ThatOneBounced
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by ThatOneBounced
-
-
On 7/3/2020 at 2:20 PM, Cptbarney said:
Ye id rather not have a rng battle generator as that would be pretty boring and would also make no sense, if you want to stand out more you will need to add features not found in the current market the game is going for and combine them together into one (easier said than done).
agreed my one issue i had with RTW was when I would deploy my biggest and best capital ships just to engage in a battle with my light cruisers (which at the time i would only have a handful) against the enemies light cruisers (which was the only class of ship which the enemy outnumbered me in) It makes wars frustrating to have a lot of modern battleships just to encounter destroyers or light cruisers even though it says a the enemy home fleet is within the region.
-
2
-
-
I lean towards having excellent gunnery with high quality guns at ranges that exceed any other ship. I take the highest quality gun i can get a hold of even if it is not technically the biggest. once the other ships have been weakened the battleships close the distance and seal the fate of the enemy fleet. light cruisers and bellow will be equipped with lots torpedoes to disorganize formations while also countering smaller units. battlecruisers have been a tricky one as I try to make them a "sniper" of sorts and staying behind the battleship line to avoid concentrated fire while also out ranging and outgunning battleships while in a fleet battle.
So basically gunnery
-
3
-
-
Looking here and I am quite dismayed. I mean I think 5-6 months was a reasonable amount if time given the circumstances and progress. I mean we still don't even have a foundation in which to build a skyscraper quite yet. As of right now I assume we are very close to realizing that foundation with what has been done thus far. I for one am happy we at least have a date now instead of us bothering the devs over when we will see a release or an update on progress. We now have said update on progress and instantly everyone has grabbed their pitchforks. While ive only been playing off and on as of late, i do quite look forward to what is to come at this point and am satisfied with progress thus far. I mean we all paid for a Alpha game still in heavy development with old deadlines still being the benchmark. So I for one am satisfied knowing we have the resemblance of a timeline with goals and as of right now a playable game in itself.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Xenol said:
Now, to me the combat aspect of this game was of secondary interest to the building phase – after all the unique construction aspect is what sets this game apart from its competitors. Because of this, I came into the game with less preconceptions and perhaps can review it with more fairness. (My thoughts on construction can be seen here)
I am going to start by saying that I am still very much a novice at the combat part of the game. Although I have sampled a fair number of the missions, my success rate has been very low. Therefore I am going to focus most my comments on the UI, since I do not feel competent enough to critique the actual mechanics of fighting at this point.
My first comment actually comes before a mission even starts. You are given a screen which tells you the makeup of both your and the enemy’s fleets. Ideally I would like to be able to adjust my divisions before the mission actually starts. Say I have 4 battleships and I want to put them into 2 divisions; currently I must load the mission, pause, then go through the rather clunky system of changing things about.
On the topic of pausing, I found myself instinctively hitting the space-bar to stop the action. I don’t know if this is just because of years using video and audio editing software though. Just seemed the most intuitive bind to me!
I personally found the division controls at the bottom pretty unintuitive during gameplay. My natural instinct when I wanted to — say — detach a ship or add to another division — was to right-click on its icon, which instead changed its course. I would suggest potentially removing the separate icon, and consolidating those controls in a right-click popup menu. (mockup below)
A further optimisation could be the ability to simply click and drag a ship’s icon between divisions. Anyone who has used a software like photoshop would be familiar with this, like you are sorting layers.
These are my initial thoughts regarding the combat section. Once I have played a bit more I shall make some more comments. I will say, there does seem an unfair bias against the player in some scenarios. There’s been missions where I’ll pause almost as soon as I load in, and the enemy will already have shells in the air, before I have a chance to target them or my turrets can traverse. In another situation I spawned with an enemy torpedo boat a few hundred metres away who immediately launched a salvo of torps into my flank sinking me, giving me no opportunity to manoeuvre whatsoever.
Absolutely love this idea!
-
2
-
1
-
-
Some good news.
