Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

SonicB

Members2
  • Posts

    283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

SonicB last won the day on September 25 2022

SonicB had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

SonicB's Achievements

Midshipman

Midshipman (5/13)

636

Reputation

  1. Yeah, this and a few other basic issues of lazy, WoWs style arcade logic haven't been addressed in years, and devs have not given any indication that they intend to correct them. I had such high hopes for this game, but I hardly play any more and find I can't recommend it to anyone with my priorities. Maybe the devs just don't want to make the kind of game I want to play.
  2. I'm genuinely amazed this hasn't been fixed yet. It's ridiculous.
  3. In the academy missions and custom battle? Simple, don't allow the slider so low that the design is going to be at low fuel and therefore slowed from the outset. The lowest it will go is always >1000km, which is very misleading since that would seem to leave easily enough fuel for a battle. In campaign, and more generally, I would have a realistic hard limit. If your ship burns more fuel than it has during battle, it stops, maybe loses power if it doesn't have auxiliary. If it ends battle low or out of fuel, it gets towed home but has a chance of being lost or suffering damage. Another penalty could be modelling loss of fuel caused by damage. For instance, Bismarck had quite a short range, being designed to challenge the French and British navies in the North Sea, and therefore had to abort its commerce-raiding mission as a result of being hit in the fuel tanks by Prince of Wales. This would incentivise adding redundancy.
  4. Point taken - but whether you agree with the fuel mechanic's current implementation or not, surely we can agree it shouldn't be adjustable to the point where it cripples your ship's speed from the start of the mission. There is no usefulness in this and it serves only to confuse new players. This is distinct from a) my wider misgivings about the way this mechanic works in combat and b) the evidence that it's bugged when dealing with formations.
  5. Coming back to the game after a fair few months, I've noticed that the game still doesn't like too many guns firing at once. If you have multiple fast-firing secondaries active, it takes much longer to complete a main battery broadside - sometimes some turrets just fail to fire. Turn off secondaries and the broadsides fire as intended. This also seems to affect heavy secondaries, for instance a mixed secondary battery of 6" and 3" will experience much slower 6" fire rates when the 3" are active. I flagged this several months ago, and a year before that, never got a dev response. Could I get a final answer if this is intentional or is it on the list to be fixed?
  6. Found another interesting thing today - this CL's helm got stuck hard over after taking a nasty series of 13.5" hits, and I can't tell if this is a bug (boo) or a new aspect of the damage model (yay!) Either way, it seems to be really upsetting my gunners, because they've decided to aim for a patch of water approximately a mile away, presumably on the basis that it's causing them less motion sickness.
  7. Fuel is a really important aspect of the campaign, as it should be, I completely agree with you there. But I'm really struggling to find a realistic justification for the 'low fuel' malus even when functioning correctly. As I said above, no captain in a life-or-death battle with 10% fuel remaining will suddenly tell the admiral he won't go above cruise speed. Better towed home than swimming home. (Besides, I need to go do some fuel consumption calculations and experiment a little, but I get the feeling that in-battle fuel mileage is way off.) Certainly in the academy missions and quick battle (which I'm playing mostly these days until the campaign mechanics are 100% sorted out) there's no reason for this feature to be included at all.
  8. Thanks - I'm guessing this is the mechanic, but we're right at the start of the battle. I believe I chose a lower range in the designer, but to have one slider immediately cripple a ship's capability is surely not working as intended? Also, the speed reduction varies depending on the size of the division, so it looks like at least a multiplier is being incorrectly applied. Also, I don't like this new mechanic at all, even when working correctly. It seems pretty arbitrary and gamey. Any range you can choose is >1000km, presumably at cruising speed (~60% of top speed), which would give a range at top speed still well into the triple figures, even if calculated conservatively. A 30kt ship at full speed for a 1hr battle travels only 56km. Therefore it should be extremely difficult to run completely out of fuel - even after the battle, given that speed is life, any skipper would choose a tow home over a massive tactical disadvantage.
  9. Anyone else getting a bug that arbitrarily restricts ship speed? Here I have five 36kt destroyers in divisions of 4 and 1. The group of 4 is restricted to 7kts; the single ship is restricted to 24. Even the single ship gets the message "some ships in division are unable to reach this speed" when I try to increase it.
  10. Just a simple request to increase the image size restrictions on this forum to something sensible, like 1-2MB. It often helps to post images when discussing bugs, features etc, and it would make this easier and quicker if people didn't have to go to a third-party hosting service like imgur every time a point needs to be illustrated.
  11. At last someone says it. THANK YOU! "National flavour" has no place in a game that's supposed to let you design ships the way you want them.
  12. Are you trolling? That list is in no way helpful for beta testers to give meaningful feedback on gameplay issues, which was the point I was making. It helps if you read what I write before trying to be snarky.
  13. Oh, if we're talking about arbitrary restrictions the devs have decided upon for each individual hull, I totally agree with you. Those used to be incredibly restrictive in early beta and have been dialled back significantly, but they can still be frustrating on certain hulls. It's my educated guess (and I believe it was confirmed one time by someone from the closed beta?) that these restrictions were basically put in to help the AI designer. If true, they would just add to the list of compromises we have to put up with (interchangeable hull segments, anyone?) because the AI still can't consistently design plausible ships and devs don't want to go to a template model.
  14. Didn't have time to refer to wikipedia so yeah, I meant Ikuma. And the fundamental difference between Tone + the AI design above, versus Mogami, Takao, Myoko, Minotaur etc, is that two of the forward turrets are blocked, not just one.
×
×
  • Create New...