The PC Collector
-
Posts
422 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by The PC Collector
-
-
4 hours ago, German CL mk II guns said:
Second is the auto targeting. You partition targets among ships and batteries, you start increasing solutions then batteries change targets, resets aiming process, creates unwanted splashes etc. It can be really really annoying. We should at least be able to turn off.
We have been asking for improvements and additional orders for auto targetting since 1.0.3. It has been systematically ignored. So at this point, is just better to assume that it won't ever happen, unless mod support is finally added and someone else adds it.
-
5
-
-
12 minutes ago, spinaker said:
I can imagine how German submarines irritated the British command. Churchill would probably have turned them off if he had the opportunity
The difference is that IRL they added something, here they don't add anything but broken mechanics. They trigger countless battles, ignore all the mechanics which are supposed to counter them. And on top have an uninteresting, unengaging gameplay consisting on clicking an auto resolve button.
12 minutes ago, spinaker said:Maybe then it should be possible to disable destroyers, cruisers and battleships? To make the game modes as enjoyable as possible?
I've been saying from the start that one of the possible configuration options for campaign start should be disabling torpedoes. If I come to a game with "Dreadnoughts" on its name, I want big gun battles, not pesky glorified fishing boats being the deciding factor. If I wanted the gameplay revolving around subs and destroyers I'd go play Silent Hunter or WoWs.
So yeah, that what you said as joke, probably won't be a bad idea, so people can choose their fun.-
4
-
-
Submarines are the most annoying features I've ever seen on a grand strategy game. They add nothing to the game, only annoyance. For the gamemode to be enjoyable, it is imperative that they're made optional or entirely removed.
-
7
-
-
@Nick Thomadis Something I was wondering. Just like there is an "unlock" button which allows you to use any hull from any country in custom battles, would be too much to ask for an "unlock obsolete" which would likewise allow you to use any hull regardless of end date?
Like, if I pick 1920 for example, we could use any hull which has an start date of 1920 or earlier, regardless of end date?-
3
-
-
Well, I have to say that I saw the hull which is supposed to be "similar to the Pelayo" and any resemblance to the actual, real Pelayo is mere coincidence. But it gets the job of allowing a starting Spanish BB within the starting shipyard limit done, so thank you very much.
However, on more practical concerns about the hull, I've noticed that pretty much any gun bigger than 3" doesn't fit or at least give a lot of trouble to fit on the side gun points, is that intentional or is a bug of the new hull? -
I have a question. The ability to refit captured ships is finally going to be added to the game?
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Please note that no other new hull is planned to be added, unless you guys advise that is needed to fill the technology gap of a nation.
Spain still needs a hull they can build from the start of the campaign! The current one absolutely minimum tonnage is (minimum beam and draught) is over the starting shipyard size!
Maybe you could add a modified version of one of the french Ironclad hulls which allows large size side guns so we can build something like the Pelayo? (was french built so a french hull fits)-
5
-
-
Gave a light test to the update. I love the new options for hulls, like being able to mount small barbettes on the sides, and like the variety of towers in early and mid game hulls. However, I still think that the "modern" hulls are severely lacking on tower variety. With most of them still only having two ir three sizes of the same towers.
Wanted to give a go to campaign, but campaign takes unbearably long to start. So long that first two times I thought it had hung, stuck in January 1887 (where it starts), third attempt killed after a 15 minutes wait, still on april 1887.
-
4
-
-
12 hours ago, Harwood_39 said:
Mines & Submarines need to go - I understand why they've been included, however, personally I believe that if you're not including aircraft (including scout aircraft) in the game, I think Submarines should likewise not be in the game. I also think the submarines and mines detract from the overall experience of the game.
I've been saying this since the start of the game. Features which are nothing but annoyances, should be removed or at the very least made optional. Same about torpedo spam. This is a game which includes "dreadnoughts" in the title, I want to play with big guns. I don't want the tiny pesky glorified fishing boats deciding the battles. I understand some people wants that, but other people hate it. Give an optional configuration to campaign regarding torpedoes and let us enjoy our big gun battles.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, smsvu said:
The Idea that the players control is limited is alright but currently the player has way to little control and the systems outside the players control are to random and to important.
