Cpt.Hissy
-
Posts
381 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Cpt.Hissy
-
-
If we'll dig a bit deeper, there is possibility to have exact same gun in different types of mounts with some of them having central firing control and others not, or ones working better than others. But that's not turret sizes or number of barrels, that's specifically different types of mount.
Reload speed also may differ between turrets, accuracy (dispersion of shot) may and probably should.But firing solution has no reasons to be separated.
-
1
-
-
All offsets can be accounted for in fire control system, as all guns are static in relation to other parts of the system. There should be no such thing as separate fire control for separate turrets. That's all.
-
4
-
-
48 minutes ago, Stormnet said:
Ironic how that design was able to beat this monster BB, when we all know what happened the real version when it fought that monster BB...
Pure luck i say!
50 minutes ago, HEEL_caT666 said:Indeed, usually taking inspiration from already functional and existing ships goes a long way.
or simply because it is made out of Hood parts and you can't make it being a normal ship and not looking like Hood?
-
Except not really? Secondary turrets do everything mains can do, without this split.
Looks more like artifact of early prototype from when they for some reason needed to be separated. -
As it stands now, each part could simply have some predetermined "signature" value attached to it, an entire ship is just sum of it's parts
-
Good point, except this
"displacement (a reasonable proxy for silhouette)" - maybe not necessary, heavier ship can be visually smaller. -
^^^ he's probably right, unfortunately. On that nonsense is here to stay. None of the nonsense had any attention yet, except torpedoes (which aren't a nonsence but just arcadish thing) .
Although current implementation is optimal way to do AI "sight" for games so it would be there anyway, and it's easily possible to adjust existing mechanic to work more "realistically" by just changing a bunch of multipliers here and there. Let's hope.
Couple relevant thoughts, just some half-educated guessing with no proofs though. Correct me if i'm wrong, i wanna learn.
-Range where you can *notice* another ship is rather huge, but it'll take some time for one of the spotters to notice that tiny thing on the horizon/edge of radar's screen, and some experience to understand it's not a random light reflection or noise. So, max spotting range should be high, highly dependent on spotter's skills, and while it tells you there is A ship, it can't tell what kind of ship, only rough size, accurate bearing and very rough range, but not the type and faction. It also may take long time to spot a ship if it stays at high range.
-Range where it's worth trying to fire is much less than that, but still far enough that recognizing a ship may be difficult. So it's impossible to shoot at something an stay invisible, regardless of what you are and what they have, unless your target is blind, dumb and dead; but it's possible to stay unknown. Range where you may actually expect hits is even less than that, and probably below where you can recognize a target type at least. Not necessarily the class and faction.- Before decent radars, time of day and weather VASTLY influence your spotting abilities, to the point of blind ramming in especially bad conditions. As well as targeting. Shooting at something you can't see due to weather is probably possible, but stupid and not worth a try. Radar seem to be a gamechanger.
-
Mechanic is necessary, but it should be "balanced" differently, more dependent on your crew abilities, spotting equipment (and radar later on) and weather conditions and much MUCH less dependent on just "better tower" or ship class. They do it utterly wrong now.
Aalso needs better visual representation for "forg of war" or it'll always feel that ships pop in out of nowhere, even if the ranges will be proper.-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, Cptbarney said:
Of course a game knows about a 3d mesh, how else is the code able to interact with the mesh in the first place?
Most processes interact not with the mesh, but with let's call it entity(think different engines etc. may use different names), to which mesh is just one of many linked but independent data sets, colliders being another. For most cases, all that's needed for some function is entity coordinates in space or some other separately added data, and it's shape doesn't matter.
Doing anything with 3d models almost doesn't matter for game's functionality.
for the rest part, you even don't see what i'm talking about.. but it doesn't matter much as neither of us are in dev team or can influence it.
leaving you alone now -
Welp, i admit, went too far. Sorry. Midnight talks are ba idea, need sleep.
-
Stick barbettes through superstructures if those are lower and it's not the bridge.
Its deckhouses were built around the core components like barbettes and funnels, not other way around.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, madham82 said:
It boils down to playing with committed and close friends who agree on a lot of things ahead of time. Not really suited to random people on a server.
Pretty much sums it all. It's simply not a kind of game for global servers with random ahem.. specimens. Specifics of genre if you wish.
At the very least, i'm not interested in random sessions with random anonimouses in this genre. -
- Turn base campaign and realtime (or tactical) battles did happen in games before, there is no issues. Everyone just waits or even watches, if not participates. Too short attention span to wait? Wrong game.
- Design stage is indeed a problem. Makes multiplayer basically non playable without prepared designs in several games i know. Don't know better solutions than to prepare designs beforehand.. Or wait. Current designer can be done with in 5 minutes max tho.
- Stellaris.
- Find a day with more time, and have ability to save and leave mid-anything. Short attention span? Wrong game. Sorry, not every game can be for everyone and every occasion.
