coalminer
-
Posts
58 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by coalminer
-
-
On 1/29/2021 at 4:32 AM, The Land said:
To my mind, each hull type should have a maximum displacement limit on engine rooms etc and this limit should be lower for hull forms which are more 'solid' and/or have more centreline guns.
Another idea similarly requested is for the manual placement of engine/machinery spaces. If i want to use my boilers and gears as torpedo protection and additional belt armour i should be allowed to! (jk, machinery spaces tend to sit lower than the water line). But this opens up so many new possibilities in design and playthroughs (especially campaign).
i would imagine starting with coal and steam engines having efficiencies of 0.xx for both to demonstrate the low tech levels. this would mean higher speeds are much harder to attain on early war designs. then as the game progresses, engine and gearing are part of the tech tree with inherent differences between them such as:
- turbines being much more efficient but costing more in fitting and maintenance as well as more susceptible to damage
- diesels offering longer range and efficiency especially in acceleration (making steam is not required).
- continued research into VTE/steam cylinder techs that marries both benefits (simple efficiency increase)
- Super late war tech could probably also include nuclear, but thats just if the game time frame goes that far. (probably OP but super BBs are in the game as well...maybe critical hits would instantly rip the ship apart or cause substantial crew losses?)
Gearing would be a little more complex since alot of the naming conventions would have to be made up (most gearing systems would be similar i assume? being just reduction gear boxes). but a few ideas thrown here would be:
- Baseline gearbox upgrades would simply be efficiency upgrades until a certain point where the size of the gearbox reduces offering weight and size savings in the hull. For greater complexity perhaps a maximum input torque can be added to limit ship sizes so players cant simply ignore gear upgrades for pure HP/KW gains from prime mover upgrades. Exceeding the limits of the gearbox would result in higher chances of failure/damage and maintenance costs.
- Integrated propulsion units will come as a "sidegrade" to researched engine tech. The below example uses steam turbines (replace the wording with other propulsion units for the other tech trees). An integrated Steam Turbine 1 would perform worst than its direct counter part of a steam turbine 1 paired with gearbox 1, what the integrated unit offers however would be substantial size savings which would be crucial for smaller vessels (DDs, CLs, etc.). The upgraded integrated drives would then offer a slight increase in efficiency and perhaps reduction in size/weight.
But all this would require machinery spaces (and by extension ammo spaces) to become a core mechanic of the game in the first place
-
1
-
6 hours ago, 7thGalaxy said:
Can you confirm this? I've been reducing my armour as I've upped the techs!
Cant quite remember where i read this, might even be getting confused with some other games. But i think it would be more apt for the devs to respond on the armour mechanics rather than my postulation.
Just some more wild guesses when going into the game and leaving the armour values as 10" (again with the 10" example cause i really dont wanna do maths right now) and changing the armour quality starting with the lowest tech and up only seems to reduce the weight, so in this case something else is giving which i can only assume the 10" in the armour field stays as 10" of iron plate but in weight equivalent of Krupp IV. Another wild guess is that the use of a base unit (i think its iron armour?) is why some late tech guns have ridiculous amounts of penetration compared to their real world counterparts.
3 hours ago, jokash said:Thats 575mm of Krup IV so best quality
Ironically, I'm purely educated in the metric system but for ships its just soooo intuitive to go with inches... even comparing things like tanks, planes, etc mm RHA is alot easier for me to handle... maybe its just that the numbers get bigger with mm and it gets lost somewhere in the calculations 😰
-
in a similar vein to this, setting primary and secondary ammo type in battle is crucial but missing currently. most times the main and secondaries would be engaging different targets (typically BB vs screening light vessels <CA) and running full AP/HE on is not as efficient with the correct ammo type being used on the targets.
Being able to choose the propellant type for both secondaries and main would allow for optimising the gun types (e.g. favouring penetration strength in mains vs fire chance/shell damage for secondaries), however im not clear if this was practiced historically or were shells just crammed with the same propellants to varying weights. This would also work the same way for shell types in that heavy shells for mains for penetration and sacrificing RoF vs higher RoFs for lighter guns.
-
dont take my word for it but i seemed to recall in some other discussions that the armour slider would also account for armour tech? e.g. putting 10" of armour with 50% modifier armour tech would be actually putting only 5" of armour on the vessel.
i.e. the armour values are of the base equivalent (similar to using RHA as a base unit), so you would instead of putting on 10" of Krupp IV plate, actually be 10" iron armour worth of Krupp IV or something along those lines.
