Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

93 Excellent

About Steeltrap

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. On the one hand I'd like to get involved in the discussion re secondary guns etc, but on the other I'm not sure the discussion is still on topic re feedback to the devs about Alpha 3. Perhaps all of you might want to start a separate topic to continue the discussion? Obviously I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, it's just that I think it's a good discussion to have but that the devs will clearly already have seen not everyone is convinced about the value and performance of smaller calibres. One thing everyone DOES appear to agree on is the blunt instruments of "target ship size" and "target fast speed" modifiers don't scale well with close range fire. It's a point I know I and others have raised before this update. Would like to add more, and I potentially do have some specific info that's relevant, but I think it would be better for those of us interested in continuing such a specific topic to do so elsewhere. That's purely my view, however, and of course everyone should feel free to keep posting if they think devoting several pages discussing it is appropriate for what's everyone's thread meant for Alpha 3 feedback. Lastly, and not trying to tread on anyone's toes, could I suggest trying to keep the discussion as dispassionate and impersonal as possible? Cheers
  2. Hi, The patch notes include the following: Improved Combat Penetration Info: You can use this in reverse by selecting enemy ships and pressing the alt-key while hovering your mouse over your own ships. I've tried this all sorts of different ways and cannot get it to work. Someone else also brought it up in the forum for Update 3 Feedback. Thought I'd raise it here for you to check. Hardly the end of the world, but would be nice to have it available. Cheers
  3. No, I can't get it to work either. Am going to list it as a bug, given the patch notes say it ought to work.
  4. Yes, this is often the problem with game AI. While I know nothing about trying to program AI, I'd expect the difficulty increases at something like the square of the possible choices open to it. It's always been the bane of Naval Games that the AI seems unable to assess potential enemy fleets and thus send out appropriate fleets, or to assess relative strengths in the case of an encounter. I think Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic: 1939-43 had the most remarkably effective and 'realistic' (in the sense of depicting the issues and challenges) damage and damage control systems ever put in a naval combat game (at least any I've played), and that was published in 1992 (remarkable). Yet it was terribly let down by the fact the AI would fight you no matter what, which meant you'd get KMS Graf Spee advancing on HMS Nelson, with predictable results. Atlantic Fleet, a far simpler game, suffers the same way. TW games, too, as you mentioned, really started to suffer as they increased in complexity, culminating in the egregiously broken and indefensible at time of release TW: Empire. That was so bad I've refused to buy another 'historical' TW since. Even TW: Warhammer has the same strategic issues, even though its battlefield AI isn't terrible (it still sucks in sieges, however, being dreadfully vulnerable to cheese tactics despite CA limiting the battlefield in an attempt to make things easier for it). So, yes, I agree MP of some sort would be fun, and certainly more likely to provide the best challenge. Friends and I played Star Wars Rebellion (1998) on dial up and we had great fun, given we're all strategy nerds so graphics and slow pace don't trouble us. If the devs find a way to introduce it somewhere down the line I'd welcome it, but, as most have said, it's of secondary importance.
  5. I'm glad you enjoyed it. It gave me a laugh when I came up with it, which is usually a good sign. I'm also glad you didn't involuntarily 'wash' you keyboard and screen, LOL. "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" are widely regarded as some of the greatest English language television ever made, so any time I get to think of them is a bonus. Like you, I enjoy the fact we have plenty of enthusiasts with all sorts of different yet related knowledge and sources and a willingness to throw them into a discussion with what is almost always good will and a genuine interest in seeing where the results might take us.
  6. Sigh. Fortunately I washed some socks this morning, so at least it'll be clean.
  7. If you mean RAMJB and me I can assure you we're having a friendly chat with plenty of goodwill on both sides. That's how I see it, and I expect he does, too. If you meant some others, however, I'll put a sock in my mouth and try not to look silly, lol.
  8. Don't worry, I can be as pedantic as almost any. It's one of those irregular verbs Bernard would explain in "Yes, Prime Minister": I have standards, You are picky, He/she/it is a raving pedant. ;-D I've had work colleagues over the years in various places (I work as a consultant thus move around) who came to look forward to my reaction to the latest message inviting us to Christmas or some other corporate do as it usually involved me making fairly pungent observations about most Marketing Departments' crimes against the English language. I wasn't taking it personally, as I expect you knew, more just deciding to make my own thoughts perhaps a little more clear. Cheers
  9. It's good for your brain. Younger people seem to freak out when I do those sorts of things in my head, or percentages. Don't know why. I must be getting old or something. p.s. it's 25.4. 😎😀
