Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SonicB last won the day on September 27

SonicB had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

543 Excellent

About SonicB

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I've seen you posting on this forum for a few months now and in all that time you have caused one argument after another but contributed precisely nothing of value. Please take your tiny-dick nationalism, Nazi apologetics, and bragging about the headphones daddy bought you, and piss off into the sun spend more time on your school homework.
  2. Has anyone else noticed that since the patch, the speed of ships in formation are auto capped to the leader's speed even when they are trying to catch up? I think this is a bug but I can't be sure. For instance, I have a formation of three 30kt destroyers badly separated. In previous versions I would drop the formation speed to 15kt and the two following DDs would maintain 30kt until hack in formation. Now they are all restricted to 15kt no matter how far apart they are. I have to set the speeds for each destroyer back to 30kts individually in order to make them rejoin the formation.
  3. Kindly don't put words into my mouth. I'm not asking for 'over the top designs,' in fact quite the opposite. For example, it's impossible to build a Queen Elizabeth type dreadnought on a British hull of the period with optimal proportions, balanced weight distribution and all turrets within the centre belt, because the forward barbette won't go back far enough. "Devs won't remove all restrictions" well I believe it was said that they wouldn't remove any restrictions, until they did. The game is still in development and I see no reason not to voice my hope that future changes can be made.
  4. Plenty of hulls still have pointless placement restrictions - notably on barbettes - which cause compromised designs. Restrictions were eased, which was great for the game, but not removed completely. To imply that is either disingenuous or indicates you haven't spent much time on many pre-1930 hulls lately.
  5. If I recall, RN superfiring turrets right up to the Iron Duke class couldn't actually fire down the axis because of Fisher's insistence on top-mounted sighting hoods. I'm curious - did this get modelled in RTW?
  6. Might I remind you this originally started as a joke thread to entertain people in the long wait between Alphas? Labelling it as 'condescending' is in itself pretty condescending. Besides, if a design looks bad, you can pretty much guarantee it is bad. I'm not going to bother repeating my previous post.
  7. All very fair points. In warship design, form generally follows function. Warships don't look a certain way for aesthetic reasons... (side-eyes interwar Italians and whoever designed the Type 21) but because physics and the technology of the period dictated that was the optimum shape for a fighting vessel with those specifications. Therefore, if the game engine is working anywhere near as intended, an authentic-looking ship should also be a competitive, well-designed ship. I don't want actual historical designs, but I do want historically plausible ones.
  8. From this player's opinion, I disagree (and I've played through all of the Academy missions since the core patch wiped their progress.) Roughly 60% of the time, every AI design in a scenario is acceptable, albeit flawed. 30% of the time, I have to restart the mission because either an allied or enemy AI design is bad enough to unbalance the scenario, or just aesthetically awful enough to break immersion (this usually follows a materially bad design, because poor placement and bad turret choices look bad and work terribly.) Only 10% of AI designs are what I would consider completely
  9. Perhaps I wasn't clear: I was talking about malfunctions as a result of enemy action, much as we already have engine or steering problems modelled in the game. I think there should be more ways a turret can be damaged and more chance of that happening, both in general (to promote redundancy) and for turrets with more guns than average for that level of technology. I personally would be just fine with other types of malfunction for the sake of realism - since the player would have the choice of how reliable they want their turrets to be - but in the absence of different realism settings I ac
  10. Admiral Sir John C. Tovey, C-in-C Home Fleet, commented upon some of these problems in his after-action report PRO Adm 234/509: "Comparatively little experience had previously been gained of the reliability of the turrets. The prolonged practice firing for the King George V had been carried out only in one turret. It was fortunate that the action [against Bismarck] was not prolonged, because the 25 rounds per gun practice previously planned would not have shown up so many of the defects." Following the Bismarck battles, King George V and Prince
  11. This isn't the first time this issue has been raised, and I really hope the devs have it in the pipeline to fix... but since there is no published development roadmap, or even a list of issues they plan to address in the medium/long term, I'll just keep on beating this dead horse. Basically, the performance disincentives for choosing larger turrets have very little or no basis in reality. Rate of fire, the KGV class matched pretty much every modern battleship at around two rounds per minute. Accuracy-wise, there's no evidence I'm aware of that proves the KGVs or Richelieus had any more diff
  12. Thanks, but just a reminder that Nick threatened to shut this thread down if older versions were posted. This is a thread for the lols but at the same time it does hopefully help the devs, so let's stick to clowncars from the current version please.
  13. Let me just add to this. I'm seeing some arguments in this thread that (x autodesign complaint) is acceptable because a small minority of IRL vessels--let's say 10%-- were actually built that way. Never mind that most of them were not considered successful; the problem right now is that these should be statistical outliers in the designs we're seeing, but they're not. If anything, I see 90% fruity weird layouts of some sort, and 10% designs that are actually typical of the period. This is because there is no historical probability weighting (representing centuries of actual ship design e
  14. Who knows if they plan to implement an espionage mechanic, but that is a really good idea. It feels very metagamey to be able to see the basic type and shape of your opponents long before your ships officially ID them, but to know literally all the details as soon as they do. (I won't even start on how scummy it feels to see the reload times on enemy torpedoes, as that's another argument.) I'd be here for much quicker identification, but fewer displayed details on performance, construction etcetera unless you have good intelligence.
  15. Barbette and superstructure placement has improved on some hulls, but nowhere near enough. Please can we get stuff like this sorted? I'm really tired of having to compromise my designs because the AI (apparently) can't handle the freedom we were all advertised when buying into the alpha.
  • Create New...