1MajorKoenig
-
Posts
280 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by 1MajorKoenig
-
-
4 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
@1MajorKoenig just did your scenario, as current state of the game allows.
You may want to change your hull choice for Baden, ad Modernised Dreadnought starts from 37500t
Anyway.
there she is
Victory in less than half a hour.
And the role of battleships there was simply to be shot at by enemy, all work was done by destroyers.. ahem "torpedo boats"Wow you were fast! Just played it from the German side and it was easier than I thought although the battle took 1,5 ingame hours although with killing the entire enemy fleet.
And I took some liberties for the modernized BADEN as the hull which gave a more German looking superstructure was much bigger. I kept the armor and weapons close to historical though.
Funnily enough the AI built for the Russians some BBs which were quite close to what I had in mind (36k and 10 x 40.6cm guns).
Tomorrow I try to play it from the Russian side and see if it is beatable. But I would assume so
-
5 hours ago, SonicB said:
Okay, I'll bite!
WAR PLAN RED 1930 - Episode One "The Battle of Cape Breton"Background: Negotiations for the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922 fell apart. Warship building continued apace, and the two largest surviving naval powers, Britain and the US, found themselves in the midst of a new arms race which a weary Britain could ill afford. In the late twenties, the UK sought to deepen the old alliance with Japan in order to counterbalance America's rising power and safeguard her Pacific empire, further damaging relations with the US. Old disputes over Canadian trade and border issues flared, coinciding with Britain's near bankruptcy and default on all her American loans in 1928. In the wake of the Wall Street Crash the next year, the US moves to seize parts of Canadian territory as collateral.
Mission: You command the strong naval escort of the first British troop convoy seeking to reinforce Canadian forces in Newfoundland, or the numerically superior but hastily-assembled US Navy force rushing to intercept before the British reach the Gulf of St. Lawrence. US naval intelligence reports a worn-out but still dangerous Queen Elizabeth class battleship is the convoy's main defence. However, this is somewhat incorrect...
Design Instructions and Order of Battle:(historical/planned classes given as examples)
1) Attacking Fleet - United States- 2x 28,000-35,000t BB - Tennessee class (33,000t, 22kt, 4x3 14")
- 1x 40,000-50,000t BC - Lexington class (45,000t, 34kt, 4x2 16")
- 6x 1,000-1,600t DD - Clemson class (1,300t, 36kt, 4x1 4", 4x3 21" torpedo)
2) Defending Fleet - Great Britain
- 1x 45,000-52,000t BB - N3 (St. George) class (48,000t, 23kt, 3x3 18")
- 1x 26,000-38,000t BC - Renown class (37,000t, 32kt, 3x2 15")
- 2x 8,000-12,000t CA - Hawkins class (12,000t, 30kt, 7x1 7", 6x 21" torpedo)
- 12x Transport
Both use the earliest year for 18" turrets (1927?)
Victory Conditions:
1) United States:
- Sink 50% of transports within 5h
- Sink all British capital ships without losing more than two capital ships
2) Great Britain:
- Keep 50% of transports afloat for 5h
- Sink all three US capital ships
Thoughts on this match-up welcome! This is based on a real-world war plan - and if you doubt the likelihood of the scenario, recall that Britain and Germany had a very good, even friendly relationship even until the turn of the 20th century when naval rivalry began to seriously intrude.Hi, nice Scenario - my first try playing as Royal Navy failed though. My BC and my two CAs got minimum Bulkheads and the enemy just smashed them. My N3 / St Andrews put up a fight though, killing the enemy BC and one of the two BBs (46k monsters with 43cm guns).
I will try again - here is my N3 / St. Andrews build though:
I had to take some liberties as I couldn't fit all turrets forward and went with the G3 config instead - 45cm triples though. At the end I needed the longer hull and had to use a bit over 53000 ts instead of 52k. Was an interesting battle though...
To be continued!
-
2
-
1 hour ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:
Okay, so I've thought of a way to try and gather feedback about scenarios posted here.
As of right now there are 3 ways to react to a post: the Trophy (Thanks), the Crying Face (Sad) and the Heart (Like).