That said the designer is confusing as heck and many of the game mechanics are not well polished (and i hope placeholders). I had some 1913 12" guns destroy the vessels conning tower despite packing on 25" of armour and getting weird behaviour when vessels have some disparity in tech levels.
-
On 1/18/2021 at 9:06 PM, Cpt.Hissy said:
it's Universal law of spam.
It says: no matter what it is, if you have big enough numbers of it, it'll overwhelm everything that doesn't have those numbers.If battleship grade big booms could spew out 20 rounds per minute, no cruiser would exist. But they can't. And small cannons can do hundreds. Now look at modern navy armament)
Not quite true on this, a 20RPM BB gun could probably reach 45km with ~800kg shell and a traditional gun requires about 1700tonnes for triple mounts (taking 16" mk7 as an example). Assuming a modern system is available (the RF 8" guns were about 78 - 500 tonnes, randomly plopping a number in between for the theoretical single mount 20RPM BB gun would give about 1000 tonnes (+ some ready use ammo). 1000 tonnes is about 10% of the weight of an Arleigh Burke and almost 1/5 the weight of most contemporary destroyers. A platform built to handle this gun would likely be atleast >15k tonnes.
A modern 5" gun does 30-80km with ~30kg shells coming in at about 30 tonnes for the single gun mount.
A harpoon does 310km with ~140kg warhead and 600kg for a navalised box launcher.
Without going into the maths, a small corvette sized vessel would likely be able to mission kill any vessel designed around the 20RPM BB sized gun just given the target size of things and range difference between the missile system and the gun system. And just as similarly, spamming a bunch of missiles would likely overwhelm any defense systems (or atleast thats what the current naval doctrines seems to lean towards). In this sense in the case of a first hit scenario, neither platforms are likely able to survive (or atleast remain mission capable) hence, a smaller cheaper and lighter armed vessels augmented with missiles would make the most economical and strategic (simply due to volume) sense.
The lethality, first hit probability and weight of missiles simply made large surface vessels obsolete (that is not accounting for airborne and underwater threats). it was simply combining lethality, survivability and mobility (range + speed) into the most logically sized platform (similar to how super heavy tanks gave way to compromised balanced MBT designs).
Large naval assets without the ability to reach out and touch targets and staying out of harms way are probably not going to be viable unless deployed within fleets designed to try to address such vulnerabilities (A CV/CVN is slightly more complex in the sense the airwing gives air cover, strike capabilities, C4 and ASW vs shore bombardment only role of a BB). Active ways of damaging things is probably ahead and still will be ahead of any form of passive or active defense systems for the near future.
OK Im just too bored at work and just decided to ramble on for abit.
Disclaimer: non of the above should be cited, these are numbers plucked off readily available public sources or made up for the purpose of discussion.
-
At the rate the patches are coming out and just breaking things, i've all but given up hope on this. Devs got to tell the community atleast what are they looking at and what are the visions for the game.
A quick custom battle of 5 x CAs (1940s) pretty much max tech and just a wee bit below maximum bulkheads (quantity and the other option) vs 1 BB 1 BC, 2 CAs, 5 CLs, 5 DDs (1915), unrealistic as hell but what the heck should be a fun kerb stomp just for the lulz.
First start of the game, i merge the 5 CAs into one single division because for some reason it started off with 4 CA in 1 division and another 1 alone, immediately this breaks the formation AI because one ship is stuck at 1.9knots and not doing anything. OK attempt number 2, i try to disband formation and remake it, now all 4 of my ships dont show up at the UI to select, the 1 ship remaining is still doing its own things. OK i can bear with microing all the ships no problems. Moving on to combat phase.
Immediately the enemy AI starts with bow tanking, OK unrealistic but maybe they just want to close the range ASAP and find my ships. Once the DDs get into range thats where the stupidity begins. 9" HE shells are overpenning all over the place with a combined hit rate of 0.2% at 8km. DD pops smoke and it becomes a magical invisibility cloak and my CAs with radar cant hit for jack. Smoke ends, hits starts landing, more overpens from 9" HE. 6" secondaries deal 30 odd damage that are IMMEDIATELY repaired even with 20+ consecutive hits of mix of 9" and 6" HE. The DD barely drops below 50 floatation and structure.
