coalminer
-
Posts
58 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by coalminer
-
-
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 times, a 12month EA right now means as much as all the other dev posts (barely any) to acknowledge issues and inform the community of whats going on. at this point, as with the game being such a major disappointment, im hoping the game would flop badly in hopes that it would disappoint me once again and instead we get a fully functioning fantastic naval sim game.
-
2
-
-
23 hours ago, StoneofTriumph said:
Ah ha! I see our foes are adherents of the "single gun" school of light cruiser design.
I mean you've seen the number of life boats on there right? clearly this is a lifeboat tender and not a cruiser!
-
1
-
-
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.
-
On 11/13/2021 at 7:22 AM, Redletter45 said:
It's a videogame and making it fun should be the number one priority over making it some simulator where most people will shun it. If you look at their advertisements you can easily tell they are focusing on "make your own cool design ships and fight other ships!".
The one complaint I whole heartedly agree with is the devs need better communication and probably should do something akin to biweekly or at least monthly devblogs.
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 resistance" because apparently thats how armour and GA works.
-
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 right now. A patchwork of random patches and balances addressing things in piecemeal is only going to result in a patchwork game with barely functioning mechanics where the "patched meta" will always be preferred. Without a good foundation whats the difference between playing this and world of thunder magical battleships and the myriad of clones out there because super BBs and magical technology is all this is about.
Gas turbines, STEALTHY BATTLECRUISERS????? and magical AI knowing when you are out of ammo/torpedoes? kthxbye. Are we getting railguns and H44 hulls next? maybe throw in pykrete and unobtanium armour next perhaps.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Draco said:
this aspect of the ship designer could use improvement
Lets just leave it at this.
-
On 9/19/2021 at 10:28 PM, Draco said:
Okay so first off, I did not say naval architects didn't know how to trim vessels, please don't put words in my mouth. I said the main solution involed balast rather than hydrodynamic calculations.
Second, there is a BIG difference between basic buoyancy (aka. Will it float at all?) and then to advanced hydrodynamics (how much will the ship's speed and accuracy be affected by weight distribution, water flow, specific hull form, wind direction, varying sea states, temperature ect.)
Don't conflate the two.
Basic buoyancy has been a known factor since the Vasa and the Mary Rose capsized, whereas hydrodynamics weren't fully understood until well after WWII.
In this sense, the game is actually giving us access to information that wouldn't and couldn't be known entirely until well after the end of the game by displaying a stability percentage in the ship builder.
That's all I was saying.
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 least) which meant the effects of sailing into head seas was atleast known to affect vessels. Without basic buoyancy there is no advanced hydrodynamics, they are interlinked concepts.
And what I'm saying is the designer is a poor representation of how ship design is done with the limitations as is. Balance (weight distribution) and a number of items are abstracted very poorly (and has been demonstrated in numerous other threads).
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Draco said:
Here's an image of the Mikasa.
Notice how the majority of the weight is situated considerably fore of the centre point of gravity in the ship.
Perhaps you give long dead designers too much credit?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 (5.5 m) aft.) considering that the Formidable class did not have (or had minimal sheer) in the deck from pictures and drawings, this provides that the designers or atleast the sailors knew that ships ought to be trimmed aft to provide optimal sailing conditions, sure they could have been ballasted, but knowing that the hull had X volume and displacement, any engineer of the day would not dedicate such weight to ballast. Why add weight for balance when it could be built from the start for the aft trim or atleast even keel.They might not have advanced CFD software but they sure werent going in blind like idiots either. I am not going to do a full literature review for you but heres an article from 1880 on Naval Architecture and the basics of ship stability, sure the illustration in the article is calculating for transverse stability but the formulas for longitudinal stability are more or less the same.
The Royal Institute of Naval Architects was founded in 1860s and the theories were demonstrated by William Froude through testing in physical facilities, were they sitting around on their rear ends twiddling their thumbs? Maybe, but the Dreadnought did not capsize immediately upon launch, perhaps they were pretty good at guesswork. Take it however you want it, I am giving credit to those who pioneered the field of engineering and naval architecture.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Draco said:
Well... from a historical perspective hydrodynamics were just in their infancy in the pre-dread era, so although I couldn't say for certain (as it's not a period I've researched a while lot) I wouldn't be surprised if pre-dreads were indeed highly unbalanced, and they simply added balast to trim the vessels back then.
Just food for thought.