What if whenever we played a scenario it went like this: if you win, react to that specific post with the Trophy. If you lost that scenario, react with the sad face, and the Like reaction is pretty self-explanatory. This could be an effective and quick way to gather feedback/results about the scenarios we post here.
What do you think @1MajorKoenig @Cptbarney @Cpt.Hissy @BobRoss0902 @SonicB @Skeksis @Nick Thomadis and of course everyone else?
I like this idea! I will add it to the opening post!
EDIT: and I will try to play both of these scenarios we have already on the thread tonight - I am really looking forward to build an N3 🙂
-
15 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
Actually, yes.
While i like the idea, your scenario currently is impossible to do. (just like so so many other things...)Well of course you will only design one of the ships and the rest is random. Which obviously means that for the ships you don’t design won’t be 100% as in the description. But that is not an issue - the design instructions are for the one design you do yourself - and you may chose to design either the BBs, BCs or whatever.
Or what do you mean?EDIT: or do you mean some prerequisites for the mission? I may need to adjust these if needed
-
1
-
-
Okeydokey - I make a start:
SECOND GREAT WAR - EPISODE 1 “Red Dawn”Background: WW1 ends 1916 with a peace brokered by US President Woodrow Wilson which results in the Empires of Europe to survive. Although this brings peace to the continent it does not resolve the tension which led to the war of 1914. However this will lead to new alliances and rivalries.
Europe calms down but tensions start rising again in the second half of the 1920s. And although the Empires of Germany and Austria live on in a slightly different form the revolution in Russia sweeps away Monarchy in the Giant Russian Empire with the communists emerging victorious from the civil war.
With large territorial concessions made to achieve a piece with the western powers the USSR seeks to recover lost land eventually which event would lead to war with Germany and Austria.
In the early 1930s hostilities break out in Eastern Europe.
Mission: After war broke out between Germany and the USSR in satellite states in Eastern Europe the Soviet Baltic Fleets attempts a daring surprise invasion attempt at Kiel with the aim to achieve a quick Cease Fire. The German Baltic Squadron scrambles to intercept the invasion Force
Design Instructions and Order of Battle:
1) Attacking Fleet - Soviet Union (stand in: Russian Empire):
- 4 x BB - 36.000 ts / 3x4 16” (“Bubnov Design)
- 2 x BC - 35.000 ts / min 29kn / 4x3 14”
- 3 x CL - 8.000 ts
- 12 x TR
Tech Level: 1928
2) Defending Fleet - German Empire:
- 4 x BB “Baden” modernized / 4x2 15”, hull: modernized Dreadnought (needs unlock), 35.000 ts
- 6 x Torpedoboat / DD hull as stand in as not available
Tech Level: 1928You can pay as either side and design any of the ships yourself
Victory Conditions:you can play the Scenario from either side. Victory Conditions are:
1) as Russia:
- keep at least 50% of TRs and two capital ships alive for at least 3h in game time - that is the time the Germans have to intercept the convoy - for a victory
- keep 2/3 of the TRs alive sink all enemies for an outstanding victory
2) as Germany:
- sink at least 50% of the TRs within 3h of in game time - I.e. before they reach the coast for a victory
- Sink all transports In that time and keep all BBs alive for an outstanding victory
-
6
-
Hi all,
I love the concept of the game but there isn’t a whole lot to do yet — and this will at least be the case until we have a decent campaign.
Therefore I would like to try the following with you:
Let’s try to post our own scenarios here! We can then play these “Community Scenarios” in Custom Battles and Post the results, designs and discuss feedbacks in this thread!
