Stormnet
-
Posts
236 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Stormnet
-
-
7 hours ago, disc said:
It appears that a partially flooded compartment always will be pumped out eventually.
However, if the water reaches the top of the compartment, the space is permanently flooded and can never be emptied.
I believe this is why ships can recover from extremely extensive flooding. I am not sure if structural integrity (grey, green, yellow, red) is a factor.
Weird mechanic.
I thought the "pumping" was related to the integrity of the compartment. Slightly damaged compartments should be able to pump out the water, while red compartments... that are no longer even compartments, shouldnt.
This explains why sometimes I'm hit by a torpedo, and if it fills to the top, that vessel pretty much becomes so slow and useless in battle, while others just recover completely like nothing ever hit them.
-
Academy missions should have been based around good tactics and design. Not slam your head until you get lucky.
Most issues here is when the game simply asks the player to do miracles.
Many missions are essentially, you get either underpowered or few ships and are told to go sink that huge enemy fleet with a few super BBs. Not only that, enemy ships sometimes apear to have unfair multiplier advantages related to spotting and displacement. They might spot you from very far away while you cant even see them from 5km, make super ships impossible for their displacement, etc.
I challenge the devs to try to beat "Proove your Might" (it gives you an underpowered lone ship, and you fight super ships with top grade stuff above their displacement) while recording, and then tell us how many times they tried.
-
4
-
-
13 hours ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:
Why do you find 130,000 ton ships to be "delusional fantasies" when there are 650,000 ton ships saioling out there?
Fine. They were fantasies at the time.
You weren't gonna find anybody that was a serious naval designer taking you seriously if you proposed a 300k ton Semi-Dreadnought.
But what I am looking for was, even if not proposed, a design that was pure fantasy at the time. Like the Tillman Dreadnoughts in WW1 and the H-Class (H-39 and H-40 get an excuse as they were partially built) in WW2. Or even the 2,000k ton frozen wood carrier the british wanted...
-
38 minutes ago, SonicB said:
Well, let me be the one to throw in the Tillman Battleships... Drach did a great tl;dr video on them too.
I did happen to know about them just before reading this. Thanks anyways.
But I am particularly interested if any pre-dreadnought or iron clad stuff like this was ever squetched.
-
1
-
-
I made this post out of curiosity. Edits are highlighted.
So you likely know of those likely written in a napkin super-battleship designs the Japanese and Germans did? The A-150 and H-39 were possible to do (and one of them was partially built), but the bigger ones (looking at you, 130,000 ton H-44) were just delusional fantasies at the time.
But that got me wondering.
We know about the WW2 fantasy ship wet-dreams (we even have them in the game)
but what about WW1 super-super-dreadnoughts?Forget the WWI stuff. Tillmans were a concept. I really want to know about similar plans for "super-pre-dreadnoughts"? Weren't any overly sized designs for battleships back in those times fordreadnoughts andpre-dreadnoughts? I cant find any stuff like that, but I'm curious about it.Do any of you got a picture or a name or anything about a overly sized project in the pre-dread/ironclad era?
EDIT: So, thanks for some of the designs, but I am really looking for big stuff in the pre-dreadnought era. Even if it isnt fantasy stuff, I wanted to what is the biggest pre-dreadnought. While Im not agaist post-dreadnought stuff, Im really just after pre-dreads. Even semi-dreadnoughts will do.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Mutsu said:
They can be a bit excessive, for example I was building a late WW1 era dreadnought and the 356mm triple turret 2308t, for comparison the weight of USS Iowa's turrets were 1708t. The current weight of those turrets almost makes you want to stick to double turrets simply because triples and quads just weigh far too much.
Yeah maybe they are somewhat too heavy right now.
But I do think that there has to be a reason to at least try to keep using double turrets (and not as just an limitation until the others are unlocked). If you can stick the same ammount of cannons while having lower displacement (and having less deck occupied by turrets, and less barbettes further saving weight), why bother with the double and single (thought no idiot is ever gonna stick a single main turret on a ship) barrel turrets?
