Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

The PC Collector

Members2
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

About The PC Collector

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. More orders for ships/divisions are needed. In the current fashion, giving actual orders isn't an option, you can only either control them, or give them to the AI. So there goies my proposal: New movement options Pursue: Like retreat, but doing exactly the opposite: The ship/division will start chasing and attacking the closest enemy. Overrides firing priority options described below. Chase: Like the screen command, but targeting enemies: The selected ships/divisions will chase and attack the target enemy. Overrides firing priority options described below. New torpedo options Prio
  2. Can confirm that the last patch is what broke the game, reverted back to live and problems stopped.
  3. I'm also getting the bug with ships gaining infinite speed and CTD. Please revert the last patch ASAP. In my case I was playing campaign, and happened with a CA.
  4. Formations work even worse than before. I just had a battle in which I had to detach all of my ships (it was a three CL formation) because otherwise there was impossible to control the ships. Edit: Even detached, ships do not respond to control anymore as soon a freindly ship closer than around two kilometer or so. Please fix ASAP, game is not playable right now. Whatever you guys did with the evasion system has broken the game.
  5. I still think that would imbalance the game, and make for example Austria Hungary, which has little shore available, unplayable. But, as I said, as long as it is a difficulty option and not enforced, I find it very interesting. In fact, I think that would be a very good way to implement difficulty, rather than giving the AI nearly unlimited funds as it works right now. In fact, this option could give you an interesting option, the chance to play as an underdog while playing Great Britain, for example. This could be implemented featuring different options: Historical, Equal, and different
  6. Not exactly feedback from this patch, but I feel that the "semi armoured cruiser" hulls should be revised. No matter how much I look at them, their options for weaponry placement are so poor that I fail to see why would anyone use that hull instead of the other ones. One possible solution for that hull could be allowing main caliber guns in the twin casemate mounts (the ones highlighted) That would not only make that hull competitive, but will also solve a problem I have detected: So far I haven't found any hull that allows casemate main guns, something that was not unheard of in Armoured
  7. As a difficulty option, would be interesting. As a core feature, it would make any country besides Great Britain and maybe the US pretty much unplayable, as playing any other nation would mean that you will be insta and perma blockaded the second you get into a war against one of them, and you have no hope of winning that war, since unlike in reality, the tech system doesn't allow to have significant tech advantages that could counter their numbers.
  8. 1- Instead of offering the name in the current fashion, use the historic navy prefixes with the type of ship displayed in a secondary way, or using symbols like World of Warships/War Thunder does. For example: BB Dreadnought -> HMS Dreadnought (BB) CA Blücher -> SMS Blücher (CA) And so on. 2- Add subclasses for the current ship classes. Currently most ship classes comprise several different kinds of ships. For example, batlecruisers right now comprise also fast battleships and large cruisers (CB). Heavy cruisers comprise also Armoured cruisers, which conceptually are cl
  9. I've noticed that if you close the game, and then resume the campaign, the crew pool resets. You should take a look at that.
  10. If you're going to make the campaign long already, you should take in account the need for the docks to grow as the tonnages do. If not, later dates are going to be... interesting to play.
  11. 1- Crew should stop manning stations/parts of the ship that reallistically would cost them their life. 2- There should be an option to make the crew abandon the ship when it reaches a certain threshold on either bouyancy or structure (minimum should be around 15-20%). This would make the survival of ships (specially small ones) much more reallistic, and would open the chance to preserve part of the crew when the ship is lost: The higer the threshold set, the more crewmembers can be saved. Also, this could open the door for a mechanic to tow and capture abandoned ships after battles.
  12. It was widely requested because given the nature of the game, even for Early Access standards, the game can't be considered functional without this. I can't wait to have this making the game finally functional!
  13. Oooh, so the campaign will be actually playable soon? Wondeful! I can't wait!
  14. I agree. Other than a bit of performance optimisation (the system requirements are way too high for what the game is) the visuals are okay. So it should be low priority.
  15. 1- Campaign suggestion: An start option to limit all torpedo launchers/deck torpedo launchers to Torpedo Boats and destroyers. Campaigns after 1910 are reduced to who can dodge torpedoes better, and thus become really dull and boring. 2- Completely rework the visibility system and get rid of the WoWs "ships appear out of thin air" system. The current one is unreallistic, higly exploitable and frustrating. 3- Hydros, radio, ragefinders and such need to have a fixed weight. The current % of tower weight makkes them absurdly heavy, specially on heavy ships. 4- Weights need to be revise
×
×
  • Create New...