Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Drenzul

Members2
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Drenzul last won the day on September 16

Drenzul had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

19 Good

About Drenzul

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. There are sonar/hydrophones as well. Torpedeo 'spotting' via mk1 eyeball was generally a last resort 'oh its too late' kinda thing
  2. Yeah but weren't they all air-dropped torps which had a significantly smaller payload.
  3. The numbers are guesses, not exact. You can see each shell is modelled and the % chance doesn't take everything into account that can happen. Still like ships listing heavily e.t.c. which can make them really hard to hit. Also are you including ricochettes, which count as hits?
  4. Honestly I think this would be a good rework of fires particularly surface fires which should do practically no structural damage but hinder the ship more. Hard to reload the torp launcher/deck gun when you are more concerned about stopping the fire before it reaches the pile of ammo
  5. Yeah, there is a difference between fixing illogical bits and adding a whole new level of customisation/complexity I'd like some more complexity in the designer in parts (like adding a 3rd battery type so primary, secondary, tertiary) for multiple calibur builds but that wasn't the point of this thread. Don't see the point in having techs to reduce/remove something that shouldn't exist anyway. Not saying the parts shouldn't weigh as much but if it weighs X on one ship the identical part should weigh the same on another ship unless it has to be scaled up for some reason and I deliberately
  6. A good game should use realistic and intuitive values. Using unrealistic and unintuitive values increases the cognitive load of using the designer on the players making it a less pleasant experience, also means real designs can't be built cos the values the designer outputs are basically miles away from reality. The idea for a GOOD game should make an easy to use designer that produces ships with realistic stats. Doing this makes it easier for the players to understand what a component does without even NEEDING to real the tooltip if you are vaguely aware of the real life technology. I'm
  7. Not sure how this is relevant to this discussion? This isn't about making a true ship designer, this is about using more realistic values for these in the designed. Which enables people to create more realistic ships and more accurately recreate real ships, which is part of the appeal of this game. Not sure why you think -6% hull weight is easier for a player to understand than -20% ammo weight or +500 tons..... Or why even if it was, it would be any more difficult than concepts like roll and resistance that players equally have to understand.
  8. Just ran into this. One minor bit in your conclusion you left out. While a 4x is always better than a 2x in a out and out comparison.... with the 2x you'd have nearly 50% more weight spare. So take a mega BB armed with 4x4 20" vs 4x2 20", the later has around 13,000t worth of extra armour e.t.c. as well as more accurate weapons and a greater rate of fire. Even on the biggest ships that 13,000t is 10% difference in the weight of the ship. Or 4x4 20" vs 8x2 20". The later has a higher rate of fire and accuracy for a extra 800t approx... only problem is getting all those turrets on
  9. @Nick Thomadis Just flagging you in hope of getting some feedback if something like this is planned?
  10. One that has bugged me for a bit. Why all the hull weight/engine weight modifiers for equipment that has very little to do with that part of the ship. I mean the boiler been a engine weight multiplier makes sense, the boiler has to scale with the engine, but why a hull weight modifier? If I put the same engine in a bigger ship, why does the boiler suddenly have to weigh more? Why does propellent choice affect hull weight? If I've got the same number of guns on 20kt ship and a 40kt ship, the weight saving should be the same right not proportional to hull weight. Not like the larger
  11. Ha accidentally started a battle at 7km starting range with 2BSes on my team with 20" guns + a few BCs, vs an entire enemy fleet of 6 BS, 6 BC and some cruisers.... 3 minutes later all their BSes and half their cruisers had exploded basically first volley on each ship, often only 4 guns on each BS firing... but couple of hits at that range and something went pop. Not saying I didn't take a beating myself, but didn't lose any ships lol. One was kinda limping back to port.
  12. Yeah but that was a problem, a little more armour and they are barely faster than BS. But yes IRL as was said "Mistakes were made, expensive mistakes" Used together as a pack they could hunt down and take out most other ships including BSes.
  13. True but that doesn't mean "all guns that can possibly fit on a battleship" I'd think 18" dual turrets would be a fair maximum, 18" quads, not so much at 1940s. Maybe single barrel 20"
  14. I assume that you'd get back pressure from the funnel which would cause the engine to lose efficiency, so was going on the assumption at 100% efficiency was at the point the smoke was at maximum thickness for the engines working at 100%, as below that you'd still be producing less smoke anyway as the engine is restricted by air-flow. So it makes sense that any extra capacity after that is mainly for thinning the smoke. Can't see this would be a big change to implement either.
  15. Ok just been looking into the smoke interference mechanics and they look completely backwards to me. So currently smoke interference is based solely on the funnels, which makes no sense since funnels don't generate smoke, the engine does. For example if I have 2 funnels on my ship (100% engine effectiveness) and I add a 3rd redundant funnel in case of damage, instead of reducing the smoke interference as you might expect, it increases it by 50%. What I'd suggest is this. Remove the smoke interference stat from funnels. Instead directly calculate it from the engine hp * a multiplier
×
×
  • Create New...