Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

AnonymousPepper

Members2
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

AnonymousPepper's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

27

Reputation

  1. I'ma be honest, we absolutely, definitely need free placement of barbettes outside of machine spaces (which themselves should be moveable) - particularly secondary barbettes should be *completely* free - and funnels and particularly bridges in general. There's a lot of room for creativity that gets stifled by the arbitrary placement points and it's just not good. As a related point, hullforms need more variability - flush decks or elevated deck sections needs to be something we can choose between on the same hull pattern.
  2. Oh goodness yes. Imagine sticking to small gun calibers and hyperspecializing in them, so you can get that authentic Alaska-class godmode 12" experience early.
  3. For sure. Turtleback for example should probably be extremely tough from all angles and cover a decent area, but be quite heavy, for example, while All or Nothing should lead to virtually impenetrable central sections (as well as turrets and magazines) from side angles save for torpedoes, point blank high-caliber fire, and possibly high-caliber plunging fire, but leave everything else almost totally exposed, thus saving greatly on weight versus turtleback but meaning if you skimp on your (quite heavy) subdivisions, you die immediately to flooding. Giving it more thought, this could likely be handled as a +/-efficacy modifier to armor in specific places, possibly scaling a little bit with thickness (for example, armor above like 30mm effective extended deck on an AoN BB would start taking heavy maluses, but you could still cheaply throw on a splinter deck), rather than the current, highly complex system. This would be doubly effective as a system if the armor thickness sliders were changed to effective rather than raw thickness, not to mention significantly more transparent against the known armor pen numbers. Hell, I'd change them to effective thickness sliders regardless, for several reasons. Another would be that you'd much more starkly see the contrast between varying armor compositions.
  4. As well as torpedoes. A cruiser with 8in guns, 5in secondaries, and a couple 21in tubes should be able to sail around with its torps setting up a solution on an enemy battleship, its 5in guns aiming for those torpedo boats, and the main guns focusing on an enemy cruiser simultaneously. Probably with automaneuvering based on the main guns for anything that isn’t a destroyer or torpedo boat. Perhaps more importantly, hard points should honestly be removed from ship designer entirely except for superstructure gun mounts (like the various points on the modern bb forward) and casemate mounts. Additionally, the accuracy penalty for having multiple large, similar caliber guns should probably be stiffened to further disincentivize strange gun combinations. Also, any news on ship pathfinding AI?
  5. Yeah, that's about the sum of it. A damage model rework, which we need badly for other reasons anyway, is all torps need, I think.
  6. It's pretty much RNG as to whether the torpedoes hit the correct spots. Damage has to be distributed, because apparently just blowing a through-and-through hole half the ship's length through the center is just fine. I imagine this will change, but for now, damaged sections don't appear to transmit damage to adjacent ones very well if at all. Torps are very good at blowing up the spots they hit, they just don't damage anywhere else unless the ship has bad bulkheads and/or flood protections. It may also be a bit of RNG on the enemy battleship design? I don't know if it's set in stone or procedurally generated, but it's possible it generated with max bulkheads, which would suck if so.
  7. I mean, yeah, AP is poor except with very, very large guns, but I do think that a ship shouldn't be able to be on fire in 3/4 of its segments and still be functioning, given how hard it is to set fires with the bad accuracy of small-caliber guns.
  8. It's not just how good large main battery guns are. Small guns really do feel absolutely worthless more because their accuracy is absolute garbage at any range regardless of tech level, and the effects of fire are very, very weak.
  9. Damn, that's all you have? Color me beyond impressed, lads. I'm no programmer or artist, but if you need somebody to help with community management so you can all concentrate more on making this game even better, I'd be happy to help. Thank you so much for everything so far, my dudes.