Recently did a Falkland island inspired battle with 1915 tech. I found my battlecruisers (using 13in guns) and when switching to HE shells against a Armored cruiser around 8 kilometers away, shots were 80% less effective than AP shells.Shells would not pen even a 8in at most armored cruiser. perhaps at least at WW1 era tech the balance between shells has finally been implemented as HE spam was way less efficient in this action even against opponents of smaller size.
-
1
-
-
While not a extremely annoying issue, a nice quality of life change would be adding a weight ballast option for the ship builder. Weight offset is not a serious issue but certain hulls (N3/g3, Battle cruiser III [with super firing B turrets], dreadnought III and some other ships i have not named) have extremely odd tower placement which puts the ship design in a serious bind regarding offset. maybe at the cost of some wasted displacement we can see ballast to help balance the ship which can cause in interesting decision on whether or not using that weight for more smaller guns or component options or using ballast to increase ship accuracy by having a balanced ship.
-
10
-
-
8 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:
Yep. Right on point. Instead of begging devs to nerf destroyers into oblivion, somebody should learn how to use them defensively.
I'm not even salty at this point, I am just failing to understand how you do not see how inherently broken this can become in your "larger campaign balance". literally they have the power to TRUMP ALL OTHER SHIPS. its not even a high sees rock paper scissors match anymore. please explain to me why there is a reason to build anything other than 40 knt oxygen torpedo destroyers with multiple 5 mounts tubes. And why would I play destroyers defensively when I know like the post above said can kill a bunch of the enemy capital ships for basically free?
32 minutes ago, ston5883 said:At the loss of 1 DD to 3 Capitol ships
tell me why I would need to build anything other than destroyers. I really want to hear your side. Because I have listed many ways to make them more beneficial and realistic to the game play loop (weather and suicide deterrence) but you just flat out ignored them. My point is by the time destroyers are detected its too late, cant evade and cant kill. their target signature and smoke screen put them in firing range before a single one of may ships (with max towers) spot them. Then when I am able to detect them secondaries cant cant an accurate shot before they're already turned away to reload and then make another run. rinse and repeat these steps and now youre battle line is in complete shambles not to mention any vessels who were unfortunate enough to not be able to evade 60 torpedo because ship path finding steered them straight into them. destroyers in the player's hands are much worse. being able to kill absolutely anything that opposes them with little risk or penalty to themselves or to the nation in question's financial budget. Please tell me how this is not broken in the larger grand scheme of things
-
2 hours ago, Shaftoe said:
People here are essentially whining that we need strict restrictions on ship design measured by what has been achieved IRL. That eliminates the freedom of imagination. Furthermore, you seem to be advocating for arbitrary restrictions to somehow conjure up some semblance of balance in a deliberately unbalanced game.
ok a destroyer meta obviously doesn't exist then. there is literally absolutely nothing wrong with having torpedo spam literally trump all other forms of combat. Nothing wrong with ships being able to launch torpedoes beyond detection range. And definitely nothing wrong with ships with an effectiveness that greatly outweighs ships 50 times their size. if this is what is considered perfectly fine in game balance then I will definitely consider purely building destroyers with 45 kts, 4x10 torpedo tubes, and just replace any losses (if they are even hit) within months. not waste my nation's money on anything bigger since this reduces the numbers of destroyers i could field and kill things a lot slower. I can pretty much send them anywhere, and intercept anything, and can one shot anything smaller than a battleship. Maybe, just maybe, Ill need battleships and cruisers in the beginning when destroyers cant get reliably in range, after that there are no reason, other than power projection, to use anything else. This is what I call freedom of imagination.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:
Your link isn't working for me. I did, however, just do it in the reverse direction.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/qvvBzcx16gG8ACgVA
By making 40 knot DDs, I managed to get about 4 of those battleships before all my DDs died. I will buy that if I handled them better, I can get 6.
