Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Bluishdoor76

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    223

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Bluishdoor76

    Alpha-9 News Update

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Shiki said:

    That's only if we're able to place guns on the rear, which it doesn't look like we'll be able to. Judging from the way it was presented, if we had been offered an Alsace-type hull as well, it would have been shown off along with the all-forward Richelieu model.

    We have a Hood hull substituting as an Alsace hull atm, so if that stays we will still be able to recreate the Alsace to some extent

    >>>Alpha-8 Feedback<<<

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    The fact you can pump a destroyer full of 16" and 18" and barely does any damage is beyond ludicrous imo. And 5" HE shells somehow doing more damage to the battleship then said AP/HE shell from the battleship to the destroyer. Shit like that just really killed the game for me.

    • Like 3

    DD's are way to weak.

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

    This is simply not true. At all. 

    It heavily depends on design. While something like a Clemson-class DD is no match for larger ships, something like a Fletcher or Somers DD can tear even a light cruiser apart, or even score a mission kill (rout) a much better armed and armored heavy cruiser! That's exactly what happened during WW2, when a small flotilla of US DDs repelled (and heavily damaged) several much larger ships of IJN, in the Battle off Samar. 

    Additionally, several DD engagements that occured in the Pacific during WW2 have proven that well-built DDs are fully capable of fighting and winning gunfights even in most difficult conditions, while staying seaworthy and capable of continued action.

    And I believe that this is what UA:D should be striving towards. DDs in this game should be an effective class on its own, not just single-use torpedo carriers. 

    The battle of Samar is very much a best case scenario, the flotilla barely survive. The only reason it wasnt completely obliterated was down to many factors, but none of them was down the destroyers themselves but the crews. for one the Japanese fleet thought they were fighting one of Halsey's main fleets and thus played the battle a lot more careful then they would if they knew they were fighting a small destroyer task force. I'm not saying destroyers arent useless, but they were among the weaker naval vessels of the early 20th century. Kurita could have continued the attack but decided to retreat due to the torpedoe attacs, the only attacks that did actual damage to the central force, and American fast battleships headed their way and Nishimura being defeated at Surigao Strait.

    DD's are way to weak.

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    DDs by design are weak ships, for a mission like that torpedoes are your best bet. Set them to not fire until the ai has a secured hit and just keep the DD at range from the CL. Transports dont usually have the weaponry to kill a destroyer so thats a problem that comes down to you doing something wrong.

    • Like 2

    >>>Alpha-8 Feedback<<<

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    21 hours ago, Rob Onze said:

    Hello all,

    my fist post here and I would like to share my experience and ideas about the game. I’ve played like +50 hours, intensive, because I like the concept and I sunk into it.

    Ended up to like mission 37 from naval academy (and currently stuck with no ideas how to beat the next 1 or 2 levels) and a decent number of random skirmishes games, from various eras and fleet composition.

    The game is interesting and shows potential for an amazing title when fully released.

    I would share some issues now.

    1) Torpedoes are pretty much useless for the human player.

    The player controlled ships have a very poorly programmed or weirdly thought out fire control system. Literally, unless the enemy target is moving straight at constant speed, the torpedoes will not hit. Only if you are very lucky to hit other enemy ships.
    This is in fact how I have started to play, targeting some ships, to shoot them, but in fact intending the missiles towards the real target that can be a ship or a cluster of enemies, hopefully one of them will be picked. Has more chance of actually landing a torpedo on an enemy.

     

    2) enemies are aware when you target them, instantly. Which is utterly stupid concept. Now this should be immediately solved. Using any torpedo carrier, I keep any gunfire to off, so there is no sign to the computer target it is being attacked. 
    I recommend to experiment this to anyone. Keep a fast DD in the background with all weapons off and when the fight is pretty much active and everyone is shooting everyone, simply send this DD into a charge. Because it has no target, just a move, it doesn’t attract any enemy units fire. The torpedoes range is larger than the distance of the active brawl, so you can still shoot your toros from the second lines. 
    The instant moment you target an enemy ship, this DD will come under fire from all secondaries that can shoot it. Now that is shite. And the targeted enemy will start evasive actions, so a launch you do make, it will be in vain, as there is no surprise factor anymore.plus your DD will receive a crippling hit.

    4) well, 4 ended up being part of 3. Damage and penetration charts. How do they translate because in actual gameplay they are not doing anything close to that.

    For example in short distance brawls, with 5km or closer,  virtually any meaningful gun caliber should penetrate any BB side armor, the belt, but in reality, only the enemy guns do that. Your guns will do severely lower damage against a thinner armor, while your thick armor layer is being shredded and you receive constant damage.

