Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

WafflesToo

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

About WafflesToo

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I don't think you can consider what the USN did to Yamato and Musashi as a proper test of their TDS arrangement (god I hope I don't have to start hearing, "It took twenty torpedoes to sink the Yamato!!!" drivel start up again... just because she was shot that many times doesn't mean that all of them were required to put them down).
  2. Hitting 'Start Mission'? 😁 I don't know how Accipiter managed because I've had the BB focus-fire on my CLs multiple times now. Trying to torpedo the thing has been a suicide run every time I've tried it.
  3. At what point did I say otherwise? My argument wasn't that they should be on-par-with my argument was that they still had a role to play outside of the large fleet actions
  4. An operation the size of Jutland only happened once; but a whole lot of smaller operations took place throughout the war period (mostly involving cruisers, as the battleships were largely tied up making faces at one another across the north sea)
  5. If true, then that would explain a LOT of what we're witnessing right now. URGH! If we only had access to a true, "Sandbox" mission where we control force composition on both sides it would be so easy to test for this phenomenon instead of just guessing. Hopefully we get that in a future update.
  6. ...not to mention getting better information on game balance and mechanics which will help with quality feedback!
  7. This is why I giggle whenever I hear anyone talk about how "Realistic" WoWS is; (sorry, I grew up playing the, "Great Naval Battles" series; yes, all five of them. Fun, but doesn't hold a candle to those old games for realism). Back on subject; as Steeltrap pointed out, we might be judging the forest by the look of a tree. Battleships are likely going to dominate tactically but there's going to be lots of jobs for cruisers and destroyers to do both strategically and operationally. Light and Heavy cruisers will be needed for commerce-raiding and protection missions, as well as to maintain your national presence on foreign holdings. Destroyers and other small craft are ideal for coastal patrols and ASW work, tactically as screening ships to help protect your mission units by for spotting (and occasionally absorbing) torpedo attacks. All of the light craft will be good for operational scouting to locate and shadow hostiles so you can get your battlefleet in position. Battleships are too expensive, take too long to build, and cost too much to operate to expect them to be capable of doing everything and being everywhere. ...of course, all of this gets thrown out the window if the dev-team decide to make this "Masters of Orion: High-Seas edition". If that happens then I can accurately predict two things: #1) The game strategy will be dominated by doom-fleets. #2) I will sorely regret having preordered the game.
  8. Is it just me or does just about every aspect of this game feel simultaneously over-powered and under-powered? Except armor... which is vastly over-performing... mostly... except against HE. Torpedoes are way too easy to use and hit with... but do way too little damage (Especially to turn-of-the-century hulls) when they do hit (there is no way that any warship can eat 12x 22" torps on a regular basis) Fires are way too easy to start... but don't really seem to do much to affect the ship (until every single compartment is burning of course; when the ship sudden-deaths). Torpedo boats are the scourge of the seven seas; being simultaneously difficult to hit (fair enough, I suppose) and able to absorb damage out-of-proportion to their displacement (though this may have more to do with goofy victory conditions than anything really inherently wrong with them, I'm just not sure). Spotting ranges are way too close (why do I keep losing sight of a burning transport ship at 5.5km in clear weather?) AP shells keep bouncing/shattering doing minimal (if any) damage; HE does MORE (and more consistent) damage in all cases that I've personally witnessed. (For example; in the scenario, "Armed Convoy" the hostile CA kept bouncing 12" AP shells at a range of 5.4km, switched to HE and within 3 salvos I detonated their magazine). Did I miss anything?
  9. I will honestly be satisfied if this game turns out to be nothing more than a Rule-the-Waves clone that is less eye-bleedie to look at.
  10. I'd be happy to see coasts; let alone forts on them 😁
  11. Its not? What is it supposed to be then?
  12. This is very much true I'd say. Battle of Jutland, Adm Scheer got Adm Jellicoe to pull his battleships back just by moving his TBs into position to threaten the Grand Fleet causing them to turn away and deploy their destroyers allowing the High Seas fleet to retire from action. Even if they're one-hit-wonders, their torpedoes should still be dangerous enough that you have to be ready for them; destroyers and CLs to defend your heavy assets (which was supposedly the point of DD v TB mission... they just borked up their victory conditions making the TBs the focus instead of the battleships and armored cruisers.
  13. I've been assuming that a structural kill is exactly this. It seems more reasonable to me than simply taking for granted that the ship's hull breaks up into kindling when that last critical hitpoint is gone.
  14. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *AHEM*, sorry not laughing at you I'mmmm... well, okay, I'm laughing at you The victory conditions on this mission are as borked as DD v TB; the escorts simply should not be part of the victory conditions IMNSHO.
×
×
  • Create New...