So basically, when the human builds and controls the BBs, he wins pretty easy. When he builds and controls the DDs, same. Though i definitely worked harder when fighting as the DDs, and it'll probably take longer to replace tjhe lost ones than patch up my BBs.
A lot of the problem, from what I can see is that the AI doesn't start hitting the DDs before it is too late. Though the hit rates are really suppressed, they could still have done much better if they hadn't focus fired on my BB until my DDs got too close.
Well, but human players really hate the AI when it actually does its best to win by building fast ships. That's why enemy ships are on average slower this round. Having said that, BB vs 12 DD mission before the latest changes shows that defeating DDs isn't that hard if you plan.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/s4HSTkqB3UUhJP589 now the reverse, perfect example of ghost torpedoes. Its too late to avoid and the spread devastating, if i was using anything other than a battleship with reinforced and many bulkheads (anything lower would have been deleted).
-
9 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:
Your link isn't working for me. I did, however, just do it in the reverse direction.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/qvvBzcx16gG8ACgVA
By making 40 knot DDs, I managed to get about 4 of those battleships before all my DDs died. I will buy that if I handled them better, I can get 6.
So basically, when the human builds and controls the BBs, he wins pretty easy. When he builds and controls the DDs, same. Though i definitely worked harder when fighting as the DDs, and it'll probably take longer to replace tjhe lost ones than patch up my BBs.
A lot of the problem, from what I can see is that the AI doesn't start hitting the DDs before it is too late. Though the hit rates are really suppressed, they could still have done much better if they hadn't focus fired on my BB until my DDs got too close.
Well, but human players really hate the AI when it actually does its best to win by building fast ships. That's why enemy ships are on average slower this round. Having said that, BB vs 12 DD mission before the latest changes shows that defeating DDs isn't that hard if you plan.
-
19 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:
Look, I just ran that experiment. The destroyers were really easy to kill and I basically just let the computer do all the work.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/nWJsvc7zB9sXJBnS8
Sure, one of my battleships got clipped pretty good by torpedoes and one other got nicked by one at the end, but basically neither was in any danger.
I really don't think we have to worry about AI destroyers being the end of us
https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipO9WlEYQ0zhhPRhyfiZDOrrZ0PUxIh2th2zxo66
just did this test, no contest.
-
5 hours ago, Shaftoe said:
Next time you people start btching about DDs being OP in suicide runs, remember what USS Johnston achieved in reality. I'd say it's quite realistic. And yet, DDs simply don't have the capability to replace other ship classes. In a certain scenario it may work out, but once there will be more concerns to care about (those are coming with the campaign), DDs will quickly lose most of their "overpoweredness".
And I caution you against nerfing DDs, downgrading them to the role of stage dancers - this is how you usually kill a game class and ruin larger balance.
Might I refer you to my point earlier
16 hours ago, ThatOneBounced said:A more accurate interpretation of destroyer captains can be found in captain Ernest Evans of the Johnston at Samar, but even then, he had rain squalls to mask him and several other destroyers and destroyer escorts. However they only destroyed or damaged heavy cruisers and most of the destroyers in the action were sunk or seriously damaged
yes i did bring them up, but I also said why in that scenario, the destroyers pulled off the attack. there are no such thing as visibility obstructing environmental events (other than smoke screen) to mask any advances. which was my suggestion earlier. In campaign destroyers will present a major problem as of right now I can plan a fleet of entirely destroyers (and maybe a single capital ship to distract enemies) and pretty much win most large scale conflicts.The cost of the destroyer (material cost, build time, and maintenance costs) are cheap (and for good reason thats not an issue) and they can take on a entire battleship line and completely obliterate it and skate away. If I take heavily losses (lest say 70% of a destroyer flotilla) i can just replace them after half a year to a whole year and repeat the process. the other nations are now without their major super weapons for a long period of time and maybe might not have the funds to replace them while I can just keep printing any destroyer I lost and maybe keep adding torpedo tubes to later versions. there's no reason to build anything bigger than a heavy cruiser or maybe light cruisers which that can destroy smaller screen units and distract battleships (and it can drop it's own fair share of torpedoes to cause disarray in the enemy battle line) because destroyers can sink ships 90 times their displacement at little to no cost. sounds broken if you ask me.
