Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Teckelmaster

Members
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

38 Excellent

About Teckelmaster

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Not even to scout for contacts and plot intercept courses? How useless were those scout planes?
  2. I think that it is not possible to leave out air power at all, if this game is to be historically adequate or correct or however we call it. But i think that the implementation of air power later in development process somehow resembles history, as naval warfare development went pretty far, and then (more or less) out of a sudden everything was obsolete with aircraft carriers ruling the waves. If cv‘s are introduced later on, we will basically relive that. So i think it would be appropriate. I have no idea whatsoever how airpower could or should be implemented, not gameplaywise or programmingwise. I just know, that i would love the game to be historically incorrect by leaving planes and subs completely aside, as i fear our ships would suffer an equal fate as those in reality. Being assets to aircraft carriers, mostly.
  3. That makes me wonder, do the actual numbers they put there determine the destructive power of the shells or are they just a showcase? Do they appear anywhere in the formulae or destructive calculation, when actually being fired? If not it would be an easy fix by simply get the numbers in the tables right. If the weight as shown in the info is the actual base value for their final damage calculation though, the unholy armorpiercing capability you mentioned might explain itself automatically. It might be a modern problem though, as here in germany, in (rather bad) documentaries, the common statement usually is „it fires a probectile weighing as heavy as a mid size car“ and we all know how cars got heavier in the last decades....;)
  4. I start to get curious considering the number of factors the devs implemented in calculating the stats of ships and hulls and the impact of draft, beam, length, centre of gravity and how „physical“ this model actually is. I mean, the number if formulae and experiences the shipdesigners used in the beginning of the 20th century was surely limited?! How accurate are the ship designs we currently can do and where are we going to get to? In terms of length, draft, beam, speed and consequently the relation between all of those? Can anybody recommend a source where i can find a basic introduction into these fields of battleship design?
  5. Balancing multpilayer games and balancing singleplayer games is - from my point if view - not compatible. I prefer it to be primarily - if not at all - to be sp and i hate competition and social pressure, both of which, especially in pvp games, are far too wide spread fir my taste.
  6. I refer to one of my absolute all time favorite strategy games, when i answer this: Homeworld. I am actually old enough, that i played Homeworld when it originally was released. And Homeworkd had a system, where each projectile was „physically present“ and calculated. Homeworld 2 did not. The fanbase screamed in pain and agony, but to be perfectly honest, i did not notice a difference. I guess it is a lot harder to program a system calculating each individual projectile, rather than a simple rng thing. Since i am sure, that in terms of gaming experience i would not notice a huge difference, i do not really care too much about how they do it, as long as it works adequately enough. Here i refer to the experts in this forum, who know a lot about true accuracy, when i say, that currently it seems quite unhistorically and incorrect. However, i mentioned in another thread, you can not hit the wrong ship accidentally, using this rng model. And since i play a lot, i had so many shells „land in wrong ships“, but simply falling through, that is a bit agonizing, to be perfectly honest. is it painfull enough to change a significant part of programming? I do not know. If devs say „sure, easy!“ then do it. It adds to realism, having true shells. If not, i do not have an oppinion. And finally i admit, that i do not understand the full depths of your proposed system, so i simply assumed the rest
  7. Haha, true, which ship had again it‘s windows blown out by the blast of it‘s main guns? And wasnt there an early 18 inch gun ship that even capsized due to imbalance and gun blast problems? I would google, but i guess a 1912 ship designer would love to google that either
  8. You are definitely right. Engine boost is a great choice, especially since order aaaaah patch 666. Oops typo.... doubletypo... But i think that if one above all, then guns. It is easier to bring a heavy slugger, than a well balanced design, most of the times. Chances, from my experience alone, are slightly better, that with a lucky drop and a semistupid ai build your enemy comes up with, you can steamroll in easy mode. While as an experienced player, you can make really well balanced and pretty good builds with any combination of scenario and boost. In a first shot at a mission, i really think, that gun technology is more often than not a good, if not the best (in terms of easiest) pick. I admit on the other hand, that there are missions i do not win several times a day. Or even go into every day. But mostly i can find multiple builds for each mission. Still i do also prefer to bring the biggest, best armed (not heaviest calibre, but the best accuracy/dmg combination) ship, as i really am a big fan of big, powerfull and heavy Battleships. That is the point where i wait fir the campaign, so we can finally see, what the ai makes us bring in that kind of challenge, how well balanced our fleets actually need to be. I really start biting my nails a bit... Edit: there are a few missions, where recon and engine boost are superior choices, i want to add and not doubt. It is more like a general idea and rule of thumb. And as i said, just my experience from how i happen to play games. And, fortunately for my country, im no admiral.
  9. Yeah, i agree, in most scenarios the gun boost appears the best. It is not always the number and size of guns alone (especially in 66) but much rather accuracy and rate of fire. I almost never go with more money, in most cases i even try to max out a single ship, because mostly that appears to be superior to several less capable ships. And in the current situation i, for the first time since i play this game, find speed and lower visible range of own ships to be necessary. Both especially in the numbers dont matter mission, i got 4 super slow but incredibly armed ships gunned away under my butt, while 3 fast battleships finally destroyed an eneny ship that was even well designed, though „only“ carrying 17 inch guns. My preferences therefor always are guns and accuracy and general tech second. More money is in almost all cases last choice. Though i did all academy missions with all choices by now and some are really not funny in „alternative“ approaches.
  10. Hello of course i do not expect ramjb to do a wiki all on his own here, but he has so much written all over the place and it must be so much work already, i just think some of those essays should be put together in a single thread, because it is a shame if such information gets lost in the nirvana, once patch 66 is no longer up to date. I think he has more than anyone else put together here, not that i want to put the other members efforts aside, but his contribution is just on this side of crazy stuff (the good version of) lets copy paste it in his own thread and that must come close to a book, concerning quantity.
  11. Amazing. But i think to remember that actually at the same battle of samar the japanese used those color coded shells, would have to dive back into that, though. ( only now you mentioned it, it struck something i cannot really say for sure) Thank you.
  12. And could we not make a sticky thread where we abuse RamJB‘s knowledge and let him share it? I mean, it is so entertaining to read, now i want that „basic“ knowledge i just received about finding solutions in a similar fashion for propulsion, armor, actual gun generations etc. and since it is difficult to scroll through all those threads to find something specific, i request: Admiral RamJB‘s table for naval warfare thread. Just saying...
  13. Could several ships work on cooperative solutions? I think i read, that japanese navy used colorcoded splashes to identify individual shots from different ships, so they didnt break up the target solutions of each other, but if one ship happened to be accurate, did it help the others? And, what happened to be the longest big gun shot, that connected? Is there data available or did it get lost in combat? I imagine, that in the heat of battle, documentation of each shell fired might not have been considered a primary objective. Even though it might have proven usefull for gunnery development.
  14. I just started another game and noticed one more qol thing i would love: Once your rdf finds the direction of enemy vessels, or the smoke is spotted, can we have it, that turrets start rotating that way, as i think a real admiral or captain would go into "combat ready mode". Not certain, how that was/is handled in navies, but there must be something similar to star trek "yellow/red alert"?!
×
×
  • Create New...