catloverjerrygarcia
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by catloverjerrygarcia
-
-
18 minutes ago, Littorio said:
This brings me to something else. Not to start the whole spotting thing again after I laid it to rest for now, but given the restraints of the current system, it would at least be helpful to say which ship spotted smoke. Is it NE of my BB in the center of the flotilla? Is it NE of my TB screen to port, or the ones to starboard? Some basic indicators of which vessels are involved would go a long way right now.
Yup that whole pesky information thing crops up again.
-
26 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:
I hope further enhancements to the designer are still on the development plan
They are from what I understand.
-
On 10/11/2019 at 11:58 AM, Niomedes said:
Aside of that, quite a few games like Stellaris, Crusader kings and Hearts of Iron both have very deep and interesting Gameplay, comperatively strong AI and Multiplayer at the same time, so I don't see why Gamelabs should be incapable of delivering a good AI and a good Multiplayer.
Ummm have you played HOI4? The AI is abysmal, the content is farcical, and I've been playing HOI since the first in 2002. HOI4 is the worst HOI even beating out HOI3, the worst aspect of HOI3 was the OOB system but it was still enjoyable.
-
On 7/26/2019 at 1:57 AM, mitth'raw'nuruodo said:
Total War series is a living example of how introduction of multiplayer gradually and inevitably converts a rich grand deep realistic tactical experience to a frantic fast-faced dumbed-down clickfest with after-thought AI favoured by multiplayer gamers.
The same happened to HOI4.
-
I would propose two buttons, an upgrade button that could upgrade easily upgradeable components like radio/radar and such and a refit button that will allow you to make more extensive changes.
-
1
-
-
Thanks guys, as I said in another post until the tonnage stuff gets some data put out in some clear cut meaningful way that I can start to understand it all I'm not going to be able to play. I just can't have fun trying to stab blindly in the dark to figure it out.
-
As it is the tonnage calculations are so ridiculously over the top that I cannot design ships that I feel are reasonable to real world analogues of the time. And with no information about how it's all calculated that I can use to figure this out I just can't enjoy the game by blindly stabbing around and hoping to figure it out. I need clear documentation or information to tell me how all of this stuff works.
-
1
-
-
I've only played the 1890 myself, I think I have 1900 and 1910 but don't know if I had to unlock them.
-
Is the 1910 campaign arguably better then the others? I've mostly been playing 1890 but it seems so limited and unrealistic. I'm new to the game, just a few day old virgin babe.
-
-
I may already be in it but don't recall.
-
My only suggestion would be to have the hull be modular/sectional(tall order probably) but also with different width options as well. Because a short fat BB can turn tighter but will be slower and a slender longer BB will be crazy fast but have a wider turn.
-
4
-
-
Just thought of another thing to request for graphics settings, borderless windowed mode.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Danelin Aruna said:
This was eventually won by the Americans for employing Radar in night engagements.
An aspect of the early night campaigns between IJN and USN forces was the Japanese had been training for years on night actions. And the USN didn't yet trust and fully understand how to utilize radar to full effect.
-
13 minutes ago, SiWi said:
(there are no friendly torps once they are in the water...)
This was such a problem in WoWS because new players didn't understand that torps of this era didn't have actual guidance systems like we think of today that they removed team damage. The term dumb fire applies here, once they've been loosed there's no stopping them until they hit something or run dry and sink.
-
3
-
-
21 minutes ago, ColonelHenry said:
5. More Open Ship Designer
Am I the only one who think that the designer is too limited and way too much stat based? I find myself building the exact same ship over and over again because... that's all the superstructures available to me allow. I really think that if you could work your magic and give the ability to design the superstructures like the main tower, funnels, and aft tower, you would see immediately improvement in the variety of ships that could be built. Allow us to use different turret housing if not outright slightly design them, or even have another technology node specifically for this.Totally feel this one, wish there were more fine control on things.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Littorio said:
3. Spotting on the Tactical/Battle Map
I think the points you make here would be probably the single most valuable addition/change that could be made right now. The proper identification and targeting of a foe was and still is the most critical factor in naval engagements IMHO. If you can correctly identify the foe you can know if you have the capability of shadowing them, withdrawing before a major engagement develops, or know you have no hope of outrunning them and plan for action. Information is the singular most critical factor in all forms of warfare, with information you have knowledge and with knowledge you can make a decision.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, T_the_ferret said:
10: Please please please please PLEASE I AM BEGGING YOU hire a community manager or someone able to dedicate time to the community. I cannot with any amount of words overstate how much it would improve its health and attitude as well as promote constructive discussion and help the game.
This would go a very very very long way in allowing this game to succeed, and conversely the company too.
-
6
-
-
I'd like more transparency/concreteness in the math/figures for designing ships so I'm not just randomly stabbing blindly wondering what will and won't work.
-
It may have to do with the AI algorithm and trying to balance the budget.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, DougToss said:
Do you see what @akd @Steeltrap @ColonelHenry and @Littorio mean yet?
Listen, if you just say “I like WOWS mechanics”, it’s fine. I disagree, of course, but then I won’t have to try to convince you of something you are dead set against being convinced of. Right now it seems as if you keep missing what everybody else is saying, despite them putting quite a bit of work into their arguments.
We have a bunch of Ostrich's with their head in the sand.
-
7 hours ago, Littorio said:
More concrete information from the devs would be very nice. Even if it isn't finished, at least some idea of the existing mechanics would be helpful.
Exactly, it gives me something to work from to make decisions with.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Littorio said:
Right now I think boilers and engines are mostly abstracted. I have seen ships have up to "three engines" damaged but I have no idea what actually goes on under the hood as far as the mechanics behind propulsion.
I know, the lack of information about how so much of this works is really hard for me to do anything more then throw darts at designing and shrug my shoulders to see how it does.
-
1
-
-
I'd like to see engine/speed control be determined by the number of boilers or at the very least how many horsepower the ships engines are rated for. If you base it on horsepower you can more sufficiently control the tonnage of the engine systems.
To check game weight limits, I tried to build real ships (like Yamato etc) All way too heavy.
in Shipyard Discussions - Ship designer, Warships and their components
Posted
Okay and this is important why? You're not controlling your speed via the horsepower as I'm suggesting simply saying I want to go this fast. If you have a boiler of a certain size/HP generated and have to place multiple boilers you can control the power to weight ratio. But as it stands right now you just say "I wanna go this fast" and have no more control.