If you want destroyer rushing then the battle environment may need to have weather to accommodate. secondaries should be more accurate or have the overall MANEUVER and SPEED penalties be knocked down a peg at the addition to create rain squalls to make destroyers harder to hit and create more strategy in their attacks
-
1 minute ago, RAMJB said:
Bismarck's radar was nothing but a rangefinding aid for her optical rangefinders, and her optical rangefinders were actually more accurate. It was a decimetric wavelenght set with very limited resolution, and incapable of true blind firing.
Germany didn't have any blindfire capable radar until they began manufacturing centimetric sets by 1945, and by that stage it was only a theoretical capability, as by that time all the big units of the kriegsmarine were either in the bottom of the sea or unseaworthy at port.I stand corrected, but still proves the point that she was still blind to ships around her
-
1 hour ago, arkhangelsk said:
I meant the night attack by a bunch of British destroyers before KGV and Rodney moved onto the scene. Not a single destroyer was killed.
Historically, secondaries just weren't that effective (you might go dredge up the Alpha 2 thread, when destroyers were even harder to kill). One percent hit rates really were quite realistic.
once again it is not fair comparison, night action in the 1940s is significantly different in terms of visibility. The destroyers had the wind in their favor with rail squalls and pitch black surroundings. Bismark itself severely damaged her own radar so she can't target the ships around her meaning they could get close. Once again I want to refer you to Samar, broad daylight but the destroyers used rain squalls to get in close enough to be a threat and wreaked havoc on Center Force. in both your scenario and mine, none of the larger capital ships could reliably target the smaller ships because of environmental factors. As of right now there is no weather meaning that there is no reason that these ships are so difficult to hit. For your scenarios to be the dream function of smaller ships, it would be beneficial to buff secondaries (be honest to me, find me a broad daylight surface action where a destroyer screen straight up threw themselves at enemy capital ships and won) and create weather mechanics that can influence accuracy to make ships harder to hit to add some strategy instead of suicide runs
-
34 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:
I must say that this is NOT my experience with destroyers. If anything, in practical terms, they are a little too easy to hit. Let me make a suggestion, though. Use the main guns. Then all you will have to do is get one hit (which you can usually get if you wait long enough) and destroyer should be obliterated
cant relate to this strategy. Yes being able to one shot ships is possible, but ammo is tight and choosing to waste 10+ salvos on a 1.2%-9% hit chance or continue pounding enemy battleships (where the more shots you take at them the more the hit chance) who's at around 40% in the same amount of salvos fired. if I had the choice between using my ammo to make sure I can kill 3 battleships with units who stand a fighting chance when they fire back or give up 1-2 of them to kill 3 destroyers who quickly have dropped torpedoes and turned tail (while also maneuvering so its a low hit chance on top of OWN MANEUVER). So its not worth dragging in the extra ammunition and also risk higher magazine explosion from torpedoes while also trying to kill ships carrying massive amounts of torpedoes.
34 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:As far as realism is concerned, there are so many examples when little destroyers got close to a large ship and let loose effective torpedo salvoes or just could never be hit. Some of the ships making runs at Bismarck got all the way down to 4000m and they all survived.
The issue with this example is this is one modern battleship who is already distracted by King George V and Rodney and with them are a dozen of cruisers and destroyers. At the point where said ships closed the distance to fire torpedoes, Bismark is in bad shape from being mauled to death by the battleships and any guns still operating are greatly overwhelmed. it's impossible to sink even the smallest of vessels at that point.
