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
-
-
When is the beta for the major update to be expected? I wanna keep playing, but without long campaing I do not feel any motivation to do so.
-
5
-
-
1 minute ago, Diesel said:
I want the option to add/remove the superimposed barbettes that are already integrated into the superstructure. They are helpful, but they also severely limit your design options in some cases.
I totally agree with this, specially in BBs. I won't mind if they could house reasonably big guns, but most of them can only house 12-13" guns and some of them not even that, which severely limits their usefulness, as tat detail restrict them to very early dreadnoughts at best.
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, Captain Meow said:
If only it was possible to install 3-4 close-placed funnels on that hull...
If only there were more early CA-BB hulls which allowed the use of side guns, even if it were lower calliber ones... There are so little options to use them, that they could simple remove them... By the time you finally get hulls that can house them, you usually can already use superfiring turrets, making them useless, or an stopgap at best.
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, Captain Meow said:
The collision avoidance should be toned down. It's affecting to the point a ship can't make a quick simple turn because of other ship "somehow in the way" even when that ship is like up to 1km away & sometimes isn't even crossing other ship's path. And why do we need this collision avoidance anyway when there's no damage from ramming own ships?
Maybe because they probably plan to add such damage at some point? But for the time being, is true that completely disabling the collision avoidance system for the time being could be a good stopgap measure to solve the problem until a proper fix is coded.
-
1
-
-
I hope this is true, and that they revise the research speed. Even with 100% research from the very start of the campaign (1890), by 1910 I hadn't launched my first dreadnought yet, and I wasn't even close to have researched the turbines.
-
1
-
-
Okay. I've seen that there are indeed pre dreadnought hulls which allows 7-8" guns. Yet, neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary have acess to them.
-
I won't be surprised if that were the case. You'd be surprised of all the weird experimantal things we did in the 1880s and 1890s. XD
-
1 hour ago, akd said:
That's not how it works. You don't end up with a surprise on delivery (well, except those "hidden" surprises like grossly overweight, belt under water, etc.). Spain issued the specifications and obviously approved the designed plan. Likely they had their reasons for the central bridge (I'd guess it economized on armor protection for the conning tower), but it was certainly an anomaly for a barbette ship of her era (maybe you are thinking of older ironclads that still considered the quarterdeck the command position?). The Marceau she was based on had the bridge / CT up front.
Given the overall disposition of the ship, I'd more likely say that the design were chosen due to weight balance reasons, as the ship overall is surprisingly symmetric for her time.
-
4 minutes ago, SodaBit said:
Quick feedback about campaign balance.
I'm starting to think that maybe Large Cruisers (Alaska, Stalingrad, B-65 and the like) should be their own class. Currently, they're considered Battle Cruisers, but can't compete with interwar BC's, like the Renowns, Kongos, or Lexingtons as designed. If they were designated as Heavy Cruisers, they'd be complete overkill, and be the only viable hull choice in that category. Something like an Admiral Hipper or Country class doesn't stand much chance against a ship armed with 11" or 12" guns. I know that some ships of similar capability were actually classified as BC's, but from a game balance perspective ships like Scharnhorst and Gneisenau really aren't competitive BC designs for the 1930's campaign, let alone 1940.I agree completely that CBs should be their own class. As should be Armoured cruisers and protected cruisers.
And the Scharnhorst aren't BCs. They were BBs. People oftem mistaken them as being BCs due to their high speed and small guns. But they were designed as BBs. The reason they were equipped with 11" guns was that due to the versailles treaty, Germany didnt had bigger guns available, but the ships were designed with the intention of retrofitting them with 15" guns as soon as they were available. In fact using the same turrets as the Bismacks. However, that retrofit never happened due to the loss of the Bismarck and the Gneisenau being incapacitated during the first months of the war, as Germany simply couldn't afford to have one of their two only BBs out of service for a retrofit.-
4
-
-
41 minutes ago, akd said:
Since she was based on a French ironclad design, they might serve as a reasonable substitute, although I don’t think we can replicate the idiocy of placing a funnel in front of the bridge. However, what is needed even more than a hull is a set of “Mark 0” guns to replicate this older generation of armament (lighter for the caliber, but generally in barbettes rather than gunhouses and with extremely slow reload).
Actually, tell that to the french. Spain only issued the specifications, and they were the ones who actually designed the ship. And, for what I've seen, that kind of funnel placement was surprisingly common in late Ironclads. A different thing is that the game doesn't allows it.
And no, the french Ironclad hulls aren't suitable substitutes, as they don't allow the 11" main guns in the wings.
The Mk. 0 guns area good idea, tho. -
No, but I didn't need to do so with 1.02. When you changed it to Live it changed automatically. So I didn't though I needed to change it manually.
-
Game still says 1.03 Beta
-
The main problem there is that casemate mounted main guns are ignored, despite being plenty of ships which used them.
-
1
-
-
Some inaccuracies that I have noticed and that should be addressed:
- Pre dreadnought hulls don't allow for casemate secondary guns bigger than 6", despite most late pre dreadnoughts mounting larger guns (up to 7.5")in casemates.
