Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

coalminer

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

About coalminer

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. one big problem is the game doesnt simulate anything other than the model of the turret hence ammo handling rooms and ammo logistics etc. are left out which a triple gun mount would need to support it. The game's use of model as the fixed definition of the space the gun requires also hinders it in that aspect. why bother with dual 15"(or whatever size) if the triple turret only weighs more and has the same size? single turrets are also out because its pointless to design monitor-esque vessels since if you have the tonnage for an 18" single, it might as well be a 16" triple since the 18" single
  2. unfortunately the models are not as modular as hoped otherwise a system with a clicker (i.e. -1 deck level, 0 (standard) +1 deck, etc.) could be used to add additional deck levels to the vessel to increase viability in superfiring guns, better placement of casemate guns and affecting stability if it starts getting too top heavy. Reduced deck heights would come at an advantage of decrease hull weight (lightship, steel weight), better roll (affecting accuracy) due to lowered CG but at the expense of wet decks which may render casemates unusable or at reduced ROF and accuracy. This coupled with b
  3. Hey! I only sell good coal you know! Jokes aside, I believe in RTW various regions produced oil depending on the geographic locations, perhaps this can open up more options for oil vs coal designs when it comes to supply chain maybe even the inclusion of oil storage and stockpiles for war. And older ships should definitely see increased breakdowns(especially in combat conditions and pushing maximum speed) and reduced top speeds(even ships that were out at sea for a long time with no maintenance due to hull fouling). this would increase the importance for overseas naval bases/friendly
  4. I think its more to have/allow the player to manually lead targets by setting where the player thinks the enemy ship would be and the AI crew calculate the firing solutions to hit that X target than to fully remove RNG from the calculations. Although this does make the game a little skewed towards either the player/AI when technology differences come in as manual leading can result in "easy sniping" of the AI with very large calibre guns of decent accuracy as the AI may be using a different (existing) system of gunnery. Although this does help in certain issues like the AI crew randomly d
  5. With the current iteration of the game armour tends to make the biggest difference so i trend towards that. Having certain guns being a little bit OP (looking at you 9" and 12" guns) also doesnt help since some calibres are straight up useless compared to the smaller guns. But even so my playstyles from other games does impart some of its character here and I prefer tankier/tougher vessels putting on maximum armour before sticking on the largest/best guns possible. With lighter/faster vessel classes its all about harassing and screening the main fleet. Cutting off or forcing the enemy tow
  6. Ok the other thread got closed and this got reopened, so got to put this here instead. In previous patches there were numerous feedback that DDs (lighter vessels) were too fragile and could be destroyed with relative ease by BBs mounting large numbers of 2"/3" RF guns. Recent patches introduced (tweaked) accuracy number to compensate for weaker unarmoured vessels, but this resulted in terribly unrealistic system where pointblank ranges are resulting in way more missed than what would probably happen. I recently went back to test a 1940s BB vs a bunch of about 20 1915 BBs, BCs, CAs an
  7. I would prefer for manual torping as well, currently when designing a torp heavy vessel it dumps multiple tubes at a single target in a narrow grouping wasting lots of the torps. Being able to manually launch a fan of torps can deny enemy of areas or even outright hit something and sink them if its a lucky hit.
  8. Frankly Im not too concerned with the delay on the campaign as long as work is still ongoing. Rather a well polished game than one plagued with bugs and unfinished mechanics. Thanks for the clarifications after this rather nervewracking period of silence. I believe it was mentioned that the main coding work was separate from the art/graphics, would this mean that instead of very large updates (i.e, campaign, massive reworks, etc.) would we expect smaller graphical updates (new art, new parts, refinements, etc.) to come instead? This coupled with balances to the combat mechanics would be m
  9. I agree on more communication but not so much on development of the campaign but rather to address some of the community feedback that has been coming up very often. I acknowledge that the devs have been active in addressing some issues like that of torpedoes and reloads, tweaking of some of the gunnery aspects. But some of the main core issues of the game isnt seeing as much attention such as for the bow-stern tanking, unsinkable late game ships, more advanced armouring mechanics, superfiring barbettes. placement of guns/towers etc. Games take time to develop especially with mechanics o
  10. Navyfield was a very good game, sort of hoping that UA:D can simulate some of the large battles we had back then. Some of the hulls and armaments there are also pretty realistic that is until you get to the made up late war BB and CVs that was added towards the tail end of the game. The ship models were pretty nice for their day. This unofficial site also gives gun arcs and various armament details of the different ships.
  11. Well then again towards the end of the big guns era the lines did start to blur and converge a little. the Iowas were topping 33knots to keep up with carrier groups, other contemporary BBs like Vanguard, Bismarck, Vittorio Veneto and Richelieus were doing 30knots and even Yamato being almost 20-30% heavier than the other vessels could push 27 knots. Although these would seem slow compared to the "large/supercruisers" like Alaska, B65 which were in the ranges of 30-34 knots the true difference of 1 or 2 knots isnt all that much if the vessel doesnt survive the opening salvos and many of such to
  12. I think the reason why BCs easily accommodate more armour is due to the predefined "hull resistance" value. So the BC will need lesser HP and engine tonnage to reach 30 knots where as the BB will require alot more engine tonnage hence it will not fit in a 49,000t design. Off the top of my head there were some values of the different hulls that influenced machinery effectiveness and armour resistance values, a slender and more flared hull form seems to have better values than older less refined designs (eg. super bb hulls vs predreads). While its not immediately clear to players how some of the
  13. On this point, you are correct. At least from my experience on a modern frigate, bow jack and stern ensigns are taken off during sailing and only flown from the mast for practicality purposes. (wet bow wet flag, aft is the helicopter deck and it interferes with helicopter operations. instead the naval ensign (or battle ensign if going into battle) is flown from the main mast (or for some modern ships, the only mast they have). I would hazard a guess that for older vessels the battle ensigns are hoisted on the aft mast or atleast aft of the smokestacks to clear the smoke.
  14. Would be great to see casemates handled similarly to gun turrets where you are given the option of "360 degrees" fire as long as it is unobstructed or simpler "180 degree" coverage for mounting along parallel mid bodies of the vessels. So maybe something like the casemate equivalent of "centreline" vs "wing/side" mounted main guns, simpler slot cutout casemates in the hull could simply weigh less and those intended as chaser guns(aft/fwd with larger arcs or fire) would weigh more especially with heavier secondary armouring as a larger area has to be armoured with a corresponding increase
  15. This is very suitable for the game to be in line with realism that the game strives for, early designs would have less compact machinery which would result in larger machinery spaces and lesser room for large armaments. It also kind of underlines why predreads and wing turrets were predominant until machinery layouts were optimised. Naval Ops (and the warship gunner series) did ship design very well with unobtrusive and intuitive designer that factored in for barbettes and machinery size. https://youtu.be/z9qSlCOflIg?t=357 (not my video, but gives a good glimpse into how the designer was handl
×
×
  • Create New...