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 designs are going to be same without the ability to balance machinery spaces and weights within the vessel. -
On 9/5/2021 at 4:52 AM, Skeksis said:
Germany CA hulls are disadvantaged from 1900 to 1912. British get a flat deck hull to build from, 'Armored Cruiser V' at 1900, it's an open deck that can have variable placeholders, whereas Germany only gets the 'Armored Cruiser II' at 1894, and this is a superstructured hull, all options are placeholders, very limiting.
The British side is advantaged (with CAs) in both 1900 and 1910 campaign starts. No mention here of any new Germany CA hulls. 1912 is when Germany gets its comparison, 'Armored Cruiser V', after 1910 campaign start, after building the 1910 fleet, the German side would be handicapped. Germany side would have to rebuild all CAs after 24 months, and wait for there build time, crippling it even more, until at least 1914.
+++++
Without the "free" tonnage and the 10%, which is alot and tonnage we have used up in the past/currently, will ships be under-designed for some Academy Missions? maybe making some missions unplayable. Would every mission have to be re-tested, re-balanced?
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 purposes". A baseline of what these numbers were based on is not given nor any justifications (e.g. random historic paper so that the community could atleast comment or feedback on the proposed changes) on why such changes. There are numerous sources on the internet on characteristics of naval armour used, couldnt one of these be cited or extrapolated to provide the baseline reference number? Disclosing the numbers would also make it easier for the community to help tweak and refine the armour resistance down the line.Although at this point we may just as well be beating a dead horse.
-
1
-
-
On 9/4/2021 at 3:57 AM, SpardaSon21 said:
That resistance bonus is whack. What's really hilarious is that the bonus applies regardless of whatever the incoming shell is, so you get 1900's Austro-Hungarian pre-dreads that can soak up multiple 20" shells. I'm honestly surprised the US isn't the best for that. The US has historically been ahead of the curve for ship design and construction, after all. The South Carolinas had better internals than Dreadnought herself and both them and the later Delawares were standouts for their all-centerline armament, handling the keel stress from that quite well. Later on all our treaty designs had high-tensile STS all over to reduce weight while keeping or even adding to integrity since it was quite superior to the usual structural steels and doubled as high-hardness homogenous armor.
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 either they cannot (or refuse to) talk about it or simply silence (assuming its even read and taken into consideration or this should be rephrased as outright ignored).
The above example on gun mounts far at the bow mounting centreline affecting roll more than mounts placed at CG but at the beams and high mounted weight not affecting roll is just another example of modifiers and random % numbers thrown all over the place. The basic KBGMt would show that anything with more lever(at the beams) would affect roll more even if it was midship (at the LCG). If anything the bow mounted guns should affect pitch not roll.
-
17 hours ago, Skeksis said:
This game has a large technical side to it but you don't have to be a scientist to understand it, in fact you can just slap things together without being aware of the problems but simultaneously it has the depth for the player to learn/experience if they so choose. That's the mark of excellence/longevity.
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 are not the way to go if a "realistic" game is to be made. It simply ends up as bigger = better as its just slapping on more and more big guns with enough armour to resist it. Nothing else is important, not interior layout, not GA for crew comfort and damage control or even TDS/bulges because its just install Y get 0.5 damage modifiers against Z damage type, need I mention the need for go-fast (30knots+ 1910s BBs)?
Sure there is min/maxing for roll/pitch motions (which again is arguable as realistic, a ship with lower roll periods may make a stable gunnery platform, but such a ship is likely to be very wet along with the sciences that goes behind naval architecture), but what is likely is ending up with the same ABX 3 mounts design because the fixed components and towers, the lack of internal structures, barbette mechanics, ammo placement, the main 3 sections counting as "citadel", etc. makes this the only viable way to play.
edit: throwing on the campaign at this point is likely going to draw in another fresh wave of players who may end up with the same conclusion and further alienating those who are already here due to:
i. The mechanics are not fleshed out and are place holders; and
ii. The mechanics are not fleshed out and are here to stay.
If the mechanics are not finalised, the campaign wouldnt work as the ships would not be the final products representing themselves in the campaign, but with an overly simplified battle mechanic then its likely going to end with auto resolving every battle as every AI will churn out the same ship all the time.
-
8
-
-
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.
-
3 hours ago, Elrerune The Honorbound said:
To tell you the truth, I was interested in it because I like to recreate my favourite ships. So for example if there was an ability to modify the hull in such a way, I could easily make realistic continuations. Also I too am losing interest in the campaign because it seems to me it's going to be something like business management instead of "build a fleet and sink the enemy fleet and take over the world kinda stuff".
