Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

bshaftoe

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About bshaftoe

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  • Birthday 05/30/1978

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ireland

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Wouldn't it be much easier to limit the malus of "Target Maneuver" to be a function of the current speed... or even of the current malus of "Target Slow speed"? Or would this just be a patch over a patch? Couple of alternatives: 1. Choose what would be the default speed for hard and evading maneuvers. Let's say 25 or 30 knots. The smaller your speed is in relation to that speed, the more the"Target Maneuver" is diminished. If, so to speak, and using invented numbers, the default malus for "Maneuver" is -25%, you can multiply it by CurrSpeed/25. The lesser curr speed, the lesser the final malus. So if you're evading or turning at the absurd velocity of 1 knot... you will have a malus of -1%. If a destroyer at 38 knots is turning hard to starboard, the final malus will be 38/25 * 25%... or this is... 38% malus. I don't know if I would still keep the speed malus. 2. Simply apply somehow the BONUS you are giving your enemy because you're going slow as a limit factor of the MALUS you're giving your enemy because you're evading/turning/maneuvering. So, for example, quick and dirty thumb estimation: simply substract this factor from the maneuver malus. So... you're going slow, and this makes easier to an enemy to fire at you (it gives them a 28% bonus)... and you're "maneuvering" in a way (hard turn, zig zag, whatever) that would normally penalize your enemy's aiming substracting a 31% of his possibilities of hitting you... With this approach, 31-28 =3%. So the final maneuver malus to your enemy is a mere 3%, because you're going SO slow, that yes, you're turning, but this factor is negligible or almost negligible. Conversely: you're going ultra fast... so fast that the enemy is having a hard time hitting you (malus for speed of -10%). -10 -28 = -38% total malus, because now your speed supports your maneuvering, and not limit it. This is, and in short: simply make the "maneuvering" malus a function of the current speed OR of the current speed bonus/malus.
  2. Being spanish, I can't think of any positive Spain should have in the campaign. Maybe... MAYBE, some kind of advantage in submarines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_submarine_Peral), destroyers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_warship_Destructor and only if you don't take into account that the ship itself was designed in the UK) and if the campaign gets to last (in the first version or the game, DLCs or any potential sequel) to a point in which planes or other aerial vehicles (even if used only for patrols), then maybe helicopters/autogyros (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_la_Cierva,_1st_Count_of_la_Cierva). Cannot think of anything else at the starting point of the campaign. But the most obvious negative, apart from low industrial capacity, low wealth, low tech, lack of big shipyards, etc... would actually be huge corruption plaguing the government. If I remember correctly, a great deal of the ammunition shot against the north american ship in the battle of Santiago de Cuba (1898) was filled not with explosive, but with sawdust. It might have been training ammo... or someone who wanted to increase their margins and sold that to the Spanish Navy, not giving a fxxk about what was going to happen. And this might seem far fetched, but it is not. It's completely believable.
  3. I have voted for yes in both cases, campaign and scenarios. I understand (and agree with!) the reasoning behind saying no the campaign, and is that people will complain about the balance and try to push for balance between countries. So I would only have MP in the campaign if historical realism (or plausibility) was the top priority. In terms of the campaign, if there are only resources to make either historical campaigns or other things right, I would prioritize historical campaigns. That being said, if there are resources for a little bit more, I would simply make the campaign scenarios easy to mod, or even release any tool or guide on how to customize campaigns: that way, if someone wants to create balanced campaigns, they can do so. Anyway, I don't know if it will be technologically easy to make a multiplayer campaign with tactical battles: what happens in a 4 players campaign when 2 have a battle and spend 8 hours in a battle, for example? The only way it can works is a turn based campaign, or limiting the MP to two players.
×
×
  • Create New...