Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

SonicB

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

SonicB last won the day on July 13

SonicB had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

127 Excellent

About SonicB

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yeah, I accept that's likely true, but I can't really think of any medium-calibre triple or quadruple mounts that worked well enough to become commonplace. That indicates to me that the compromises required to design an effective mount of that type were considered great enough to not be worth the advantages. That said, the maths might be different if the campaign allows/requires us to design ships to different priorities than existed in historical reality. For instance, triple turrets probably didn't make sense on a large battlecruiser, but if the Royal Navy found itself designing coastal d
  2. Well, I'm generally going on the principle that if no sane navy built it more than once, it's probably got some pretty significant problems. Even the British 3x4" battlecruiser mount referenced above was awful enough that the RN never went back to triple mounts, mostly (iirc, don't have books with me) because it was very difficult to lay and work the guns consistently under battle conditions or high sea states. Thus I would add a pretty significant RoF and accuracy penalty, and/or, if it's eventually implemented, a higher chance to malfunction.
  3. Interesting idea. I feel like we ought to have triple/quad secondaries in this game, but with predictably massive disadvantages, so the only real reason to go with them is a very specialised design or simply for RP/flavour. Personally, I feel this game will achieve the best balance of fun and realism if it lets you build the weirdest, most impractical ship ever suggested during the period, then proves conclusively why it was a terrible idea. I call it the 'HMS Furious' approach.
  4. I'd be absolutely up to contribute. I hope @Nick Thomadis and the rest of the dev team know we're so dedicated/such a pain in the arse (delete as appropriate) because we love this game, love the concept, secretly wish we were working on it too, and want it to be the absolute best it can be. But in the same spirit I'd like the opportunity to put on record what we do like compared to other similar games, and especially (for our older residents) the changes they've made that have really improved the game since early alpha. (In fact, since I've only been here a few months, I'd like to read that to
  5. I'm absolutely with you on the rest of this post (and would add the fixed barbette/superstructure hardpoints as my personal bugbear) but just wanted to clarify, didn't they fix the accuracy/speed thing in the last update? It's still not perfect but it was a vast improvement on alpha-7. THIS! Torpedoes are ******* heavy and they're difficult enough to load when they're in the same room, never mind while maneuvring under fire. If this game is going to persist with ahistoric torpedo reloads being the standard for external launchers, please can we split the reloads between launchers
  6. Once you've beaten any mission, it would be nice to have the option to play it from the other side.
  7. Seconded. This timeline is vast, and no matter however many ship parts they produce, people will still want more. Allowing easy steam workshop modding (at least from beta onwards) would be much more preferable. In general, I think more assets/models at this time should not be the priority over improvements to the ship designer itself. Of course, I'm thankful for quad turrets, but being able to put them and their barbettes precisely where we want them would be even better.
  8. This is a great read and well worth creating a free jstor account if you don't have one. In particular I want to point out this maneuvring board as used by the USN and others: One of these in the corner of the screen would be a far better way of managing formations than the current approach. Simply drag your formation ship icons into the position you want them relative to the lead ship, or choose a preset and instantly see where it will put your ships relative to each other. Battlestations Midway/Pacific used this method and it worked very well indeed.
  9. @Aceituna Just a thought, but were you close to an enemy when this occurred? I've noticed there is a bug where the speed is limited automatically when the collision evasion logic is triggered, even if your ship is under manual helm control. With the latest update that seems to have hugely increased the radius of collision detection, the problem is much more noticeable.
  10. In the notes on the upcoming patch (Alpha-9) they are reworking formations significantly, and I really hope this is going to include a fix to the over-sensitive collision avoidance that was introduced in Alpha-8.
  11. I would like to see a little more unpredictability and scare factor with torpedoes, as I feel that would more accurately reflect their historical impact. Right now in mid-late era, you can reliably spot them very early and avoid them at long range with ease - even travelling at 30+ kts at which sonar and hydrophone performance would have been severely degraded. On the other side, torpedoes are usually very accurate and are 100% reliable, meaning that a close-in shot is an almost guaranteed hit. To achieve this, I agree that torpedoes should only exceptionally have combat reloads, and furthe
  12. I agree. I'm sure it may have been a tactically relevant factor among many others, but I for one would be happy with "whew, that was a lucky ricochet, glad I was closing/opening the range" as opposed to the current "if I angle I can probably tank those 11" rounds with my light cruiser." I can almost guarantee that the first sentence has been said historically and the second... has not.
  13. ^ THIS! In terms of effort vs reward, this is definitely the first thing that should be changed in the designer. Quad turrets and new hulls are nice, but actually being able to create realistic, stable, well-proportioned ships on the hulls we already have would be amazing. As many people have said in many threads, it must be possible to make superstructure, funnels and barbettes ctrl-placeable in the same way as turrets. If it confuses the AI, simply restrict it to existing hardpoints, but please allow us a bit more freedom!
  14. I could not agree more. I'm glad to see they'll be removing artificial formation bonuses in the next patch, which is encouraging, as I hope that means that other performance buffs and nerfs will eventually all be done in the same 'organic' way as the game engine and balance matures. Next, I'm hoping for smoke to get a serious re-work - now the speed targeting malus has been largely fixed, it's the most obviously arcadey mechanic in the game.
×
×
  • Create New...