Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

The Fundamentalist

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About The Fundamentalist

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I've only played a few missions so far, but I've found that the only glaring issue seems to be the issues with torpedos disappearing or impacting the launching vessel immediately after firing at higher speeds.
  2. Hilarious, considering the role logistical limitations played on the British and Germans during the world wars. I guess I have to find humor in the idea that naval administration and management would be outside the scope of the game, but you can build and sell warships on an international market to bolster alliances and exchange naval technologies. The reason I would say there needs to be a bit of randomization is based on the sheer scope of the open ocean and the limited line of sight available for reconnaissance. Very, very rarely did any one commander know the exact location and composition of an enemy fleet at any given time and have continually updated information throughout the move on that un-changed position. This really isn't something to be scared of. Ships do not behave the same way standing armies do, and the game should reflect that. Obviously there should be room for individual initiative and specific orders, but we must get away from the stationary, army-like focus of games such as the total war series or civilization.
  3. The most important aspect of the campaign should be logistics. The purpose of the navy has always been to interdict and disrupt enemy trade while protecting their own and the capability therein has been extremely dependant on logistical facilities to project that power. I've noticed that most games of scale (civilization, Empire total war) completely ignore this aspect, which basically kills immersion. For UA:D, this would be dependant on fueling stations, deep water ports and dry docks. Perhaps the best way to implement this would be to assign a fleet to a naval command based at harbors of significance and then order regional deployment from there. The player should have some limited ability to consolidate or divide commands between geographic regions, or unlimited with a minimum logistical requirement for each fleet for balance. Maybe a mix between already improved harbors and unimproved harbors (coaling stations in the Far East) with logistical constraints based on how far the stations are from available coal mines/oil refineries. This way, the E:TW/N:TW practice of building massive facilities across the world without any real penalty is avoided while still allowing for a dynamic long game. The deployment could consist of passive/defensive (capital ships in the harbor, local patrols), active/offensive (the fleet sails on an enemy area, from here- amphibious landings and such) and some combination of the two to assign fleets to the security of commercial vessels, raid enemy commercial routes, or put into port for shore leave. The likelihood of an engagement would be left to probability depending on the fleet's stance and that of the enemy with opportunities to engage in battle at different times based on fleet movement or "contact", while also affecting deployment. While at sea, maintenance and upkeep costs would be far more substantial than in port, but readiness and effectiveness would suffer. Inability to restrict enemy interdiction of friendly supply lines should limit naval range and finances/facilities should suffer. While the infrastructure of the nation is clearly not the emphasis on the game, it should be a topic that directly and indirectly influences the shape and focus of the navy. I think some form of this would allow for a game that mirrors history much closer than the total war series, for instance, allows while not overburdening the player with ridiculous amounts of complexity like in Victoria II. Otherwise, I'd like to see a heavy emphasis on the administration side of the campaign. Training levels, doctrine, fleet construction, ratios between reserves and active duty vessels, ect. Not overly complex, obviously, but it should matter how you run your admiralty more than not. Games where you go through a cycle of getting money, building infrastructure and then building super-fleets tend to be boring and plateau rather quickly into the campaign.
  4. What are you even arguing right now? Scout planes were present and used during surface engagements for a variety of roles. They ought to be represented in the tactical battle map as such, and there's nothing wrong for pointing that out in the thread specifically created for the purpose of future development. Some of you need either a day job or to go for a walk and spend some time outside. This is becoming toxic
  5. This is inherently false. Floatplanes were widely used in action throughout both World Wars to great effect. An observation floatplane discovered the German High Seas Fleet at the Jutland before they ever came into visual contact with Beatty or Jellicoe's fleets and has been identified as one of the many battle-deciding moments that were wasted due to inexperience with radio communications. I think it's weird that you're ideologically opposed to scout planes being implemented but open to a multiplayer? One is clearly far more manpower intensive than the other.
  6. Add crew (and dynamic damage control), ship capsizing, and the ability to order automatic torpedo avoidance via the squadron control interface. Also, the missions should be refined to incorporate naval tactics and strategy in combat as well as in the shipyard.
  7. I'm not saying you don't have some solid points, but you're conducting shooting 'tests' at flank speed. I think that's a significant flaw in your theory of accuracy, as there are plenty of reasons a vessel operating at its max capable speed should be incapable of hitting anything. I've found that at cruise, 5" and 6" guns will cripple Destroyers at about the range they can launch torpedoes, even while maneuvering.