Germans often used a 4x double setup instead of a 3x tripple one because they believed they would gain better firecontrol, and if a turret was destroyed, they would only lose 25% of total firepower instead of 33%.
-
47 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
It's made out of thin foil, it is a light cruiser. Just with big guns. Because maybe it works, can't know without trying.
That AI is able to experiment is a good thing, if it also able to understand when experiment has failed and avoid doing stupid in the future.
these missions don't have future thoThis was before the overpen changes. I remenber these things taking a punch simply because shots were constantly overpenning.
At the time, it did work though.
-
I finnaly got a design after a long time. This one is a little out of date, but since I found nothing on the hotfix descriptions that related to fixing these, then I assumed it is still relevant.
This Light Cruiser got balls. Literally.
Because when you are a Light-Cruiser in the 1905s with 7 7 inches, you need to show your fat round turrets to everybody.
-
12 hours ago, CloudedxMarbles said:
apparently my account is playing the game and i cannot fix that do i have to reinstall the game or windows, because if so that's a tad weird as i was just in the shipyard and it force restarted my PC as i was about to finish a ship so kinda annoying... massively annoying
I know you fixed it, (and I'm not a dev or neither a admin) but next time post issues like those in the support section.
https://forum.game-labs.net/forum/179-support/
Devs go there to help players fix issues and/or take note of them for future bug fixes.
-
1 hour ago, Fishyfish said:
Oh I'd love to see 1945 to 49 expanded into the game. It would be great to spend those years scrapping, mothballing, slashing your budget, having tense minigames where you need to justify your fleets, nuking your fleets, you know that kind of stuff.
That would sound kinda of a storyline around a person (that also happens to be at least a 100 years old).
You start off in the early monitor era. A rather unknown commander. You gradually make the best of what you can on small wars in unknown places.
Them, as european colonialism over Africa and other regions begins to increase, naval might grows and your budget goes up quite a lot. After that it stagnates a little.
During the late XIX century and early XX, with animosity in europe increasing and the empires running of out space to expand and now eyeing eachother and rivalries setting in, innovation kicks in and ships become obsolete quickly.
Once WW1 kicks in, your budget skyrockets and all your experience and resources gained in those small wars are now put to a hard test.
With WWI now over, wheter you being in the winning or losing side, your carrer takes a step backwards. With the budget going down, and treaties limiting what you can do, you find yourself scrapping some of your BBs for the first time not because of obsolescence, but because of lack of resources. The interwar period is rather boring.
With WW2 in the horizon, as Nazi Germany eyes europe and Japan embarks on a quest to build an agressive and hostile empire, your glory days are on the brink of returning. This is the ultimate test to your skill.
However, early on, you'll begin to see your once mighty battleships have their days counted. Subs and planes are everywhere. Carriers are now the hot new thing, cruisers and destroyers are now the common ship.
WW2 ended and so your days are over. Battleships are proven to have become obsolete. With the war over, and british/french colonialism declining, you'll hit a rather sad prologue. You'll say goodbye as you scrap the last BBs you built.
-
6 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
The campaign is still in progress and we will try to show a first glimpse as soon as possible.
In parallel, we add new mechanics, new ships, features that you all might want to play with, until we offer the campaign.
Therefore, we will let you know what will be the content of the next patch. It might be not the Core but another major update with all the latest stable features available for you.
Thanks for the reply. Ill be waiting for it.
-
Core Patch 1 is coming sooner or later. We all know it. Everybody is so exited for the campaign, but I (BOOMER ALERT) just care about the design save feature.
I get that we have to wait, but the its killing me. One way to de-stress it a little would be a release date, but I know you had problems with it in the past so I'm not asking for that.
