Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Hardlec

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Hardlec

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  • Birthday 12/29/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Central Fl.
  • Interests
    Steampunk, historical games, Airships, Martians

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. is a Pentium 2.13 Ghz processor enough to run Dreadnoughts? On initial loading, U could run this program, now I can't. I have sent a log.
  2. I'm very very very disappointed in this scenario. The build bonus says I may have 5 mounts for main guns. I get 2. Thye largest guns I can put on wing turret mounts are 10 inchers. So the most big guns I can get are 10x10 inch, a right poor main battery. My accuracy is always "--poor," no matter how much of a priority I give it. I am out-ranged by a lot, and I am out gunned by more than double and I am out displaced by double. My biggest possible ship is 18.5 K tons. I am facing 3 ships of 12K tons. With the best possible armor I can by, my opponent is penetrating my 6 inch deck plates with 6 inch guns at a range where my 10 inch guns won't hit except on a fluke , and then do dink damage. The disparities are worse with the other choices. The several other commentators all seem to say: they win on a fluke. Well, I've won on a fluke, but I don't consider that really winning. This scenario is seriously broken. please fix it.
  3. I have replaced my tablet with a new laptop. I'd like to put ultimate admiral Dreadnoughts on this machine as well. I'm not able to locate the Email with my original key. What do I need to do to get my game on short of buying another copy?
  4. Has anyone managed to win the Scenario "Destroy the raiders?" if so, how?
  5. Some players seem to want only straight historical scenarios. Some players seem to want those options than can be realistic within a given technology (Quasi-Historical) Some players want "out of this world" tech. Some players want various things in between. There is no point arguing over which is better, because that is all subjective. I like to write fiction, and the idea of writing various "what if" situations is very attractive, however, how far "out there" is something I like to control. SO: Give the players a checklist of things they can change, and let individual players make their choices. Also allow for a "blind AI" option. I have made 10 choices, the AI gets 10 choices, I don't get to know, much less pick, what they are. Basically, I do want to see a strictly historical technology option. But I also want to see much, much, more.
  6. Yes, the sycophants on the RTW board got tired when I would show them issues, and they would ignore them. I had a contingent of older BCs that I wanted deployed only for commerce raiding. These ships were always in the vanguard, where they mysteriously had orders to engage the AI's best BBs (which, oddly enough, were always present) Even if I was able to change the orders right away, my older BCs seemed destined to be demolished. I stopped building specialty ships because they were ALWAYS mis-deployed. I liked to play either Japan or Russia. Rarely did these natural enemies fight. Instead I got wars with Germany, The United States, or Great Britain. As a Russian, I set my "spying" on japan to an invasive level only matched by modern paperazzi. The only diplomatic trick I didn't use was to attack the enemy base. Of course in RTW you can't attack enemy bases or ground installations. The enemy could attack yours, however. In RTW the AI was omniscient, always got the lucky break, never ran out of ammunition, and could sink my ships while they were still on the ways being fitted out. I will have no interest in a game where the AI gets unbalanced and unjustified advantages to compensate for the player's knowledge of history. SO: The player gets several options as to how a ship is used, like: Rank in order: AA, ASW, Convoy Protection, Surface Bombardment, Protect units landing in amphibious combat, etc. Allow the power to choose a level of diplomatic tension for each country, from Suck Up to the Max to "I fart in your general direction." Basically, allow the player the ability to set the tone and the scale of the game. After all, the purpose of any game is to be fun for players.
  7. I am an ex-RTW player. My analysis: The RTW AI will deliberately put human built specialty ships where they are poorly suited. If you have Modern Battleships and Older Battleships, the Older ships are chosen first. The same is especially true of Battlecruisers. There is no way to keep the AI from forcing you to block the enemy's fist with your face. Ships should be put in human-designated squadrons, and given human designated missions. True, once in a rare while you will have to make do with what you have, but in RTW the AI Always had all the advantages. My biggest problem with RTW was not how it selected ships for combat. It was how the human player had no way to prevent war with opponents s/he could not defeat, nor choose opponents who had the resource or strategic things worth fighting for. The other big failing is that there were no wars except those were you were the main/only target.
  8. I've tried each type of hull with each type of advantage. I always find myself massively outgunned. I :buy" the best towers and best range finder available. I use Ballisite explosives. I try for a speed of 20 to 22 knots. The "Firepower" advantage says I can have 5 midline mounts, but I can only get 3. Main Battery Side Mount guns are limited to 9 inch. So on a Battleship, I'm limited to 4 big guns. Suggestions?
