Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Evil4Zerggin

Members2
  • Content Count

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Evil4Zerggin last won the day on April 25

Evil4Zerggin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

119 Excellent

About Evil4Zerggin

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Turret armor settings are not carried over to the battle, and the protection doesn't seem to be there either. Furthermore, after leaving the battle and re-loading the designer, the turret armor values are reset to their defaults.
  2. Datamines of v86 show there is already substantial (if unfinished) code and data supporting a RTW-style campaign with provinces, international diplomacy, random events, etc. While it's possible they will scrap this and do something else, I think more likely than not they will continue on this course.
  3. Since it affects both sides, the effect will be reduced (though probably still affecting the player more since the AI tends to under-armor their ships). For conning tower armor in particular, if it gets too heavy I'll probably just stop armoring them at all, much like secondaries which had their armor weight drastically increased in v86. If peak Resistance gets any higher we might see late-game battleships without any armor at all other than turret (to prevent flash fires) and the minimum belt.
  4. I'm only suggesting this because as it stands, I don't think the AI stands any chance at all against a determined human opponent in anything approaching even resources on both sides. The ship stat mechanics are less... constrained... than Rule the Waves, in ways that hurt the AI (cf. frankenships) and help the player. Would I prefer that AI shipbuilding be improved and the stat mechanics be ironed out so that budget modifiers aren't necessary for a challenge? Of course. But given observed development capacity I'm not counting on that. Especially given that the addition of campaign mechanics ar
  5. Like I said, not ideal. But do you really believe that even 10% of the other suggestions here are within the devs' observed development capacity?
  6. I hope there will be a difficulty option to give the AI an increased budget multiplier. This will at least give a simple brute-force way of compensating for any AI weaknesses, even if not ideal.
  7. It doesn't help that the game favors super battleships in several ways besides the number of available hulls: BBs have access to the largest guns and the thickest armor, so they can always be designed with an immune zone advantage. There's torpedoes, but they are much harder to manage than guns. Late-game German, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian BBs can stack Resistance to the moon, achieving outsized durability versus gunfire. Division AI is difficult to deal with, requiring individual micro of ships. The fewer ships, the easier the micro, hence super BBs. BBs are disprop
  8. Mechanical failure doesn't have to be a purely arcade-versus-simulation thing; I don't think we've exhausted the set of win-win adjustments yet. If it was just as simple as a chance to not be able to fire when the salvo clock comes around, it would be no worse than missing (in fact it would be less bad, since you don't use up the ammo), and even that would be enough to replace the fire rate differences between turrets of different gun counts, allowing KGV/Nevada/Pensacola etc. setups to fire as a single battery rather than being clearly unconscionable as it is now. I think this would be an imp
  9. Well, it depends on what factors drive obsolescence. E.g. if it's driven mostly by gun penetration, obsolescence of cheap powerplants seems less of a factor since the choice of powerplant isn't connected with choice of guns (which isn't currently much of a choice anyways, it's not like you can save money by not using the latest Mark). If obsolescence is driven by a race for faster ships then maybe the more advanced powerplant becomes more attractive after all. Other economic factors could go either way. I was remiss in not mentioning another major factor, which is how the mission generato
  10. Especially if the new Austro-Hungarian hull has even higher base Resistance than their previous best. Also, I think the campaign will cause a movement towards more cost-effective ships. Previous scenarios, whether Naval Academy or user-defined, tended to have lax spending limits often combined with ship count restrictions (either explicit or not being able to save enough to afford an additional ship), resulting in outrageously expensive Diesel II powerplants all over the place. With powerplants being both heavy and expensive per ton, we may see players hanging on to Basic Steam Engine + C
  11. Time to stack Resistance to -100% damage from guns?
  12. Identification. Identification is updated every 5 seconds. Only visible ships can be identified, but the progress is not lost if the ship disappears from view. Progress in percent per update is equal to 10 / distance in km of the closest friendly ship to that enemy. Therefore, it would take 1 minute to identify a ship at 1.2 km distance, 5 minutes at 6 km, or 10 minutes at 12 km. Only the single closest friendly ship is counted; multiple ships do not speed up the process.
  13. I was also surprised when I first saw this name pop back up again. According to Wikipedia:
  14. No, all custom battles are complete one-offs.
  15. My quick review of explosives: Black Powder: It's the starting choice, not much can be expected. Guncotton: The selling point is that it's not Black Powder. Getting rid of that 2% Hull Weight is well worth it, especially given that early hulls tend to have a high hull weight percentage. Ballistite: The Disc-One Nuke of explosives. Due to the effect of range on accuracy, I rate each 1% range modifier as being worth between 1.5% damage or perhaps a bit more, so we're already sitting at a net of around +13%. Too bad this goes obsolete in 1906. Lyddite I: Great against the
×
×
  • Create New...