Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

TotalRampage

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About TotalRampage

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

31 profile views
  1. Range for ships is definitely going to play a factor between naval bases, that's why they have that slider bar to add more Range i.e. fuel storage. The only problem I see is how the TW approach would work with battles because if you go to the max range of your fleet like how most people do in total war how would that transmit to the battle per-say. Would my ships be almost out of fuel and or is fuel even a factor in battles which it should be because what happens if you try to outrun an pursuer or chase someone down myself. Then also on the campaign map would my ship move instantly in one turn like TW or is it more real time when you can actually see your ship move which I think would be damn awesome but thats me. Also they are going to use an random battle generator that just introduces variables and then creates a battle in a zone so we wont have fleets with exact compositions out because nothing ever goes as planned and they want to make sure we cant pick and choose our battles to much to make it alittle harder. They have that up on the website but that really doesn't say how we would actually move ships to regions just how an battle would commence. On a side note I hope they implement treaties in to say refuel at an neutral nations port during a war or even get interned there but moving on. Getting to my main point I do like the system TW uses but it might not fit well into the game with the random battle generation. Finally damn straight campaign should be imbalanced, im gonna make Italy the roman empire again and there aint no way the Brits are stopping me though.
  2. It could be a neat idea. But they as devs could also just put in reference template's that the AI wouldn't deviate a lot from. Also in campaign the type of fuel storage is going to play a big part and also the range at which they travel. I know in my games i turn range to little which can make or break a design.
  3. Thought with the 8’s was a sustainable long range fire on CA’s and CL’s so my 14’s could go after anything heavier. I’ve put good flood pumps and cit protection I’ll update later. But in terms of speed I’ll keep it just because of the evasion bonus that’s just ridiculous right now. Less of a chance to get hit it’s a gamble but one that should work nicely
  4. I'll have to go back and look at the guns I could mount on the raised barbettes because I think thats why I went with that specific 14in but ill try to raise the caliber if i can. Also the speed is also my favorite part 45kt means nothing can chase or run hahahah. Also ill probaly remove the 3ins an keep the 5's and 8's
  5. First thanks for the reply. Honestly range I wasn't factoring in just because it doesn't matter in academy so thanks for pointing that out. I could probably as you stated drop a few inchs from my deck and then add the range to medium. Also while im at work ATM ill check later but I did have the modules on for increased pumping and damage party to account for standard bulkheads also because of the Armour on my belt i'm confident that shouldn't be an issue. Also due to the mechanics in the game right now ships with this speed just are significantly harder to hit so my plan was to keep to an engagement range of around 12-14 km using speed to just have plunging fire from enemy ships to avoid floods as well. This was also the idea behind the increased conning towers and deck to keep the ship as accurate at range as possible because once you lose your con tower in this game the ship is extremely ineffective. Now the fore heavy. That was just well me trowing on just anything. I really wanted to try the new raised 2ndry's out so i threw the 8in up there with the raised barbette which is why its so fore heavy. I also wanted to keep the tonnage up because I was representing the balance inequality between BCs and BBs in custom because of upkeep costs so its essentially supposed to be a BB but on a BC body. I'll think about changing the fore because the ships designed to kite or stay at range so its not great to have it so fore heavy the only reason i would want to keep it could be situation engagements in game like a convoy raid or chasing down ships while having a narrower target for enemy ships to engage. Again thanks for the reply and criticism.
  6. So I tried my hand at re designing an battle cruiser class. The original Indefatigable class was sunk during the battle of Jutland. I decided to remake the class in 1933 setting seeing if i could make the best BC I could that hopefully wasn't out of the scope of what the campaign of the game would allow in terms of effectiveness. And I think I did pretty good just looking for any feedback if any. The class costs around 77.4 mil to lay down kinda expensive but only an maintenance of 7,800 a month which I thought was pretty nice because an battle ships maintenance for the same year just to lay down some of the hulls starts at 50k a month without any guns or superstructure attached. Its probably known to the devs and will be balanced before campaign but I thought it was funny I could have essentially 7 of these battle cruisers for the monthly cost of an unarmed giant barge. And finally the overview if you didn't see the picture 45kn top speed 5-16 inchs of armour with 16in belt and 14in deck 2x3 14in guns 2x2 14in guns 1x2 8in guns 8x2 5in guns 14x1 3in guns total displacement is 49,996/50,000 T Yes I essentially made the fastest BC I could with about the same armour as an USS Iowa. Well I'd love to hear what you guys think of my creation and some thoughts on what they could do to change balance in the game economy wise when the game comes out. Im curious to see what the devs do to actually combat monetary discrepancies between classes because if they don't we could get an extremely up armored BC race instead of a dreadnought race if the AI or more cheeky players notice. Just a note yes I know the games in alpha. Im not bashing the devs for not noticing something related to economy balance in a game that hasn't even released campaign for us to test things. Im just bringing it up in the off chance they didn't notice and my observation can help. Please see this gallery link for all updates to the design. Thank you all again
  7. I love reporting a bug then it gets fixed. Can't wait for the next update thanks guys
  8. By neutral shipping do you mean from other major powers? I think that would be a good idea say for instance you have unrestricted raiding weather subs or surface ships then that major might join the war against you. It would be a factor to consider when designating war targets and the like.
  9. I don't think anyone here who wants a multiplayer is looking for a competitive environment. I also understand the devs not wanting to include something that they are not 100% on board with but at the same time multiplayer adds a lot of replay ability to the game. I think it would be extremely fun to play this game with my friends in a scenario of versus each other lets say as the British and the Germans but also maybe because these campaigns would be long we could have a little back stabbing of allies if we tried doing a "cooperative campaign". Another cool feature would be if they are afraid of pacing maybe allowing people to control part of your fleet in a coop campaign or even allowing people to play as the same country. Multiplayer has a lot of different avenues the devs could explore and not including it very well may have people bore of the game quickly. I love the game but I don't ever do more than a few games a day because there really isn't a lot to do "early access I know" but imagine you play all the factions over and some campaigns gets a little boring because a lot of times you know what the AI will do in most instances a player adds some unpredictability to the game as well as the opportunity for me to convince my friends to play with or against me by purchasing the game. Complaining about balance in a campaign based on some country's not being up to par should not affect the game if they want an equal footing they could play a custom battle with a money limit. Honestly no ones really asking for a huge multiplayer experience of multiple people most of the people that want multiplayer would probably be happy with just 2 player coop. Anything more like an EU4 or HOI 4 size is not realistic in this game category.
  10. Motor Torpedo boats are def already in. They mentioned automatic mining I believe, i'd love to specify where i wanted more mines but I dont think that will happen yet. I'm kinda hoping they take this game in the direction of rule the waves with certain battle conditions needing to be meet. I'd love to be able to attack a port to delay construction or destroy the port facilities in game to cause them to repair. Also I would think port defenses should play a role as well like building up some port defenses and placing them to protect ports from ships and then maybe while attacking destroying said defenses built.
  11. Hey all I found a bug and reported it in game but just putting it on the forums. It's not game breaking but is a bug that is kinda just there. So the bug happens when ever you remove a DD or CL from an division and make a new division. What it does is resets the smoke timer giving you smoke again without having to wait for the recharge timer. You can do this an unlimited amount of times and can essentially make your destroyer squadron invisible. I can post Pictures later if wanted or required but its pretty reproducible.
×
×
  • Create New...