SiWi
-
Posts
418 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by SiWi
-
-
well.
You build ships and put them in ports.
Base on their range and the range of enemy ships the game will generate battles.
In those battles, damaging or sinking enemy warship give Victory points. If you gather enough relative to you enemies, the enemy will search for peace.
Meanwhile both side will try to sink enemy transports or blockade the enemy. Which also generate VP and weakens the enemy economy.
-
12 minutes ago, DougToss said:
Reminds me of arguably Jackie Fisher’s worst idea. More here.
My larger point - with all paper projects - is that there’s a reason these things weren’t built.
but wasn't the "Outrageous class" build? So... what I want to say: you are right that most terrible design don't will be build, but there are exceptions.
-
1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Are your ships not seeing any combat to gain the "veteran" status? The max.rating they can get from the training is "Trained".
I mean enemy ships. I'm pretty sure that I leave to few survivors (insert evil laugh) for the enemy fleet to have veteran crews. Yet they always have, after a certain time, veteran crews on all ships including some I never spotted.
Same that some of my ships who barley saw action have veteran crews.
-
1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:
We will fix that, thank you.
Regarding the crew pool, there is a critical question for all players. Do you find it enough for your own needs, or it depletes too fast due to battle losses?
I do not remember that being an issue, but I also always put 100% into training because veteran crews are so much stronger (weren't they suppose to be lock behind combat experience?) and I barley build new ships.
-
19 minutes ago, Toby said:
so at the moment the biggest issue i have is that the campaign is still so short that i really cant get used to upgrading deisgns and caring at research. the game really really needs a few more countries asap
more countries would be one way.
But easier to do would be "eternal war" where one war doesn't end the campaign but after 12 months of peace a new war automatically starts between UK and Germany. Granted the balance would be favor who ever wins the first war and I don't think the AI could bounce back.
-
-
I somehow remember a line of a Drachinfiel video where he roughly said (it was about alternatives for the battle samar)
"In one war game the US Destroyers came up and fire their 250+ torpedoes at the Japanese Battleline with the words "dodge this"".
-
3 hours ago, T_the_ferret said:
I dunno about the historical side but i just find it really boring that no matter what happens AI just goes for torp spam because its "the most efficient" and i haven't seen any example of this "national historical AI" tbh
I have notice some, in terms of using cordite or having BC with strong guns but bad protection.
Thou maybe I'm imaging things and it was random that those ships had them.
-
you always play with "historical AI" On?
Besides, torps were a pretty common weapon even on BB's. Tirpitz was even retrofit with torps (which I find a bewildering choice given the time) Come to think of it, many german BB's in the 1930's/40s had torps.
So ironically a historical AI for Germany would probably "need" torps on BB's.
-
56 minutes ago, T_the_ferret said:
Balanced AI ship composition with the nation AI the devs described where some nations are torpedo-heavy while others are gun-heavy, and some nations put torpedoes on every class while other reserve them for DDs and CLs
custom battles are random designs.
besides: if you fight in 1930, you will end up with alot of torps even if you don't focus on them.
-
well what do you expect?
Besides from BB's and BC's and maybe CA's you would absolutely expect torpedoes on most classes. Mind you that historically even BB's and CA (the later quite regular) had them. In fact some of the the worst AI ships are CL without them.
You don't mention the time of the battle but it seems that it is rather advance. hence a ships could have 3 or 4 torps per launcher.
Having more then one launcher then quickly results into well... tons of torps especially in big battles like what you are showing.
-
refits will be needed because quite frankly, building a new cruiser because you can't change the ammo of an existing one is ridiculous.
-
for me more annoying is that often only the same ships are fighting. Not just same type or class but the exact same ship
-
in theory the 1890 campaign would go to 1940 but because you win or lose before that we don't have that in the moment.
-
37 minutes ago, DougToss said:
On the one hand, the blockade forced Germany’s collapse and surrender, but on the other it took four years to happen.
and massive loses on land
-
you two are in dangerous waters... from my experience on this forum I can tell you that alot of people don't want CV under any circumstances.
If that means they will have bent reality to have "arguments" they will do it.
Personally i think it could be a great addition and give lower caliber weapons more meaning (keyword: dual purpose).
Historically we see the first CV (or float carriers) in WW1.
Hell if the Devs would want it, they even could do "balloon carriers".
-
short feedback:
enemy ships still seem to have unrealistic truing circles but they don't dodge torpedoes 100% anymore.
In a 2 vs 3 DD engagement my 2 DD's landed 4 torpedo hits with 22inch Oxygen torpedoes. Often hitting not the aimed the DD but the one behind it.
Hits were roughly in 7+ km range.
Enemy DD's were 33.1 knots fast and had a truning circle of 297m.
-
4 hours ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:
I have seen the "withdraw" button active twice, I think, and used it (successful) once.
I see it more often but only once (when I was clear faster) did it successful.
The problem is often that while the enemy capital ship is slow enough to avoid an enemy TB or DD is not.
-
7 hours ago, Littorio said:
It does the good of knowing how a 1v1 nation fight should be balanced. Obviously every nation will be a little bit different in terms of budget, economic power, ports, etc, but if this first attempt at a campaign can't be balanced, simple as it is, how can you add to the complexity with 2-4 more nations? Now, I am not saying you spend a year optimizing every last little detail of Britain vs. Germany, but I think it's a bit early to talk about expanding to more countries given this has only been out what...two weeks?
except it really doesn't. Because of the duel like quantities of the set up, any balance around this will fall apart the moment you add another player. If the two team up, be it by coincidence, then making each nation roughly equally strong, which is what you do in a duel, would be a disaster. Hence the reasoning to add not one nations but two btw.