Yea... thats the general sense in most of the feedback threads which has unfortunately been ignored or has received no acknowledgement from the devs. A campaign at this stage with the in game mechanics would probably be the same as custom battles because the AI will churn out speedboats while most of the core concepts do not work well(e.g gunnery, armour, etc.).
Would it be naval game? yes, but would it be realistic (as advertised)? probably not.
The use of language such as "New model that can recreate the German “Deutschland-class” cruisers such as the “Graf Spee”. In-game it can be used with the name “Advanced Armored Cruiser Ι” after year 1921, as a hull between 14,900 and 18,900 tons with special hull resistance characteristics making it especially durable even against battleships." is quite troubling when the original Deutschland class were barely armoured to resist heavy gunfire. The decision to stick with numerical multipliers instead of proper armouring scheme is probably my main beef with the development so far, a 400m ULCC is no more resistant to gunfire than a 10m boat. Armour isnt simply decided by displacement or size of ship, its by internals and how the vessel is designed and armour incorporated.
-
1 hour ago, Elrerune said:
The very concept of the game (as displayed on official animation on steam) does not exist and it is very worrying that the devs don't want to either make the feature and content or remove misleading and fake representation.
The last time there was a serious discussion on this the devs simply chose to ignore everything and close the thread. As that was not the first time they have done it, i am just going to assume the worst and this game would not be something i am still interested in (to put it lightly).
-
1
-
-
Seeing this response in the Alpha 12 feedback thread has killed any of my remaining interests in this unfortunately. This seems to imply that they do not intend to change the way armour is distributed or customised on the hulls (which most likely means no changes to gunnery/damage systems) beyond tweaking numbers and modifiers for "balance".
Oh well, had some fun here and there but probably wouldnt come back until something else big comes along.
On 6/3/2021 at 6:18 PM, Nick Thomadis said:Armor weight is calculated with different ways according to type. For example, Belt and Deck armor use as main factor the weight of the hull. Turret armor use as base the weight of the turret, dividing the turret proportionally in top and side sections. We cannot share the exact formulas, but hopefully you get the idea.
-
4 hours ago, WiselessOwl said:
For images you can use Imgur. Upload there and use "direct link" or something like that - it will spawn the image in your post without using your allowed space
Yea was kind of lazy to do this during work hours, uploaded the images below.
https://imgur.com/881kAkDhttps://imgur.com/881kAkDhttps://imgur.com/a/zfZqdV7
Its easy to recreate, just place down the rear tower and play around with the mega funnel, a number of placements are invalid.
-
Seems like underwater guns are caused by the hull not recognising guns being too far off? (see the 2 6" triples above the B quads, it was an accepted design according to the designer.
Also theres a weird bug with the new UK Modern(? i forgot the name the highest tech level one) where the mega funnel would fit/not fit depending on where the rear tower was placed. Ran out of attachment space, will upload images if required.
-
5 hours ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:
I'm glad to hear that more older era models will be coming eventually! Definitely can't wait to see those!
However, I'm curious @Nick Thomadis when will the next round of cruiser hulls/superstructures be released (such as the USS Brooklyn, USS Atlanta, IJN Takao/Myoko and other cruisers that sported unique layouts)? Or are those kinds of ships/superstructures not going to be seen for a while/if ever? Apologies for the extra ping
On the unique layouts i would prefer if the team built generic hulls (either with a stepped or flush hull) and through the use of barbette placement freedom, allow us to build such layouts. The integrated barbette and towers are quite restrictive and has been rather unpopular in the past.
-
6
-
-
12 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
1. Currently each hull shape has some initial unique characteristics which affect several design aspects. If a hull has high freeboard, it is wide etc., it is represented in game stats in various ways. We will make beam/draught configurable soon, to allow more flexibility on those design choices.
2. You can check in-game when we offer the patch and we talk then.
3. 7 inch turreted guns are available to make Warrior/Minotaur type cruisers of the 1900s. SMS Scharnhorst, which is a model on our list to add, had 5.9-inch casemate guns, but nevertheless, we will see how we can improve the system and allow more casemate flexibility.Good to see things gradually being clarified and worked on lets hope this pace keeps up.
on point 1, hope the changes goes beyond visual and minor stat boosts but goes further in affecting other issues like deck flooding and reserve buoyancy. While L/B/T ratios for speed calculations may be difficult to calculate and model in for that many vessels, any bit of added flexibility in vessel design is a bonus.
on point 3, must have missed out 7"s being available as secondaries as its been awhile since I've played with armoured cruisers. Agreed that casemate flexibility ought to be further improved.
