Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Steeltrap last won the day on August 5

Steeltrap had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

746 Excellent

About Steeltrap

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm not taking a position on "old" vs "new" other than to observe there appear to be constant new versions of later tech ships and virtually none of earlier ones, at least that was the case when I used to bother checking, lol. I AM worried by the whole bottleneck aspect of putting hulls into the game. Beyond technical and design questions, my other point of interest is the decisions that result in a hull being one thing or another are absolutely crucial to what I would have thought the general idea of the game might want to be. There are, after all, reasons ships look as they do
  2. If the response you receive is not to your liking, maybe the communication ought to be examined? If you leave major, important details out of something and people get annoyed or make stuff up, is it surprising? Is it their fault, or a failure of the communication? You also might want to ask whether you want your customers to be wondering if you're taking lessons from WarGaming in how to interact. You can hold your customers in contempt if you wish, but demonstrating it will likely appear astoundingly arrogant or breathtakingly stupid, and quite possibly both. It's certainly not
  3. This is why I said a LONG time ago by far the better design would be have the system itself generate hulls but the player be allowed to amend beam/length ratio, required speed and so on. As it is, the game is single stage dependent for every single example of its most basic component, namely the base hull. If that sounds fine to some people, ask yourself what happens when the dev team move on to something else and no longer produce more hulls. Also have to wonder why on earth it's set up so producing hulls is seemingly such a substantial piece of work. I work as a contracte
  4. On the off chance anyone's interested in just one illustration of the sort of stuff I was tossing out for discussion re WotS, here's a link to one such post: Post in War on the Sea suggestions forum in Steam I don't think much has been done to address these, although that's in no small part due to the fact the game was barely deserving of the term 'beta test ready' when sold as a complete product (something I wish for which there were some SERIOUS implications for devs that do it). They had (and have) SO many things needing work that something that gives the appearance of working app
  5. Time compression for me means shortening the time it takes for us to see something happen but that's subtly if substantially different from mechanics themselves that see you sinking several capital ships in 10 minutes real time. One is a matter of convenience, the other is generally an abandonment of any pretence to realism unless circumstances were decidedly peculiar (even the brutal, deadly night battles of Guadalcanal took much longer if one considers manoeuvre and then how long it often took for ships to succumb to damage). But, yes, all the things you've suggested are absolutely
  6. Agree entirely. I, too, don't shrug those things off. I've written many fairly extensive threads on them and even had some friendly back and forth with Devs on some of it. Still lots to do. Some of it drives me nuts, lol. I said well before the game was available that my greatest concern would be it having "Atlantic Fleet" levels of AI, which is to say zero. It's not much better, frankly, and 'competent AI' is clearly the hardest thing to do in games given how many of them are shite (although it doesn't stop people buying them, especially Total War titles whose AI has been really atr
  7. If people leave their ships firing for 20 minutes with little interactions they're doing it incorrectly IMO. There are plenty of things to consider in any moment of surface combat in the game. That is one of the few aspects of the game I do NOT think they got incorrect, incidentally, at least in general terms. Specifics? Different matter, especially when it comes to submarines/ASW (for those who don't know, you can conduct sub attacks playing the sub, or have to evade a sub's attack and then carry out ASW as surface ships). Sure, people might not like it as a casual game, but for any
  8. I did some reading about it some time back when I got interested in it for some reason, probably when I was trying to find what, if any, justification there was for any of the different performance characteristics between nations in WoWS. [As an aside, it ought to surprise nobody to hear there isn't in 99% of cases and in fact in some it's absolutely nonsense, such as the HE performance of IJN WW2 ships. While they did use a particularly flammable bursting charge rather famously at Tsushima, ironically that caused many navies to learn incorrect lessons that went on to affect developments
  9. Fired up the game for the first time in a long time. My view of campaign hasn't changed. I don't care what the campaign does/doesn't do if the reason for it, namely putting ship development and resulting battles into context, is largely pointless because said battles are still miles from anything realistic. Just one favourite bugbear: it's good to see the AI tends to build warships with Max bulkheads. Trouble is, that's still the magic ticket to zombie ships. Pound the hell out of one and it'll likely survive unless total overkill. In the scenario I tend to play as a test f
  10. In fact SAP proved to be a disappointment. The RN concluded they'd have been better off sticking with a standard/HE shell. If you're interested in SAP due to exposure in WoWS, you might want to know that the way it works there, as with everything else in that game other than the models (which do look terrific), is 99% BS. That's not to say it couldn't be implemented here. My own view is the entire core sections of propellant, shells, bursting charge, penetration and damage are still WAAAAY off the mark. Adding yet another shell type would merely make things worse, or at least st
  11. Gary Grigsby's "War in the East" is the poster child for this IMO. Remarkably complex, in-depth game, utterly execrable manual. Had quite a discussion about this in the Steam forum for WitE1 but the people involved just didn't understand/want to hear why the manual was borderline unfit for purpose despite the examples I was able to give them of how it would be relatively simple to change things to a much more effective approach. They didn't learn a thing for WitE2, either, simply starting with whole slabs of the manual of WitE1 and altering it. A shame. It's also an in
  12. I may have mentioned this a few times, LOL. The "flash-fire" is a trash mechanic, implemented WAAAY too early, and makes a big fuss over what was NOT a big issue. The danger was well understood and navies had addressed it all but finally. Meanwhile last I played I still watched 4" guns popping off Transports with flash-fires galore, which, other than amusing, was somewhat helpful as no amount of medium calibre HE rounds seem to be able to KO those flimsy gun mounts. Somehow they get flash-fires, however, despite not having any sort of connection directly to any magazine etc etc. Does make
  13. I volunteered to run such a thing quite some time ago but without moderation rights, at least in that thread, it would be too unwieldy. It would also require genuine commitment from the team to classify the things as needing a fix soon, later, or nice to have soonish, or nice to have but not in the next 24 months. Without that a list could become an increasing source of irritation, which one might suggest is why it's not been pursued. If the same things are on there over and over and over without any comment or commitment from the devs, what would that suggest or achieve? In part per
  14. The potential downside of that is the turrets can get jammed, or at least could in the past, when in the battle. It could be that's been corrected, however.
  15. Yes, you've put more precisely what I was getting at when I split the factors that 'generally' determined likelihood of hitting something. You need to be able to make an estimate as to where to shoot that in fact overlaps where the ship is when the shells arrive AND you need to be able to put the shells there. The latter element is what I had in mind when talking about 'other factors' such as mount, propellant charge consistency etc, things you can't do much about. I wrote a much longer (what a surprise) and detailed discussion of all this stuff a long time back (it seems to me
  • Create New...