Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Shaftoe

Members
  • Content Count

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Shaftoe last won the day on March 14

Shaftoe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

355 Excellent

1 Follower

About Shaftoe

  • Rank
    Midshipman
  • Birthday March 14

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Russia
  • Interests
    Naval history, historical and modern warships, naval tactics and games.

Recent Profile Visitors

279 profile views
  1. Some day this thread may reach 20 pages. Just think about it...
  2. People in this thread seem to treat the government and the military as two completely different entities. This is wrong. Military, and thus the Navy, is merely a branch of larger government (i.e. state), with its own field of expertise and operations. Head of state will not listen to ministers of education, justice and healthcare for an advice on naval or otherwise military matters. While people like minister of finance and minister of defence may have a say in naval affairs, historically Naval officials were the ones promoting/opposing participation in treaties, such as the Washington Treaty. Normally, navies are directly engaged in policy making, when it concerns them. And you must agree - not involving them would have been stupid. You see, coding a complicated system of international (and internal) policies has to be very time-consuming, and at that it falls outside of the scope of this game, therefore a simpler and easier-to-control system is needed: it should be up to the player to affect signing of any treaty concerning naval restrictions or spending, although in bad situations players should not always be able to get preferable political solution. However, if the system were to be completely outside player's control (as if the minister of education decided whether to sign a naval treaty or not), then it would be nothing more than a questionable and frustrating design choice on the devs' part. Ultimately, you may agree or disagree with that approach, but this is a game, and finest examples of gaming industry (particularly strategy games) demonstrated time and again that more control is better than less.
  3. Player should be able whether or not they want to sign any treaty. And each treaty must have its own page, with PROs and CONs clearly laid out.
  4. While I agree that the game should allow far more creative freedom, so we can build historical vessels such as the Nelson-class BB, I cannot agree with the idea of having 18" on a light cruiser (unless it is some sort of 1st April scenario). Realism and design feasibility often walk hand in hand, so there are serious practical reasons why some unorthodox ship designs simply wouldn't work. "Strategy should govern the type of ship to be designed. Ship design, as dictated by strategy, should govern tactics. Tactics should govern details of armaments." -J. A. Fisher, 1904
  5. This exaggeration is not exactly accurate. It depends on specifics of a vessel in question.
  6. What devs should do is make in-game learning materials (aka "manual" or "tutorials") very easy to access, so even the (proverbial) blind will quickly find them. I suggest placing "Manual" button in main menu, right above "Naval Academy", and secondary relatively LARGE button that will be seen in-game or during ship construction phase somewhere on the top.
  7. Use these two things: google and common sense. Should help a lot.
  8. Sadly, many Naval Academy missions are very poorly balanced, most often not giving the player enough time, or allowing enemy fleet to escape barely having enough surviving units to deny victory. So in NA scenarious luck is too much of a factor. In fact, sometimes it is the most important decisive factor. And these issues remain unaddressed, now for a very long time...
  9. There is still this annoying bug, obstructing placement of DD turrets.
  10. I already reported that bug. It's pretty annoying. But there is a workaround: hold LShift and move your lower turret a little forward - should solve the problem. Also, US DDs 5" twin mounts and triple mounts are essentially multi-barreled version of a turret which, IIRC historically only had 1 barrel. But the game has realistic USN 5" twin turrets (similar to those on USS Sumner and USS Gearing), and in my opinion - they should be used instead.
  11. No, it can't be placed farther back on DLs. But it can be placed in front.
  12. For some reason, only standard destroyers can use double funnels, but not leaders or small DDs. I think this should be addressed. At least for leaders.
  13. Some placement markers are actually inaccessible. There is not enough space for superstructure farther back.
  14. Bumped into this nasty bug. Wrong collisions. It says "not enough space", but there is clearly plenty of it.
×
×
  • Create New...