Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


HistoricalAccuracyMan last won the day on March 25

HistoricalAccuracyMan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

75 Excellent

About HistoricalAccuracyMan

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. So this thread went way off topic from the original post/question (though the original question was answered rather quickly, I suppose). May I suggest the "Historical and Maritime Discussion" section for continued discussion of/debate over The Battle of Jutland? I mean, I'm pretty sure that's what the "Historical and Maritime Discussion" section is for...right? Just a friendly suggestion.
  2. So I've dealt with this for a while now, but I'm seriously wondering why it's still a thing. I'm doing a USS Nevada type build where I have two dual turrets and two triple turrets for the main battery. The dual turrets seem to have no issue when it comes to aiming and locking on to a target, but the triple turrets seem to have no prayer of locking on or being somewhat accurate at all. One minute all turrets are locked on, but then-for seemingly no reason-the triple turrets get a massive -400% stat for ladder aiming (see the picture below) while the dual turrets are still fine...and this is wit
  3. There's lots of gun arrangements and such that can't be recreated or used due to the limitations of the ship designer. The Wyoming style gun layout is one of the ones that is particularly hard to do. The majority of us have been nagging the devs about this for a while now...they've done good so far though, but some of the gun layouts are down to the superstructure options. Take the Atlanta class of light cruisers with their triple super-firing turrets...it can't be done in game because of the limitations of the ship designer.
  4. While I agree and would love to see those ships added as well, that problem isn't just with WW1 Era Russian BCs...it's in just about every nation available. Especially if you look at the US Navy, Royal Navy, Japanese Navy and German Navy hulls...most of their battlecruisers and like half of all their heavy cruiser designs are basically just resized battleship hulls
  5. Not trying to further this firestorm, but here is something else to chew on: If you think Germany should get technology buffs because they were supposedly "superior" to everything on earth during WWII, should they be limited to no carriers (if carriers are ever implemented) since they never completed the Graf Zepplin? No ships bigger than Bismarck and Tirpitz since the H-Class was never built? Should they have a cap to how many ships they can build since their entire navy was comparably small to the US, UK and Japanese navies? If you are going to advocate for historical factors impa
  6. While I also enjoy seal-clubbing and ROFLstomping lower tech level ships in custom battles with my massive 18" gun armed ultra battleship from whatever nation I choose, this game is far from being a "historically accurate" or "realism simulator" game...which is why any argument of "inferior/lower quality ships and tech" holds little to no weight. When it comes to this game, what is inferior/lower quality has to do more with whether or not you pick the best available upgrade/module for your ship and less to do with something like "The German Navy had better equipment than the Royal Navy and exc
  7. That seems like a pretty fair assumption I'd say. That's kinda what I was thinking too, where the game was more along the lines of "grand strategy" where the decisions you make outside of combat itself (like the diplomacy feature that is supposed to influence your gameplay i.e. foreign relations, naval budget, etc) and maybe a few random events thrown in throughout such as oil shortages or economic events would force you to think about how you need to adapt your strategy and tactics, or whether you need to adapt at all
  8. Getting back to the original topic of a "Sandbox Mode"...yes, it would be fun to build quite literally anything you want regardless of tech level or faction, I doubt it will ever appear and if it does, it will likely be well after the campaign is introduced and has all it's features smoothed out. Because as the devs have now said, multiple times in multiple threads and discussions, the main campaign is their main focus for a while. They've even said that these updates, like the most recent one that added the new hulls and superstructure options, are more just to keep some content flowing and k
  9. Yeah, the fleet division bugs/quirks have been here for a while. I usually only play custom battles with a single ship class though, so I don't really experience them tbh. I just hope that the majority of the division bugs (and possibly all the division bugs) are worked out before the campaign arrives.
  10. The New German Navy Following World War I and the restrictions imposed on them when it comes to military size, Germany sets off to show the world that they have truly changed, with some secret--yet seemingly justified--motives. Their ulterior motives are the hopes of being able to slowly increase their military size, particularly their navy, as they are in a very weak state and the rest of the European nations are starting to get jittery with the threat of a world wide economic depression on the horizon. And seeing as how Germany took all the blame, they would likely be public enem
  11. How I've gotten around such problems is just tossing displacement values to the wind. Yes the USS Texas didn't weigh as much as it does in game whenever I make something similar, but it's the only way I can get five dual 14" gun turrets on the thing when it comes to the two fore, two aft and one at mid ship. As for the Nevada and Colorado class battleships, you can get their gun layouts and armaments correct (for the most part, secondary guns can be a pain in the butt) but the main issue that has always been there is the lack of superstructures that resemble or match those ships superstructure
  12. So yeah, you can probably guess what this is gonna be about by the title. But with the Alpha 12 update and the introduction of the new "one ton" increments/steps on the displacement slider and the continued difficulty to hit a specific number exactly on the mark, I can't help but feel that there is a very simple solution to that: add the option to click on the displacement amount and manually enter a number that fits between the specified displacement values for that specific hull. Because as is, most every hull (with the exception of a few) will automatically upsize or downsize depending
  13. Yes, a million times yes! Putting my US Navy fanboy aside for a second, I feel like a lot of nations could do with some moar cruisers tbh.
  14. I personally think that both your ideas and the ideas in the original post are both great. Both sets of ideas really go deep into this issue and are well though out. And just how I think...I feel like this would add a great amount of depth to the game overall as a whole as it would really open up the door to new decisions like "should I scuttle this ship, try to repair it, tow it back to port, or scrap/salvage it?" But I will say one thing though about the point you brought up in your TL;DR. Right now, the only way ships can sink is bow first, stern first, or straight down. There is no ca
  15. I quite like these ideas, and it goes really in depth. I think that this would be a great addition to the campaign, but I don't know how it would look/work in custom battles (something else I would consider adding on to these ideas would be the ability for other ships to tow heavily damaged ships back to port or out of action similar to what they did to try and save Yorktown after the Battle of Midway). But the thing about it is, how in-depth would it go? Because as far as important structural members in a ship goes...it's mainly: the keel, the beams/reinforcements that support the decks,
  • Create New...