Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Adm.Hawklyn last won the day on February 1 2022

Adm.Hawklyn had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Adm.Hawklyn's Achievements


Landsmen (1/13)



  1. So, firing at full rate of fire from my understanding is not a very normal occurrence as historically, a portion of any loading mechanism is dependent upon humanity. This will generally ensure an average rate of fire, the optimal or full RoF will always be on paper and generally not in practice. With that said, thank you devs for continuing to work on this, ironing out the issues as best you can while not necessarily being under the best circumstances. Stay safe.
  2. Agreed. Weights do need fixing, because working on alt timelines and alt history stories needs more accurate weights... I dont think there was a 90,000 ton ship that basically was Yamato. The rendition I did in the custom designer was at least 90,000tons, probably having less armor than Yamato had originally.
  3. I see, I kinda figured that they'd be following some plan.. Good to know... But the weights and costs do need adjusting. I'm not convinced the weights are accurate, not to mention the costs aspects on structure, components and guns...
  4. There are still some issues with the "bad firing angle for gun" message in the custom battle designer, mostly concerns Japanese super battleship hull. I had to start with a clean hull to get the message to go away, considering that I had taken off all the secondaries, message remained; had to delete the main guns too for the message to disappear. While it didn't happen too much, it seems there still remain isolated issues where this happens I guess... I only had one instance of it appearing after all...
  5. I still think that costs and weights are perhaps a tad high for some of the various components. Especially in the custom battle designer. Also, maybe a gameplay setting for campaign that suits those who may not care for micromanaging every single battle would be nice. I mean, its much easier to play the battles as it is, but there are a few like myself who dislike micro-management to that level. Besides, its not exactly realistic that the overall minister/secretary of the Navy would be flying around to every battle just to direct it. But, that being said, it is far easier to do battle in this game than rtw. All I'm really looking for is a revision of the auto resolve coding a bit. I say this because I had completed a 1930 campaign on 1.02 I think, and that got reset, and I'm having issues attempting to complete the campaign with minimal battle management. That being said, I may bite the bullet and manage a few more battles.... I used to like micromanagement, but then I got older.. Ya know? Anyway, looking forward to the next update. Also Hoping that there will be a change in campaign mode once all the nations are in to a 1890-1950ish campaign... These 10 year micro campaigns are okay, but the true prize is the extended full 20-60 year long campaign complete with options that depend on when one starts, what nation one starts with. Stuff like... Sino-Japanese war - China or Japan if starting at 1890 Spanish-American war - America or Spain if 1890 or 1900 start Ruso-Japanese war - Japan or Russia at 1910 start, aka Treaty of Portsmouth WW1/ Treaty of Versailles- Any nation start at 1920 WNT- Also Any Nation start in 1920, This would likely not apply to Germany as their navy was rendered moot, but would make sense of a hard start campaign. Also would not apply to China or Russia with a 1920 start. Just some additional thoughts.
  6. It was more an experiment to see if it could be done than anything else. I agree with you myself really, but I have designs like what you're saying... And I've also designed like abcd and then a y turret too, or a then wxyz Trust me, I've got most turret set ups done somewhere... Even the 7 turret, 21 gun 17" super battleship. Or, the 7 turret 28 gun 16" version... I'd try for eight, but I dont think the game allows it.
  7. So, this was one of my earlier designs with one of the older versions. I am aware of the engineering issues this would present, still would be interesting to hear thoughts on the near full stern loadout setup. This is what I call a "kiter" running away while angled and firing. I think hearing your thoughts would prove amusing at least. I already know the engineering would be an absolute nightmare.
  8. I would still hearken back to what others have said about the money/economic side as being too little of a budget for navies. 1890 to perhaps the 1910 campaign, the amounts are fine; its the 1920 campaign and on that need tweaking. Now, I'm just going to use thin air here, but military budgets for 1920 and beyond were in the billions. BILLIONS, or at least projected to be such if the WNT hadn't happened. I think one reason for the issues with ship building at the time was that people were generally afraid of that billion number. My main point here is that by the time of 1930s, assuming no market crash happened [world econ stuff needs added too], the budgets for navies would be in the very high millions to low billions... Say 900 million for a create own fleet start possibly up to 3 billion depending on currency used. I'm not entirely certain if you're using an inflation rate or not, but I know how rtw2 handles it as a sort of cost of living increase thing. Which perhaps you could do in increments. Yeah, its a suggestion, but as the Jan idea thread is still locked at the time I'm writing this....
  9. Yeah, I've done some experiments with 7 centerline turrets before on the Japanese super bb hull. Lots of firepower, either 28 16" guns or 21 16" to 18" guns... With the 1940 time slot. Yeah, killing that file, fixed it. Guess I might need to clear out that file every 10 patches or so now? The turret issue with the super battle cruiser hull raised area still needs work. But yeah. Just had a battle using a French super bb hull, managed to fit 24 16" guns on it.
  10. I do hope that the next update on steam fixes the custom battle bug of not being able to start a battle when the year is at 1940. I understand you're getting the other side up to the steam beta version, and thats fine. I am concerned however, that the campaign time seems to bleed over into the custom battle section; a possible reason why the custom battle will not launch at year 1940. Shouldn't the campaign timing be its own and not affecting the custom battles? @Nick Thomadis
  11. Update.... Steam beta branch? Hello? Perhaps you should work on updating everything at once so as to lessen possible confusion as some of us have dumped the Xolia launcher to save on disk space. Did I mention that the steam version had better performance for me than the Xolia launched one? I have deduced that 1940s timeframe for custom battles seems to be bugged currently. Keeps giving me "design invalid, please select hull type [or proper main tower] when said hull type and tower is already there.
  12. Political side such as treaties and government changes that should not necessarily effect the military branch. Indeed, one should have the option to side with the revolutionaries. Upon the action of being kicked out, the wording could be something like the following: Sadly, due to pressure from [x or y events], the government has requested your resignation from overseeing Naval affairs... Something similar to that, where x and y events simply mean anywhere from not enough victories at sea to vast over extensions of the budget. Again, just some suggestions...
  13. So, some observations.... Can't seem to start battles that are uneven, say BC ca, cl, dd vs bb, bc, ca, cl, dd Image enclosed below. But yeah, my only possible clue to not being able to battle is the lack of a bb for my side. It worked fine before by the way. Another issue that I've seen with this hull is barbettes not allowed on the rear portion of the upper part of the hull. It will not work even with using the ctrl position placement; where again, this worked before .99 and does not work in either .99 or this latest build. Sorry, if this was supposed to be in the beta feedback thread... You can move this post over if you like. I'm still on the fence of my opinion of the custom battle enemy designer due to the issue I mentioned above. Its a nice idea, but you should focus more on getting the campaigns pushed out; certainly, I like that you adjusted the custom battle section, but campaigns need doing too. Hmm, file size allowance seems wonky... Image showing issue in question as noted first.
  14. No problem, we've all been there at some point or another.
  15. Looks interesting. Just very seldom post much, too much other stuff going on.
  • Create New...