Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About The_Real_Hawkeye

  • Rank
  1. Wouldn't it make sense to have the tables show penetration of the armor you have currently mounted on your ship? So if I have Krupp I installed, it shows pen values vs. Krupp I while if I have Krupp IV mounted, it shows penetration vs. that.
  2. Will there be options in the campaign to choose a fleet size, similar to RTW? Personally, I like to play that game with small-ish fleets, as I don't have a lot of fun managing huge numbers of ships in the tactical battle and from the academy missions in UA:D, I feel the same with this game, so being able to limit the size of the fleets in engagements would be welcome, at least by me.
  3. Not necessarily. Oftentimes, new stuff to add needs the code to be prepared for this if you don't want to re-write a whole lot of the basic code, so making suggestions early on can be quite vital.
  4. 1. I agree with the "those missions are supposed to be difficult" part, but I draw the line where the missions pretty much force me to game the system to beat them. Sure, I can create a specialized ship to beat the mission, but that ship is only good for that specific mission and be of little use in the campaign, so what did I actually learn? How to game the system? 2. While this might be true for some, personally, I specifically played through the missions because I want to be ready for the campaign. I played a ton of single fights in BATTLETECH before starting the campaign, so I at least somewhat knew what I was doing, I played through most of the scenarios in Atlantic Fleet before starting the campaign for the same reason and I read/watched a bunch of tutorials/YT videos and played some 100 co-op games in WoWs before entering my first Random Battle. Maybe it's just me and everyone else jumps just right in, I don't know. I guess, the bottom line is this: If the missions are meant as a kind of tutorial for the full game, quite a few of the current missions are out of whack, if, on the other hand, they are meant as entertainment of their own with no relation to campaign-play, they are perfectly fine.
  5. While the city _is_ written as Köln, there actually were CL named Cöln (an older spelling of the city's name). The first one was the "Kleine Kreuzer" (Germany called Light Cruisers "Small Cruisers") Cöln, build in 1909 (4,900 tons, 12 x 10.5cm guns), followed by the 1916 Cöln of 7500 tons and 8 x 15cm guns - which is the one shown here, which was ordered as part of a replacement building program for CLs after the heavy losses of CLs in 1914/15.
  6. I can't comment on the specific mission, as I haven't tried it yet, but afaict, @Norbert Sattler is correct with the bogus to-hit numbers. 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.
  7. Mission: Rise of the Heavy Cruiser Description: Fight three reconstructed armored cruisers. With that description, I kinda expect to fight something with at least _some_ resemblance to , well, armored cruisers. Instead, I run into this. 3 x 3 11-inch guns, 27.5 knots, up to 15 inches of armor. I mean sure, they are _reconstructed_ but come on, this is just ridiculous! Suggestion: For the scenarios, how about locking down the AI's designs to be used to a couple of at least _somewhat_ realistic ones?
  • Create New...