What I thought about was a peak at the development. We usually just know about an update a few days before it releases. Right now info about the more "secondary" features of the campaign is spreaded thin around a few posts and whatnot. So how about revealing us just a little (what is already partially complete) about the campaign?
I dont know how complete the campaign is, but could you share a pic/a description of features (whose basic foundations are already layed)? Like, a small, even if buggy or imcomplete, submenu, a buttom, a map, anything about the future core patch.
I dont need a list of whats coming or when its coming. Im just dead curious to know how stuff is right now.
This is just my (bitchy) opinion though, feel free to react however you think its best.
Imma finish with the Core Patch song.Core Patch:Core patch, I've been waiting for too long.
Core patch, for you I made a song.Tell me where you are, as you I most need.Design saving urgent is, indeed.Core patch, for your arrival I await.Core patch, do not hesitate,As your absence I understate.The wait never ends, you are very late.Whether its a TP,Or a superbattleship,I want to save my ship,So the building I can skip.Dear devs, hurry, hurry the core patch.Don't slow down, not before dispatch.An alpha I dont care, my heart it can't snatch.I only want the almighty core patch.EDIT: This was by mistake originally posted on the Shipyard thread. It has been moved here.
-
1
-
-
The ammount of secondary callibers and them nearing the main calliblers make it a actually a modern pre-dreanought.
-
Thought right now, we are missing quite some content from the current eras, I wouldnt oppose to an Ironclad era once most of the current stuff is done.
-
3
-
-
-
20 hours ago, MrStan53 said:
Personally, as someone ironically actually coming on here to complain about the failings of RNGesus and to shriek XCOMmery, I think personally this is a bit too complicated of a solution. I'm actually gonna be the first to say RNG definitely needs to still exist (in fact I'm one of the few people who plays TF2, as a backburner pyro nonetheless, and wants random crits and spread). With this solution, it doesn't necessarily make the game fair to the AI either, which could eventually lead to player boredom or disinterest. It's a bit overdesigned as well and as the game can already run slowly at times it'd result in even laggier times. The issue, I think, is that RNG appears to be incredibly flat and uses only one roll to determine. I can't verify this for sure but playing the game it feels like hits and damage percentages vary far too much, and combining this with what feels to be an unfair advantage towards the AI in many cases.
To transition to a totally different game entirely, let's turn to the classic Dungeons and Dragons from the Satanic Panic era and before. Oftentimes with many dicerolls during the game (most notably during your character creation) many that could be done with D12s or D20s were actually substituted with 2D6 and 3D6 rolls. Though this was also to make picking up the game easier, it added a unique function. Most rolls would result in a bell curve formation, as a single roll of a 1 could be made averaged out by two 6 rolls. RNG was a factor for sure of course, however it was far less likely to do spectacularly or abysmally, making it easier to have more balanced characters and actions. For example, my most recent quest as a thieving halfling resulted in a very averaged character that was more resilient to sub par rolls (granted with physical 6 sided dice you can't have 0s, but as this is programming it's different).
My proposal for a change would be first and foremost to make the RNG roll the dice more times and come up with the mean average result. It is downright unrealistic beyond extraordinary circumstances at the moment as the OP said that a crippled BB that was objectively inferior won against all odds. In an RNG system with multiple rolls and averaging, this simply would be an extraordinary situation, and that, (combined with the fact that the AI can track you out of sight range and perfectly track torpedoes) is probably the biggest issue the game has at the moment beyond regular unfinished stuff. The RNG system should ideally produce a bell curve, but as it currently stands that bell curve is either too flat or outright nonexistent. I imagine the game rolls a 1D500 with no secondary diceroll for something like a 10" gun against 5" of armor at 5K, whereas it should be rolling a 3D500 with after all results are added, the game divides this by 3. Granted, my biggest concern is how would the current engine (which to a point is laggy as is even on my current medium-high end machine) handle these new calculations?
