HusariuS
-
Posts
270 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by HusariuS
-
-
3. And steam workshop compability in the future to allow players to also use other players templates.
-
6
-
-
1. Standard Design Templates for AI to base their ships upon - I'm sorry Nick but you can't deny that AI is... poor at designing ships and so far there has been very little improvement since the start of the game.
2. Player Templates usable by the AI - Just as above (obviously we can choose which template AI can use or base it's ship upon)
-
6
-
1
-
-
Waiting...
-
5
-
-
I don't know what you are talking about... on one occasion it just took me around twelve different ship designs to finish a mission.
It's perfectly fine I'm telling you.
-
2
-
-
-
-
I just hope the campaign will be similar to the campaign in "Pacific Storm" although preferably turn-based system.
-
11 hours ago, madham82 said:
I didn't miss your point. I said I understood it in my first reply, but I don't agree it is a real problem. At the same time, wouldn't it be just as easier to create a thread listing these associations out? Much easier than trying to convince the Devs to create a toggle, or even go back and rename historical ones. What about the towers and funnels? You need them renamed too if your are going to recreate. Personally those two seem to be a bigger issue finding the correct one than finding the right hull. If someone can't easily identify the hull shape that is correct for X ship at the correct year, then would they even care to begin with?
I mean with the host of issues everyone is already complaining about in this thread, there are much bigger issues to bring up.
Hold up.
I never said it's a problem and as well I never said it's a issue.
I simply asked dev why isn't it a thing...
In terms of funnels and towers, most of them are already assigned to certain hulls unless there was a update at some point which allows Hood tower to be placed on idk Yamato hull but as far as I know right now we don't have such possibility.
In fact, we don't even know if we could do that in Campaign and most likely we won't unless we gonna "buy" it from other nation which also brings a question if it would be even possible.
But right now as I said most towers and funnels are assigned to certain hulls so there is no need to give them "historical" names like "Hood Tower I" etc.
Maybe in the future we would be able to use for example Bismarck guns on Yamato hull but right now we can't.
And on the other side what's the problem with it?
As I said before you could choose between "historic" names for historic hulls, turrets etc or "generic" ones like Modernized Dreadnought IV and so on.
In term of "identification"...
...well don't take this as a offense but this statement in current state of the game is kinda useless.
As you know right now the only thing we can do with the "hull shape" is either make it longer or shorter and that's it.
We literally have no real control over the hull shape.
This is why giving historic hulls could make things better since players won't need to search for that certain "hull shape", especially if in the future we will gain more control over the hull shape.
And there is no point in saying "if they don't care" since if they don't care you could as well name the hulls: "One, Two, Three, ... , ... Ten. Eleven" and so on and it wouldn't matter to them anyway since "they don't care".
But then again ask yourself how many of them wouldn't care?
How many people would want to recreate ships?
How many people would want to only use hull but use slightly different tower, funnel or turrets? (if possible in future)
How many people would want to only use tower or funnel or turrets from certain historic ships? (if possible in future)
Then again I will repeat myself:
I do not see the lack of it as a problem or issue.
I simply asked the devs why isn't it a thing.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, madham82 said:
That's besides the point since not everyone wants to recreate historical ships. Are the guns named after the name of the ship or their diameter and mark number? So you wouldn't say I want Iowa guns, you would say 16" Mk5, etc... What are you going to do about hulls for the Chinese and Spanish that never existed for example?
Going back to Fuso as the example, she was built as a dreadnaught, then modernized. So yes the hull is a modernized dreadnaught. Changing the "II" to the year might make sense, except in the campaign when you might research way before 1930. So again you can't focus on the idea of recreating historical ships but consider that these hulls will be research items as well.
Honestly this is where the community can fill the need by cataloging the hulls and the real ships they can be used on to recreate. Sounds like a good one for you buddy!
You completely don't understand my point.
My whole idea was to make finding certain >>Historical<< hulls much easier.
First: Why should I remember that hull for example "Modern Battleship III" is Bismarck hull when I can simply have a option to change names to"historical" ones where "Modern Battleship III" would be named "Bismarck-hull".
