Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


akd last won the day on July 2 2016

akd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,005 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. A proper sandbox campaign for this era would have its own treaty-making mini-game. Arbitrarily imposing historical treaties makes no sense.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. But will the dog watches be curr-tailed?
  7. 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
  8. I’m pretty sure it already sent an image of screen when you hit bug report button, but now you see a preview.
  9. Big mistake baking caliber = turret diameter into the design. Will constrain and mess with the system from here on out, not allowing for historical trade-offs and balance, and requiring lots of fake offsets for balancing choice of less or more guns in the design. If the space required for a 1x XX-inch gun versus 4x XX-inch guns were the same, every ship historically would likely have mounted quadruple turrets. The overwhelming increase in firepower with no effect on hull dimensions required or deck space consumed would far offset the minor issues that occurred (and were mostly solved) with
  10. The “sections” would then need to be variable in size and number. I mean, having the area armored increasing by 20% because a turret extends maybe 1% into a section would be a bit daft.
  11. The presence and relative location of shorelines and bases shaped the majority of naval battles, often at the tactical level (i.e. how and why ships conducted some part of their maneuvers, not just the strategic reasons for an encounter). That doesn’t mean ships were dodging in and out islands like first-person shooter cover.
  12. When was this said? I could only find the statement about “distant” land / islands, which may have been a response to an assumed request for WoW style nonsense, where ships are cruising around through narrow channels and using islands like FPS cover objects. That they noted that the underwater topography would have been more of a constraint than the actual shoreline would suggest that might be the case. Hopefully they are not saying that land will just be an ever-retreating skybox visual effect that has no tactical influence on battles whatsoever.
  13. Not sure what you are talking about here. Smoke rounds were not used in naval combat. Illumination rounds were essential to nighttime naval combat.
  14. This is actually extremely important, as one of the things the game treats as a “default” behavior is all ships in a division firing on the same target. In reality this was impossible due to the fire control confusion that would result. Making the shell splashes of each of the different members of the division a different color (and thus immediately distinguishable) was one of the first practical technological developments allowing effective concentration fire (multiple ships firing on one target). Nothing else really advanced this significantly until radio comms and fire control computers
  • Create New...