Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

SonicB

Members
  • Content Count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

SonicB last won the day on January 9

SonicB had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

335 Excellent

About SonicB

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Honestly, looking at the Furious class as commissioned, I think Jackie Fisher would have got round to something like this eventually. But... my god, that thing is the most heinous crime against aesthetics I've seen this patch. It looks like something I drew when I was six.
  2. Adding to all the above: a fix for the AI auto-designer that this time actually fixes things. Dropped this in the clowncar thread but it's worth posting here just to count the sins: Oversized destroyer tower: check Shrunken 1920s battlecruiser hull: check One (1) main gun on a pointless barbette: check Unused rear deck big enough to land a plane on: check (feature or bug? you decide) Is clearly a tugboat cosplaying as a light cruiser. An attempt was made.
  3. Can't stop laughing at this one. Toot toot I'm a tugboat
  4. I guess the hard cap on targeting range would be to simulate occasions when ships had the theoretical range but didn't have the targeting ability to even consider firing. That said, I just played another battle with my QE-class where the ships got separated and one could spot for the other, and found the soft cap actually worked reasonably well - the further ship had a 0.8% hit chance while still well within theoretical maximum range. This is accurate to ships of that generation which often outranged their fire control. I haven't yet looked for this specifically with lighter ships. What I w
  5. My current interim suggestion to make this playable is just raising the base spotting range by 50% and doubling the effect of weather conditions on spotting. A better overhaul of spotting and targeting mechanics would make a distinction between spotting range and targeting range. Both should be separate stats: Spotting range would be much larger, universal across the fleet and therefore displayed to the player without confusion - the equivalent of running up the 'enemy in sight' signal. Targeting range should be an individual stat for each ship, dependent on damage and weather c
  6. Starting this to get suggestions about the spotting distance problem raised by @Jatzi and myself in @1MajorKoenig's excellent Ship Designer suggestion thread. Right now the spotting distance is far too low. As I said in the earlier thread: in WW1 a lot of battles and strategy hinged on comparative ranges - staying out of range of your opponent while continuing to fire, or otherwise trying to close the distance to bring a more numerous but smaller calibre battery into action. This was important precisely because both ships could usually see each other outside the effective range of their wea
  7. Relatedly, it would be great if ships with wing and centreline turrets of the same calibre should have those counted as one battery for the sake of accuracy. A game called 'Dreadnoughts' should aim to accurately represent HMS Dreadnought.
  8. This bothers me a huge amount, especially in early/mid time period. In WW1 a lot of battles and strategy hinged on comparative ranges - staying out of range of your opponent while continuing to fire, or otherwise trying to close the distance to bring a more numerous but smaller calibre battery into action. This was important precisely because both ships could usually see each other outside the effective range of their weapons. The default in this game right now is that before radar, even large ships usually 'pop up' within range of heavy secondary or lighter main battery weapons. It's compl
  9. If Gauloises made destroyers...
  10. Thank you for addressing this. It's understandable that it has low priority right now, but it's very good to hear that it's on your radar for eventual improvement. I think that's the case for a lot of suggestions and complaints mentioned here (dare I mention the ship designer...) No-one is expecting a lot of major improvements to be done in the next patch or even before beta, but it is very reassuring to know that suggestions are listened to and such improvements are in the development pipeline. Personally I'm finding the collision improvements to be a big step in the right direction. Sc
  11. I always had this problem even in Alpha-9, and with heavy artillery too. I'm also noticing ships losing lock randomly even when neither they nor the target are maneuvering. It is mostly in these cases that the turret is unable to recover the lock until I manually repeat the attack order.
  12. The cloaking device mechanic frankly shouldn't belong in a game of this complexity. It feels pretty arcadey, and as said above, it unbalances the rest of the torpedo mechanic. If it's to be included at all, I would love it to be done properly, with persistent smoke that can be toggled on and off freely, that gradually degrades from time and wind conditions, that can easily hide other ships, not the screening ship, and that can cause loss of sight as well as decreased accuracy. And for good measure, do the same to a lesser extent for gun and funnel smoke, especially in the coal-fired era.
  13. Okay, hands up, you may be right - I remember reading this in one of the Osprey books about a certain class but I couldn't say for sure it was Fuso. That said, from looking at that cross section and comparing to other turret designs, it was apparently usual for steam lines to the engine room to pass midships turrets between the magazine roof and the rotating turret base. That could explain the elevated shaft and ammunition hoist compared to '3' turret. Where did you find the deckplan, and any chance you also have the Ise class? Part of me just wants to buy the modeller's books to clear this
  14. Yes, that's the reason Nick gave further up in this post. It makes no sense to me because turrets - which penetrate further into the hull than barbettes - can be placed anywhere. Historically, a few designs such as the Fuso-class actually had their midships turret raised in a barbette to fit the machinery under it. If they really want us to worry about machinery space, then let us choose the location manually - or simply define it as a 'no-turret zone' around wherever we place the funnels. This would also provide a much-needed way to balance weight on older designs. For now, I think it wo
  15. That's what frustrates me. The ship designer is literally a core function of the game, as well as its main selling point. It's sad to see it unnecessarily crippled with no promise of a fix, while minor things like reversing - which I've never felt I needed - are prioritised in patches. It's why I've largely given up playing.
×
×
  • Create New...