As for feedback we can use the forum reactions - thanks to @HistoricalAccuracyMan :- “Like” - I like the scenario
- “Thanks” - I beat the scenario
- “Sad” - I played it and did not win
At least let’s give it a try and see how that works 🙂
Pinging:
- Vassili (mandatory - just one ping)
- @Nick Thomadis
- @Cptbarney
- @Marshall99
- @BobRoss0902
- @Cpt.Hissy
- @SonicB
- @DerRichtigeArzt
- @IronKaputt
- @CapnAvont1015
- @Fishyfish
- @Skeksis
- @Aceituna
- @o Barão
- @DeadlyWalrus
- @HistoricalAccuracyMan
- @Airzerg
- and Of course everyone else 🙂
SCENARIOS:
- Second Great War - Episode 1: “RED DAWN” (page 1)
- Second Great War - Episode 2: „BLACK SEA MONSTER“ (or: how the French entered the War) (page 2)
- WAR PLAN RED 1930 - Episode One "The Battle of Cape Breton" (page 1)
- Second War for American Independence — Part 1: "DESPERATE TIMES" (page 1)
- Second War for American Independence — Part 2a: "PREEMTIVE STRIKE" & Part 2b: "TWO CAN PLAY THIS GAME" (Page 1)
- The Last Ride of the Beiyang Fleet. 1910 (alternative history) (page 1)
-
14
-
On 1/24/2021 at 4:56 PM, 1MajorKoenig said:
There is something else though:
(...) I was wondering if we could get a separate section on the forum to post our own Scenarios? Because at the moment there isn’t a huge amount of stuff to do in the game - maybe some good scenarios created by us here could be a fun thing to do?
On 1/24/2021 at 4:56 PM, 1MajorKoenig said:Anyone could then play these in custom battles and post their results and discuss?
On 1/25/2021 at 10:32 AM, Airzerg said:I really like this idea! I'm tired of coming up with battle scenarios for myself. It will be great to try other people's scripts and compare the results.
@Nick Thomadis - should we give it a try?-
2
-
-
On 12/22/2020 at 9:57 PM, Fishyfish said:
I'm still helplessly flailing about in the casemate ironclad mission.
It feels very random. Tried to win it by fires but it is largely random how well the enemy copes with that.
-
1 hour ago, Wowzery said:
The problem I see in comments on my videos is people want the released game, not an alpha. Its been in alpha for a while so any excitement you generate is wasted by delays.
You have a point but the game isn’t in a state for release. It needs some more to not ruin the release. And you need to consider that most of 2020 was a complete write-off for the development. Not ideal but it happens. And the team apparently has a plan and some new people working on the two core components of the game (designer and campaign). Personally I am very optimistic once more and even sort of hyped!
1 hour ago, Marshall99 said:I hope that this was only a joke.
Seriously, the ship designer needs most of the changes in the future. Now, it is far from good.
I was wondering the same to be honest. Although the note they added a new programmer to improve the ship designer was the best news!
There is something else though:I was playing a little more again lately (some academy and some custom battles) but I was wondering if we could get a separate section on the forum to post our own Scenarios? Because at the moment there isn’t a huge amount of stuff to do in the game - maybe some good scenarios created by us here could be a fun thing to do?
Anyone could then play these in custom battles and post their results and discuss?
Would anyone be in for that? I mean, if there are some forumites interested we could ask Nick to get us a “Custom Scenario” Section? What do you guys think?
-
7
-
-
2 hours ago, puxflacet said:
new nations? 🤔 you stretched the roster pretty far already with austria-hungary, spain and china ensuring variety. frankly i'm not that excited seeing sweden or argentina as major naval power. in the campaign i would rather leave these minor countries in non-playable secondary roles as ship buyers or potential allies
I think Nick was referring to including the other nations we have in the game already into the campaign as for a starter the campaign will only be Germany vs Britain
-
6 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
So what i ask about is to tone down these animations to something less stormy, and tone down the magnitude of noises used in creating waves.
While the ship movements in see may be quite pronounced I admit I prefer this to the “ships on rails” or “Tonks on water” we see in other games. Some movement in the waves makes the scenery much more lively in my opinion
-
11 hours ago, Jatzi said:
Just make up a generic model for each class and have that be what you see until the ship is identified. And as I've said before allow for misidentification of ships.
I'm curious about the campaign. I feel like alpha 11 will be the campaign, they have to know the game is basically dead and the longer they go without it the more likely it's not gonna come back. What they intent to do with the campaign is what I'm curious about though. They've said they're revamping the whole thing. And it's limited to two nations which is interesting. There's very little reason to limit a campaign to two nations if it's really similar to the RTW campaigns. The only difference between those are the starting conditions. In the very first alpha when you could access the early campaign it was basically the RTW campaign with all the nations available. It seems obvious they've moved away from that because if they hadn't I feel we would have a campaign already pandemic or no. It was kinda playable. It was very bad, but it was kinda playable. I played as the UK and got into the war with the US and lost a pre-dread to some stupid TB's cuz it was alpha 1 and combat was horrendous.