We have been complaining that there is way too much RNG and way too many things outside of the player control to make an enjoyable Grand Strategy game mode for over a year. To no avail.
-
3
-
1
-
-
I see after testing the update that (as suspected by the patch notes) Army being useless due to 75% of it remaining on homeland doing nothing has not been fixed. And neither has conquered provinces not contributing to shipbuilding capacity anymore.
While they're not bugs, those are game crippling issues which must be fixed.
-
7
-
-
The changes to army logic should be reverted ASAP. It is impossible to wind a land war outside your homeland borders, because like 75% of your army stays there doing nothing, and thus making the land army as useful as a set of blinkers in a submarine.
The changes to the contribution of captured ports to shipbuilding capacity should also be reverted.-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, Panzergraf said:
I think conquered territories, at least the home regions of (formerly) major nations, should still contribute some to shipbuilding capacity. Maybe less than before, but at least add something.
After all, isn't one of the main reasons for invading/conquering another nation to take control of its industries?So no point on A-H right now? I mean, if they have made that you can't expand your shipbuilding, it means that de facto there are only 4 playable countries now...
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 7/28/2023 at 11:04 AM, Lucinator said:
Also they have said the they are gonna be moving on and only doing bug fixes so unless they release mod support your probably not getting any new content.
Really? Sad. The game is still missing a lot of base content...
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:
Judging by the starting army force numbers, I believe that in the 1890 start at least (not sure about any others) Kiautschou Bay (Germany) and Kwang-Chou-Wan (France) are classed as homeland territories instead of colonial ones.
I think that what counts as "homeland" is somehow loose. On my playthrough, it is counting the parts of the US, Russia, Japan and A-H I've conquered as homeland. Dunno if that's intentional, tho.
-
Oh, also. I've noticed in the newer update notes that the chance of weather changing to storm on the campaign has been reduced. On my 38 years of campaign, it has happened twice, so my doubt is, it was really necessary to decrease the chance of something which seemed already infrequent?
-
Well, I've played this for the first time since the release, and I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the game works fairly well, and it is fun again. Excellent work in that. And I also see that some of the bugs I'm finding on 1.3.9.5 are already solved.
Yes, I know that 1.3.9.8 is out. I'll update when I finish my current campaign.
The only thing which saddens me is that AH hasn't yet received any love in the form of the much needed (and historical) pre dreadnought hulls they desperately need. Are there still plans on addressing that?
-
1
-
-
Any plans to give Austria-Hungary some love (hull wise) on the 1890 start? They should be one of the most interesting nations to play designs wise due to how many unconventional ships they had... And instead is barely playable due to barely even having any hulls.
-
1
-
-
So then this means I will never see the Pelayo... At the very least give Spain a hull they can build from the start of the Campaign...
-
14 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:
It will require a change of the hard coding of the game, because as far as i can tell, each nation/shiptype/gunsize/singledualtriplequad configuration is allocated to a single model.
It does make sense that a more advanced version of a weapon, even with the size held constant, will be larger.
However I'll also mention that the model selection and scaling of some of these weapons (looking at them for myself within unity) is a bit wonky.I disagree. Solving that would be as easy as making upgrading guns a manual button, instead of forcing the upgrade if newer guns are available. Which has also have been requested since refits were introduced.
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, SodaBit said:
Sorry for hogging the thread, but I'm still finding issues that need to be addressed, this time it's in relation to campaign AI.
December, 1949, the very last battle of a campaign that started in 1920. The British are sending in one of their oldest units, the Australia class armored cruiser HMS Natal, into the fray against the pride of the Japanese Empire.
These things have been around since 1920, and I used the term armored cruiser rather than heavy cruiser to describe it because...
That's just what it is. You could make a very good argument that these things were obsolete when they entered service back in 1920, and certainly should have been scrapped by 1930, as the shiny new heavy cruisers came online.
But no, someone locked Jackie Fisher in a broom closet somewhere and decided that all their old armored and protected cruisers would serve until they were destroyed.