- Short attention span? You know the drill.And generally, don't see such type of game as something for random "gamers" to go curse each others moms in. It appeals for certain kind of people, and those so happen to enjoy most of what you point at as problems. Won't have too big of playerbase too, but if it does what it's meant to well, it'll earn a bunch of very long lasting fans that won't need lootboxes and crap to be "held in"
-
On 4/12/2021 at 2:52 PM, Cptbarney said:
Well you can't calculate physics in unity, only fake it so rng, co-ordinates and various other calculations are needed to fake the simulation
i mean, this is called game physics engine? And it kinda does calculate stuff, and well enough to even be worth applying in some limited real-life cases. Anyway, not a point.
From yer earlier posts I had an impression that you imagine game's treatment of units in analogy with your blender experiments, like meshes, polygons.. editing tools.. And i'd like to tell you it's not how it works. For the most part, game's code doesn't give a damn about your 3d mesh or doesn't even know about it's existence. So for example my earlier replies against internal models had nothing to do with increased polygon numbers or performance, as it's not even a concern in that case.
The underlying logic is an issue. Not that you may have more polygons to draw, but that you want those polygons to be positioned in certain way in relation to some other polygons, which can be unpredictably free-placed by player or ship generator, and in current variant of designer have no relations between them whatsoever..
btw, i have clues that the "box" of armour scheme currently gets projected on top of assembled ship model as whole, somehow. So there's really no discrete hitbox with part designated as certain belts or decks in every model. -
Quick silly experiment: huge random AI controlled battle.
Observation one: 50 ships in battle just start causing issues, while system is almost idling (and is rather far from calculator). This in Unity games typically means there's a lot of "quantity" stuff (like lots simple calculations) going on under the hood, or real bad optimisation. On the other hand, whole 50 ships, it's not bad at all.
Observation two: due to completely borked formation keeping logic, such battle turns into thinly spreaded chaos that eventually spreads so thin that all ships (including ones supposed to be in, even tight, formations) loose contact of each other and from that moment may meet again only accidentally. With that gunnery part works flawlessly (well, as far as this game can go)
Only controllable be the player with manual steering of every single unit, which makes this game into weird turn based thing with clunky controls. Non controllable by AI at all, so you WILL loose some of them eventually, and as random battle's only win condition seem to be murder, you WILL fail it.
Thought on this: overall looks actually realistic representation of what may happen with bad communication, i guess this may be intended, but then it ought to be documented in some (preferably detailed) form and possibly tweaked a bit towards better control for playability and fun reasons. -
Don't count it as an ad, but if you really want some kind of PVP engineering macho contest, go pick a "From the depths".
You'll need to agree on the rules for your fights with your friends or whoever you end up fighting, 'cause the game by itself is kinda wild. But that thing at least will give you proper sense of what it is like to design a warship from scratch and develop a strategy to go with it... Don't see current iteration of designer in UAD as core mechanic, sadly. Also damage model is better, heh.
Though, for each their own i guess. -
Le kaboom.
Not much more to discuss here i guess? Until next patch. -
After the actual game is done, why the hell not. But only after.
-
I'll add to that, we still have half the game missing entirely, and major part of the other half being placeholders. It's too early to "balance" anything.
-
3
-
-
Many people agree with this, but the devs stated there will be no map.
I suppose they have some kind of alternative in mind, wonder what it may be. -
1 hour ago, Masonator said:
A penetrating hit deals most of its damage with the bursting charge after it's made it through the armour. The vast majority of its kinetic energy is spent punching through the armour itself. It's still a huge impact, but centered over a very small area.
You only observe the "sledgehammer effect" as we'll call it from non-penetrating hits, where the full impact force is distributed over a wider area when the armour plate is rung like a bell.
Exactly.
And penetrating shell that didn't go off, or overpen, just makes a hole and potentially spreads officer's panties all over the deck. Though it still can break some super duper important pipe or wire and cause problems with that.
@Cptbarney am sorry, do you know anything about how game entities physics and interactions are processed? -
1 hour ago, Intrepid_Arty said:
I'm not finding any information that the Nassau's had different guns in the wing turrets? The Kawachi-class certainly did, but from what I can tell, while the mountings were different, the guns themselves were a uniform 28cm/45 gun.
Yep you're right and i messed up something, namely thought of Kawachi.
But the hull is indeed more like predread there. Good one though. -
1 hour ago, Stormnet said:
I also find the funnel quantity funny. The CL has 3 big funnels, while the pre-dread has a single tiny one.
26 knots vs 17, on probably coal and simple pistons.
That's fine.
Also, Nassau kinda was a predrednought hull. Or even just full predread, wing guns were weaker and with different ballistics due to different length. -
2 hours ago, HEEL_caT666 said:
Overpens should deal a bit more than partials imo, since they actually clean go through the ship and have more than ample opportunity do to insane damage.
Overpen leaves a small clean hole, with high chance to go through nothing important at all.
Powerful non-pen acts like smacking the ship with giant sledgehammer, mechanisms don't like being smashed by sledges.
So, i'd argue.-
1
-
SINK sink the Raiders.
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by Cpt.Hissy
Trying it more
I don't know how is this a cruiser, looks like gunbarge to me. But again, all 8" guns.
Many bulkheads, 30 knots speed, basically no armor. Some torpedoes and secondaries. Normal cruiser, just stupid lot of guns.
* correction. These were two classes as turned out. One had less bulkheads but 9" centerline guns, other more bulkheads but all 8" guns, otherwise very close.