Phase 2, i finally manage to sink 1 CL and 1 DD, at the expense of my CAs eating 2 torpedoes just for the fun of it even though it was spotted miles away by Hydrophones II, formation AI was dead set on following the formation. The enemy retreats back into formation and starts sailing abit after loosing sight of my ships. I begin shelling at range, again smokes all over the place dropping hit rates to abysmal levels. I turn on "Save" mode for better hit rates. Smoke dies down, shells start landing on the BC dealing quite a chunk of damage, it almost sinks until the DDs begin the smoke rush again. Now the near dead BC quickly finishes repairing back to 100% and sprints away. This time the DDs press on with the attack and continuing with the 0.2% hit rates at 10-8km, by now my formation AI has gone all dumb and started making random manoeuvres barely landing any hits on the DD. After abit of tinkering abit with evading torps and firing, all the ammo stores are down to yellow levels. I look at the damage done and decide its better to just rage quit than to lose my sanity over this.
TL;DR, stop tweaking things for the sake of tweaking it, now we have god like DDs that cannot be hit or damaged and things are looking worse off than they did 3 patches ago. I know making a game isnt about making a game *I want* but come on, if this is the dev team's definition of realism then I wonder what world am I living in.
edit: forgot to take screenshots because I couldnt believe what i was "playing", but should be easily replicated, 19km starting range, 1940 vs 1915. enjoy this image of the invisibility cloak shields being popped everywhere.
-
3
-
-
probably when the game is complete or atleast feature complete as things are constantly changing and being tweaked.
-
On 12/11/2020 at 12:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:
Hello Admirals,
- Partial Penetration Damage Increase: Shells that partially penetrate the armor will now make more damage. Small gun damage will be more significant against Battleships as a consequence, but still not comparable to the impact of big guns.
- Weight balances for armor, bulkheads, guns: The new balance of weights for integral parts of the ships allows for more realistic constraints. Auto-Design is also affected positively because it makes wiser choices for building more durable and effective ships.
- Tonnage Minimum Step for Design reduced: Minimum step was 50 tons and now it is 25 tons. This change not only helps the player to utilize tonnage more effectively for designing ships but also helps auto-design to use almost all free tonnage (previously it could leave several tonnes unused making AI designs weaker
- Minor penetration balance for 8-inch and 9-inch guns: Those guns have slightly more penetration at their extreme ranges.
- Initial playable missions increased: Initially the unlocked missions are nine (instead of five), to help players progress. (Note: The ironclad missions should be not so tough, due to the partial penetration damage increase).
===========
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 deal extra damage just because its a DD firing at a BB? a partial 5" pen against a BB would be less damaging than a partial pen against a DD/CL/CA simply due to larger internal volumes and placement of critical systems.
And what is the the rationale for increased penetration for 8" and 9"s? is this based on historical penetration values or simply tweaking it for the sake of tweaking it? a high angle shell falling at extreme ranges would have more horizontal pen but this should not be tweaking it for the sake of tweaking it so that CAs are "balanced" against BBs.
On weight balancing it is yet another tweaking of numbers with no rationale or reason given, are we simply discouraging players from certain builds just because? The reason why everyone goes for the largest guns and highest armour with maximum bulkhead is simply because everything else is just a compromise. With no advanced placement of magazines, machinery and internals there is no reason why anyone in the right mind will design a ship with anything less than maximum armour (both extended and citadel) because its not a compromise, its a a completely inferior design.
As suggested multiple times across different threads (and patch updates) things CANNOT be arbitrarily tweaked for the sake of tweaking if the game's emphasis and selling point is on realism.
-
10
-
1
-
4 hours ago, rgreat said:
Real time data on container ferry class ships.
Time
Speed, knots
Revolutions per minute
STOP -> FULL FORWARD
00.00
0
0
01.00
4.1
73
02.00
9.8
80
03.00
14.2
83
04.00
17.7
84
05.00
19.9
88
06.00
21.4
88
07.00
22.4
89
08.00
22.9
89
09.00
23.3
89
10.00
23.5
89
11.00
23.6
89
12.00
23.7
89
14.00
23.7
89
16.00
23.8
89
18.00
23.8
89
MEDIUM FORWARD -> STOP
00.00
18.0
67
01.00
15.4
0
02.00
13.2
0
03.00
11.6
0
04.00
10.2
0
05.00
9.2
0
06.00
8.4
0
08.00
7.1
0
10.00
6.1
0
15.00
4.6
0
FULL FORWARD -> FULL REVERSE
00.00
23.9
88
00.30
22.0
5
01.00
18.5
-68
01.30
14.2
-72
02.00
10.5
-72
02.30
7.1
-75
03.00
4.7
-76
03.30
1.0
-78
03.40
0
-78
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 gives a good estimate on what distances a large vessel requires to come to a stop (<4.5km for a 300m vessel). And crash stops (throwing engines/props into full reverse) is not conducted often or as part of standard manoeuvres as it places alot of stress on shaft seals, gearboxes(if any) and engines terribly causing premature failure.