Of course feel free to call me a dope or whatever I'm just some weirdo on the internet with an unusual obsession with floating blocks of steel for whatever reason, but that's my observation 🙂.Four things:
1 Thanks for aknowledging that post exists.
2 Well... I do think your system is simpler and more resource efficient...
3 Thought regarding being fair or not to the AI, I originally thought applying this to all ships, so not even player ships got better treatment.
4 Despite not completely eliminating this issue, as there are no thresholds, it should drastically reduce single shot randomness, and reduce these possible yet rare situations to next to impossible.
-
1
-
-
-
4 minutes ago, HEEL_caT666 said:
Indeed, usually taking inspiration from already functional and existing ships goes a long way.
Ironic how that design was able to beat this monster BB, when we all know what happened the real version when it fought that monster BB...
A new adjective/verb was formed.
(sorry, inner wehraboo had to kick in)
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, HEEL_caT666 said:
I completed this mission on like, my 5-7th try, I see no issue.
Thats aboslutely horrible, what the hell is this?
Issues in the numbers beyond my comprehension but in fact the key to this mission: Radar honestly, because without it in the balanced tech youre always gonna be outspotted and outgunned before you even see them - effectively making whatever you built useless.
Annoying, but you actually wanna go with Main Guns and fire control, and choose a slightly lighter caliber, 15" will do enough. Get good towers - accuracy is really important.
Once youre in, get in, start sniping, focus the bb, approach cautiously, use DD's to divert attention of CAs, and youll be gucci. You *can* also go at him head on, but like, why? youll only get your ass killed.
The biggest luck element in this scenario is positioning the enemy BB's bulkheads. Positioning means if you are able to instafire on him or not from the start, its good if you are, because then youll also probably be out of his spotting range, and knowing the AI, hell be woefully inaccurate.
Also speed. You need like a lot. My design is 32.5, which should be around enough, the enemy BB will be unusually speedy too.
Keep calm, and follow this design. Engine efficiency is 100%, mass and stability optimised to the max. Youll be solo, so radio is useless here (and youre really mass strapped)
That design looks just like HMS Hood.
-
1 hour ago, Skeksis said:
The designation is probably there for staggered placements, so the designer tool knows the user is trying to place ‘side main guns’ and then it can compute a workable staggered offset. Like it doesn’t do this for ‘centerline guns’.
Then apply this tag to the turrets when the preview of their placement is off center. Or add a toggle mode (by a buttom press or something else) bettween side and center turrets, so I dont have to be constantly switching back and fourth when I build my dreadnoughts.
Since that "side tag" likely causes one of the problems with the current system, which that side and center batteries are treated as diferent batteries in battle, so their reloads dont match, I'd recommend patching that too.-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, madham82 said:
Sounds good to me. Just to add, you could adjust the height of the barbette by using crtl + mouse wheel. Would go nicely with this idea.
Just perfect.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Instant_Goats said:
Hi!
First time Poster, have been lurking for a while, and bought the game a while ago after looking into it. I am impressed, and am enjoying it greatly. One thing that seems to come up often, both here on the Forum and in my own playing is the weird Situation the current WOWS style on-off spotting mechanic creates, where ships of similar size and capability have one that can spot the other from a significantly greater distance even though realistically, both should be able to spot the other easily (say, two battleships at 10 km distance. In one particular instance I was able to kill two much more powerful BCs with a heavy cruiser, by kiting just outside their view range and needle-stabbing them to death. I compared the height of the ships in the builder afterwards (Hull and Tower combination), and the spotting top and rangefinder of the BCs tower was in fact taller (thus able to see further, physically.)
In real life, the difference between seeing the enemy and not appears to be environmental conditions and target size + distance + resolution and accuracy of optics.
