Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

coalminer

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

coalminer last won the day on October 24 2020

coalminer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

47 Excellent

About coalminer

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. probably when the game is complete or atleast feature complete as things are constantly changing and being tweaked.
  2. Instead of the slider could we just get a input field to type in tonnage? its really frustrating to try incremental steps and end up over or under the targeted displacement screwing up all sorts of things. Otherwise adding in simple arrows to click in 25 and 250tonne increments would be helpful (e.g I drag the slider to 25,000t then using the arrows, tweak it to my desired target of 24,450t instead of randomly sliding it all over the place) On the weapon balancing, I hope this doesnt turn into a balance for the sake of balancing World of XX mechanics. Why should a partial pen by a 5" gun
  3. A little curious what the general characteristics of this particular vessel that was quoted, also if this was in builder's trials as a laden vessel would likely take more time to come to a stop. extrapolating between the first 2 tables, it is likely the vessel would have taken a longer time to come to a stop if it was going at full forward vs medium forward without throwing the prop into reverse (at 15min it was still doing 4knots vs reaching "max" speed in between 14-16min). IMO requirements has it that a vessel must crash stop within 15(20 for very large vessels) ship lengths, this give
  4. Personally I prefer the campaign to be geographically locked against the nations (e.g. Brits build Brit style ships, Germany German styled, etc.) and the player instead gets to choose from the tech tree which hull to research. E.g. starting with the baseline predread hull and moving towards dreadnoughts would be given the option to choose between the various nation's Dreadnought 1 hull (or light cruiser hull 1 to UK light cruiser hull 2, IJN light cruiser hull 2, etc.). This would be similar to a tiering system for the hulls (in this case also for the towers). The idea is for the designer to b
  5. Also one point would be considering how the game omits planes (and carriers in general) should DDs be allowed 6" gun mounts (and in general less stringent restrictions on gun sizes)? Historically there has only been a handful of DDs with 6" guns (short of cold war examples and the US 8"RF experiments) but one could counter argue that with the advent of aircraft as a major threat, DDs were equipped with DP guns to be used as screens in large formations and to provide them with some AA capabilities when operating in smaller formations. A quick glance through of comparative 6" mounts (typically u
  6. Quoting a post by Nick from Alpha 9 feedback (another response was given in that thread instead) but just felt that this resonated with this thread. With the addition of quad guns in A9 a few more options and flexibility was given to us the players in designing vessels and I have been experiment alot of many of the (weird) 1920s/30s designs the French thought of, but I have always found myself gravitating back to ABXY superfiring triples even in early vessels as there is simply no downsides to going with that than the usual Q mounts or cross deck firing designs. Much of the designs are so
  7. Appreciate that this ship designer limitations would be getting some attention but with a statement on machinery and probably relating to deck penetration of the guns requiring a certain hull beam to fit the guns as the justification for limiting the placement of weapons does not work in this case: 1. We cannot see what is underneath the deck nor influence machinery placement. Predreads and older ships tend to come with all sorts of funny arrangements such as wing turrets, AQX mounts as it was historically restricted by technology and machinery space (i.e, room needed for boilers and turb
  8. I heard you like barbettes, so heres a barbette with a tower that has a barbette.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...