Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

roachbeef

Members
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About roachbeef

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. IIRC the reason the devs gave was that too many people were complaining about bugs caused by the cheat menu. They had no way of filtering them out, and with a small dev team you can't afford to be swamped with bug reports caused by features not intended to be accessible to normal users.
  2. As a BC fan, getting blown up early due to a magazine detonation (deck pen feels way higher than it should be in the 20k-30k yard band) and reloading with the exact same design while changing nothing is half the fun. Real life naval engagements were often dependent heavily on luck. I think an in-battle save system and resetting of random seeds upon load would alleviate concerns about RNG.
  3. Not in real time, but it's likely they'll be present in the form of bonuses in the campaign and in battle, similar to submarines. They are too large of a part of naval warfare post-1939 to be completely left out.
  4. Maybe events like whether or not the Fleet Air Arm is taken away from the Royal Navy, or procurement has to go through the Air Ministry, reducing the technological level of RN fleet aircraft. For the USA, have a rise in isolationism lead to reduced funding. Germany can have the Anglo-German naval agreement or Versailles (depending on how WW1 goes). Austria-Hungary can have Hungarian opposition to naval expansion. Japan can have the famous Army-Navy infighting cause reduced naval intelligence levels.
  5. I still feel that deck pen is way too high even considering material differences. It's currently impossible to create an immunity zone without stacking unrealistic thicknesses of deck armor.
  6. If you go back to the comment that sparked this discussion: So yes, we're in agreement that there's no need for the AI and player to use different "rule sets." However, practically speaking, the only thing we care about with regards to limiting factors in the game is the algorithm the AI uses to generate its designs. We all know why it must be limiting: turn times and load times can grow exponentially unless we put in restrictions for the AI, or forgo self-generation entirely and make it use some sort of local or cloud-based bank of designs. But we're letting the AI's stupidity to limit player freedom when we can simply place more restrictions via the AI's algorithms. Moving back to my argument on ship design, I'm going to repeat it every now and then until the devs commit to fixing the issue: Currently, the devs are implementing a bunch of unintuitive and complex rules on placement, stifling player creativity. That's terrible game design if you're looking for player choice. There should be simple rules that allow player creativity to shine. No more limited mounting points, no more fixed armor schemes, no more arbitrary pre-baked decisions on which mounts can be placed where. Rules should be based purely on real-life factors like structural integrity, funding, and model collision, not an arbitrary decision made by the devs for the player. The cost of giving player freedom is that it would cost an exponentially higher amount of time for the AI to build something that would be challenging to face in combat. That's why their choices need to be limited to keep turn times and loading times to an acceptable level. Maybe they'll download designs from a cloud of highly upvoted previous user designs, tiered according to the known specifications of the users' ships. Maybe the devs can make some prebuilt—preferably historical—designs that the AI can pick and choose from. The easier option for now is to limit what the AI can build. Keeping the current system is out of the question. transverse bulkheads customizable compartmentalization of engine spaces separate magazine protection edit placement, length, and height of belt armor real-time placement restriction based on model collision and You have turrets exploding from hits to the extended belt in AoN schemes because the devs are refusing to give players the ability to edit the height or length of belt armor. You have magazine detonations and destroyed engines way too often because the game completely removed key aspects of ship design by removing critical mechanics such as: You have designs like the County Class impossible to replicate because the idea of forgoing belt armor and creating smaller citadels to cover only the magazines is impossible.
  7. I do not believe that is a bad thing. AI can do some things that player cannot do, like control their entire fleet at once (yes, I know you can pause but most people will find that too time consuming). You don't need to force symmetry to have a fun game. In fact, limiting the AI even further in terms of what it will build may not be a bad idea. It'll make more believable decisions that way instead of building 49-kn ships with 2 9" main guns and 24 2" pop guns. If someone wants to exploit the AI, they can do it in their own time. Most players won't bother, and the ones who go in-depth into exploiting AI decisions are typically long-term players anyways.
  8. Once a ship lists severely enough, I feel like guns should not be able to fire if their elevation cannot counteract the list. See this enemy BB firing 15" guns even though visually they will be shooting at a point about 20 yards away from the ship.
  9. You could downgrade the graphics like the Wargame series, which has artillery and ships fire from dozens of miles away from each other. I, for one, would rather we get high-detail ship porn.
  10. I feel like another QOL we need is the ability to select our nations in Naval Academy. I have no interest seeing anything other than a White Ensign flying on my ship, so I go back to the mission select menu and try to reset the nation about 20 times before I get the one I want.
  11. Use the floating tooltips. If you mouse over the stats on the right side of the dockyard, it'll show buffs and penalties from all of the various stats.
  12. Proof that AI is cheating with their builds.... JK
  13. This will give a good reason to keep cruisers or ships like the Tribals around. I think the mutinies should also be tied into an adjustable sailor wage mechanic, like it happened to the RN. That would affect recruitment and retention.
  14. Looks like sinking ships don't have collision models.
  15. It's called hyperbole. In any case, the new missions are impossible to do because you can't build sufficient numbers of DDs without most of them turning around in circles trying to get into formation.
×
×
  • Create New...