A more accurate interpretation of destroyer captains can be found in captain Ernest Evans of the Johnston at Samar, but even then, he had rain squalls to mask him and several other destroyers and destroyer escorts. However they only destroyed or damaged heavy cruisers and most of the destroyers in the action were sunk or seriously damaged.
yes i have beaten all the the anti torpedo missions, but I play mostly custom battles giving the battles a more practical feel.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Purgato said:
That may be your problem. While 6 inches are fine, using a 5 inch gun is just a barely capable gun. It should be used maybe as a backup at most, that or just something small to keep damage up on longer lasting engagements. Also getting the reload time as low as possible would be a good plan. Maybe even try light shells along with reloading tech. But I will say using as many guns as possible is still probably viable even with 5 inches.
But like @madham82 said, the AI for destroyers is a little bit busted. I seriously think there isn't too much wrong with the mechanics of hitting them or around them. It's more just their insatiable and near suicidal blood lust at the moment. Which I hope might be fixed one day soon and that they might function a bit more realistically in the future.my main philosophy with secondaries is as many as possible, firing as fast possible, but so far the 8 inch guns seem to be working a charm
on the light ammo choice, I had an interesting idea, I think secondaries and main guns should have different ammo type selectors. secondaries can have light-standard-heavy with light being effective as quick firing guns, but useless against even the lightest of capital ship armor, and the heavy being the slower firing, more effective in dealing some extra damage at close range ammo type.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, madham82 said:
Now for my recommendations on dealing with them in game. I focus fire all guns on any approaching too close. 8" secondaries seem to be the most effective as even a couple of double or triple gun mounts can put out enough shells to get hits reliably. And usually 1 causes a big enough loss to speed to make it easy prey. Anything under 5" really isn't worth it unless you have excess $/weight in your build. If you are swarmed by DDs, just fire on them long enough to get them to break away. Then they will be easier to deal with if they come back at you.
for the secondaries question i use 5 inch turrets and 6 inch tertiary or all 6 inch if i have space
-
23 minutes ago, Purgato said:
Sorry I didn't ask before, but is there a particular mission you're currently doing? That may make it a little easier to help out with this situation.
I ask since over time towers and other technologies can help out with even spotting the smallest ships at range. Also I will fully admit, it can be messy to try and keep a battle line somewhat together at this point. If the whole thing collapses I'd recommend pausing right as the leading ship in a column switches and removing the old one it from the group and manually pulling it away. You can do that as well if any of the ships within it may be near to running into some torpedoes to manually maneuver them away.
custom battles 1915 or 1925 was then i did my tests, one was an actually battle (1915) then I switched to 1925 to do another battle which caused me to actually experiment with 1 battleship and 8 destroyers vs 6 battleships and came out on top
-
16 minutes ago, Purgato said:
Honestly, just keep experimenting as well, destroyers will remain a major threat, torpedoes are definitely a major threat for any ship. Keeping them out of range of launching them or (and I'm unsure if they'll patch this out later) seeing when they've launched due to the torpedo reloading starting is a good way to avoid them in the first place.
Just finished experimenting, tried throwing everything between my battleships and their destroyers. didn't work. aggressive torpedoes to prevent AI ships from coming close, didnt work. Then tried straight up avoiding engagement entirely and maybe throwing faster cruisers at them, they still just launched torpedoes at me (and a ton at that). Just struggling in general with preventing destroyers being in launch range when they are not visible or just became visible then my battle line goes insane from flagship being switched or in complete disarray from torpedo avoidance maneuvers or getting pummeled.