Second: About the names for the hulls that didn't even exist I'm simply gonna copy-paste my sentence:
3 hours ago, HusariuS said:While I understand if it's about hulls that are more or less fictional, but why the one's that are actually recreating historical ships are also called like that?
So basically. if the hull is fictional or modified from historical one then yes, such naming as "Modern Battleship III" is understandable.
Third: If you so much would prefer seing names like "Modern Battleship III" for both historical and non-historical, what's the problem with adding option to change the names to your own preference?
Since we can already set the preference which units you want to use then I doubt there is any problem with that.
Same applies to the turrets.
-
I'm more talking here about finding the hull you want to use.
Sooner or later we will have as many hulls for one nation as we have now in total for all nations, and let's say you want to create new Heavy Cruiser based on Baltimore-class CA, I think it would be much easier or rather more "pleasant" to find it by the name of which ship the hull is based on rather than trying to remember that Baltimore hull is called "Modern Heavy Cruiser III" especially if you don't play certain nations too often for one reason or another.
Basically just as @Cptbarney said above.
Besides you can always add a option to show "historical" names.
-
2
-
-
@Nick Thomadis Actually I don't think anybody ever asked about this but why hulls are called "Modernized Dreadnought II, Modern Battleship III" etc. ?
While I understand if it's about hulls that are more or less fictional, but why the one's that are actually recreating historical ships are also called like that?
Why can't you just name them "Fuso-1930 hull" or something like that?
-
3
-
-
Oh, will that Deutschland-class pocket battleship will have same torpedo launchers models or will it have only the ones available in the game?
-
While I appreciate that you are trying to improve AI in terms of creating ships... unfortunately this developement is going nowhere.
You make one thing to improve AI and somehow it keeps finding new way to evolve backwards.
I already proposed this with few people IIRC but I'm gonna do it again.
You should basically make "Creative Mode" or "Sandbox Mode" or whatever you want to name it where players are creating and saving templates of various ships for various nations in various timelines which they can use in custom battles/campaign as well as AI, players can also choose which design AI can use for certain nations/timeline.
Since you want to release the game on steam, players could use steam workshop to download templates created by other players.
AI also should be able to modify the template in case it is not fully able to copy the template or to improve it, for example:
Template A is using Radar II but the AI has only access to Radar I, in this case AI will use Radar I and replace it as fast as possible when it will unlock access to Radar II.
or
Template B is using Mark 2 127mm secondary guns but the AI just got access to Mark 3 127mm guns, in this case the AI will modify the template and rearm the ship with Mark 3 to keep up with the advancing technology.
Adding such ability or rather option for the AI would eliminate the problem of AI making ships which are breaking laws of psychics or having unlogical designs.
I'm aware it's not a easy job to do it, but from what I saw so far it is definitely easier than making AI capable of creating ships with effective, necessary, logical and not breaking laws of psychics choices.
But whatever your decision will be, keep up the good work
-
8
-
-
The AI is evolving...
...backwards xD
EDIT: I'm not a expert but I'm pretty sure this design is breaking the law of physics
-
5
-
-
On 2/23/2021 at 1:55 PM, Nick Thomadis said:
-
Increased the flexibility for all mount types. For every hull, you will notice much larger freedom in placing the various ship parts. Moreover, you can override the mount snap points by pressing the CTRL button so you can add the part (Towers, Funnels, Barbettes etc.) in a continuous area between the allowed space.
Just this single thing is making me very happy
-
3
-
-
13 hours ago, Cptbarney said:
Hoi lads no shipfus from me today as its me 25th birthday and decided to take a bit of a break
sorry for the inconvenience! Have a good weekend!
’w’
Happy Birthday
-
1
-
-
Not really, while Carriers have much bigger "effective" range, planes aren't immune to AA fire and Battleships/Battlecruisers are perfect AA platforms due to how much space they usually have for AA armament and not to even mention their survivability compared to destroyers and cruisers.
And Battleships/Battlecruisers usually are not sailing alone, you know... they are kinda expensive.