- Armoured cruiser hulls don't allow main caliber casemate guns, despite being classes that had them.
- Same for light cruisers: Despite most protected cruisers and even some early modern light cruisers mounting main guns in casemates (The USS Charleston and USS Omaha come to mind as examples) not a single hull allows such configuration. That specially makes semi armoured hulss barely useable, as the can barely fit any main guns at all.
Also, a request: Is there any chance of ever seeing a hull which allows to replicate the Pelayo?
-
4
-
-
Maybe, but since for the campaign to be reallistic they would need to add quite a bit of ironclad era stuff, since by 1890 most of the ships you would reallistically have would still be Ironclad era ships (some Ironclad ships with weapon retrofits served well into the 1900s), as all metal ships were't a thing until late 1880s, maybe a future DLC which makes the Ironclad era playable won't be a bad idea.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, o Barão said:
Is possible to consider buff the stability value for "semi armored cruiser II".
I usually simple ignore this option in the campaign because how bad this hull is a gun platform. There is any reason why this hull is so bad in comparison with the other light cruisers hulls?
And if we look the big brother version this issue doens't exist anymore. Is in fact a good option.
That's far from being the biggest problem that hull has. The poor main gun placement (you can barely fit 3 main guns while in the other hulls with the same initial displacement you can easily fit 6-8 depending on the arrangement) already makes the semi armoured cruiser hulls barely useable. Unless they decide to allow main caliber casemate guns on the twin casemate mounts, there is simply no reason to use that hull instead of any other CL hull.
-
1
-
-
Late pre dreadnought battleships should be able to mount 7" and maybe even 8" casemate guns as secondaries. Geman Braunschweig and Deutchsland battleships, and austro-hungarian Erzerhog Karl battleships mounted 170mm (6,7") and 190mm (7,5") guns, to set an example. Yet, no pre dreadnought hull allows to fit guns bigger than 6" on the casemate mounts. However, Dreadnought hulls allow it, despite no dreadnought/super dreadnouhgt battleship ever mounting guns that big on the casemates. While I'm not opposed to dreadnoughts and super dreadnougts being able to fit 8" guns on the casemates, late pre dreadnoughts not being able to fit guns higher than 6" is a historical inaccuracy that should be fixed.
-
9
-
-
Well, I can confirm: Formations work again, but hyperspeed ships bug is still present.
-
34 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
The campaign was not supposed to work in the previous beta, due to WIP work for the major update. So please start a new campaign with the new.
Aww, so previous campaigns can't be continued? I was so close to be able to build dradnoughts... But then peace treaties are already a thing?
-
On 1/17/2022 at 3:41 PM, Schirüno said:
-triples or quads really don't make much sense rn, 3 triples are heavier than 4 duals and a quad is as heavy as two duals without any of their advantages(high rate of fire and therefore more chances of hitting).
If I remember correctly, some versions ago triple and quad setups were actually lighter than their dual equivalents.
I totall agree. This needs to be fixed. Right now there are no reason to use above twins, as you get huge accuracy and reload penalties in exchange of only more damage (assuming that you manage to hit) and less room required to pack guns. Also a slight weight save in some cases due to nor requiring barbettes. But in reality, the truth is that tripes and quads were used because the weight per barrel dramatically decreased as you packed more guns into the same turret. Specially from singles to doubles and from doubles to triples, not so much from triples to quads. In fact, the reason why the Deutschlands were equipped with two tripe turrests instead of three doubles (the original plan)was mainly due to the dramatic weigh saving the triples represented.
-
4
-
-
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 optionsPursue: 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
Priority target selection: This would open a submenu which will allow/deny torpedoes to be fired at certain kind of vessels. The logic behind this is easy: If you are in a torpedo boat, for example, you might want to like to fire torpedoes at anything bigger than a torpedo boat (or even at other torpedo boats, depending how heavily armed your vessel is) but if you're on a Heavy Cruiser, you probably only want torpedoes launched at BBs and BCs. This command would prevent firing torpedoes at wrong targets without the need of disabling them. Also, this option should be configurable as a default for every ship class outside combat.
New firing orders
Concentrate fire (Division/Screen only): When selected, all the ships in the division and screening that division/ship will attack the same target as the division leader.
Spread fire: Will attack the closest target which is not currently under attack. If no valid target is available, will attack the closest target.
Attack closest target: What its name says.
Attack easiest target: Will attack the easiest to hit target.
Priority target: This order will allow to select a ship type that will be prioritised. The ship/division will attack the closest target of the selected type. Ideally, it should be possible to combine it with Spread Fire and Attack Easiest Target. If no priority target is available, will attack the closest or easiest to hit target depending on the other options selected.-
5
-
-
Can confirm that the last patch is what broke the game, reverted back to live and problems stopped.
-
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.
-
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.
-
3
-
Player Suggestions - January/February
in General Discussions
Posted
It's even worse for torpedo boats/destroyers... I can even recall how many assaults have I failed because of the lead ship retreating when she was about to be in range to torpedo the enemy capital ship to death.