    These are questions based on playing intensive and finding out weird situations as posted above.

    One of my suggestions would be for manual shooting. Quite literally the human player choses a point where to shoot any weapons he wants. Create a tick box, “manual mode” and using the same type of guns not keys to designate which weapons to be shot where. The units targeting system of the human player units is bad and no actual competitive player can accept such silly mechanics ruining his strategies.

    also solving the instant computer units targeting the units targeting them as mentioned above, it’s a bad mechanic and makes DDs unusable.

    6) question about ships slowing down, inertia. Seems kinda very poor implementation. Ships don’t slow down fast and they keep on going on and on and on. Plus, there is no reverse option to maneuver ships into really smart evasive moves, or reposition them

    7) islands, when?!...shallow waters and deeper waters.

    1) Pretty much working as intended, hitting a maneuvering target with torpedoes is very hard. Also check what type of targeting you are using, normal mode will only land hits rarely. So check which one you have it set to, same with main batteries and secondaries.

    2) Never really seen that be the case, also the scenario you are describing is literally the way I usually react to the ai sending its destroyer at my fleet. Immediate change of targets to that DD, start to change course cause that DD is on a torpedo run.

    4) Really depends on the caliber of guns and tech you are using, but usually anything below 12" guns will not really hurt a battleship, specially if you are referring to a destroyer, Light/Heavy cruiser.

    6) Again pretty much working as intended, this are big hunks of metal, they take a very long time turn and slow down. Reversing was not a combat tactic.

    7) Islands where never really a factor in a battles, maybe determined where battles would take place but ships always stayed far away from islands as they could mean danger for ships due to shallow water.

    A lot of this, specially the last 2, seem like complaints from someone who's knowledge comes from WoWS. I play world of warships but the tactics in that game are far, FAR from what naval combat really was and should not be applied here. I am not a stickler for 100% realism and historical accuracy but you also have to understand and accept the crappy parts of how ships in the early 20th century worked.

    • Like 2

    An Opinion on UA:D from a guy thats new to the Naval strategy Genre.

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Squatter said:

    I agree with OP strongly - this game does and will need far better tutorials for new players, both in ship builder, and battle mechanics. A lack of this will kill its appeal to a wider audience outside of the hardcore dreadheads that dominate this forum currently. 

    Feedback from players new to the game is every bit as important - perhaps more so in certain areas - than that from those hardcore enthusiasts that have been immersed in development from first Alpha. 

     

    I still don't get what's so difficult to understand about this game, it's fairly self explanatory. Maybe knowing armor thickness I can understand being confusing, but everything else tells you what it does pretty explicitly in the designer. 

    Combat as well, it's pretty easy to get the hang of and the first 3 academy missions are a pretty decent enough tutorial in my opinion. The rest of the academy missions shouldn't be taken as tutorials and more just as challenges.

     

    • Like 3

    Alpha-9 in Progress

    in General Discussions

    Posted

     

    2 hours ago, Jatzi said:

    I'm gonna skip a few pages and say why are ppl so hyped about quad turrets and 20 in guns? You should be hyped about the damage saturation fix. That's one of the biggest things. Changes the game and fixes a serious issue, hopefully. 

    Because, 2 very famous ship classes are literally impossible to replicate because we don't have quad guns. Honestly I don't give much of a damn about realistic mechanics, imho the ship builder is still the main selling point of this game and only thing I personally care about. 

    • Like 6

    Alpha-9 in Progress

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    20 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

    Yeah, as they add KGV and moar hulls i probs won't even go back to world of dankships. Also blender has been a journey as well. Cant wait for this patch!

     

    I've been so desperate for a decent naval game that could replace WG's shit that I've started playing Azur Lane ._.

    • Like 3

    Any news about Quadruple turrets?

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    13 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

    Nah fam, they said so in some of the pinned threads, that they will be a thing.

    If they aren't for some reason not implemented into the game then ill be pretty angreh.

    I would prolly lose all interest in the game tbh, since it would make it impossible to replicate any of the French bbs.

    • Like 2

    Japanese 20inch (510mm) guns

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    10 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

    Also reusing names has been thing for a long time now, theres only soo many names you can use before having to reuse them, shikashima is fine, but i prefer settsu or echigo. Fits in nicer.

    How many Enterprise's have there been so far? like 4 or something around that?

    the US army is the worse when it comes to naming equipment tho :P

    • Like 2

    >>>Alpha-7 Feedback<<<

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    Yeah the builder needs so much attention, as one of the main selling points of the game, it's current state is still so frustrating. Really wish to return to the game but, with the current state of the builder I can't bring myself to play it atm

    • Like 7
×
×
  • Create New...