Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

The_Real_Hawkeye

Members2
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

57 Excellent

About The_Real_Hawkeye

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Agreed. I currently have a "no CL" policy in RTW2 and it works great with the AI quickly running out of CLs, since my CAs turn them into artificial reefs rather quickly.
  2. Hopefully they go the RtW2 route, which _has_ treaties that can force you to refit ships - though I'd like to have a bit more input in the treaty itself instead of it being completely random. Because having three 28,000 ton BBs with 14" guns that are four months from completion being scrapped because the treaty limits me to ships of 23,000 tons and 13" guns is a wee bit infuriating 😉
  3. The thing is, if I'm supposed to be the fleet/task force commander, then I sure as hell am the deciding voice in how my fleet is dispositioned on the march. I am the one deciding which DDs, CLs, CAs, BCs and BBs are grouped up in a single division. I am the one deciding that 6th DesDiv is screening on the port and 5th DesRon on the starbord side. I am the one deciding that 3rd CruDiv is scouting ahead, not 2nd CruDiv. Besides, my battlefleet is at sea? I _always_ expect to meet the enemy - that's the whole point of my fleet being out there to begin with. As an e
  4. CVs? No. No wait, let me rephrase that: HELL NO! As for why, that's rather easy. Implementing CVs in a way that is fun for the player would essentially mean to create a 2nd game within the game already there - as much as it pains me to admit it, Wargambling _did_ recognize the fact that CV player played a completely different game than BB/CA/DD player in WoWs and tried (in their own, completely boneheaded way) to address that. The same would be true for UA:D. You'd had one game where you command your surface action group and a second game, whe
  5. I'll repeat what I said in a similar thread we had some time ago: I'm not a big fan of fixed traits for various nations. This is supposed to be an alternate reality. Why should the British be locked to always have their ships explode easier? Why should the US always forego torpedoes for more guns? Why should the Japanese always emphasize torpedoes? What I'd like to have would be those traits in the game but have them "unlocked" by how we play the nation. If I never put torpedoes on anything larger than a CL but emphasize guns, have my nation develop some form of bonus to guns. I
  6. Ha, ha, ha, ha, lmao. (and yes, I know that as a German, I'm not supposed to find that funny - I don't care)
  7. 4 x 2 turrets do also have some advantages in ranging, since you can fire two 4-barrel salvos instead (4 shells are thought to be the minimum for efficient ranging) of either one salvo of 6 and one of 3 barrels or mixing barrels from separate turrets like two from A and two from B, then the remaining barrels from those two turrets and two (or all) from Y. Is something like this implemented in the game? I have no clue.
  8. Sure it could work like that. What are you prepared to sacrifice for such a mode - because there is no such thing as a free lunch and if money and time is spend on this, it isn't being spend on something else, so what nations, what game mechanics and what other stuff should be dropped so you can have that multiplayer mode? And would your multiplayer mode satisfy a larger number of people than the number of people that are pi$$ed because the features _they_ wanted can't be implemented due to this? Again, in my opinion, any form of multiplayer mode would not be worth the effort, m
  9. I would guess that a MP version of UA:D would end up kinda similar to the MP in BATTLETECH. A couple of friends play some MP fights at pre-arranged times, often with pre-agreed on limits on mech-designs...and that's pretty much it - random MP is as good as dead and it has been almost from the get-go because, like BATTLETECH, UA:D (or most detailed naval wargames) seem to have a rather dedicated, but small fanbase, so the chance of getting a random MP match going is darn small as well. The question to ask is, IMO, this: Would the rather limited use that will be made of a MP version/add-on
  10. Complete randomness in ship design is most definitely not needed for "replayability", IMO. Like, for the first batch of BB/BC, the Royal Navy goes the High Seas Fleet approach with an emphasis on armor an compartmentalization at the cost of gun caliber, speed and range. Then Jackie Fisher takes the helm and goes all out on "speed is armor" and build very fast, heavily armed but lightly armored BB and BC. After that, a more balanced approach is settled on and ships that are somewhat in-between are build. I guess what I'm saying is this: Have libraries with ships that adhere to differe
  11. As far as I understand it, AoN armor came into being after it was realized that a) Armoring the ship vs. the larger and improved guns that navies were starting to field was impossible with the current armor-schemes b) The few inches of armor on the weaker armored parts of the ships couldn't even keep out medium caliber shells anymore and only served to make large caliber AP shells explode. So the decision was made to do away with armor over non-essential parts of the ships, letting AP rounds simply pass through without exploding while concentrating the armor over the vitals and
  12. I'm all for captains and admirals in the campaign. That being said, I would not be a fan of fixed boni for historical admirals. If I put a young captain Halsey in a heavy cruiser in the 20s and keep him commanding cruisers and later on battlecruisers, I'd like him to get boni connected to those ships like tactical maneuvering a battlecruiser squadron, gunnery or something similar. If, on the other hand, I put him on the first CV I build (yes, I know there won't be CVs, just bear with me), I would expect him to develop an expertise with launching aircraft or improved performance of co
  13. Yeah, no, not really. Now, let's keep in mind that RtW2 is the prequel [edit: SEQUEL, of course] to RtW and has a couple of years of development, fixing and expanding under it's belt, so it isn't really fair to compare the two games directly but, yeah, in it's current state? Let's just say that I play RtW2 almost daily while I haven't touched UA:D in, I don't know, 6 weeks or so?
  14. The thing is, if the game gives me a percentage, I kinda expect that percentage to be reflected in my actual hit-rate. If it doesn't, just don't give me a number and just list the hit-chance as abysmal, very poor, poor, average, good, very good, exceptional. When done like that, no-one can complain - of course, no-one can check if things are actually working as intended either.
  15. I posted this in April last year: 15 to 20% to-hit chance, 3 BBs, each with 4 x 2 12-inch guns. With this, I'd expect to get some 3 to 5 hits with each 3-ship-broadside. As is, I get perhaps a single hit per 3-ship-broadside - if I'm lucky. As I see it, there are 2 possibilities. Either the game is blatantly lying to me or the RNG is complete and utter ***** - which, come to think of it, isn't unheard of in games. I stand by what I said back then. The odds of RNG rolling low _that_ consistently (IIRC for about 20 salvos or some 500 shots) are so abysmal low,
×
×
  • Create New...