  8. No, I've done some 1904-1915 battles since writing that comment and I've found the performance of the secondary batteries to be within reason. I'm not sure what you guys are expecting, as I believe the US Naval accuracy during the Spanish American war was somewhere around 1% for all calibers. I also wonder what ship configuration and cruise speeds you're using, as I intentionally slow my ships to their cruise speed during gunnery duels as well as limit the amount of top-heavy equipment that horribly affects accuracy. I've noticed that at higher speed settings, accuracy drops off significantly for all vessels. It absolutely makes sense that targets dropping out of sight or no longer being tracked have to be reacquired. I'm not sure what the complaint is for that one. I wish I had a handle on the screenshot function to use visual aids. It would make this discussion so much easier
  9. Very weird. I've had excellent performance on small caliber guns from Battleships to Torpedo boats. I wouldn't say they're a precision instrument, by any means, but they seem to produce results that appear realistic. Given that four or five 3"-5" hits severely incapacitates the smaller craft, I think its an even balance for now. In the Destroyers vs. Torpedo Boats mission, 4 Destroyers held off and sank 6-7 torpedo boats (at a cost of all 4 destroyers, mostly due to the fire from the heavy cruisers), of which were hit multiple times from the small caliber batteries on the pre-dreadnought. I've experienced similar results in the Rise of the Heavy Cruisers mission with 8" batteries supported by triple 5" batteries and against destroyers in the Cruiser Killer mission with 3 CA's sporting 6 triple 10" batteries and the same triple 6" batteries. Multiple hits on destroyers with 6" guns that did an impressive amount of damage until the DD structure went below 20%. Then, apparently, they become exponentially more resilient at patching holes and being naturally resistant to raging infernos.
  10. I'm not sure I understand everyone's continued complaints about secondaries. I've found them to be extremely effective against Destroyers and Torpedo Boats, even smaller calibers such as the 3" batteries. I think giving them anymore of a buff would begin to degrade the use of the Torpedo boat and Destroyer squadrons to the point where they're pretty much useless. At one point, European navies seriously considered doing away with capital ships in favor of small, maneuverable torpedo craft which seriously hindered the Royal Navy's Battlecruiser and Battleship squadrons during the Great War, so it would make sense to keep them lethal.
  11. I don't believe I've ever heard of a scenario where a destroyer fired off torpedoes at two different ships at the same time. This seems suspiciously like more of a "gamey" suggestion that would belong more with Ace Combat or something. Historically, torpedoes were extremely inaccurate and unreliable until the height of the second world war, which is why they would be launched in such aggressive numbers. I think that the Alpha 3 has been a pretty decent update. I feel like the Naval Academy would benefit from more tactical guidance, especially in the early missions. It would be a huge benefit to having some sort of fleet maneuvers tutorial to help explain how the components of the interface are supposed to be used, rather than my ad-hoc 'bumble through all the wrong ways of doing it'. For instance, I had no idea that ships automatically used secondary batteries at smaller targets if left un-prompted. An option to set displacement and battery limits in the custom battles would be nice, and I hope the naval treaties will make their appearance in game. The shortcomings of the update are basically parts of the game that are in development still, such as the crew. The damage system is still a bit erratic, and the AI needs some adjustment. It seems to lack aggressiveness when using smaller vessels, especially destroyers and torpedo boats. The new hulls in the Shipyard are very buggy. It seems to me that it would be ideal to abandon the placement icons for ship structural components, as they're most of the reason it's so buggy. For instance, on the Battlecruiser v. Battleship mission, the cage masts are almost unusable with the funnels unless you accept the lack of engine power, which is unnecessary given how much deck space there is. On the Iowa hull, using the smallest displacement settings create an unbalanced aft displacement that is unfixable. The flags still wave in awkward directions that are contradictory to the smoke direction. Otherwise, nice job !
  12. I wonder if these are more for the AI. I could see wanting to limit AI design options I'm enjoying the update, however I've noticed that the Destroyers are still unreasonably hard to kill. I had one today that was down to .1% of health and still taking 10" HE shells (200-500dmg per hit) like a champ.
  13. Imagine building a name off of about a decade of refined, quality product and then attaching some garbage afterthought to it just as that name begins to gain some notoriety. Imagine making a game specifically to be a sandbox, DIY "build your own navy" game and then not include that in the multiplayer. Imagine having a very small team already divided on multiple games, and then dividing that attention even more for some garbage afterthought that was never a goal of the product. Imagine thinking that the effort required for a decent single player game is even remotely comparable to a garbage multiplayer experience. At what point is this supposed to be a win for the developer? You whine for what would be a massive manpower and financial undertaking, yet offer no benefits besides giving you a "good gaming experience".
×
×
  • Create New...