IshPR7777
-
Posts
81 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by IshPR7777
-
-
Thanks Nick, we should be cautious about Reverse VP bug issue. Sometimes that bug may be persistent for the other players who plays any country in different eras in the campaign
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Lima said:
A typical example of a VP bug. Italy 1910. I can't start a war, I have a positive relationship with everyone. When the war between the four countries begins, I send ships to generate tension with Austria-Hungary. I declare war on them, as well as on Germany. I am not joining the alliance of Britain and France, so that I can then fight with them. And in the first two battles, the AH fleet obviously "wins", transferring half of their ships to an underwater position.
Also I somehow blockade Germany when all my ships are in the Mediterranean. And I somehow sink their merchant ships in the North sea.
I agree with you.
As I said before, the VP bug is the main problem for the campaign in the game because it's not gonna be easy as we thought, but it should require a lot of resources and effort to put this VP bug issues down
-
3 hours ago, Cryadis said:
Tried again in Update 9, i fear thje VP bug is still alive and well (no tampering with the game whatsoever on my side):
Unfotunately this also makes my testruns rather fast as i win battles and then loose the game (although i should try to intentially loose some fights... hmmm)
Hmmmm... The VP bug is the main problem for the campaign in the game, although it's not gonna be easy as we thought, but it should require a lot of resources and effort to put this VP bug issues down
-
But anyways, I love this new version update, I hope I would play this version when I have to play in the campaign. Not only that, but I also would be able to research quickly and I can build ships as any country in peaceful times before the war as far as I love this new mechanics
-
On 6/8/2022 at 11:57 AM, IsmaelMolina2021 said:
So, when I asking about British and Japanese battleship hulls between the late 1890s and the early 1900s before the HMS Dreadnought battleship of 1906, I've been watching the pages about these two guys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Formidable_(1898)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa
I was hoping to add these two battleship hulls into the game at 1898-1905 respectively, so the players who plays as Japan would be able to recreate Mikasa battleship in the game.
Note: You can see Mikasa Battleship as memorial ship in Yokosuka, Japan by the way
@Nick Thomadis I've been requested these two ship hulls to be added in the game
-
I've been playing that a lot for a while ago, it is fun!
-
So, when I asking about British and Japanese battleship hulls between the late 1890s and the early 1900s before the HMS Dreadnought battleship of 1906, I've been watching the pages about these two guys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Formidable_(1898)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa
I was hoping to add these two battleship hulls into the game at 1898-1905 respectively, so the players who plays as Japan would be able to recreate Mikasa battleship in the game.
Note: You can see Mikasa Battleship as memorial ship in Yokosuka, Japan by the way
-
On 6/2/2022 at 1:02 PM, IsmaelMolina2021 said:
Hmmmm.... What about the hull that has HMS Formidable from 1898 and the Japanese variant of it which is Mikasa?
So Nick, I was thinking about HMS Formidable battleship 1898 and the Japanese legendary battleship that won the Battle of Tsushima which is Mikasa. It is something that Britain and Japan was lacking in the game for the late 1890s and early 1900s in Pre-Dreadnought era
-
Hmmmm.... What about the hull that has HMS Formidable from 1898 and the Japanese variant of it which is Mikasa?
-
13 minutes ago, o Barão said:
Same issue in my campaigns. Not the germans, but the AH always refuse to leave the ports.
Hmmm... We need to do something about this bug issue
-
11 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:
That ship probably sailed long ago. I just hope we get more realistic systems to make these ships only appear in custom battles.
So @Nick Thomadis, this guy got a point about giant battleships that I mentioned earlier while it was still pending, it was meant to be designed for the custom battles mode only along with more realistic systems to make those ships
-
6 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:
That ship probably sailed long ago. I just hope we get more realistic systems to make these ships only appear in custom battles.
I agree with you. Nick and I meant to make giant ships with realistic systems for custom battle mode only
-
8 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
It will be done, it is pending.
A hotfix has been uploaded which repairs the ship part collider system (which created funnel placement errors, auto-design delays etc. in various parts)You need to restart Steam to get it.
Thank you Nick
-
5 minutes ago, Dave P. said:
Minor issue, but will the potential IDs of new contacts ever be limited to period-appropriate values? (Seeing "BC??" or "DD??" in 1890 should be impossible, right?)
I agree
-
Nick, have you noticed my message from the previous thread topic? I was mentioned about the dockyard sizes, I was thinking if we could have a new dockyard model that's bigger than the rest of other dockyards in terms of ship sizes. If possible, I mentioned about giant battleships that has blueprint drawings in it but never produced, however I found two of them from Google, such as Japan's 500,000 ton battleship and Germany's H-45 battleship. If we build those giant warships in the game, for example if I build a giant battleship and I have a fleet, it must be protected and if the enemy builds giant battleship but I have a large fleet, it must be destroyed
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Vanhal said:
Funnily enough, this kinda fits their current state. For example, you can widen the hull of Battleship II (i think) a bit and construct literal dreadnought with 16x305mm guns in 1900 start. One of the armored cruiser hulls at this date is equally ridiculous with something like 26 x 152 mm guns plus 4x bigger ones.