So yeah I have to wonder what they're doing with it. I've seen lots of stuff on the forums and most of it sounds extremely unappealing to me so I hope they haven't listened to any of that.
Nick put up a roadmap and explained the next steps. Although it doesn’t mean that Alpha 11 is necessarily already one of the core releases he mentioned. However I agree it sounds like next we will see the skeleton of the campaign.
Why only two nations? He mentioned a North Sea Campaign - Germany vs UK which is a very good scenario choice for that era in my opinion.
I don’t mind having that for a starter and have that expanded later on. I am more concerned about how the campaign plays out, what actions you can perform, what options we have, how lively the environment is. Once that is settled for the North Sea you can easily expand to the North Atlantic, Pacific and such
Out of curiosity as I joined a little later - how were the ships directed strategically in the initial version?
-
1
-
-
On 1/21/2021 at 1:59 PM, Nick Thomadis said:
Furthermore, we confirm the allocation of another dedicated programmer who will focus solely on needed improvements for the ship design system.
I am really happy to read this - it is a very good idea to improve this very core aspect of the game in my opinion.
Can you already shed some light on what the general scope/direction here will be? Are you aiming for “just” polishing the current version of the designer and add parts or are we talking about expanding, changing and overall improving the ship designer to become more of a flexible and powerful asset?
-
13
-
-
7 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
The next major updates are organized as follows:
- Core patch 1 - Core of campaign including Custom Battle saves
- Core patch 2 - Crew and officers
- Core patch 3 - R&D and Tech Progression
This is amazing! An excellent plan and a good way up slize the work! North Sea Campaign - I LOVE it!!
7 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:Furthermore, we confirm the allocation of another dedicated programmer who will focus solely on needed improvements for the ship design system.
And that is even more amazing!!!!
Wooohoooo can’t wait!
-
3
-
I am all for more variety in the designer
I am all for more freedom in placing parts
I am against „all-equal“ and want nation specifics
I am very much against „same ship Syndrom“
I want this Game to be awesome
I feel that this game needs a great designer with a lot of freedom and a good dynamic campaign to use the designer meaningful
-
4
-
-
On 3/9/2018 at 11:13 PM, admin said:
btw.. we might need volunteer modelers for parts by summer
Hi - was that request from a very old thread a serious idea? Are you looking for people to contribute?
-
1
-
-
On 9/15/2017 at 8:07 PM, admin said:
This is a topic for work in progress shots and stories about the game we have been tinkering with for the last 3-4 months
These are very very early WIP on the images that are generated for the ship recognition books from the 3d ship designer, that will give players full control over the ship design and visualize it all in 3d.
Player will be able to place main turrets, secondary turrets, casemate turrets, superstructures, masts, funnels, and decide on the shape of the hull, armor, barbette placement… All having historical constraints naturally limiting the players from creating strange and impossible monsters. All affecting ship performance in combat and movement.
If we are able to achieve even 50% of what we want this will be a revolution in battleship games.Hope you enjoy it. Sorry for lower quality of the recognition book drafts but we can't show the rest.
I found this very old post but I like the ambitions described here
-
3
-
-
Hi Nick - it’s been more than half a year since I put in this question. While I was hoping for substantial expansions to the ship designer the lack of reaction there got me thinking how far you are trying to expand this core feature in the foreseeable future.
Regardless - can you at least add Derfflinger, Mackensen and Ersatz Yorck Parts (hulls, superstructure, funnels and guns)? That would give us at least a way to build different ships around these amazing designs ?
-
3
-
-
16 hours ago, Cptbarney said:
Hoi lads no shipfus from me today as its me 25th birthday and decided to take a bit of a break
sorry for the inconvenience! Have a good weekend!
’w’
Happy Birthday Barney! Hope you had a good day!