-
3
-
-
I don't know if this is just not that important because it doesn't make your game unplayable or maybe devs simply forgot about it but since the introduction of "Bismarck" Hull turrets placed on the secondary can't be rotated to face the stern of the ship:
This is basically the case with every german modern hull and tower.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, wzjistc said:
Wat's the means of the in week or next week in the previous week.it means the week after this week or which week I said was the correct week?
鑒於國外的朋友可能看不懂所以我決定用原文打一遍
你上週說的本週和下週是什麼意思，是這週的下一周還是我說哪周就哪周的意思？
All of us are unfortunately still waiting for the info from the devs.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, madham82 said:
Modern radars certainly can and do work in bad weather. Think about the Panavia Tornado and F-111 Aardvark as case examples. They were designed to fly in all weather conditions at low level using only terrain following radar. Synthetic aperture radar goes even further being able to piece any weather conditions to render a precise image on anything on the ground. But these are all modern computer driven radar sets.
Radar in the game's timeframe would certainly have limitations due to weather. That said, look at the immediate action after the Battle of the Denmark Straits to see how effective British radar was maintaining contact with Bismarck and PE despite a heavy squall. Bismarck had to turn and fire on them to force a break in contact long enough to permit PE to escape.
As for "anti-radar" smokescreens, chaff was and believe still is used extensively on surface ships. Mainly for evasion from incoming SSMs.
Oh yeah I forgot that actually modern radars can work in bad weather condition, sorry.
As for the smokescreen yes I know about those chaffs, but I wonder if somebody before the end of WW2 actually developed smokescreen that could interfere with the radar waves...
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, killjoy1941 said:
2. Radar should penetrate smoke screens and weather. Even better, I'd love to see salvo-chasing by radar. If your ships fail to hit the target, an inexperienced crew should fire at the last salvo generated, not the target, thus missing. Gunnery should correct with visual confirmation.
Yes and No.
I don't know if you know but Radars penetrate smoke screens, the very early ones could have problems with that but I'm not sure.
In case of the weather: No.
Even currently modern radars (including military ones) have problems when operating during bad weather, so even best radars in the game shouldn't operate at 100% effectiveness during bad weathers.
EDIT: Did anybody created "anti-radar" smokescreens?
-
1
-
-
Merry Christmas!
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:
More images of the polish battleship im making. Currently doing a lot of projects so progress maybe a lil slow.
I have no clue what name to give her as well.
How do you measure the gun length and caliber in blender or in any other software like that?
Or are you just like " Yea this looks kinda like 14"/55 "?
-
2
-
-
If they will implement, first they should start with scout planes launched from cruisers/battleships catapults and give us basic short (7mm-30mm), medium (31mm-77mm) and long range (78mm-155mm) AA armament and considering that we will usually command multiple number of ships which will include Battleships and Cruisers who were USUALLY carrying with them from 1 to 3 scout planes, we could basically make full squadron of planes with just few ships.
By launching from 1 to even basically full squadron of scout planes we could test how effective is certain type of AA against various number of planes at various distance.
Later Devs could implement simple bombs for the scout planes and see how effective is AA at defending their own and allied ships against enemy attack squadrons (which in this case would be a scout planes) that instead of circling around or nearby the formation would directly attack the ships.
If those tests would be positive, we could move on into the Carriers themself.
And I always said that devs should add option to disable Carriers and/or Scout Planes if players doesn't want them in the game.
-
5
-
Why early Anti-Ship Missiles and SAMs could work in the game
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by HusariuS
Honestly speaking it would be just better to make "Ultimate Admiral Cold War" focusing on 1945+ ship designs rather than implementing missiles to a game about gun fights between warships leave alone Planes, Carriers and AAA.
And to be fair even if they would decide to go with your idea, according to current state of the game it would be few years before that would happen and I've been playing UAD since Alpha 2 or 3 and I must say the core of the game didn't change that much if at all, and that was 2 Years ago I think?
So missiles right now are not even low priority, it's a dream that may never come true.