One day, we would have need a new dockyard model that would be bigger than the rest of dockyards in terms of ship size. For example, a dockyard that has 40 meters deep, 200 meters wide and 730 meters long, with that, we could make giant battleships that's bigger than normal battleships and even the super battleships like Montana, H Class and Yamato, so we can put a large amount of bigger guns and smaller guns in one giant battleship. I watched blueprint pictures of Zipang Ultra Dreadnought and H-45 Battleship from Google to see what they look like. For Zipang Ultra Dreadnought from Japan, the ship itself would have 100x 16 inch guns (50 twin turrets), 200 casemate secondary guns (100 5.5 inch guns and 100 4 inch guns) and 50 24 inch above deck torpedo tubes, the size of that thing is 609 meters long and 91 meters wide but we do not know what draft's size of that ship would be like, we also do not know how much horsepower would this ship have but it's said that it would have 6 shafts for propulsion, the speed of Japanese Ultra Dreadnought is pretty absurd which is 42 knots that has a speed ability of Shimakaze Class destroyer and the weight of the ship is 500,000 tons which is equal the weight of the supertanker ship or 5 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers, the crew members of that Japanese Ultra Dreadnought would have a least around 12,000 and the armor of the ship would have 14 inches of belt, 5 inches of deck, 12 inches of turret/barbette, 16.1 inches of conning tower and 4 inches of bulge. As for H-45 Battleship from Germany, it's just completely ridiculous, the ship itself would have 8x 31.5 inch guns (4 twin turrets, yes, this thing is huge guns from Gustav railway guns) and it has a large amount of secondary guns that it would have 12 x 9.45/73 (240mm) long-range anti-aircraft guns, 24 x 5.04/60 (128mm) anti-aircraft guns and an unknown number of lighter guns like 55mm Gerat 58 and 30mm anti-aircraft guns, the armor of this monster German battleship is all around 16.1 inches, it makes the weight of the ship at a staggering 700,000 tons, the size of the ship is 606 meters long, 91 meters wide from beam and 16.75 meters wide from draft, the planned engine power of that German battleship would have 480,000 shp, powered by 8 shafts producing 372,000 kW and the top speed is 28 knots. So if you build a giant warship and having your allied ships on your side, you must to protect your ships at all costs, but if the enemy has a giant warship and you have a large fleet on your side, you must to destroy the enemy giant warship at all costs
-
On 3/16/2022 at 11:53 PM, slightlytreasonous said:
I think they should just have a system where you order a gun design with a fine tuning of diameter and barrel length, and then it draws up a slightly random stats pool for it.
If you have a gun in service that's perfect, it would obviously seriously help development of similar weapons, so you could pop out a 327 MKV easily from a 326, but not a 427.
Yeah, so how could we do that?
-
1 hour ago, Danz_Von_Luck said:
37 new hulls and counting 😃
Now it is 38 new hulls, still counting
-
On 3/16/2022 at 7:10 PM, Nick Thomadis said:
NEW MISSIONS
- One new mission (To be announced).
Well... I suggest make a mission about US Navy and Spanish Navy in the Spanish-American War of 1898, this time it would focused on Philippines to see what would happen if Spain has a modern fleet to match up against the US Navy that they would trying to liberate Philippines from them by supporting Philippine independent rebels
-
Thank you, and don't forget about American battleship hulls that I mentioned earlier where it's lacking on WW1 era and Pre-dreadnought era, @Candle_86 and I requested for that. Even the gun models for those American battleship hulls
-
9 hours ago, slightlytreasonous said:
I know we do, but what it boils down to is they're not in the campaign yet. Japan and China is likely next, based off the patch notes. The campaign takes the lack of ship variety and puts a huge highlight on it. If you ask me, we mainly need a superstructure designer.
I see. As for Japan, there's something missing, it is about Kongo type hull
-
8 minutes ago, slightlytreasonous said:
There needs to be additions everywhere, it only makes sense they're working on those for the nations in the campaign. But, I will agree we desperately need CLs. Honestly it pains me to design them, I absolutely never use them.
Yeah, we also desperately need more American Dreadnought hull models that USA had from WW1 era period since we only had one that resembles to South Carolina Class Battleship
-
17 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:
All those hulls sound like they will be great additions, the WW2 era was pretty well filled out but the WW1 era definitely needed an improvement on those 3 to 4 generic hulls and towers everyone gets. At this point, the American dreads need an overhaul the most, the dread 1/2 need a redo, most of that built in super structure should be place-able fore and aft tower parts, and hulls to represent the whole line of standard battleships, and their later modernization, would be great.
I agree, I owe you for this improvement
Edit: Oh and don't forget about main gun models of those American Dreadnoughts of WW1 would be added as well
-
3
-
-
22 minutes ago, Candle_86 said:
Tennessee and Colorado classes use almost identical plans, the only big change was 8x16 vs 12x14, other than that consider them clones
Yeah, and I wonder what scale up versions of Tennessee and Colorado classes would be like
>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)
in General Discussions
Posted
Good point... The VP Reset bug after we declared war on enemy countries and gaining a lot of VPs for either side to force them for peace is another problem that we are facing with. We should reconsider this issue and we need to find the way to fix this problem