  10. I think you're being a tad selective in how you interpreted what I wrote when you say it should not piss me off. 🤣 I made it clear it was the emphasis, not the mechanism at all. Plus the hidden stats. Both hallmarks of WG. I do agree on reflection that I probably made too much of a point about angling and that might have made it seem I thought it was illegitimate/irrelevant. I didn't mean that, but I can see how it looked I might have. Even with that, however, having stats inherent in a hull that "influence armour effectiveness" (or however it's phrased in the ship designer) yet not disclosing what that means is an approach I don't like at all. It's not as though "our naval designers" would have chosen various armour schemes without knowing exactly what they're designed to do, so why hide it from the player? We also know the "immunity zones" against their own guns was a common design approach, and that the USN 'superheavy' 16" shells, for example, made that difficult to the point they accepted they couldn't achieve the usual breadth of immunity without compromising other aspects of design, and so on. [As an aside, the Battle of Denmark Strait is a real life example of one of the reasons I mentioned a captain might not be using their full broadside, namely to close the range. They were thoroughly aware of and concerned about Hood's questionable deck armour, especially as she missed a refit that would have had her aft deck armour increased as fore parts had been, and thus were hoping to close to where it was not likely to be an issue. Doing so would also inevitably increase accuracy, too, and they had 10 more heavy guns in play so all the better. Mind you, it's doubtful her armour was good enough against Bismarck at any range, but that's a different matter. Of course they got monstrously unlucky; it's interesting to wonder what might have happened had the hit had been on the already increased deck armour forward.] Taken as a whole, I'm sure we're both in agreement as to 'angling' being a thing BUT not something commanders thought about given the other realities. Of course with real life accuracy being what it was, the need to throw as many shells at your target as accurately as you can was far more important than thinking about how the enemy shells specifically might hit you, except in very clear cases such as that I mentioned re Hood v Bismarck. Anyway, people seemed to like your more detailed commentary, many of the central points being things I've also written about in the "ability to sail in reverse" thread (or whatever it's called). To be clear, I hope you know I'm not reacting as though annoyed with your response. I might just as well have written something similar had I intended to cover the topic in greater depth, and as to whose would be 'better' that's an amusing opportunity for some well intentioned and humorous poking fun at each other as I see it. My main point, and perhaps I ought to have left it without specifics, was the less anything that hints at WoWS makes its way to this game the happier I will be, and that general principle was in response to the OP. Cheers p.s. I wonder how much I'll have to split time between playing myself v watching your inevitable YT videos? LOL
  11. Having been a Beta tester of WoT back in 2010 plus played for a few years including clan wars and the lot, then Alpha tester through release of WoWS which I stopped playing maybe 6 months after release, I want absolutely NOTHING that reminds me of WG or WoWS. I already think HE is grossly over effective, and that reminds me of WoWS. Plus most large gun calibre ships didn't carry much if any 'HE' ammo. I also don't like this emphasis on "angling" etc, plus hidden stats that directly affect armouring (there are certain things in the ship builder that affect "angling and effectiveness of armour" yet there's no way of knowing how or to what extent), because they remind me of WoT AND WoWS. Reality is you unmask your broadside and let fly with everything you've got. The only reason not to do so is because you wish either to open or close the range. All this angling crap pisses me off. That doesn't mean I'm against things like co-op or even multiplayer campaigns, or equally setting up 1v1 battles. But keep anything that remotely smells of WoWS or any sort of MMO 'experience' the hell away from the game. As I said above, there are already elements that stink of WoWS to the detriment of this game.
  12. Trouble is an ammo explosion in the ammo of the only gun on a ship, such as a merchant, that has no effect on the ship's ability to shoot doesn't sound like a suggestion, it sounds like ammo explosions are an incomplete feature. Put differently, how exactly is it the ammo explodes and yet the gun continues to fire without trouble? A half-implemented system will appear as a bug, and suggesting it be made a complete system doesn't seem much of a suggestion so much as pointing out you need to finish it. Cheers
  13. It certainly seems clear that Yamato would win in the category of "greatest range at which naval gunfire from a moving ship damaged another moving ship". My own memory was that the damage was caused by a near miss that detonated underwater close alongside. That's only my memory, however. Other than that, it appears to come down to the question of how credible the source is about there being an indent in the keel that is in keeping with an underwater glancing blow of a shell that subsequently exploded. IF there's sufficient evidence to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt (criminal standard of proof), or possibly even balance of probability (civil standard), that an 18.1" projectile did strike a glancing blow underwater then we'd have to conclude Yamato did in fact score a hit at that range and suggest the records be updated. It's easy to see why it was not regarded as a hit as it would certainly have appeared as a very close miss. We all know that close hits from bombs could do significant damage, and indeed from shellfire as well. I don't know the evidence, however, so am in no position to judge either way. @RAMJB is correct to say that as the records stand Yamato didn't score a hit. @ThatZenoGuy is perfectly entitled to allege otherwise, but as someone with no involvement in this argument I can say you can't expect everyone to choose to throw out the existing records without providing us the evidence in the form of citations to publications and specific pages, or cut and paste from those sources if possible. I for one would certainly love to see the evidence simply because it's an inherently interesting topic. Either way, however, it's evident Yamato's gunnery against White Plains was impressively accurate at such a long range. Cheers
  14. I suspect you think you did but didn't. I had a case where an enemy transport was almost rubbing alongside enemy pre-dread BB I was firing at. I saw a few shells go THROUGH the merchant and then splash near BB or hit it. Based on all we believe we know, I think we can say it is completely impossible to hit any ship other than your target. Cheers
  15. Header of this thread is dated 26/11 and the follow up was 27/11, so 9/8 calendar days ago respectively as I'm writing this. I'd expect some time next week at the earliest as I doubt they'll drop it on a Friday.
  • Create New...