  10. I think the thing that needs to be remembered first and foremost is that this is a game. Realism is important, yes, but it should take a back seat to enjoyment of the game. Completely disregarding whether it's realistic or not: would you have fun controlling a torpedo squadron that only got one shot? For about 95% of people, the answer to that is no. Likewise, I've seen people suggesting implementing realistic dud rates instead. Would they enjoy only landing one torpedo and having it be a dud? Or worse yet, having a USS Tang experience and getting themselves wrecked by a circular run? There's so many little facets to torpedo performance, and I think the important issue of enjoyment factor needs to be overlooked a lot less in the process. If torps are in any way not worth the effort to use them, people are just gonna fall back to the big gun meta.
  11. Even when you get close, the secondary performance is just awful. Like, for an experiment, I went into Modern Battleship, gave it a pair of single 457s, and then filled up the rest of the ship with as many 203s, 155s, and 57s as I could cram on, in that order. Grabbed all the ROF and accuracy buffs, slapped on as much armor as I could, and then loaded up Superheavy Lyddite 2 for maximum HE firestarter memes. My two 457s did almost all the damage and killing, despite having somewhere in the ballpark of 40-50ish 203 barrels. It was beyond stupid. They just could not hit the broad side of a barn from the inside, while the 457s acted like freaking directed energy weapons. What I would expect is that the 457s would blow nice big chunks out of the enemy battleships, while struggling to land solid hits on the DDs, and my 203s should just shred the DDs outright, burn the CAs to the ground, and do good chip fire damage to the BBs, thanks to an absolute barrage of the current best firestarting combo in the game. I get that they went for the realism bit with 203s being no more accurate than 457s, but unfortunately while I think that's a good idea in theory and done with the best of intentions, it's not good from a gameplay perspective, because all it does is encourage you to just load up on the biggest guns you can get and drop everything else to save weight and dosh. Either the accuracy calcs against small targets needs a look from both sides, or guns need to get better payoff from better loading systems the smaller they get, or both. I mean, for goodness' sakes, the Des Moines was good for something like 10RPM from its autoloading 203s. As a side note, I'm also thinking fire as a whole needs to be buffed. Flooding seems fine (skimping on bulkheads will get you instagibbed against torps), but if you haven't invested in good bulkheads at least somewhat, and especially if you nuked them to save weight, fire should absolutely spread a lot and potentially touch off magazine explosions. And do a lot more structure damage, if it's not just on the deck. Fixing the armor calcs might help some, but I can't help but wonder if fires themselves need a second look; fires on ships have historically been just about the most terrifying circumstance imaginable for most of naval history, but here they just seem like a cute little UI icon most of the time.
  12. Aaaaaand apologies for doubleposting, but yes, this hull angers me immensely. For the love of god let me move that bridge aft some. *Please.* This is the one from Search and Destroy, right?
  13. If I may make a suggestion: ditch the separate barbette parts. Go the Naval Ops route and just have it be different settings for the guns themselves; in said series, you pushed a button to pull up a mini-UI where you could flip the gun's facing and raise or lower its elevation. Implementing a similar solution would eliminate the current barbette placement woes and look much better than having three generic-sized barbettes for the whole huge range of turret sizes; you'd just be extending the turret's barbette cap texture downward. Another advantage of this sort of system is that you could tie the level of superfiring possible to tech levels. The earliest ships of this era didn't have superfiring turrets at all. Through the 30s, most ships used single-superfiring setups, with a few ships having double-superfiring secondary guns, like Yamatos and several models of American cruisers. And some very late paper designs like some Italian cruiser proposals had double-superfiring main batteries for a 5x3 203 broadside. The very top of the tree might be, at its most extreme, something truly ridiculous like unlocking double-superfiring for massive guns and having the ability to have a 6x3 508 broadside (of course, your citadel would be visible from space, and you'd take enormous stability penalties, from being so topheavy, but, yknow), or you could just leave it capped to like maybe the 203 to 305 range or something. If you fully implemented it, too, you could have things like the ability to set two centerline turrets between the bridges facing each other with one superfiring over the other, which would be a nice space saving measure, at a tradeoff of limiting your gun arcs a bit.
  14. So uh... am I just an idiot, or is the weight limitation, like, oppressively small on the early destroyers and torpedo boats we get to play with? Like I'd love to toy around with them a bit, but there seems to be basically no wiggle room to do anything. Is this intended and historical?
×
×
  • Create New...