And I'm not say "add them tomorrow" but rather the general big next patch. The big next step.
QuoteDiplomacy will be key, but again it adds to the complexity. We need to make sure all the systems that will be built on: transport convoys, port usage, proper budgeting, manpower, etc. all work on the smallest scale possible in a war. Once we know what works in war, we will know how to structure the peacetime, because let's be honest, the point of the game is to be at war and fight. There isn't any other use for all your ships.
What exactly would need to work differently in peace time in terms of budget then war? The only difference I would think I that one would spend less money on training and more on research. Also the point of the game would kinda be the Peace build up to war, which especially in navy strategy is very important key.
Besides what are your complains about budget and manpower? The only thing I would think off that it doesn't matter in which port your ship is and it always gets resupplied. Given that right now we have only "homelands" and no colonies, I think thats alright.
QuoteThe issue with movement is it's instantaneous effect when returning from a battle, and the fact the AI sends you ships to other ports than that which you assigned them. Every turn I am moving the same few ships back from the Baltic to the North Sea. And it is a little ridiculous how far they can go in a turn. One movement they are near Gotland, and next turn in the Bay of Biscay, the same ships? There needs to be better control of where your ships are and get sent, or if not, at least explain WHY certain ships are being moved by the AI. Players don't like things that aren't under their control, and this is a perfect example.
Nick has explain this in a post, saying that the ships return to the "nearst port" and don't go into ports if they are overloaded. Granted that still seem buggy, given that then ships end up in east Prussia, and how ships end up in Bremen and not all in Emden when fighting in the Nord sea. I however see a very easy solution for this: always send ships pack to their starting port.
Now granted there are many UI features that I miss to make life easier:
Show me a map when I place ships in ports, show me a indication where a ship can reach base on its current base and so on.
Nothing that can't be work on parallel to expand the map.
-
6 hours ago, Littorio said:
Well here I think you are viewing the point of this initial campaign wrong. Yes, it is "provisional" and will change. Obviously once more countries are added, the UK vs. Germany dynamic becomes much less important. But this current campaign serves as a testbed for all later mechanics and changes. If Britain vs. just Germany can't be balanced, what happens when the Royal Navy needs to be in the Med against Italy at the same time, or against France for that matter? Will ships magically leave Malta and Alexandria and pop up in one turn in Scapa Flow? What about France? It will have to have Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets. The campaign dynamic needs to optimized now before it is expanded to other areas.
the thing, lets say you have perfectly balance UK vs Germany in "war and nothing else" mode.
What good does it actually do you when you add France? Or Russia or Spain or the US or whatever?
What if you add diplomacy (which I think they want to have if there is more then one nation)?
What about getting new provinces through peace deals?
The shifts in dynamic are so drastic in my opinion, that the "perfect balance" of the UKvsGermany campaign is no use to you and you basically start again from zero (and I'm talking here the balancing of the faction here).
Also I don't see the problem with movement right now. Granted it takes one turn right now but then again the ports are relative close to each other. And deciding how straits work, can be done independently from introducing new nations or not. In fact if there is a complex perfectly working movement system in case, you wouldn't notice, because there are basically no distances to cross. For that you would need to add at least more space. Which of course would also an option: make the map bigger but don't add new nations.
Thou in cause of this set up I feel Germany would then be chance less. Its territories are pretty far away and with the RN having nothing to do but take care of them I don't think Germany would have a chance to defend anything but their home territory.
-
2 hours ago, Littorio said:
Yes, come to think of it. Where the hell is the Kiel Canal? That was of prime importance for the German Navy precisely because ships didn't have to sail all the way around Denmark.
which btw touches on something I wonder:
how will the game handle the different straits in the world? I mean in theory Denmark should be able to shout the Baltic sea close, unless you have like Germany the canal.
I mean take Russia for example: will it be able to sends its black sea fleet somewhere else or does it have to conquer the Osman empire first...
-
I think that the missions are very rare and only happen under very certain conditions.
-
thats what I mean when I say that Russia would be mainly baltic and not "full Russia".
Instead off adding Russia as a whole you would add the ports which are almost already on the map (just a bit to the east).
If you then feel "adventures" you could add the black sea and for France the Mediterranean, where then Italy, Austria and Spain can follow.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Skeksis said:
My guess is regional movement is the next biggest development for the world map/game. If Dev’s step that then any region that’s bordering North Europe could be up for expansion, so most likely the Mediterranean, with an outside chance of South Africa. Mediterranean has the nations Italy, Hungary & Spain, probably would include France, since they’re North Europe too. But Russia would have ports in the Asian Sea's, so maybe it might not make it into the first expansion.
Then a fully waring campaign AI and peace time could be in that EA/testing too.
Guessing again, I think there’s enough ships ready for all those nations but they would be probably mostly waiting on map art.
well technically both germany and uk have ports in Africa and asia too. (which btw would turn the german campaign into a whole different beast)
So when I say "France and Russia" I kinda assume that Russia would be mainly baltic sea thou you maybe could add black sea fleet, since in theory france also could fight them there.
Campaign question.
in General Discussions
Posted
I don't think that there are hard points of where one wants to make peace, but ranges and chances.
aka you have 4:1 you have 33% chance the enemy wants peace ect.
But as far I know there is no hard data public on that matter.
The campaign length would go to at least 1940, mind you that it possible doesn't really have a fix end point at the moment. And of course you are in no danger of getting there, till the war would be over.