  9. Try replaying the same battle several times, the first time letting the AI command your ships. See what happens. There are many things to consider. Have you set your guns to "Aggressive" or Normal? Did you put "enough" resources to fire control? Turret speed? Reload time? If your enemy has better fire control and spotting, you will be targeted much further away that you can target the enemy. Range has more to do with fire control than how far a gun can hurl a shell. Of course, there could be a glitch in the system somewhere. The ontology of the scatological is incontrovertible.
  10. Mostly because my keyboard is mych better for writing than as a game controller.
  11. I am considering adding an X-Box controller to my Windows 10 machine. Can this work with Ultimate Admirals?
  12. Agendas of mine: To be able to play out battles of my choosing, which occur as part of fiction I am writing. I can do this. To be able to design extreme ships of dubious wisdom and see how well they do. I can to this. To have fun. I can do this. To have a multi-player version, well, that sounds like fun and it could be added down the line. People are almost always more challenging than an AI. One problem I have with AI is that instead of making the game more challenging, it is just made more difficult. Instead of meeting a skilled opponent, I just meet an opponent with twice as many ships as I have. Not Fun. Human players who are super competitive also have targets on their backs. So humans must rely on more than their ability to compete, but how to compete diplomatically.
  13. It's 2020. I take an Alaska class BC hull (30,000 tons.) I give it gas turbine engines, keeping its speed for less weight. I use new composites and some kevlar with about the same layout for passive protection. It has significantly more passive protection than anything except a supercarrier. The main batteries are replaced with massive VLS and an enormous stock of missiles. I replace the twin 5"38 caliber turrets with single 5" automatic dual purpose guns. I replace the AA mounts with CWIS and laser mounts, although I have somewhat fewer of these. The Alaska and most USN ships in the Pacific strapped AA mounts anywhere they would physically fit. It has two complete AEGIS systems, because its primary role is to be the flagship for a task force. It will protect the ships in the task force, and provide a relatively calm place from which to command. I build a second class of ships, replacing the "B" and "C" missile batteries with quad 16" guns which can attack ships but are optimised for shore bombardment. This ship is designed to support shore assaults and for artillery support for ground troops. The navy has the budget to build a BC-M (missile) for each carrier and 2 BC-G (gun.) These would be perceived as provocative by many other countries. Politicians (who are almost by definition ignorant) will argue that the same thing, except for the big guns and armor, can be done by spending the money on more existing frigates. The one criteria that dooms these ships: They are solutions without a problem. The ships would be nothing more that my fantasy, but, if seriously considered they are realistic battlecruisers. As to adding Aircraft: I'd have a game with no aircraft and a second game with aircraft. If players buy both, they can be linked.
  14. Okay: Historical limits are reasonable, but: If someone wants to build a Cthulhu Battleship, and they do, I'll watch the video with enjoyment. I won't build one, or play against one. A game is supposed to be fun. Sometimes, no more reason than Cool is the Fuel is needed.
  15. Considering that the Iowas were still in service in Desert Storm and that they made major contributions to Desert Storm, I'd say rumors of the obsolescence of the BB were premature. Two factors contributed to the phase out of the BB. 1: You could fly off the air wing of a carrier's old aircraft and fly on an air wing of new aircraft and have, in essence, a new carrier. The USS Enterprise had her whole carrier wing replaced at least 3 times. The planes she carried in 1990 were science fiction in 1960. CVs were much easier to upgrade. This made a big difference. 2: The Navies of the world found that more ships, even with less capability, were better than fewer ships with greater capability. Only carriers are big "Capital Ships" because you need a honkin' big ships to land aircraft. The combination of a carrier for Air Cover and a heavily armed and armored Battleship was a tactical problem no navy in the world could overcome in 1980. Except for the USN. The politicians (i.e. parasites upon humanity) kept thinking "either-or" when they should have considered "both-and." A very large portion of humanity lives and works within 20 miles of an ocean. If Aberdeen were tasked with building a 16 inch, or maybe an 18 inch gun, in 2000 built for maximum range and conventional explosive payload, I can envision a range of 50 miles (about 80km) which would be a threat to an even greater portion of the world. A single 16 inch HE shell would send any frigate to Davy Jones Locker. The issue isn't whether or not Battleships are excellent weapons platforms, but whether the cost outweighs the benefits. In a game, that's a lesson the players need to learn the hard way. (Would Japan have done better with 7x10,000 ton heavy cruisers, each cruiser carrying 4x4 tube torpedo launchers with 3 reloads each? Torpedoes that out-ranged the big guns and were undetectable until they went "BOOM?' ) Japan had the best torpedo technology in the world until the Missouri anchored in Tokyo Bay. As a player, I get to test that theory. (I've seen some of the You-tube videos of the impact of a massive torpedo volley. The CA-Ts would launch a salvo of 112 torpedoes. Ouchies.) I'm quite happy with aeroplanes as dubious, fragile and unreliable kites, which they were for a couple of decades, and letting the players decide to invest money to develop them. Or not. No planes at all suits me fine, too.
×
×
  • Create New...