Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

tuskedkibbles

Members2
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tuskedkibbles

  1. Pretty much the topic. Something akin to Battlefleet Gothic Armada's execution to stop a ship from retreating. I'd like to see a button that allows execution of crew for failing to follow orders. All the nations have the same mechanics, so I can see it being a bit ahistorical for the USA, UK, France, etc, but several of the others historically had no problem with on the spot execution. Essentially I'm just looking for an option that says, "Fire. I don't give a shit if you're out of range, I don't give a shit if you don't have an angle. Just fire at the ship targeted to the absolute best of your capability, or your officer will shoot you dead on the spot." A small -1 (or however many) to the crew of the vessel in question would also be appreciated.
  2. So I must be doing something wrong, because I cannot for the life of me get a destroyer below 30% pitch. If it has anything remotely resembling heavy armament it's impossible to get below 60/70%. Light cruisers and even heavy cruisers are pretty bad as well. Draught and beam adjustments don't really do anything obviously. They're useful for big ships, but that's it. I'm not even trying to do anything crazy, I thought maybe the game was trying to realism limit me but even Fletcher/Fubuki equivalents fire wildly hundreds of meters off target because of the pitch, it's insane. So like I said I must be doing something wrong because the pitch is completely busted for me. Even a blank 1940 hull has like 35% pitch for a destroyer. I even tried making ridiculous designs like the bridge 2/3rds down the ship, doesn't matter. Nothing I do does anything. I'm using the Steam beta, is it just broken? I've had this issue since the pitch/roll patch was introduced. Any help will be appreciated.
  3. Part of me wants them to leave it so that when China is eventually added to campaign they're just busted for like 6 years and everyone has to deal with navy juggernaut China.
  4. This thing is pretty busted. If anyone is having difficulty with a mission in the 1898-1906 range and a AC is available, build this bad boy. You'll win. It's like bringing Nagato to Tsushima. I've tested a few times. It can EASILY 1v1 a predreadnought, the only downside is you aren't heavily armoured, but it's more or less the same as an IRL dreadnought. More than 1v1 really depends on your luck and what guns the enemy ships have. 10in? yeah youll win. 13? lol kiss your ass goodbye. I just now tested and won a 1v3 against 3 1900 11in armed Japanese PD's, so British style semi dreads that are superiors to normal PDs.
  5. It would appear that the Chinese invented the dreadnought years before the British. Royal Navy BTFO. On a side note, this "semi-armored cruiser" hull is also available in 1898, its just it can only have 2 side primaries instead of 4. Do you even dreadnought 1898?
  6. Yeah it was quite something. Funny enough, I already knew when I added that picture that he was going to claim I pulled it from the internet, so I was going to add a note with my username, but I'm driving cross country right now and I didnt have a pen in my car at the time lol. Not entirely sure how to respond when someone gets like that. It's as if I personally insulted him and everything he believes in. Very weird. On that note though, if anyone is interested, this guy is a naval expert and goes into almost this exact thing in the first 30 seconds of this video. Some of you are probably familiar with him, if not check out a few of his videos and it will be very quickly apparent that he knows what he's talking about. But yeah, first 30 seconds he addresses the exact issue of titanic ships. He also brought up an issue that I didn't even think about, ships like the above are laughable from an infrastructure perspective. But infrastructure limitations are probably beyond the scope of the game so that can I guess be handwaved. Yep, NNPTC and NNPTU are both part of the nuclear training pipeline. Once we go to the fleet we get standard ship/boat covers and what not, no distinguishing marks for what your rating is. Yep that's the one, most miserable place in the Navy. Also the only thing I have that says the nuke stuff. The prototype one too but that just says naval nuclear power training unit. Appreciate it. And yeah, not much point talking to people like that.