-
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 be similar to the warship gunner series because that is one of the most ideal and easy to use interfaces while giving the players alot of freedom.
(not the best example as its a modern DD being built but you get the idea)
This will give the flexibility to the player to research what they want to and when they want to, if I want to try a pacific campaign as Japan with fully forward quads (french style) against the US, then I should have the freedom to do that. Not to always go build the same thing all the time and simply leave it to RNG and the AI to decide how my campaign plays out.
Most people are familiar with other grand strat titles like HOI and such, imagine playing France there and only ever having the option to get attacked by Germany in each playthrough, it gets pretty boring very very quickly and if its going to follow historical timelines downright predictable.
-
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 used in early war CLs) have weights that are in realistic realms of what a later war DD could handle (~20 tonne range). Considering in this game high velocity direct fire would be more important than DP mounts this would offer more flexibility to create essentially fast quick gunboats able to hold off larger vessels using a combination of gunfire and manoeuvrability.
-
On 11/17/2020 at 12:03 AM, Nick Thomadis said:
This is a feature that is in our backlog. We cannot offer full freedom as it would be not realistic to add barbettes where machinery could be placed or far ahead in the bow/stern of the ship, were practically it would be impossible. But something, could be done for an improvement in the future. We can first allow more slots in practical places (Which is the most efficient method, for the player too).
In this update, you will notice already several improvements in various hulls and more placeholders for barbettes or guns.
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 limited that regardless of the time era, most ships end up so limited by the designer that they all look like late 40s battleship designs just with whatever technology the time period offered. This is further exacerbated by the fact that higher tech towers often come with pre-existing superfiring barbettes forcing the player to use them (to make ABXY designs). Tower designs being simply based off historical designs also does not help as the historical designs were faced with certain restrictions (such as the G3/N3s) but this is not accurately reflected in the game and rebuilding the historical ships only serves to handicap the player with a less efficient design.
-
1
-
-
On 11/17/2020 at 12:03 AM, Nick Thomadis said:
This is a feature that is in our backlog. We cannot offer full freedom as it would be not realistic to add barbettes where machinery could be placed or far ahead in the bow/stern of the ship, were practically it would be impossible. But something, could be done for an improvement in the future. We can first allow more slots in practical places (Which is the most efficient method, for the player too).
In this update, you will notice already several improvements in various hulls and more placeholders for barbettes or guns.
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 turbines in the hull). Some ways to get around this and maximise broadside weight was the use of midship barbettes between boilers and turbines to omit wing mounts but as the game does not simulate not allow us to see machinery spaces, this point is moot and there is little reason to go beyond the most optimal ABXY superfiring layouts. Being able to decide (or atleast see) how the machinery is laid out would give players alot more flexibility in how ships are designed and even how the game is played, a player forgoing engine technologies may be restricted by large sections of the hull used up for machinery.
2. Without being able to see what happens under the deck, deck penetration doesnt matter as there is nothing to interfere with. In the current iteration the ship designer is more limited by deck space than what is happening in the hull. Should I put the main turrets as far out the beam as I can? yes why not to maximise broadside weight and mounts that I can fit. But historically distance between the hull and the mounts were considered as it would allow for more metal between incoming fire and gun ammo stores/magazines. In particular with TDS there were quite abit of thought put into how and where guns were mounted and armour was spread out (see references to cross sections of Iowa, Yamato, etc.) such as backing plates to catch splinters in the event the TDS was compromised.
3. Armour layout is not influenced in anyway by the player's (or the AI's) decision. Short of choosing the various citadel levels (say turtleback vs AON) doesnt seem to affect the vessel's internals short of modifiers to the numbers (% thickness weight, costs etc.). An AON design places significant consideration to the armoured citadel and reserve buoyancy of the vessel to maximise chances of survival against attacks, but the current armour system penalises AON by forcing players to only use the 3 midship sections otherwise even small calibre hits against the belt extended portions would result in magazine detonations (this is strongly evident in AI designed BCs where all the armour is focused in the belt but armament is spread all over the vessel). This abstraction of armour links back to point 2 where the player is incentivised to slap on as much armament on deck as possible than careful placement of guns (this is further exaggerated by AI designs which can be at times be borderline nonsensical).