This is a very, VERY, VERY bad idea, as these old ships still require crews, ammo, fuel, and places to dock, all of which should be going to better units. When they are sent into combat, they are literally just free victory points for me, and additional revolt risk for Britain. The Brits don't have to use these units. They can afford better ships, and have the technology to build them. Despite losing all their Pacific holdings, several colonies in Africa, almost all of India, having a revolution that saw the monarchy finally abolished, and having to fight a rather bloody land war on the British Mainland during the Scottish war of Independence, the British (Or I guess just English now?) economy is doing just fine.
In fact, I'd argue it's doing better than fine. They've practically sent the Pound to the Moon, and can churn out warships at a rate I simply can't hope to match. Of course, number's don't matter when most of the ships you send into an engagement die in one salvo. Despite being "Very Advanced" the most capable gun I saw the British using was an 18" Mk.2. I used similar guns to build the Yamato class back in 1930, as soon as I had researched them. Come 1947, the 18" Mk.5 is available, along with improved radar, more efficient armor, and a host of other improvements to the design.Which kind of brings me to my point here. I'm fine with the AI using old ships, so long as they are kept somewhat up to date, and can still be useful in some capacity, even if it's only convoy escort, or shore bombardment. During this campaign, I didn't send a single battleship to the breakers, pretty much for this exact reason. The first 4 BB's I built are still afloat in 1949. Once newer units were available, they were assigned to quiet sectors to ensure naval supremacy, or to support the various invasions of the British Pacific territories. This allowed the more capable BB's to get stuck in with the British, without having to worry about being badly needed somewhere else. Despite being almost 30 years old, they're still perfectly capable of providing shore support, or seeing off cruiser squadrons, because at the end of the day, if you've got a CA that's proof against 14 inch guns, chances are it's so slow that I can just hit it over and over again before it gets into range, because these old BB's have been modernized to have Mk.5 guns as well as the best RADAR and rangefinders available. In short, while they couldn't be used for their original role, they still had some use.
The opposite is the case for the old British units I ran into over the course of this campaign. HMS Natal has not changed since 1920. She has no RADAR, nor RDF, her rangefinders are woefully out of date, and her guns have neither the range nor penetration capabilities to be of any real use in a major battle. Coupled with her low speed of less than 20 knots, even my oldest BB's can run her down. She's nothing more than a floating coffin at this point. A complete waste of fuel, dock space, ammunition, and above all else, a crew that's never going to make it home.The problem with this, is that even if they were refitted, AI still pretty much fails at doing refits. In my experience, AI refitted ships still more often than not are somehow worse than the original ones. Something that has not been adressed at all despite being a reported issue since refit was introduced.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, TiagoStein said:
5- The income bonus during war must go away, really. It makes the economic side of the game moot. It is simply impossible to spend even less of what you get moneywise. My docks can never consume more than 1/5th of what the taxpayers give me.
Clearly you haven't played Spain then. Certain governments never grow moenywise, no matter how much you conquer. I abandoned my campaign because I was struggling to keep a 50 ship fleet (one third of them destroyers) even on wartime income. And that despite having conquered northern and south france, southern italy, southern russia, ukraine and crimea, among other good provinces. You should think I should have a good GDP, right? Nope, barely 11B in 1924 from the 6.5 billion in 1890. Meanwhile AH was sitting at 35 billion without doing anything, and having the strongest fleet in the world in terms of tonnage.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Seems you have different sources that we do? Non sensical and off topic posts are disallowed in the feedback thread. Please be warned.
Then prove it being wrong. That feeling is settled among a not small part of the community. The game is not even remotely close to be ready for release and you better than anyone should know it, calling it "complete"... I won't say how it feels and sound to me because it would do nothing but getting me banned.
-
2
-
-
After seeing the notes... Full release? Are you kidding? The game is not even remotely close to be in a state which can be considered a full release. And won't be anytime soon.
-
5
-
>>>v1.5 Feedback<<<(Latest version: v1.5.1.0 Opt)
in General Discussions
Posted
Wait, the ability to refit captured ships has finally been added?