21 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:Where did you find freeboard?
Grabbed it off the patch notes which says the 2 hulls with low and high freeboard being offered.
-
2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
*Edited and snipped to reduce clutter*
NEW HULL & MODELS
-
New British Heavy Cruiser III variant with displacement between 16,500 and 19,500 tons, available after 1925. This type of hull has a low freeboard and can produce ships which combine speed, stealth and decent firepower.
-
New British Heavy Cruiser II variant with displacement between 12,500 and 16,900 tons, available after 1925. This strong hull with high freeboard can offer cruiser designs with powerful armament at a reasonable cost.
NEW GUNS & IMPROVEMENTS
-
Quadruple secondary guns (2,3 and 4 inches) for the French.
SHIP DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS/FIXES
-
Increased the flexibility for all mount types. For every hull, you will notice much larger freedom in placing the various ship parts. Moreover, you can override the mount snap points by pressing the CTRL button so you can add the part (Towers, Funnels, Barbettes etc.) in a continuous area between the allowed space.
-
Armor and Bulkheads weight rebalance. Heavily armored ships will have significant weight demands. Ships with maximum bulkheads will weigh more. Ships with minimum bulkheads will weigh slightly less, so the trade off between bulkhead protection and other ship assets will be more pronounced.
We hope this patch will make you enjoy the game even more! We will notify you very soon about the date of its release.
First off, good work on the new patch and on the designer changes. Heres hoping for more parts in the future.
Secondly, this is going to sound nitpicky but some points to consider:
- The claim of low/high freeboard offering more design choices is not appropriate. Armour is not accurately modeled to factor in coverage of belt/decks/below waterline nor does the weather/sea interact with the hull. Besides visual choice, freeboard does not matter at all (short of stat tweaking which is not at all related to the claimed freeboard difference) and i have not noticed any significant difference for existing hulls which do have some form of difference in freeboard. If freeboard affects damage calculations (e.g. impact angles due to larger belt area) then we must be given the ability to tweak freeboard values (even if its just between low, normal and high) with the respective impacts to flooding survivability and stability.
- Linked to the first point but it demonstrates clearly why the armour system needs a rework. Weight rebalanced against what? what historic data is there to back the rebalance? is it yet again another arbitrary change to armour effectiveness against X calibres because they offer the best balance of firepower/weight/cost? can we have the rationales and what has been changed in the armour numbers?
- Could we also explore 7" secondaries on armoured cruisers to allow accurate modelling of certain prewar designs where its all about slapping on the most variety of guns everywhere? (e.g. minotaur class, SMS Scharnhorst, etc.)
Here's hoping to more future patches to address the points the community has brought up.
-
4
-
-
Its quite silly to have ranges <10km where the barrels and turrets are pointed in the right direction but when the guns fire, the shells veer way off like the gun barrel is bent, firing round balls with no rifling. its like playing FPS games where the guns can hit the far corners of the screen without even moving the crosshair.
-
I assume you are referring to the DDG1000 class of ships? Those are sloped for radar signature purposes and not armouring purposes. A BB with a sloping scheme similar to these would suffer from reduced internal volumes and effective armour values due to the angle of incidence from plunging fire. Modern BBs (1940s~) would have encountered far more longer range plunging fire than horizontal shells which would come in at an angle and strike almost perpendicular to the plate if it were sloped like this.
Only good use of such inward slope/tumblehome designs for the purpose of increasing armour effectiveness would be early war/predreads where fights were at extremely close ranges and near horizontal impact angles (think CSS Virginia) to deflect oncoming shells.
As for sloping internal schemes, these are subject to great debate depending on sloping belt vs deck coverage (and the usual arguments for/against a turtleback armour scheme) and would be alot more complex affecting not only simply armour penetration chances and effectiveness against incoming fire but also influencing damaged stability, armoured raft and effects of the shell post penetration (e.g. reports of yamato's torpedo bulge causing the torpedo bulkhead and belt to puncture the holding bulkhead behind) or compromises to belt armouring schemes in favour of torpedo defense, reduced weight, etc.
However neither features are in game of advanced armour design or difference in citadel schemes besides being simply modifiers.
-
3
-
To check game weight limits, I tried to build real ships (like Yamato etc) All way too heavy.
in Shipyard Discussions - Ship designer, Warships and their components
Posted
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 possibility those threads are created to bait the new players flooding over from steam.