  7. I only quoted this, pretty much just so you get a notification. I may be misreading but it looks to me like you got actually angry at my posts. Sorry I caused irritation, that was definitely not the intent. Ultimately as long as you enjoy the game that's the only thing that matters. I don't think continuing this thread is going to do anyone any good so I'm not going to respond to anything else. Feel free to take that as I can't or you win or whatever. Like I said I don't think it's a good idea to continue. Though I would suggest in future not insulting people you are (presumably) trying to have an adult conversation with. Though on the funny side, if you're an American, you'd probably be pretty depressed about some of the people we have in the nuke program lol. Either way, happy gaming man.
  8. Yeah that's all I'm making fun of lol. Imagine being on a fletcher and this thing is straight gaining on you. I'd piss myself.
  9. Sure it's possible. So is slapping Schwerer Gustav in the middle of a ship. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. As I said the British experimented with 18in guns pre-Washington Naval Treaty and found them to be inefficient to the extreme, discarding them entirely and opting for 16in guns in the post-war (downsizing of course to 14in due to the WNT). The Japanese got it to work in the late 1930s sure, but they got the tech for 18in guns to function at acceptable levels at the very end of UAD's timeframe (Yamato launched in 1940, commissioned a couple weeks before the end of 41. UAD allows 20in guns in like 1918, which is a joke. 18in guns caused ACTUAL physical damage when the Brits were testing them for the G3 battlecruisers in the very late 1910's/early 1920's. That was the Brits, at the time the most advanced naval power by a significant margin. Regardless, A-150 never left the drawing stage and had sceptics amongst the Japanese Navy even before Midway. The US and UK never even entertained anything bigger than 18in after very briefly testing 18in guns and finding them pretty much inferior to 16in guns. Even Montana and Vanguard stuck with 16in guns and it's not like the allies were hurting for resources. The only nations that seriously entertained 18+in guns beyond the testing phase were Japan and Hitler (yes Hitler, not Germany, the H-Classes as Hitler saw them were ridiculous in the eyes of most of the admiralty), and Japan only pursued the concept because of Kantai Kessen.
  10. Oh boy. Well to preface, I was a nuclear engineer in the US Navy, so not just talking out my ass here, I may not be an expert on steam/diesel engines from the interwar, but I like to think I know more than your average world of warships fan lol. As for your comment's contents, to put it bluntly, no. While what you said regarding the laws of physics are technically correct, it's correct in the same way that if I strap 20 booster engines to a shuttle it'll leave orbit faster, like sure theoretically. I also said in my comment that the aforementioned ship would stay afloat, and it could be propelled don't get me wrong, but the concept of "just put bigger engine on it lol" is literally the same as trying to get something into space with "bigger booster rockets." Like yeah technically, but in practical application no. Completely disregarding the limited technology of the time (which would completely prohibit going much bigger, if the US could've made Iowa go 40kn they would have done it), bigger engines usually result in diminishing returns as the weight of the turbines/boilers/etc themselves and the space they take up completely negates any advantages. For example the old USS Enterprise had 6 reactors, newer ships only have 4. Big E was fast as shit, I know guys who served on her who say she went over 40kn, pushing 45, which is insane, like absolutely insane (I've heard varying claims some even upwards of 50, but as I have never met anyone who was on the bridge I went with the average claims). Ford and the Nimitz class wish they could go that fast, but it's just horribly cost and space inefficient. Not to mention there's no point, the ship can't do anything at that speed, god forbid this hypothetical battleship tries to make a sharp turn, she WILL capsize going that fast. When making emergency turns you have to slow down or you could tip over, and that's in a normal ship. Gonna be a bit more likely when you are sailing a small island with like 18 monster cannons strapped to it. God forbid you try to fire while turning, you guessed it, capsized. Then there's turning. This thing would take over an hour and dozens of miles to turn around, it would be completely unnavigable in anything smaller than the North Sea. I'm talking literally not being able to turn around at full speed inside the Baltic (exaggeration but you get the point), let alone something like the Channel. Our carriers have only 4 reactors nowadays because of the limitations of the conventional fleet (and cost, which don't even get me started on the budget advantage the AI must have to make its BC's and BB's have 20in guns but still go 30kn+). The cruisers and destroyers (and frigates before they got pulled) can't go faster than a couple knots over 30. I mean sure we could put bigger engines in them, but it'd make the ships too big and the engines wouldn't be worth the space they take up. TL:DR Your statement is scientifically correct. Bigger engine=faster. That said, we don't have the technology TODAY to make a 150k ton battleship go 30 knots, let alone faster with conventional tech. You could do it with nuclear reactors most likely, but even then I don't know how fast it would be. At some point you wouldn't get anything out of more reactors because you're limited by the number of screws. Not to mention the physical limitations of the metal used to make them. If you just keep slapping more power into it you could literally shoot the screws off. I can ask some guys I know who work in boiler rooms of conventional ships, but they'll just tell me the same thing most likely. UAD allows ships that especially given the time period, are completely impossible technologically (though not physically in theory). My problem with the game is that there's no real downside to bigger. A 150k ton is going to destroy everything else, no questions asked, because the real life limitations of the ship (completely unfeasible to turtleback, too long at bow and stern to all or nothing, slow, laughably expensive, can't avoid anything whether it be torpedo ship or land, very easy to spot and hit) are essentially non-existent.
