Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

1MajorKoenig

Members2
  • Posts

    280
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by 1MajorKoenig

  1. That is probably a main issue. With the ship designer being seriously limited and no objective to play with ships really it is hard to keep interest up. I am not a fan of the academy mission at all - i may play them maybe once for tutorial purposes but at the moment there is little you can really do here. Especially since ships you build - a main selling point for me - end up being far too similar due to limited choices we have. And quite frankly I don’t give a bit about quad turrets either. I am not saying sky is falling but I can see his points - although I don’t have an issue checking the forum once in a while to check of anything changed but the pace is slow
  2. Haven’t touched WT for ages but if they bring historical DERFFLINGERs (not that fantasy shite WG slaps on these things such as fantasy bows and that crap) I will be back for WT!
  3. Yep a KGV would be awesome too! Although for me it would be a Princess Royal or Renown Battlecruiser as seen in WW1
  4. They could potentially manage this a little more elegant by throwing Derfflinger and Konig Parts for the ship designer at us to keep me a happy major for the next couple of months 😁
  5. Sad but some truth to it. I would like to play it more but currently it is still a litte too limited for me. I think rather than adding hundreds of hulls it would be good to allow much more freedom to designing ships and break up these “modules” into smaller pieces to combine them differently. And add more option - ahh Ah well - let’s see
  6. Noice work @Cptbarney ! Would you like to make a refitted BADEN one day? Such as this one here...? 😊
  7. Thanks for pinging Barney! Indeed fantastic news!!! Will definitely try it and play the new stuff — Looking forward to see a French Battlecruiser!
  8. I am curious to see the new content - at least quads are in I hear. Maybe too early to hope for Ship Designer improvements but still very curious
  9. Indeed. Same for the superstructures - we need some more variety Pls
  10. I think they said it would be possible although we don’t know how that would work in the game. I hope for the same - it would be a shame if you couldn’t be keeping your ships up to date
  11. Indeed a proper Queen Anne‘s mansion to built a G3 or N3 would be great too! Plus we need funnels! Moar funnels!
  12. Thanks for pinging Vassili 🙂 That’s unexpected good news - looking forward to try that out! Now if they also add Derfflinger‘s parts I won’t be playing anything else I guess
  13. Yes - I would appreciate if UAD would not copy this angling nonsense from Tonks/Tonks on Water
  14. As machinery space is fixed at the moment and main gun turrets and barbettes are in multiple fixed spots it should be possible to calculate the length once in the design process. Even if it would be just multiple snap points between the program measured the length - would still be better and probably relatively simple to program
  15. That looks pretty amazing. I always like if ships look like they are in actual use - meaning everything looks busy and a little random if you know what I mean
  16. Haha touché 🙂 However I am not just a big fan of planes and carriers but at least equally ola dreadnought fan 🙂 I am not in a hurry to see carriers here although I am not opposing the idea entirely for later tech stages. However the focus here is true Dreadnought vs Dreadnought interaction so let’s get that awesome first 🥳
  17. True but what I meant was that the guy is right: main belt shouldn’t be fixed the three center compartments but dynamically calculated by the placement of main guns / barbettes and machinery space. This would allow us to save weight by trying to reduce citadel length which I would put equal to main belt length.
  18. That would actually make a lot of sense! And the way you build the Lay-out would determine the length of the main belt (and therefore it’s weight) as a result. Sounds like a good idea to play around with different designs and to optimize citadel length (the shorter the lighter)
  19. Of course that’s a risk. On the other hand - as you say - the community here is quite small. Maybe it would engage people more if they share more of what’s happening.
  20. That is a great piece of information! Thanks and +1
  21. Although - even if things certainly could be improved and expanded - I am happy to see some movement of the ships to begin with. Coming from WOWS where ships are basically Tonks on water it feels more alive
  22. Agree - the lack of information is really not ideal. Even if there was half a year of standstill, now that the team seems to be set up again it would be good to get some information and updates.
×
×
  • Create New...