Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

madham82

Members
  • Content Count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

madham82 last won the day on June 17

madham82 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

252 Excellent

About madham82

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Agreed, probably give the latest start date of 1930. More options, the more replay ability.
  2. An option when beginning a new campaign to be "historical or ahistorical" should be essential. I believe Hearts of Iron has a similar option. Beyond that I like the ideas of something like a mini-game to create completely new treaties and consequences for signing/not signing.
  3. Contrary to what most people would think, Surface to Surface Missiles (SSMs) did not appear as we think until the 1960s with the SS-N-2. I don't know exactly what year, but the first one mounted on a US ship was actually the SM-1 which was a SAM with secondary ship strike ability. So no they didn't contribute to the diminishing number of guns on surface ships post WW2. The real reason is aircraft and submarines became the preeminent anti ship weapons. In the '50s the US Navy struggled for funding. So if it didn't protect the carriers from air/sub attacks, and didn't have a nuclear strike
  4. You missed the point. Yamato (at least in being actually built) is the culmination of the armored big gun warship. The treaties did not create the environment that led to it, the technology, tactics, and literally the physics did. The game simulates that environment period. There is no debating it, why? Because we aren't playing a hex board game with dice rolls. This game simulates every projectile, the ship's movement that is firing it and the movement of the ship being fired at, the armor it hits and trajectory that it hits at. What @Steeltrap, me, and others are asking for, is that si
  5. Think some people are reading too much into the term "simulator" due to approaching it as a gaming term instead of a generic term. Yes gaming simulators seek to reproduce specific platforms/environments but that doesn't imply they are realistic either. So no this game isn't simulating command of a Yamato class battleship, but we are simulating the environment and physics that gave birth to it. And that is what everyone really wants. The chance to be the designer/chief of navy/admiral in that simulated world.
  6. Does anyone know any reasons why triple or quad setups would have less accuracy than a twin or single. I don't remember reading anything about the choices impacting accuracy but the game does.
  7. Thanks for the update Nick! Accuracy balance: I am curious as to exactly how the balance is going to work for accuracy. Does this mean if the ship is actually maneuvering (i.e. not sailing in a straight line) it will be harder to hit or is this some kind of flat bonus based on the handling of metrics of the said ship. More resilient Destroyers and Torpedo Boats: More resilient to what calibers exactly? There should be nothing that makes them more resilient to battleship calibers (unless someone is shooting AP at them like the Japanese at the Battle of Samar) , but smaller ones I co
  8. Very good post, but this part has me intrigued. Just comparing the ranges of the Nagato and North Carolina (which the NC was built in response too), their ranges are very close (40K vs 37K yds). Yamato was more like 45K yrds. Iowa ended up just over 41K. Where exactly did the Japanese envision a range advantage? A couple of thousand yards isn't going to be a qualitative advantage. My guess here is they were thinking the US would not build anything more advanced than the Colorados (which was like 34K) and the like, which IMO is short-sighted thinking. Could be the reality behind their thinking,
  9. 1. The AI is quite accurate from my experience in using torpedoes, but I tend to agree player use seems to be less accurate. My best results come from using large numbers of torpedoes with the Fast setting at close range to saturate an area. Manual control of torpedoes has been mentioned by many, and would probably make them far more effective especially against clusters of ships. 2. I've never noticed this and will have to test it. Definitely a bug it sounds like if true. 3. The devs have stated it before, they do not provide "cheats" to the AI in the way of buffs/perks/etc... Wha
  10. Definitely, I had a BC design shortly after torpedo magazine detonations were implement. A single hit sent her to the bottom. The ship had no torpedo protection. That said, have not seen any ship with adequate protection suffer similar fate, as is historical.
  11. Let's not forget the multitude of blunders by the Japanese at that battle which dramatically affected the outcome. How long did the Taffy 3 DD/DEs last once the Japanese stopped using AP against them? Thankfully the mauling was done at that point. Also don't forget the US ships had a major advantage in radar fire control and used the weather to their advantage. The Battle of Samar is a textbook lesson in the effects of fog of war on both sides. That said DDs are extremely versatile, present in greater numbers in any battle (numbers is a quality all its own right), and carry weapons
  12. The only people complaining about DDs being weak are ones expecting them to be something they are not. But your issue sounds more like implausible scenario design and the terribly limited method for firing torpedoes. My recipe for success on that one was to load up as many quad or quintuple torpedo mounts as possible. Choose Fast speed and go for the largest you can afford. You need at least two DDs to split the CAs fires. Try to bracket the CA between your two DDs. You only need one good hit on his engines to make him a sitting duck for your next salvo. Also make sure you have max bulkheads.
  13. Look at the ship plots for the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Hood had every reason to want to "evade" fire while it was trying to get under the danger zone for plunging fire. Yet the course the Brits took was straight to their ideal engagement range. Why? The time being exposed to fire is more important than maneuvering to avoid it. Chasing splashes would have bled off speed dramatically. Hood had actually just completed a turn to broadside after reaching the range they thought was ideal when the fatal shell hit. It just didn't happen like people envision it. You made slight course chang
  14. I've never seen any examples of them actively maneuvering in that sense. In the Alpha-9 thread there was some discussion over the fact the AI charges right in, without much thought to tactics. IRL trying to dodge shells wasn't really done anyway. For one, it impacts your accuracy to constantly be maneuvering. So you are making it harder for the enemy to hit you, but you aren't hitting them really either. So in reality the tactics dictated you either closed to your ideal engagement range, open the range to escape/reposition, or angle to outflank the enemy. Now if you were at a serio
  15. You completely missed the issue, the game was (fixed with the last patch) providing a penalty to accuracy strictly on speed, not the target ship's maneuvering. So a DD at 2KM sailing in a straight line at 40+kts was near impossible to hit. Not at all realistic and nothing like your example. Also a large fast ship is not exactly going to make sudden changes in course/speed. Here again the game was broken with the fact that any BC at 35+kts was impossible to score hits on reliably. Now with the new tweaks, that ship needs the ability to make significant course/speed changes to add a penalty
×
×
  • Create New...