Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

akd

Tester
  • Posts

    2,801
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by akd

  1. Kiev is, in fact, currently under a massive, internet-wide DDoS attack.
  2. Please think before posting. Game Labs offices are in Kyiv.
  3. Maybe I misunderstand, but the bolded do not make sense as separate types of “HE” shell. You would, for example, have nose-fused HCHE (generally for bombardment, not ship-to-ship combat), or base-fused CPC, etc. All in all, sounds like a great set of changes and look forward to the Beta. Particularly happy to hear of the switch to more natural “accuracy” system that as described would seem to allow for both “accuracy” (errors in predicting future position of target or in where own shells will land) and “precision” (dispersion of shells within a salvo due to ballistic factors).
  4. Makes no sense from a machinery arrangement standpoint, but sadly game totally ignores that.
  5. Although faster, with their much greater length-to-beam ratios, BCs should be much “clumsier” when maneuvering.
  6. The “compartments” (the game diagram is, of course, a horrible representation of how compartmentalization and flooding works in a ship) can be fully pumped out and made watertight again unless they are red (destroyed) in which case they can’t be pumped out at all. In the above case you likely have compartments going red after pumping out because of the fires. It is really hard to see the damage state of a compartment under full flooding which is an unfortunate failing of the UI.
  7. That depends on the target position, course and speed and your position, course and speed.
  8. From my just-started British 1910 campaign where I accidentally let the AI auto-design my legacy fleet, I give you HMS Dread...not! But seriously, this isn't a dreadnought. It's semi-dreadnought with the speed of a pre-dreadnought, and with an absurd mix of secondaries, tertiaries, etc. (I especially love that ultra-efficient use of a 319t barbette).
  9. Awesome! But what is "Super HE"? I know there were "Super Heavy" shells (e.g. US 16-inch), but that seems to be covered in a separate design choice in the designer for light / standard / heavy shells (would be nice if this could be picked per gun-caliber, rather than forcing it on all guns / ammo carried).
  10. You can roll a mission that has your ships intercepted returning from another battle, or vice versa against AI ships. Anyways, I'm pretty sure something is wrong with the auto-designer for CLs: I've noticed that sometimes (but not always? Or just always with a recent update?) when you select a CL hull for building, the armor defaults to 0 for all values. It seems the AI starts with 0 armor in its design process, loads up on guns (here it has 4x 6-inch and 12x 4-inch on less than 3,500t), then adds HP, then fills what tiny leftover displacement it has with minimal armor values (2mm belt!). @Nick Thomadis, also curious how these super thin, non-armor armor values work. Are they considered to be on top of the structural steel that should already be present in the structure? Or do you need to put, for example, 5mm of "armor" on the hulls of all ships (including destroyers / TBs that should be unarmored) to have the game treat the hulls as normal structural steel (which of course has a thickness and armor value, even if minimal)?
  11. The ambush locations are often hilarious. Just ambushed a German battleship and armoured cruiser in the Irish Sea northeast of the Isle of Man in Solway Firth. Those guys were seriously lost! Also started at 2km from them in clear, morning conditions. They were clearly too busy trying to figure out where the hell they were to notice 12x coal-burning destroyers approaching at high speed.
  12. Maybe you weren't supposed to be able to tell which direction she was sailing? 😜
  13. That's not how it works. You don't end up with a surprise on delivery (well, except those "hidden" surprises like grossly overweight, belt under water, etc.). Spain issued the specifications and obviously approved the designed plan. Likely they had their reasons for the central bridge (I'd guess it economized on armor protection for the conning tower), but it was certainly an anomaly for a barbette ship of her era (maybe you are thinking of older ironclads that still considered the quarterdeck the command position?). The Marceau she was based on had the bridge / CT up front.
  14. Since she was based on a French ironclad design, one of them might serve as a reasonable substitute, although I don’t think we can replicate the idiocy of placing a funnel in front of the bridge. However, what is needed even more than a hull is a set of “Mark 0” guns to replicate this older generation of armament (lighter for the caliber, but generally in barbettes rather than gunhouses and with extremely slow reload). http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSpain_126-35_m1884.php
  15. Secondaries other than 2- to 3-inch casemates are totally excluded from light cruisers until, I think, a much later date. That means you can have at most 4x 2-inch guns or 4x 3-inch guns on the ship. That’s it. In reality, of course, such ships were well-equipped with anti-torpedo boat batteries in addition to their main battery. Secondary guns of at least 2- to 3-inch single open mounts need to be allowed at all dates. We also are still unable to mount 6-inch casemates or 6-inch guns as secondaries on any Armoured Cruiser hulls, even though this was nearly universal in reality. And I agree The “semi-armoured” cruiser hull would also be a good candidate for allowing up to 6-inch casemate guns, as well as single 7- or 8-inch gun primaries (ideally in open shielded mounts, not enclosed gun houses).
  16. It was an error fixed in most recent update to Beta 1.03 (Jan 19).
  17. I don’t see what is gained by such incrementalism. Actually will delay campaign development by generating useless (in context of final campaign) feedback. Lack of art assets can’t possibly be an actual barrier to implementation of other nations as Britain and Germany have only a fraction of what would be needed for a fully fleshed out campaign.
