Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DougToss last won the day on May 21 2020

DougToss had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

276 Excellent

About DougToss

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. But that's exactly what I mean. I don't think the mechanics are ready to be "locked-in". In fact, I think they need real work and consideration. I'm happy if the extra time is put to good use, but I hope that use means real work done on core mechanics.
  2. I'm sorry I haven't posted in here earlier. I have posted so frequently about gunnery in so many threads, it really is as @Cptbarney said at the point of burn out. There is no point taking hours to read about naval gunnery, on top of a career as an artilleryman, and now working on defence projects, reading about how gunnery is simulated in my spare time, and condensing that into posts for it to all fall on deaf ears. I am happy to read firing tables and Admiralty reports, if I think that contributing that research is a useful exercise. If not, I could devote my spare time to other intere
  3. That's the point of contention. Are there armour, gunnery and propulsion systems done satisfactorily? Quite a few would say no. These are not small things that can be hot fixed by tweaking values, these are pretty serious problems. They are not insurmountable, but I think they are absolutely worth considering. Again, that doesn't mean they can't be done, it just means that as they are now, with speeds, hit rates, and armour models far removed from any reality, there is serious work to be done under the hood to get ready for primetime.
  4. I thought Rule The Wave 2 was quite clever with setting parameters for each class. What would you tweak about this list? It certainly accounts for larger guns on protected cruisers.
  5. This board is rife with popular misconceptions plus confusing World of Warships for reality. I don't care about how things feel or balance. Let's just get it right. The historical sources are out there. As you learn more, your feeling and understanding of how things balance out will adjust. The only way to match historical results is with historical inputs and that means stamping out misconceptions.
  6. Gunnery, Protection and Mobility are not anywhere near done. I cannot believe people are saying that values "simply" need to be tweaked, adjusted, whatever. They are fundamentally not working, and this has been pointed out for months here. Look at what @RAMJB @akd @Steeltrap and others have been saying for ages, backed up with hundreds of historical sources, including mathematical models for getting some of these systems right. What is the point of a campaign where ships behave nowhere near their historical counterparts? In this game as it stands, you would be insane to not build gi
  7. I'm with @Steeltrap here. Fix the underlying systems, don't paper over the cracks. It's maddening to see each "fix" to ballistics create another wonky execution with a host of problems rather than just taking the time to start from scratch and get it right. This is not a problem of adjusting values 5% in either direction, this is a problem with how the system was designed.
  8. Adding on what @Steeltrap said, each one of these lies makes it harder and harder to test as we drift away from any point of reference, while still not being done. I've posted about this in a previous alpha, but I've decided to just repost it here since the situation is largely unchanged. Were I to speculate, I would guess that the Devs are taking feedback from here - which is great - but are acting reactively - which is not. What I mean is, rather than trying to change each system to achieve the desired result when things go wrong, take the time required to get each system perfectl
  9. I'm sorry but how is this the response to "I want torpedoes to be implemented well"? If anything, attention to detail and a serious treatment of the subject comes from a place of affection, right? Others have responded to this better than I have, but how many warships were lost from surface torpedoes compared to naval gunfire during this game's period? Break it down into the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War, and The Second World War, the ratio doesn't change much. The threat of torpedoes was a huge force shaping naval thought, technology, doctrine and tactics. The combat ef
  10. โ€œThe range rate Successful gunnery required that the position of the target be projected ahead, ultimately to the moment at which a shell might be expected to hit. To do that, the shooter had to calculate the rates at which the range and bearing of the target changed; they were usually called the range and bearing rates. Calculation was difficult because neither was constant, and because each depended on the other. Alternatively, one might think in terms of the vector (magnitude and direction) pointing from shooter to target. The change in this vector was another vector which might be called
  11. I'd like to see casemate guns of up to 10 or 11 inches. I don't know how possible that will be until casemates are procedural, but I'm with you.
  12. I appreciate your honesty. If anything, I think you're selling yourself a little short as that was a very thoughtful post. What UI or AI improvements would let you have fun, with everything "behind the scenes" being rigidly accurate? What I mean is, how could the meaning of gunnery tables be communicated to you in a fun and accessible way without you having to do, or really even understand, the math? Would it help if the pointer was colour coded based on the estimated hit rate? Something like this?
  13. That's where I sit as well. Regarding the role, from the first day of destroyers to the present day, their job was to screen. A destroyer in 1905 was an effective and useful screen despite there being no such thing as AAA or ASW. Making the enemy think twice before committing to what may be their one chance to fire torpedoes is effective screening, and a valuable role. Destroyers conducting this mission also fits in with my other main argument, secondary armaments were not nearly effective enough for capital ships to wholly, or even adequately, protect themselves. I don't see
  14. By the 1920s, navies generally had moved to larger guns. It's the way of the world. Compare tank guns in 1939 and 45 to see that play out over a condensed time scale, or MBT guns go from 90mm in 1950 to the 120-125mm guns of today. e: Whenever I think we're counting rivets too much over here, I look at the IL2:BOS forum ๐Ÿ˜ I'd love if we had that many engineers contributing over here, but I am a little relieved that we are not yet arguing about the specific resilience of different types of wooden spars.
  15. I know nobody is shocked that I'm lobbying for this, but that's exactly what I'm saying. This applies to guns and armour as well, as I posted a few pages ago. Better to go all-in on historicity so we can research the numbers like number of stored torpedoes, armour thickness, gun hit rates and so on. Reloading torpedoes by hand is slow, hard work. Just look at the size of the thing! I seem to remember torpedoes posing a large risk to the ships that carried them, and ships jettisoning torpedoes while afire to prevent them cooking off. Does anyone know where to start loo
  • Create New...