  11. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the A1B Nuclear Reactor. Checkmate carrier-tards.
  12. Yeah I'd just restart right there. That design is a joke. While It could probably stay afloat, you would absolutely need multiple nuclear reactors to propel it faster than single digit knots. Even then it wouldn't be able to fire more than a couple guns at a time or it'd capsize and/or shake itself apart. The devs seriously need to implement hard limitations on speed and firepower. The British experimented with an 18in gun shortly after WW1 and completely canned the idea of using them or the 20in guns that was a test run for because it was shaking the ship apart and launched rivets everywhere when it fired. Yamato was a herculean effort and it's likely A-150 (Super Yamato) would never have been practical and would've been canceled. As for size and speed, anything bigger than 100k tons should barely be able to move. Yamato was state of the art tech (1940 in game terms) and she could only make ~28kn. Let alone monsters like this going faster through some form of magic. Hell, my battlecruiser shown above isn't physically possible either, I just cheated reality because the AI couldn't be beaten otherwise barring extreme luck.
  13. So I tried this mission I think 5 times? Complete and utter failure. One try had 2 battleships that were for all intents and purposes superior to the AI's in every way (checked their loadout and compared it to mine), another was 12 battlecruisers (obviously this one was more money), another was 3 almost exact replicas of a King George V but with 16in guns. All were completely slaughtered and the best only got it to around ~60% structural integrity. Meanwhile, their ships are stunningly accurate and deal anywhere from 200-400% more damage, completely regardless of actual loadout between ships. One example was the only time I attempted a 1v1. My ship was obviously improved tech, with 4x3 18in with all the bells and whistles to deal damage. I actually got "lucky" with the enemy design for this one as well, 5x3 16in with pretty weak armour around 13in max outside the tower. I had higher hit chance, higher weapon damage, higher pen value, EVERYTHING. Didn't matter in the slightest. My shells would plunge into the extended deck and deal ~80 damage, theirs would hit my 20in belt and deal ~150-200. I was predicting 5% accuracy, had around 2%. They predicted around 3%, hit 9%. I looked up this mission to see if anyone else has had the same issues and if this mission in particular is just completely broken and the AI has stack overflow or a misplaced decimal in it's AI code. Nothing conclusive, a lot have reported similar to me, some have said it was relatively easy for them. Regardless, I got fed up as aside from like 2 other missions ("Battlecruiser vs Dreadnought" that I'm still having trouble with and working on and the other was "There can be only one" which wasn't that hard I guess, I literally just built Iowa and Yamato equivalents are pretty beefy so it was a pain in the ass, but I did have issues with the AI having crazy accuracy) I don't have any issues usually and win fairly handily. This one was just ridiculous though and seemed like they were using 21st century tech sometimes. Worst I saw was ~75% accuracy at 18km from 20in guns. That's literally smart munitions, not fun at all. So I finally got fed up and said hello kitty it. More Funds Konigsberg Class battlecruiser (German obvs) 33k t displacement 44 kn top speed Kitted for max speed and maneuverability while having max survivability with light armor. 6in belt, 4in turret, and no more than 2in on anything else. Max barbette and citadel to reduce chance of flash fire. Only 2x1 9in gun, one fore one aft, only to meet min requirements. Now for the peacemaker. 60 21in torpedo tubes... on EACH SIDE Fat English bitch sunk 3 battlecruisers before she went down. Again with insane accuracy but I was so fast I closed rapidly. She took (I counted when she was at 1% integrity so this isnt an exaggeration) 192 21in torpedoes. As one final 'hello kitty you' and spit in the face of realism from the game, she never dipped below 96% flooding, had to literally blow the ship apart with torpedoes. So yeah, not a fun mission at all. I didn't even mention how some of their ships were completely physically impossible. Like really? 6x3 20in guns with 16in belt armour on a 135kt hull going 36 knots? Really? Congratulations Game Labs, you've gone back in time and invented the sextuple naval nuclear reactor used in Enterprise 40 years early. Oh, and also rewrote the laws of physics for that thing to float in the first place. Otherwise, very fun game. I'm enjoying it a lot.