  18. AI continues to be obsessed with absurdly over-arming and badly under-armoring light cruisers: The AI designer seems to be very focused on filling all available deck space with guns. One thing that might help the AI designer a bit is to follow a rule of not placing guns in positions that have firing arcs of less than, say, 120 degrees: But regardless, you can see that this would not be feasible at all in reality due to the area needed to work the guns. If the side guns turned at all to the side, there would be no way for the gun crew to work the gun with the gun in the middle, but the game shows these side guns having greater than 180 degree firing arcs. The footprint on deck needed for open / shielded guns does not seem to be properly accounted for. They are not just guns with shields on them; they are guns with shields and large crews necessary to operate the gun and supply it with ammo (that must come from outside the gun and be supplied from behind the breech). Opened design in game and changed nothing but reducing guns to something reasonable and increasing armor. Now we have something that works:
  19. Thanks Nick. Haven't updated yet, but just had a successful battle end with a Peace Treaty offer when I exited the battle, which I agreed to. There was still another battle present on the world map unresolved, but I assumed hitting next turn would end the war. Instead the next turn was processed and a port strike mission (against England, btw, but location shown is coast of France!) popped up. Can't close it, so it seems I am forced to continue the war, but without any indication of the peace treaty not happening. In my opinion, peace treaties should not happen when exiting a battle during a turn, but in between turns, with resolution shown following generation of next turn.
  20. Well, didn’t encounter these extremes, but usual formation problems persist. Weird inability to maintain spacing (probably because AI has no concept of slowing formation to achieve spacing and instead constantly tries to accelerate following ships). Following ships constantly snaking back and forth behind ship they are following / in formation with instead of sailing in line. Some ships randomly slowing way down because another ship behind them gets too close, consequently breaking both of their ability to keep formation. Only solution is to detach all ships and reform over and over again, although I noticed toggling through different formation spacing sometimes seemed to reset the AI and get them to settle down. One thing I noticed is that things may be made worse if the formation leader has a lower max speed than a follower. E.g. a ship in formation with a 28 kt max ship is following too close and snaking back and forth, but constantly shows (on speed slider pop-up) that it is trying to achieve its own max of 32 kts.
  21. AI ships are still turning almost in place while barely moving. AI CL makes near 180 degree turn in its own length, or maybe less: Here is another example. The red X is a fixed point in the sea: Just in case you were wondering about its condition at the time (not that a ship should be able to do that an any condition, of course): Also those turrets! 😆 Have to look at these damn CLs in every mission of this campaign. My eyes!
  22. The flash fires that send guns flying through the air are way overdone. All gun positions seem to susceptible to towering flash fires that launch the guns / turrets hundreds of meters into the air. Even open 3-inch guns on merchants will suffer this if a fire reaches them. This does not really make sense as the turret-destroying, towering jet would be the result of a propellant fire in a confined, armored space seeking the path of least resistance (e.g. a turret above a magazine) but that doesn’t generate sufficient pressure quickly enough to cause an outright explosion (that would tear the ship itself apart). Open positions like those on merchants and for secondary / tertiary batteries on warships would have a magazine elsewhere in the ship separate from the guns, and smaller amounts of ammunition at the guns but not in a magazine directly under the gun. These would be susceptible to fires and explosions, but they would be more localized and should not result in a towering jet of flame out of the ship and orbit-seeking pedestal guns. It’s also arguable that a flash fire alone (without a magazine explosion) would be capable of ejecting a turret from the ship hundreds of meters into the air. That should be an effect reserved for a magazine detonation where there is direct magazine to turret connection. And if a magazine detonates, there is no longer a source for a flash fire, as the potential fuel has already been consumed. Historically flash fires were sometimes seen before magazine detonations, but I don’t really recall instances of huge magazine explosions (and explosion) followed by a flash fire jetting out of the hull from said magazine.
  23. I’m seeing a reoccurring issue with ships set to follow others or joined with others not being able to properly follow in line. Most recent example: game decided to drop my 3x CAs into battle in a group and in line ahead. Problem was the fastest, but least armed and armored was put in the lead, so I detached it and sent it looping around to the back. Once it was behind the other two and roughly on their course again, I dragged and dropped its “card” back into the formation so it would be at the back of the line. From that point on it wouldn’t hold a normal distance in the line and constantly snaked back and forth behind the ship in front of it in the formation. The speed slider showed the ship constantly trying to achieve its own max speed (32 kts.) rather than the formation speed of 28 kts even though it was actually closer to the ship in front than the spacing set for the formation (so had no reason to “catch up” with higher speed).
  24. Could be read either way, but it seems an odd, indirect way to simply say “accuracy at close range improved” if that is the case. Accuracy can remain the same while altering the dispersion of misses (because the misses, and thus the accuracy, have already been determined before the dispersion is shown in game).
×
×
  • Create New...