-
Destroyers are starting to become much more useful, in my opinion, than any other ship in the game. 99% of my deaths are from destroyers making a suicide run at my battle line and then just throwing hundreds of torpedoes at and sneaking away mostly unharmed. The issue lies in the fact that destroyers can close the distance without a scratch and then dump every torpedo ever created at my ships. This causes the lost of usually a battleship, a chunk of my cruisers, and all of my own destroyers who maneuvered to counter the hostile destroyers. Maybe it could be because Mostly I use all my secondaries on my capital ships to defend so it frees up the main guns to fire at larger targets who are easier to hit or cause damage to other battleships who can cause a world of pain when left unattended. Now, this has come up many times before, but it must be said that TARGET SIZE and TARGET SPEED penalties are way too punishing for larger capital ships thus destroyers having the ability to release the point blank range torpedo spreads. This has the effect of destroyers being the most efficient unit in tonnage sunk vs tonnage lost in the campaign. maybe secondaries need a larger accuracy buff to combat suicidal destroyers or accuracy penalties need to be cranked down a few notches. Also maneuverability is a key factor, sometimes it's straight up impossible to avoid as soon as I see torpedoes in the water. Am I the only one suffering from this? or have I just not found the key to countering destroyers effectively?
-
1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:
I actually managed to just ram the confederate trinidad, with miss brooklyn lol. But both ships slowed down to 0.5knots. Was funny in how i won.
The other missions i just ended both california and the ship with gunz. (thank god they had few bulkheads lol).
same here I was circling around the confederate ironclad and my monitor was t-boned, but sadly for the other ironclad it caused it's own flooding which only took another below waterline hit to sink.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Dan Dare said:
yeah, please let us do that and also more that one ship/type on either side...pleassseeee
Now what I dont understand is why is designing enemy ships such a popular request. It kinda defeats the purpose of creating ships that have to be ready for any kind action. Don't quite see the fun in knowing what your up against. My ship designs usually are built around the fact that I will have no idea what the enemy battle line is. I could be in a conflict in a dual vs heavily armored, massive gunned battleships that lack gun quality and/or accuracy, but can cause a sizable headache for my fleet once they have the range. The other extreme is I could be up against fast, accurate, but lightly armored and gunned battleships meaning the balance is heavily in my favor (I tend to build ships with the highest tech guns with some serious armor and rangefinding). But if i can create an enemy ship, i feel too tempted to just make them inferior where I would just create a glaring weak spot that I would just exploit with my own ships. At that point its not really fun anymore its just poor ship design. i mean battle recreations are also popular, but the ship designer doesn't really facilitate that as most modern ship displacements make the ship too short to fit towers. Honestly all I ask for is creating our own fleets and moving resources to much more critical matters after the fact
-
1
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:
They should just let us edit all the ships in Custom Battle and be done with it. I must admit I cannot see what the difficulty is.
And let us save designs. As for the problem of equipment availability by year, here's my proposed solution - Let Us. If we want 1 or 2 1940 ships in what is otherwise a 1925 battle, we should just be allowed to do so. Let us be responsible for such things.
so far my most recent crashes have been me creating large battles and then the AI cant build the ships before tearing the game apart and crashing the PC. So if the AI only has to design half the ships it would definitely cause a bit more stability. So i agree that i dont see why we dont just save designs
-
4
-
-
22 minutes ago, GUTB said:
Is there even going to be a campaign mode at this point? Things appear to be moving really slow. I wonder if they've already released to the game and just called it an alpha.
Yes there will be, all these pieces we have at the moment are to create a foundation to work off of. I would definitely not call what we have a complete package by any means. The gameplay as of right now is 100% not ready to be fleshed out into a full campaign. The current combat, while showing great promise, is not acceptable because of exploits like HE spam and the parts themselves are lackluster and limited. Not a tremendous amount of freedom of choice when creating ships. I am completely fine with them fleshing out systems (and squashing bugs) at a steady pace so that they can divert more resources into campaign functionality and only have to make minor adjustments to core game play every now and then. Game isnt even early access yet (probably waiting to have a very early version of the campaign before deciding to call it a beta)
Upcoming Alpha-10
in General Discussions
Posted
I disagree with the whole ribbon system. It just is, shall I say, a tone shift. What we have may not provide a efficient amount of information, I like that they are out of the way and do not attract the players attention. Its something that I can look at when in a lull. Ribbons are too distracting and make things seem a bit more lighthearted. Also seems like an unnecessary change to conform to similar games in the genre