Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

akd

Tester
  • Content Count

    2,657
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

akd last won the day on February 4

akd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,024 Excellent

About akd

  • Rank
    Master and Commander

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Will be back for some campaign testing. The very artificial build for single missions part of the game just doesn't do anything for me.
  2. The game has huge issues, but I have serious doubts that not messing with probability to make the player feel better is one of them. As Madham notes, the issue is more likely communicating info better and setting reasonable expectations for a game that covers a huge time period during which there were monumental changes in gunnery.
  3. Maybe there is nothing to fix here? Just usual human inability to comprehend probability in a rational way, especially gamers who aren’t wargamers.
  4. This game is doomed if the “fix RNG” crowd is showing up.
  5. So what you are saying is that you never want to be HMS Hood, you want the game to make sure that only your opponent is ever HMS Hood?
  6. Because the game starts in 1890, so you clearly need to add some qualifiers to the claim that most shots should hit at less than 8km regardless of target / own motion. Look at some of the hit rates achieved in gunnery practice (not battle) against stationary targets in the years before WWI.
  7. Please remove this information. Wargames require fog of war.
  8. A proper sandbox campaign for this era would have its own treaty-making mini-game. Arbitrarily imposing historical treaties makes no sense.
  9. Very cool update! One note: “Captain quarters gun in recoiled position“ Gun would never be “recoiling” (i.e. in use in a fight) with the Captain’s quarters in this state. All of this (hammocks, curtains, furniture, doors and even cabin walls) would be removed and stowed away if the ship was in action. It would be impossible to fight with the guns if the ship were not properly cleared for action. Not the same deck, but illustrates a ship cleared for action: This contains some detailed descriptions of clearing for action: https://www.jstor.
  10. Realistic simulation (of the technological and physical factors that influenced ship design) is not the same as historical determinism (not allowing the player to make different choices under the same set of “rules” that are grounded in reality that were present historically). Kerbal Space Program, for example, has no connection to any actual history and clearly does not force the player to recreate a particular history, but is nonetheless is built on a fairly realistic simulation of spaceship design and the various physical constraints and real world trade-offs that influence it.
  11. If it's not a simulation of the real factors that influenced ship design, then what is the point? The real driving interest here is how alternative designs perform in relation to historical designs. If the game is not grounded in that, I'm not sure what the appeal is in a historical wargaming market. Also, please don't compare to MP games. That is a completely different dynamic.
  12. I believe this ship exists as a design solely in a WoWs reddit thread and nowhere else either as an actual project or even paper design. The armor and topweight costs of triple super-imposing battleship turrets would not be workable. Sadly, Dreadnoughts as of now does not give a fig for topweight stability effects.
  13. But will the dog watches be curr-tailed?
  14. The new screen formation has no connection to actual tactics until very late in the era as an anti-aircraft screen and to a lesser degree anti-submarine screens (but more in regards to convoy defense for the latter). This complex formation would pose insurmountable command and control problems during a fleet battle for a good portion of this era. There is a good overview of formations and maneuver during WWII here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44888020
×
×
  • Create New...