-
9 hours ago, ReefKip said:
And i read nothing but wishfull thinking from your side. What you are asking for is an enourmous amount of work to be put into the designer aspect that the Devs have not even put in to the ENTIRE game in the past 1,5 years of development. How you even could think that what you are asking for is rational is a mystery. But keep building to your own disappointment. who am i to deny you that?
If you call the fact that what you are asking for requires a huge amount of effort from the limited resources the devs have an assumption . Then you know nothing about even the basics of gamedesign and the effort that is needed behind it. No wonder is it then that what you are asking for is so far removed from reality. everyone can write down what they like to see in the game. If those things are actually feasable is an entirely different matter.
Sure there are great projects by small crews. but there is a greater amount of small crews that fail massively. Just look at the Steam early access and what a clustermess that is. So your point? that there are a couple of small crews that made great games does not refute any of the points i made on what to expect for this game on what we have seen so far.
2 hours ago, Marshall99 said:I am sorry but I have to disagree with you. We all know that developing a game is not easy. It is obviously very hard and taks a lot of time. But we all know that this current ship designer is very basic and has a lot of restriction. I played this game lot and I feel like when I design a battleship, I am just doing the same things again and again. Why? Because I can't place the barabettes, the towers, the turrets, the secondaries wherever I want. And I know that in real life I couldn t place the turrets over machinery, but IRL the enginiers could compromise. But in this game we can't, because we can't decide where to put the machinery, and the barabetts are also limited, the tower placement is limited. When I purchased this game I wanted a shipdesigner like in the trailer.
The campaign is important, but there are so many things that the devs have to improve. And the ship designer is the heart of the game. At least for me. I can't design many important historycal ships. Like the Fuso, the Wyoming, etc... I can't see the armour layouts in the designer. Where is the citadel? Is it waterline? Underwater? Above waterline? This is important! Extended armour belt? Where and what size?
So, I know that this will be hard, but the designer have to be improved!
Agree with Marshall99.
Of course making a game or any other piece of software can be a challenge. Reefkip is stating the obvious.
And we can easily deduct from the complete absence of progress this year and the replacement of the key programmer that something went pretty horribly wrong. Watch the trailer for the ship designer and see what is in the alpha-prototype in game - it’s a huge gap between those two. Either the ambitions have been unrealistic from the get go or the project went the wrong way at some point.
Now as Reef started the speculation - it can mean that the project is in budgetary trouble. Time isn’t critical by itself - what counts is what is delivered against what budget. And here I also assume that things didn’t go to plan. But even if that would be the case the devs could be creative and say “you get X” and if we want it achieve “Y” we have to croudfound it with you. Or whatever ways to generate additional budget to make up for the loss of 2020 and most likely already prior. Because replacing the key programmer can also mean that you foundation could be foul already - and then you need some effort to recover.
Although the alternative isn’t much better: if you release it half-arsed it won’t be financially successful. THAT part you can indeed see all the time on Steam - all this unfinished junk nobody will ever buy and where you will read 3 negative feedbacks if any at all.
I can say that I find the project unique enough so I would be open to additional ways to generate budget to continue development rather than launch&bury. But that is my opinion.
Plus: I can say I enjoy the game itself. Graphics are basic but adequate for the purpose, mechanics are simple but mostly sufficient (although spotting needs a little work I’m afraid). What is missing is a fantastic campaign and an overhaul of the designer to create immersion in my view
For such a project immersion is more important than technical perfection
-
8
-
-
4 hours ago, ReefKip said:
While i like the ideas proposed by @1MajorKoenig in the OP. I have to say that it is way to ambitious to expect the devs to overhaul the game mechanics in such a way that is needed to make those ideas into reality. there are several reasons for this. and those are:
-A severe lack of manpower working on the game which makes implementing a large overhaul extremely exhausting for the one full time programmer who needs to do it
- With small manpower logically follows a small budget. Even if they did the overhaul that could mean other parts of the game like the campaign simply don't have any funding left to complete them.
- Like others have mentioned. they have to finish the game to make money off it. This is not cyberpunk where the developers had years to work out the concept and a large amount of investors to keep the money flowing in. What we are dealing with here is an Indie developer with an extremely limited pool to draw money from.