  14. No thank you! It may seem like I was ranting a lot, but this mod is a ton of fun for an already great game. I appreciate the work you guys put in and even with my small gripes, the game is definitely better with the mod. Thanks for replying to everything and in a very timely manner, I appreciate it a ton. Keep up the great work! Oh and thanks for the submod link as well as the game recommendations, they look really good.
  15. Oof. Yeah I don't know why I never though to look, but I checked their stats on a captured brigade. Literally every single unit is 100 in everything. One of them even has a command of 104. That just completely killed any desire to play honestly. Now I'm just kind of bummed. That's not fun at all.
  16. Yeah this is weird. I'm materially vastly superior to them, and the units I swarm with are most definitely not smaller than theirs. This particular example was I think the Stonewall brigade at Malvern Hill or maybe a little after (might've been a sub battle?) charging into the teeth of my 1st Division, which is the best I have, extremely well equipped and painstakingly maintained at high veterancy while still being 6k man doom stacks (feed recruits into the meatgrinder and let the elites sit back and farm xp with minimal casualties). My men's morale isn't really an issue either. The aforementioned first division generally performs very well and can USUALLY stand their ground, especially if they are in fortifications, even 1v1. Though they will still be broken by charges occasionally, but my other brigades don't stand a chance. But that makes sense as the fully spec'd reb units have what, like a +75% charge modifier and -30% morale damage if they've gone full charge build? I don't mind the 1v1's at all, that makes total sense, it's when like 4k men absolutely slaughter 4 times their number. It's just a little ridiculous, it's not like they're armed with battle axes and claymores. It's just not feasible to kill that many men in a bayonet charge, taking into account how bayonet charges were utilized in the war, more as shock and morale breakers instead of sustained fighting. It's not like it's hopelessly broken or anything, it's just irritating having an entire battle line (charged unit, the 2 adjacent and the 1 behind) shattered by one charge that is completely unfazed. As for the reply about gun lines putting the charges down. Not really to be blunt. It's really only my elites that can hope to turn away a full charge. Outside of my 1st corps, no one else really stands a chance if they don't have crushing numerical superiority. Around 100 guns in support and anywhere from 4-12k men firing on a charging unit of say 4k will kill only 1k? Maybe? Not even that half the time. It's also not uncommon for like 600 man skirmisher units to turn away a charge from 2k cavalry (armed for melee), and that one IS absolutely broken. Doesn't always happen but it shouldn't even be possible. Yeah that makes sense. I definitely expected the vet difference at first, it's just gotten tedious as the campaign has gone on and they have an endless supply of elite troops. Not to mention you can't train men to be battle hardened veterans. In game terms, without modern special forces training you could only get like 1 star through training. Fair enough, can't really blame you guys/gals. If I'm remembering correctly, my vanilla Cold Harbor (or whatever battle with the forts at the end) was like 160k Union vets armed across the board with M1863's vs like 20k green rebs with like Mississippis. It was pretty pathetic, half the forts were empty lol. That seems to be more of an issue with the game devs themselves. I get wanting content, but it makes no sense for the war to last that long when I'm shattering every battle. They should've made it harder to win battles/less decisive (ai retreats in early phases if they're getting wrecked) but the campaign ends if you can truly destroy the AoNV or the AotP. Hopefully their new game with the "dynamic campaign" addresses this. Does the recon value make it worse? I like the recon trait so I max it out pretty early. I'll just go