Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Ruan

Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

About Ruan

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I really should stop buying games from these guys if this is true. At least consolidate! Push out one game then move on to the next.
  2. You could not play his silly little game and give feedback and criticism. For all he knows he could just as easily be the minority. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with being upset about delays or directions of development and voicing that opinion. So long as your respectful about it.
  3. I would also say, in addition to missing mechanics, that if more and more people are starting to complain then perhaps the mechanics are in contrast to the pitch or description of the game. Which on the steam page is "extremely in depth realistic combat model" but we have something that's, in my opinion, starting to rival WoWS arcade. It's confusing and aggravating when I see the pitch clearly directed towards "realism" and the simulator crowd but then the game doesn't hold up.
  4. It's more than just a lack of content as the problem. Mechanics don't feel right and the direction of the game is unclear. Just having a solid base of mechanics can be enough to keep people playing and having a direction for the game will attract the kind of community you want playing it.
  5. Oof 5-6 months for first version of the campaign and only 2 nations at that. That's not nice to see. I thought you guys were working on it and wanted to release the steam version with the campaign? I'm getting Naval Action flash backs here. The update progress on that game pretty much stalled. Can I expect the same here? Either rate guess I'll shelf U:A for a year.
  6. Without a doubt. At the very least float planes should be added. They're an integral part of the History of Dreadnoughts. I would suspect that if the Devs did add aircraft it would be later after the campaign was completed and possibly as a expansion. At any rate if they want this game to compete with games like RtW2 it's going to need to look at aircraft long and hard. As right now the simulation is vastly inferior to RtW2 and the only thing going for UA:D is visuals. At least from my point of view.
  7. Good to see some love for missions but the increased fund trend is a little worrisome with prospect to the campaign. Can cheaper ships still be viable in some way?
  8. I think you misunderstood what I meant. You and the AI should be able to build the same ships within the same rules. If you can build a 39kn Battleship with 2 9" main guns, so can the AI. If you can build a Nelson class look-a-like on a cruiser, then so can the AI. Rule sets are not the same as algorithms however. The Devs could tell the AI, yes you can build that but maybe you should build something more conventional instead. So the AI might only pop out a wacky design 5% of the time instead of 60% of the time. That sort of thing. I believe this may be what's preventing the changes people have proposed. Like the proposal to have towers placed on a center line instead of single points. You'll need the AI to be able to also use that line to figure out where to place the tower and still build a functional ship with all the other modules. The best example of differing rule sets I can think of is Rule the Waves 2. You as the player builds ships to a slightly differing set of rules than the AI. The result is the AI can have designs before you would expect them or designs you can't replicate at all. Such as more guns or larger torpedoes, even adding AA or build aircraft. If you want to see it happening you can use the auto design in the ship builder or even better, let the AI build your legacy fleet. Easy example is CL classes. Use the auto to build you one and then attempt to copy it manually. Most of the time it'll spit out an error.
  9. The problem with this is it could be confusing to the player. Differing rule sets can make it surprisingly difficult to gauge what the AI can and cannot do and work around it. The second problem is differing rule sets could give the player a substantial advantage over the AI in unexpected or unintended ways.
  10. Yeah, This game is a long way from becoming main stream wargame. I'd guess it needs to at a very least win over RtW. Which I'd say at the moment it wont. But it's still early days so who knows.
  11. Part of me says let us build those silly designs and just apply the appropriate penalties. However, realistically they are so outlandish that just having restrictions would provide the same result with less development. Op does bring up a good point though. The designer is still very ridged with placement. The builder should have rules we need to follow. Like CL can only use 6-8 inch guns maximum or 4in armor maximum. That sort of thing but should give as much freedom within those rules as possible. I honestly feel that the current setup of having a huge number of hulls, super structure, guns, etc to pick from is creating more work for less results. This isn't a play for modular hull building but I like to use it as an example as you can build a few modules and end up with a larger amount of combinations and thus more hulls that what you would get with a pre-built list. Same goes for little things like having barbettes tied directly to guns and modular super structure. At any rate this is just me complaining that wasn't the system worked towards, as far as I can tell, and it's probably to late to change most of it at this point. All we can hope for now is that snap points are removed and perhaps some tools to control the shape of hulls to make the most of them.