My Question is the reasoning behind choosing the currently implemented way spotting works. In WOWS it enables players that use their knowledge about the spotting mechanics and capabilities of their ships to work together, so that the enemy is visible but they themselves can stay concealed, and it provides a fog of war to enable movement across the map, and necessitating active reconnaissance to get a picture of the enemy. With this game, especially given how many (and random!) combinations of equipment ships can have, it is hard to know beforehand how far your spotting distance actually is. As campaigns progress, knowledge gained will also get obsolete quickly, if it is possible to learn at all?
I am hoping to warm up to the mechanic more if I get why it is the way it is. My experience with strategy and especially naval games is very limited. The last I played was Silent Hunter II and Age of Sail at the turn of the Millenium, and I only dabbled in WOWs for a short time before getting turned off by the grind and competetive, angry edge. Maybe either some players or the devs themselves could provide some insight?
Cheers
InstaI think the spotting value of towers should be mostly applied to torpedos and (to a much less degree) small DDs/TPs. Even the enemy managed to sneak to you and got a first volley, your spotters would immediatly search for the origin of that volley and detect the enemy ships.
This mechanic is made worse when the AI apears sometimes to have a much higher spotting range. In the mission German Wrath (at the North Sea?), even if you have top grade towers, your ships will have to endure a huge rain of shell fire from the enemy until you get, like, 3,5 km (2 miles) from them. Almost like every single ship in the enemy fleet is able to see and take a shot at you, but your spotters were hired due to blindness because they salaries were cheaper.
-
And this is my most upvoted post ever...
STONKS
(Shut up if you dont like this meme. IT'S MY POST)
-
Alright, so the AI hasn't forgotten all the classics yet.
This is the AI memory book, with all it's design choices and the formal caracterizations made by our professional naval designers:
1 - Anorexia barbettes.
2 - Thicc barbettes (also known as Caps Lock + Shift).
3 - Secs are feeling lonely here.
4 - Collect all the secondary callibers in UAD!
5 - Aft Weight Offset club. With representatives from the BB, CA, DD, CL, and BC classes.
6 - ITS HMS NELSON TIME!
7 - You get a barbette! And you get a barbette! Everybody gets a barbette!
8 - Pick 'n' mix single, double, and triple turrets.
9 - Mix 'n' match funnels.
10 - WE WANT PLANES, AND WE WANT THEM NOW!
11 - Vision and field of view is for pussies.
12 - With enought funnels, you can smoke screen all the time. Idea by Malboro.
13 - Broadside frigates' club.
14 - Barbettes dont always need a gun on them.
15 - I like to try out modern takes on pre-dreadnoughts.
16 - Big turrets are afraid of piranha secs roaming the decks, so they hide on top of barbettes.
17 - Im not gonna be Yamato'ed or Bismark'ed if I have enought AA secs.
18 - ♫ Going up the waves! Going down the waves! Shaking left and shaking right! Vomit all over the place! ♫
19 - Where armor.
20 - Tug boats are underrated warships. Change my mind.
21 - Ships are good turret farms.
22 - Underwater turrets just work.
23 - Tall barbettes show your dominant position to the enemy.
24 - "Deja vu, I've been in this place before" top speed.
25 - Remember to have your forward turrets huddle together for warmth.
26
- Sir, the 3x4 17-inch guns are two heavy! We can't fit them on!
- Remove the superstructure and make the funnel as small as possible, that'll save weight.27 - Destroyers aren't a thing. Don't need secondary batteries.
28 - Monitors rule the seas.
29 - Don't put guns on warships if the budget doesn't allow for them.
-
3
-
What new mechanics do you think he meant?
in General Discussions
Posted
I do like people were awaiting for a response like this from the devs (otherwise they wouldn't begin to speculate and comment that response everywhere).
One little thing that does worry me a little is "The campaign is still in progress and we will try to show a first glimpse as soon as possible."
I'm wondering if they either just want to show a polished and more finished version of the campaign, they dont feel like showing it right now, or if it isn't on a presentable state despite months of work meaning that we might as well just wait even more. I guess I'll have to wait and see.