The best we can hope for is smaller scale improvements to the mechanics we currently have in game. Something like deciding the width and length of your ship more accurately when you increase tonnage, and allowing more freedom to place turrets,barbettes,towers and other modules where you want them instead of having to place them in predetermined positions like we have now. Those two things i just mentioned are realistic to expect. because they require small adjustments to the code to implement. And are rational changes to see in the future.
However when we go to things like deciding internals like engine rooms.ammo racks etc, Deciding which part of the belt has what thickness and fully customizable belt length etc. Too many variables are needed to be coded in which will be unrealistic to expect from a single programmer. And not only does that single programmer need to code it, he also has to bugtest it so that all those variables interact properly with eachother. this will take alot of time. It already takes a huge amount of time for triple A developers which have entire teams of programmers to bugtest their games . now imagine a single programmer with extremely limited funding needing to do the same. this will ether end up with the new mechanics being introduced extremely buggy(which makes the effort infested into them for nothing). Or take so much time to implement properly that it will never see the light of day because the men hours that are required to be put in cannot be funded because of limited budget.
In a perfect world we could have all those mechanics implemented perfectly and this game would be the dream naval game everyone wants it to be. But the reality of game development tells us that expecting such a dream game from a developer that has such limited resources is nothing but wishfull thinking.
So tone down your expectations to a rational level and hope the devs can make, not a perfect, but a good game. Or be the creator of your own dissapointment with the game.
Why not let Nick speak for himself? I read nothing but assumptions.
If the devs tell us “the designer is final - all you may or may not get are a few additional parts” - fine that would be a decision. For me that would probably mean that the game will not live up to the hopes I had for it and probably I wouldn’t play it much - just like over the past year. But that would be my individual decision.
And Btw I have seen great projects with very small crews. Comes down to several aspects but small teams doesn’t mean bad results at all. I still play for example Stormeagles Jutland - a game basically made by two dudes and still a fantastic little game. Absolutely adequate mechanics, great campaign and player freedom, reasonable 3d world and representation of the ships - straight up an excellent project.
So let the devs speak for themselves - they are very well able to do that
-
6
-
-
Especially for the older ships I have the same opinion. I had a pre-Dreadnought battleship which get hammered from about 10km without seeing three large cruisers. Even when they were shooting. For the newer ships it isn’t that obvious as the distances are generally pretty large but for Dreadnoughts and predreads it seems like the spotting system isn’t ideal
-
1
-
-
Gents,
I don’t think we should make it a binary discussion. This is not “my way or highway”.
I have still somehow great hopes for the game as I absolutely love the basic idea. I wanted to summarize in this thread what I would like to see to give the devs an idea of what I think - as a feedback or as a wish. And I wanted to collect some opinions from others who care about this project.
In my view the three mentioned improvements out of the full list would make it a “minimum viable product” - not great but functional:
2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:1) split up the main tower in at least bridge and mast
2) add different bow and stern forms to select for the hull
3) make the placement (hard points) more flexible
And I hope we will see these (smallish) improvements at the very least.The other question on the budget - I mean the devs could at some point say “here is what we can and will do” - and such a small company could even be more creative about things.
For example: they could deliver said MVP within the project and set up a “crowdfunding” for additional features. If there are enough people willing to invest something on them - do them. And give these guys cosmetic rewards such as camo patterns and alternative 3d models for bridges, masts, etc.You just need to be creative
-
4
-
-
4 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:
You all talk about placing machinery spaces. And what about boiler rooms?
For the sake of simplicity I would summarize boilers, engines and everything in simple “machinery” space boxes. You can go as granular as you want but I tried to hit a balance between needed detail, ease of use and effort to program
-
1
-
Community Scenarios
in General Discussions
Posted
Ok Sonic - I did play it from the US side now - after I failed with the Brits - and that was an easy win. And my two BBs did't do much but the Battlecruiser Lexington did some work. I had to use UNLOCK though as the US Battlecruiser was too small (33k?) and used one of 45k tons - which unfortunately turned out to look british.
Regardless, we killed all transports and the capital ships in roughly an ingame hour and the remaining two CAs were running.
Nice Scenario! - Although I still need to beat it from the Britisch side - which seems much tougher
Here is my USS Lexington: