar shown in "modern battleship" which seems to be already a mid war one, to argue that it doesn't belong into the game is silly.
Again the first CV were made IN WW1. That is basically in the middle of the timeframe of the game. IF the game would end 1920, you maybe would have a leg to stand on it (thou HMS Argus still entered service 1918). But it doesn't. It includes at least the 30s and that is well in of the CV's becoming a stable in the major fleets. All the while more would have been build if there was a major naval conflict between the powers.
Funny you call the armor penetration argument a strawmen, given that it is the exact same reasoning you use: it is not in game and too complicated to add. Only difference is that you would care for armor penetration, hence the point.
All the while you argue that "because there weren't enough they shouldn't be in", despite the fact that you can quite happily build ships with 18 inc guns from which how many existed?
3? And basically 1 in the timeframe of the game? Mind you it was single barrel.
Yamato was finished August 1940 (as define by launching not by entering service that it only did in 1941) so the argument that "modern battleship" is not a 40's ships, the radar lone gives that away (Yamato got hers after 1941), is a bit ridiculous.
-
1
-
-
Hallo Travelers!
There are a couple of things that would be simply nice:
1. A reverse gear.
Seriously. trying to avoid torpedoes without full reverse just seems harder as it should be.
2. Choice of "style" when placing components.
There are certain gun turrets that look very different as the rest and personally I would like to have the option to chose between different styles of turret optics since the effects on the technical side of things should be minimal.
The same with other components
3. priority targets for different calibers of guns.
Pacific storm wasn't the best game ever made, by far, but it had good ideas. One of them was that you could tell ships with what priority one ships should engage different types of targets.
From destroyers, BB's, plane to submarine everyone was here.
Now for this game I would like to give priority different for the guns. Main guns fire on cruiser as Nr.1 BB as Nr.2, 4 inches fire on torpedo boats first and then DD#s as for example. And the campaign, allow us to save these for the ship classes pre battle.
-
1 hour ago, Fishyfish said:
Upon reflection after first posting in this thread, followed up by reading up further on the subject at hand, I concluded that I nolonger agreed with my original post and further that my original post isn'tas accurate as I'd hope it to be. My apologies for changing my mind after doing more research and thinking, I'll try not to next time.
As for your point about 16, 17, and 18in guns, and what if ships and ect, according to the imformation posted on the games website about planned features the devs clearly state, that not only is the game going to run from "The imperialism era to the interwar period" but will involve a large number of things including but not limited to "Treaties that limit naval construction programs" which begs the question: how many ships toting 18in guns will you be permitted to build and of what tonnage?
As for your comments about catapult aircraft and the famous mechanics arguements.. you have no arguement there. Yes, what about the devs having to program new mechanics to facilitate aircraft, the launch of aircraft, the recovery of aircraft, crane's used to recover aircraft, antiaircraft artillery and etc? The mechanics arguement doesn't overlook catapult aircraft, those still fall under the same programing requirements of any other aircraft implementation in the game. So unless a dev posts information saying else wise, which if I've missed I'll then gladly acquiesce upon seeing, yes it should be ignored.
I don't remember attack someone for changing his mind so no idea what you are trying to tell me with the first paragraph.
The joke with this is that those treaties where big after WW1 which could end very differently depending on your performance. Or doesn't happen anyway close as it was in real life.
But even before the treaties come to be, how many 18 inches are already build ingame? While you don't seem to have full control over technologies, you probably will have some things earlier then the real navies. I wouldn't be surprise that winning the war you could have a bit of say what the treaty, when it comes, says.
Except that the logic to leave the CV's out to save to make those mechanics become even worse.
Now not just a major shiptype should get ignored, but also a major consideration for the ship design itself.
How many designs of the 20s and 30s had catapult aircraft for spotting? Missing those is robbing yourself of a alternative for radar and a potential tool for your fleet.
According to that logic you shouldn't ask for anything that isn't already in the game because it could be "too much work". And while CVs will be work (thou I think people are over dramatic over the difficulty to program airplanes, victory at sea had them... hell pacific storm had them ad that game was far worse finish then this alpha), they would enrich the game enormous, partly because they do require new mechanics.
So would catapult planes.
If the game would have been release without armor penetration mechanic would you also have argued that the game shouldn't have it because it would be too difficult to program?
I doubt that.
-
I find it strange to say that while they totally fall into the era the games uses, then to turn around and say "and this is the reason why they shouldn't play a role". Mind you that sea plan carries are overlook here since they slightly predate regular CV's
Especially in a game which is less about historical ships but what if.
I'm pretty sure you can build a lot more ships with 16 inch, 17 inch or 18 inch and perhaps when finish with more then 18 inch guns, the historical accurate.
And the famous mechanic argument overlooks that catapult airplanes were a big thing for ship designs during the later half of the period of the game.
Should that also be ignored?
-
Well first step first.
Once the game is done, maybe there will be addons/DLC to expand the game into that time or a new game entirely.
I wouldn't mind either option.
But before that the game need to be finish and we need the 40's included.
-
Hallo Travelers!
While the game is in a good stage despite being very early, I still think there are things that could ruined it.
And I hope telling the Dev's before hand would avoid those things.
So without further ado, here are my fears:
Time limits and mission designs during the campaign.
Right now alot of the time limits are already testing my patience with the game. It is pretty annoying to lose a 2 hours battle because you could sink/find the last enemy TB you needed to sink. While still somewhat acceptable for the naval academy I really hope that the campaign battles are free from such restrictions.
Fleet AI during big battles:
most missions right now are rather small engagements, but the few that aren't do show that the movement AI sometimes struggles and I see a big risk for big battles.
Instead of having careful liens engaging each other, every line becomes a mess and the ships sit more or less unresponsive in the water. Especially the own fleet.
This are my 2 big ones in the moment.What are yours?
-
1
-
-
I wouldn't mind CV's being a DLC, I would mind CV's never coming to the game as actually ships.
I mean Scharnhorst has demonstrated, that if a BB gets into range they are well cable of sinking CV's.
-
well right now we only fight on the high seas... should we get maps with land on it... cause you know ships usually meet each other on the cost (thou modern times has weaken this) I would hope we get also coastal deferenses. In fact a mission one could get is to destroy set deference with your ships to make a invasion possible or help them defend against an invasion force.
-
it is a small detail but the loading screens do include CV information,.. a rather curious move if they won't find they way into the game.
-
to do them as abstract action in the campaign, similar to subs I would imagine, is a bit of a shame.
-
Looking at the early CV's we are talking about 21 (HMS Argus) and 34 (USS Langley) for the first generation of CV's.
Given them poor accuracy, the relative harmless bombs and AA fire, I think you will be fine if you prepare yourself and can catch them.
Long recovering time (or reloading the planes) should also help to balance it.
Now if we look at something what was taken into service 1927 the USS Saratoga, we are talking about 91 planes and given the possible design player and randomness can come up with you would see more planes and also earlier more planes.
So at that stage I could see the difficulty to deal with CV's. But then again, everyone can build CV in theory and so even if your CV'S are bad, assuming you can chose the plane loadout, you can focus on fighters only for your CV's and keep simply the enemy planes away.
But even without any own CV's, AA should get more deadly and perhaps you can have catapult fighters to protect your captial ships. And while this means that your 20 knots 15 barrels of 18 inches BB will struggle agaisnt them, I think mastering such challange could be a huge bonus for the game.
Thou I do admit that I see some difficulty if a player goes full speed and full planes, meaning that he/she builds ships that have the "biggest" range of any ship and can stay out of enemy ranges easily while bombing/torpedoing them into oblivion. But again, the AI can also have Planes/CV's so I do see chances to balance it.
-
1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:
Ya!
I wouldn't mind seeing smoll aircraft carriers in the game.
Essentially since (or at least im hoping) that this game will have a pretty decent focus on shipbuilidng plus some empire management too!
(would love to see 19, 20 and 21 inch guns). Also would allow for moar academy missions and maybe even recreating some of the more in/famous CV's.
'w'
well not quite "empire management" but naval management.
Aka you will get funds from the Gouvernement to build ships, focus research and they will sometimes ask if they should go to war.
Read more here:
https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/the-playing-modes
-
2
-
-
I think I have understood Nick Thomadis in his comment here
so that they plan to add more calibers but now went for the most important ones.
After all, we don't have "even" quadruplet turrets, which were used by some.
Let alone something as fantastic as a sixdruplet 16inch gun turret, necessary to create Tillman II.
And while maybe not all of the between guns will make it I'm sure that the more relevant onces will make it.
-
I don't think that it is quite decided yet (at least I haven't find anything either).
Personally I would like it.
Giving your ship good AA was a important design consideration and I think a game about designing warships in this time period should reflect that.
Of course there are concerns, how you work out the balance between CV which in theory have a range of many hundred of KM's and other which maybe can dream of 40.
But I think its doable and actually the way submarines are describe could show the way:
needs alot of research and resources, but at the end you get a powerful weapon.
And its not as if BBs cruisers and such would be helpless against planes...
be to simply move, be it having good AA (ideally the stronger the AA so worse is the accuracy of enemy bomb and torpattacks from planes) or perhaps having catapult launch fighters.
This game is about going wild, why not build a BB or BC with has 2x2 14 inch guns in the front an 4 catapult fighters in the back?
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, Faolind said:
But the towers have torpedo spotting stats. Shouldn't we be notified when out towers spot torpedoes? Maybe not even show their location but at least *tell us*
Nice review Absolute! I dont agree with everything but it was comprehensive and well thought out.
in theory you can simply click on the enemy ships and see if the torps are on cooldown.
If yes, then look for torps.
thou personal I would like a drawing tool that would allow one to draw red lines (similar how TW does in COOP multiplayer) to show to yourself where the torps you just saw will go.
-
Hallo Travelers!
So it is no mystery that there were some ship designs that were... a bit out there...
be it the H39+ or Tillman's, in terms of sheer size and firepower. or designs like the circular ships of Russia.
There was a lot of stuff in the heads of people which reality stop from happening.
Do you think the game will/should make it happen?
A Tillman 4?
A H44?
What ever else someone could dig up?
Why "Its too dangerous to go that fast"?
in General Discussions
Posted
I think this was born because they observed that players (which does include me) played on 5x and then complained about missing torpedo warning or long range accuracy of the enemy, both you are suppose to dodge.
Personally I would like to be free to chose 5x speed because it is boring to watch you destroyers blasting away at TB's that simply refuse to die for 5+ minutes...