Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

coalminer

Members2
  • Content Count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

coalminer last won the day on February 3 2021

coalminer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

96 Excellent

About coalminer

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. they really dont care at this point. those threads created for "feedback"? its just going to run along for 50 over pages and get ignored just like how everyone has been for the past couple of years. Everything is unexplained modifiers and "stealth hullz wit 90% damagez reductionz" cause we can. what are the basis for those reductions? it sure as hell isnt GA or armour layouts because the player cant control any of those. If the really wanted feedback, start answering questions and suggestions given over the many many pages in the past not lead us all on another merry go round. in all
  2. the price has already been dropped significantly compared to the original "early early access" price here. one would wonder if this would be a quick cash grab and leave it as a half baked game out there. the fact that they cant even get us early backers enough keys has me wondering, *tin foil hat on mode*, they dont want the veterans to bombard the page with negative reviews and ratings to put off potential customers who buy into the "realism" plastered all over on a bare bones barely working game. there is no road map, no dev plans no nothing and the timelines has been missed so many tim
  3. I mean you've seen the number of life boats on there right? clearly this is a lifeboat tender and not a cruiser!
  4. its reminiscent of Armored Warfare where a game with a great dev team backing it ran into issues with the publishers (or whoever was running the show) and ended up giving up because the publishers simply wanted a clone of the existing tank games in market as it was the most likely to make returns on investment. Now it exists simply as a payforskins and random premium vehicles game mirroring other arcadey shooter games. Not saying that this is whats happening or will happen but it does smell vaguely similar with the whole investment by another company things that happened to game labs.
  5. Putting all the personal drama aside, unfortunately as much as we want to support the game even the main selling point of the game falls flat on its premise. the designer as it is is pretty much useless except for building a variant of the original historical ship the hull was based on otherwise it would be unoptimised (just look at how the AI tries to slap things all over). For the most part late war hulls only allows ABY triple mounts because of how the game forces you down and early game being variants of AY guns and hoping that the devs gives the nation of your choosing better "stats and r
  6. unfortunately i echo the sentiments of this post and many others who have simply moved on. not so peeved about the lack of progress on the development (COVID and all) but the complete ignoring of community comments, feedback and any sort of constructive discussion is outright ignored. the so called "realism" advertised is a load of bull because almost nothing makes sense. putting that aside because people inevitably would come and yell "but realism isnt fun!" the whole brushing off of feedback and each patch things just keeps getting worse makes this seem like the most logical option righ
  7. Just wanna drop by and say cheers for keeping up with the bug hunting over the past few months despite the (by now rather standard) silence from the devs. I hope they've atleast seen this.
  8. Yamato's bulbous bow was extensively tested in towing tanks and she was built before the end of WW2, advanced hydrodynamics was a well known subject and further improved upon by the availability of advanced CFD. The Iowa classes were also completed before the end of WW2. Why bring up the Vasa and Mary Rose where actual first hand documentation is scarce for wooden sail boats when the Turbinia was built, tested and improved upon by well known methods in 1890s? on the 2nd, the term "fair winds and following seas" has probably been around for a long time (since the age of sail at the very le
  9. Perhaps you can point what where specifically it provides the centre point of gravity on this image? All i see are armaments and armour layouts which also does not include any weight numbers or stability calculations and machinery spaces. This image on wiki is credited to Janes which as far as I am aware would not have access to such (back then) state of the art engineering drawings. Since we are citing wiki, looking at the preceeding Formidable class which the Mikasa is based off on, these numbers are provided (Freeboard was 23 ft (7.0 m) forward, 16 ft 9 in (5.11 m) amidships, and 18 ft
  10. Lord Kelvin was around before the pre-dreads and the major calculations (basics of buoyancy) not to mention sailing and ship design experience was already very mature by then (iterative design improvements is well ingrained in the naval architecture design cycle). Saying that naval architects didnt know how to trim vessels back then is kind of very farfetched. This assumption also seems to completely ignore machinery weight which is a sizable amount and typically located further aft. This aside, it only further highlights the glaring need for more improved designer otherwise everyone's desi
  11. Hulls are going to be imbalanced anyway with the fixed approach taken with certain nations having inherent advantages simply based on available hulls, I'm going to assume its going to be more number and % tweaking in the future to "balance" the nations because thats how technology, naval design and warfare worked(/s). The fixed towers would likely also be a similar issue. It seems to lean towards new = best, big = better when it comes to towers, components (smoke stacks). +++++ On the 10% increase, this has also been demonstrated in the past that random numbers are pulled out for "balance
  12. Like many of the more active community users who gave alot of useful feedback, I have also more or less given up on this. The arbitrary resistance % given to hulls is just as far from reality as possible. Damage resistance should purely come from internal arrangements (which doesnt exist), armouring scheme (which doesnt exist) and a few other abstract ideas that barely resemble real world physics (bulkheads, citadel, floatation %). The example being a 20" armoured DD hull will always be more shell resistant than a 500k tonne BB hull with 0 armour. All the response we got from the devs is eithe
  13. This game has some technical portions to it but most of it is not realistic or outright fantasy. a completely flat sided square steel box with 0" armour plating installed is not anywhere less resistant to a ship shaped hull form with also 0" armour plating installed. Stating in patch notes that "special hull resistance characteristics making it especially durable even against battleships." makes 0 sense because arguably, a destroyer hull with 20" armour mounted would be more resistant to gun fire than a 500K displacement BB with 0 armour. Modifiers and barely comprehensive damage models a
  14. custom battle with unlocked mode is probably as close to sandbox for now but it still restricts gun technology and superstructure to the underlying hull type. although i suppose one big issue with mixing parts is further clipping and turrets not fitting to the integrated barbettes and thus restricting builds.
×
×
  • Create New...