-
6
-
-
I heard you like barbettes, so heres a barbette with a tower that has a barbette.
-
4
-
-
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 takes up the same amount of space anyway. so this results in the cookie cutter "optimisation" of everyone using triples for everything since the only downsides is minor accuracy reduction (made up for by +1 barrel) and weight for the same deck space.
One method I would suggest is again to look at warship gunner series of games. A single gun should take less space and not just weigh less. this way on a smaller vessel i can choose to go with triple 11"s or roll with dual 15"s not go big or go home sort of mentality when it comes to building ships.
-
5
-
-
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 better damage control and flooding mechanisms would make the game alot more realistic for damage control.
-
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 ports for vessels to undergo some maintenance. However without knowing how the campaign is built, it could be hard trying to guess around the limitations that the devs may have already implemented.
-
1
-
-
On 8/3/2020 at 12:27 PM, Hangar18 said:
It's impossible to make a gunnery model without rng...
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 deciding to change targets and shells coming out (seemingly) completely skewed in flight due to how accuracy is calculated relative to the enemy vessel than the position being aimed at. so RNG should be determined at the gun barrel and shell should not deviate too much down range, what matters more is the target lead and range being applied and less set the game to x5 and hope the gunners arent drunk.
-
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 towards the mainline while being able to absorb and deal damage on their lighter support vessels. Ironically because of this "doctrine" most of the damage and hits are scored by BCs and CAs with the BBs mostly landing the final blows on enemy BBs.
-
1
-
-
Quote
from
The insistence that faster ships are inherently more difficult to hit is baffling, for example. There are some excellent posts that explore that in detail, and I hope the dev team entirely revisits this issue.
*snip*
Indeed the whole issue of damage control (the wonder bulkheads about which I have been writing for more than 6 months) is a huge topic, especially given the current system reeks of WoWS and its "magic spanner" button, but I guess I'll have to wait to see what sort of response comes from that thread then add all this to the new one.
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 and CLs (ok silly scenario but it was just to push the extremes) what resulted was running out of ammo (16", 8",6" triples increased shells and SH shells) as my ship was missing CAs at 6km ranges from simply sailing straight. The opposing fleet was also incredibly hard to sink due to the magical bulkhead/destroyed module system and took way more shells than expected such as flotation going down to single digits and magically popping up while belt penetrations were continuously going on, near misses and below waterline hits should also be factored in. A vessel listing port side and taking more deck and belt hits on the same side should not magically be able to pump out water to right the vessel without massive counterflooding or outright capsizing due to physics. The AI also tended to sail straight "exploiting" the bow tanking mechanics, better definition of armoured areas and visualisation of armour coverage is needed instead of the all or all armouring method that tends to stand out now.
What this also highlights is that tweaking of numbers cannot help address fundamental issues of the game mechanics (gunnery, armour, survivability in general) without a serious indepth look at how each component interacts with the other. While the flash fire/ammo detonation being made more deadly was indeed a step in the correct direction, belt extended hits from small calibre weapons triggering flashes/ammo dets really shows some of the limitations of the current armouring system.
-
3
-
-
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.
-
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 more than sufficient to give players flexibility in playing with custom designs until something bigger like the campaign comes along.
-
6
-
-
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 of a full fledged campaign, a game roadmap is pretty much standard to help the community visualise key milestones but how some of the key issues will be addressed should also be brought up in the plan so that the community can help in providing constructive feedback at appropriate moments than to keep seeing the same issues recur after each patch.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, HusariuS said:
I don't know where to post it so I'm gonna do it here.
I have found interesting "B-65 Project" (?) hull from Navy Field.
Very beautiful model, looking even better than Azuma and Yoshino from WoWS.
You can even see all "barbettes" and AA positions.
(That mount on the tower is most likely for the radar/rangefinder).
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.
>>>Alpha-10 Feedback<<<
in General Discussions
Posted
Also random point I found when playing the "Power of Dreadnoughts" mission in naval academy. Somehow quads are available for predreads if you choose boost technology and you can build some pretty glorious monitors (with terrible firing arcs).