  12. DLC adding in additional parts would be ok but I personally think that parts (hulls, towers, etc) should not be specially designed to pull off unique designs as seen in the Op. We should be able to do that with any part already given. However, that's the problem. The ship builder doesn't support building ships like these in the first place. The builder is to ridged and should be made to allow for creative designs such as seen in the Op and no I do not agree with any argument of "it was done this way" or "They never did that". I say let us do what we want and apply the appropriate penalties for stupid choices. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, the Devs haven't publicly stated a goal in terms of builder freedom. So all we can do is speculate and hope.
  13. Balance in this context is ensuring that nothing is significantly superior to something else in all areas. That doesn't mean, however, that say 18" guns cant be vastly superior in damage than the runner up, 17" guns. But the 18" should have something to offset that superiority. Like costs, weight, RoF, etc. Then there is balanced-inbalance. That's the idea that your not always going to be matched up evenly. Your enemy might have a ship that just happens to counter you rather well or has better tech in some areas. The trick here is you can still win or lose, even though the odds are against or with you. We won't be able to have a pure RL reality. There are just to many variables to track. Everything from how skilled the wielder was to how loose a bolt was or the number of ideas one guy had, can influence events in RL and place one group ahead of the others. it's just impossible to model that in a game.
  14. I think this is a problem with how damage is applied, armor and penetration values rather than shell damage. When ships have up to 20" (or more when armor effectiveness is applied) thick armor and that is the norm it's a wonder we can deal much damage with guns at all. It's probably why we bounce shells so often. However the real issue is how damage is applied. Once a compartment is red the ship will no longer take damage if that area is hit. This can cause ships to turn into damage sponges as they take damage. Larger shells seem to have a greater area that damage is passed off into. That might be what makes the 18" more effective than 17 or 16" but I can't be sure. The devs have noticed the problem and made some fixes in the short term. So hopefully as they continue to flush out mechanics it'll get better. This test doesn't really prove anything. At point blank even 17 and 16 inch would sink most ships very quickly. But the bigger problem is any test you perform in game would never be consistent. Is the angle the same? What about armor values on the enemy ship? Modules? Where did it hit? Etc. I can personally contest to this as I've bounced 18" shells on Cruisers before and done damage from instant kills to as low as 100 damage. Which I have also done with 17 to 15" shells as well. At the end of the day we know 18" deals more damage, which is appropriate, but how much exactly? we don't know. As disc stated we need to see the raw value to find out just how much more 18" do.
  15. Secondaries are very useful. I use a mix of 6 or 7in and 3-4in guns to great effect against DD and CLs. They're no substitute for a screen but they do a wonderful job keeping away small ships. Yes large guns deal more damage that's the way of things both in RL and game. This is why even a drop of 1 inch was a huge deal historically. However, there is a balance factor here of both RoF, cost and tonnage. Cost and tonnage are not that big of a factor now but when the campaign drops they will make a big impact. It's not the size of the hull or the tonnage that makes that difference. The size of guns is what makes that difference. That said each ship was built to counter a different ship. DDs are effective with torps against BBs while CLs counter DDs. So on and so fourth. There is some overlap and special exceptions but in general that's how it worked. Use screens to spot torps. A DD or CL with acoustic upgrades can spot them KMs away. While a BC or BB alone is unlikely to spot anything till its to late. A screen will also chase away or sink ships attempting to close for a torp run. If you do end up taking a few, try to eat it on the bow first then stern if possible. Midships hits will cripple your ship. Otherwise I think damage is fine. Although I do believe that a torpedo bulge should absorb a single torp for free on each side to simulate the "free" space that a bulge provides with some float loss, assuming you added a bulge. Which should be separate from normal torpedo defenses (torpedo belts). I also think that torpedo reloads should be removed. A single salvo from each rack unless you add a reload as an option for increase tonnage and cost. That accuracy is normal. Look at how close they had to get historically. Average close range for naval artillery around 1900's is about 2.7Km or medium rage of 4.5km. I like to think the focus is on naval artillery ships. Everything from Destroyers to Battleships. Just saying the game focuses on Dreadnoughts or "The heaviest ship class" and we risk losing a lot of depth that could of been.
×
×
  • Create New...