Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

About fsp

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I disagree. Playing an AI has never been as thrilling as playing a human being for me. The problem with humans is rage quits, insults, immature behaviour etc., nobody needs that. But this is more of a strategy game/simulation, where you are more likely to find mature opponents to play with. So this could be good.
  2. Kudos on a brilliant post @Steeltrap
  3. Biggest problems with MMOG is indeed the huge time sink they are. That's fine for people who prefer to focus on just one game. I for instance want to try many different games. I played Naval Action and quite liked it, but at a certain point it became apparent that you need to devote just too much time to it to make reasonable progress.
  4. I agree when it comes to the design process. MMOs are often poorly designed and dumbed down to appeal to the broadest possible player base. However, there is no such danger in designing a game with single player in mind and then allowing two friends to face off in battles or a PvP campaign (again, repeating myself here, but think Total War MP here).
  5. You used to be able to play the campaign in early Alphas, I have read (by left-clicking and shift or alt I think). Anybody here who saw what the campaign looked like at this early stage and has some impressions he can share?
  6. I'd like that. At the same time I am also pretty sure that such logistics originally played no part in the designers' vision of the game. Maybe some of those ideas will now get implemented. Hopefully.
  7. That last idea sounds really cool, not sure if that's possible though. What I have always wondered, with for instance the reworks the Kongo class got - was that really more cost efficient than building new ships?
  8. - Like the tougher BBs, agree on soft kills being too difficult atm - Ships are too fast - AI really needs to be improved, as I don't want to have to micro manage every single ship once the campaign is there and we have battles with 10/20 ships on every side, and at that point you WILL start caring about losing four or five DDs/CLs - A while ago I read that torpedoes were fine, as they did less damage than historically, but we were granted more of them and would thus hit with them more often I reaaaaaaaaally don't like that idea. Torpedoes should do close to historical damage and hitting with one should possibly be a decisive event in a battle. This will change the whole dynamic of battles closer to something that is realistic - Balancing the game's economy will be a task in itself, so I am hoping for them to release the campaign soon. I don't mind if it's rudimentary/faulty, but it makes sense to try out different approaches: a fleet without BBs, only CA/DDs, maybe even only CL/DDs, old BBs, just BC/No BBs, the possibilities are endless.
  9. fsp


    Absolutely agree. I used to play Silent Hunter III (or maybe it was II) and will never forget that moment when I surfaced into a rough Atlantic storm, visibility well under 2,000 metres, it was just awesome. This should absolutely make it into this game.
  10. I absolutely love the fact that this game already starts in 1890 and not in 1900 (like RTW), giving us some time with pre-dreads. However, I am not so sure how much I loved the pre-dead battles I have had so far, they have such a hard time hitting enemy ships and this also seems very realistic. While I would appreciate an earlier start in general, I agree that it makes no sense to have one if this means the team has to work on making another generation of ships playable in game.
  11. I bought Victory at Sea: Pacific. Have hardly played it. Have sunk tons of hours into RTW2. While I agree that we should not ask for too many features from such a small team, I just feel that planes are a must. They are integral to naval warfare of the period in the game, it just feels totally weird not having them. Especially strange that some of the people that push for realism all the time are cool with omitting planes and CVs. I absolutely understand and appreciate the RTW/RTW2 analogy. IF we could be certain of getting a UAD 2 within a couple of years, I would be fine with UAD 1 not having planes. But there is always the danger of not getting that and tbh I really don't like RTW 1 that much because of its lack of planes.
  12. These kind of suggestions were what I was hoping for, I like all of them. Keep them coming
  13. I would love tons of hulls to play around with. I think we all would. At the same time I think that maybe the development time would be better spent in more flexibility with the hulls that are already there (placement of barbettes, guns, towers etc.) and making other things work, than including more and more different hulls. This is not to say that the number of hulls is already sufficient, there is still some lack in the DD and CL department especially, but I am a bit worried we are focusing too much on hulls. I was really, really hoping for a taste of the campaign next Alpha, but can fully understand that they are not quite there yet. Here is a feature I really want and I don't think it's coming for this update, or have I missed something? Saving your design in custom battles! Let's say I designed a US BB to fight a UK BB. Cool, I won. Now I would like to see how that design would do against 3 UK CAs. Or maybe 2 old UK BBs. I will have do redo the entire design. I hate that. Also, it would be great if we could a) design all ships that take part in custom battles b) at least the ones for you side
  14. Trying to start a thread for small things the campaign should have, which sometimes easily get overlooked during development and become a PITA later one. This is not supposed to be about discussions if the campaign should be RTS or open world. I am assuming something similar to RTW2 here and will post some gripes I have: 1) For the love of god no hard-coded end date for the campaign. If I want to continue playing, just let me, even though things might be a little weird with 1940s tech in the 1980s. So what? 2) I am assuming there is some sort of "tech tree"/ research. If possible, research could continue past the 1940s with generic techs that improve certain aspects like guns, engines, ROF, think "future techs" in CIV maybe 3) There really need to be wars and battles between AIs as well. It killled my immersion that there were none of those in RTW. 4) Allow for some asymmetrical battles, those can be a lot of fun. A CL squadron caught by an unescorted BB in transfer, etc. 5) Definitely have the AI run in campaign mode as it did in the last alpha. That was great and very sensible. Cut your losses, run home and live to fight another day when the battle starts going to your disadvantage. That's what most humas would do, it's what the AI should do as well. To spice things up, have the AI charge at you with everything it's got even when losing in 5-10 percent of cases. 6) Peace negotiations - the UI should be a lot better for this than in RTW, it should also allow you to be more specific about what you want after a war you have won. 7) The government could give you missions during the war, e.g. "Invade this or that coast", "defend that island at all cost" etc., with the results determining how willing your government is to enter peace talks. 😎 Fleet and sea zone management is a PITA in RTW. Please come up with something better. Thoughts? Additional ideas?
  15. Both of those are very good ideas. The first one should be very easy to implement. The second one might take time and resources that at this point are better invested elsewhere, but I still like it. Maybe the community can help with this and provide some of those designs at a certain point? I think there are certainly some enthusiasts around who would relish doing this and the design team's efforts are better focused elsewhere, since it is such a small team.
  • Create New...