in blind tho if that's whats making them have a constant 70-80% training level. The most decisive victory I've had was Antietam where they lost about 80-90% of their army killed, wounded, or captured. Back up to full strength by next battle. Also if the reports are part of what's building them up, the small battles in between aren't really worth fighting right? Like 5 rep isn't worth the thousands of casualties I take and giving them 20k free troops for like a 5% army reduction in the grand battle. That's kind of ridiculous. Yeah all brigades on both sides are huge, do the enemy armies scale to mine as well? I noticed how massive their armies were at the start (first mission, distress call I think, they had 6k stacks) so I started going predominantly quantity. If that started essentially an arms race for numbers that explains a lot. I'm at 1864 now and the rebs have ~100-150k in each grand battle (also annoying as thats twice the size of the IRL AoNV and I've killed or wounded literally a third of the white south at this point). Their armory seems to be about the only thing right, a lot of Lorenz rifles sure but no Whitworths and only a few Richmonds. Mostly the small reb manufacturers or Enfields. Yes, thank you so much for the assist. I personally prefer realism even if it sacrifices difficulty, so I'll probably take you up on that xp modifier. I'd prefer to float around the IRL sizes of the AotP and the AoNV instead of the titanic Napoleonic battles I'm having to deal with right now. I'm on pace to hit 200k men in my army soon, which is ridiculous. Thank you again for the response to all that stuff.
  17. I'm a little confused. I'm playing the Union on highest difficulty, major general with the little 'harder' box ticked. And this is honestly ridiculous. On multiple occasions my forces will be completely steamrolled by vastly inferior forces. Only in melee mind, but the worst one I can remember (but there have been dozens relatively the same) is 5 infantry at almost full strength and 2 cav at full. So including their minimal losses roughly 29000 men and 4000 cavalry (all but one inf unit counter charging) completely slaughtered by a single unit of confed infantry that had taken a few volleys to the face while charging, so maybe 5000 men. The rebs were obviously full veterancy, while i had two 3 star and three 2 star inf and two 1 star cav. My men lasted maybe 5-10 seconds before they all routed. MAYBE 500 dead rebs for ~6000 dead feds. This happened a lot too, where its almost like their melee and morale stats are set so high they have stack overflow to become like 999/100 or something like that. I just wanted to know if this is normal and supposed to happen and if this is unique to the Union campaign or if this is that classic concept of 'cheating ai = higher difficulty' and happens in the confed campaign too. Cuz right now it's giving mad "rebs were inherently better than yankees lost cause hur dur" vibes lol. Also a couple constructive things. I don't know how much of this is the mod but I've played vanilla and most definitely didnt have these problems. Having the rebs be a revolving door of 3 star vet 100k man armies no matter how bad their defeats are is frankly not fun at all. It's just tedious and falls into the pitfall of the aforementioned cheating makes it better ai. Which is one of the worst and laziest tropes in gaming. I won the battle of gettysburg is a laughably one sides fight, something like 20k to 80k losses. Next with Chickamauga, yep you guessed it, fresh full stack all 3 star. Sure the final battles of vanilla are a little easy with the rebs completely spent, but its definitely realistic. Also certain missions where you have default units. Namely Chickamauga and Gettysburg's start. You have so few men and the enemy army just plug walks up and charges with their single unit and wipes everyone. So again, am I doing something wrong? Is this campaign glitched? Cuz right now I have to cheese really hard to win, and it gets frustrating being completely unable to engage head on due to seemingly insane stats on their units.
×
×
  • Create New...