slightlytreasonous
-
Posts
124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by slightlytreasonous
-
-
psst
superstructure designer.
But seriously. I beg. Give us a superstructure designer where we can use numerous small to large preset parts based on what we already have to assemble absolutely whatever we like. Like a dev tool.
Adding more towers is kinda pointless because there's always gonna be more ships, people who want it on different hulls, or people who don't want to adhere to historical visuals.
I beg. Give us a superstructure designer.
-
8
-
-
On 5/7/2022 at 7:41 AM, havaduck said:
I know the long campaign is comming, so please you gotta take a look at initial 1890s engine efficiency:
The BB is just fine, because you can cram 2 smokestaks in the center where they obviously are intended to go.
However ...... the armored cruiser already is not: It does 16 knts! and yet it barely scrapes at 2/3 engine efficiency which means it will crawl around more like 12 knts during a game. That however is the speed of a 1850! screew/sail ship of the line like Napoleon.
Now, you can get 100 % EE but the second smokestack needs to go in the grey circle aft of the aft tower, resulting in hideous weight distribution, and looks and loss of 50 % of main battery firepower.
Obviously I dont have any more advanced tech or modules if the game just started that I could put there instead ......
Can't you make it longer but decrease beam and draft so you don't go over the displacement limit?
-
I guess this is somewhat related to what Nagato said. Personally I hope entire countries are repesented with their major cities, instead of just ports. Although it would kinda require a way more in depth game overall to be worthwhile, I hope it can come eventually. I'd love to make Miami outpace NYC or even found it early, forge guns in Vegas safe from bombardment but slower build time.. etc. Obviously you wouldn't have the control of the mayor or something, but you get my point.
I think all my suggestions can be summed up as "I want a big alternative history simulation rather then throwing different ships at each other every few years."
Agree with everything else, and gonna use it as another excuse to say superstructure designer good.
-
1
-
-
Its not very good, it gets trashed by my 90k ton bbs- but it wins! Barely! So its technically the most powerful ive built.
The USS Miami is a design I always recreate whenever the data gets wiped, I love it. 18" guns crammed in every conceivable location with standard crew complement
Minimum range and slow, but its probably my favorite ship. Ive made a few, one with 19" guns and a 20" dual version.
This was born out of my Wyoming class fetish, and sure it gets pulverized by anything made with a semblance of sense. But damn I love it.
-
3
-
-
12 hours ago, JellyCo. said:
I've been playing a fair amount over the last few days and I think the option to form particular squadrons that operate together as a matter of course might be helpful, if only because 7 battleships and one random torpedo boat tagging along seems a bit...counter productive?
You already can, just form a fleet at a port and then send them out
-
2
-
-
Without a full rebalance, duds alone, especially with improvements to the AI, I think duds would eventually make torpedoes useless for the player, let alone the AI.
As it sounds like a new damage model is on the way, maybe it won't be that bad, but as said, torpedoes need a rebalance and a simple dud chance won't cut it, ESPECIALLY if there's no input.
It's ridiculous you can paint the ocean with torpedoes, sure, but it's also ridiculous that DDs can tank 24" torpedoes where as CLs are reliably one shot, or super BBs can literally ignore them.
Long story short torpedoes need consistency and duds are just a nerf.
-
2
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
- New Special Gun Calibers: A new design panel will allow you to edit the diameter and length of the gun barrels which will affect the gun statistics and their actual size on the ship. So, for example, you will be able to have calibers such as 13.5 inch for your guns before you research the next bigger 14 inch caliber. The variations of designs now will become extremely enriched, as each ship will look different also on the gun scales.
This sounds familiar...
How precise will the customization be, large or small increments?
Either way just these sound absolutely fantastic.
-
3
-
1 hour ago, Maty83 said:
They count as killed as long as you either sink them, or destroy all escorts.
No, they don't. The end battle screen tells you that, and if they did it would specify the VP it gave you for killing transports.
-
4
-
-
A little while ago there was a AAR on the steam forums, which burnt out pretty quick, and then theres the flavor text for the old taskmasters and other scenarios. There was a really old thread with a interesting mission line in one, but outside of that I don't think there really are any.
My addiction to AARs and general history has left me dissapointed.. Am I alone? Or are there more people just waiting for the perfect opportunity to write one?
"Just asking questions."
-
I've been playing through naval academy battles and there seems to be a trend where say 50/50 of ships take stupidly long to design. I waited about 3 minutes for one, 2 minutes for another, it's a lot longer just sitting there. Whereas others are done in a few seconds.
I expect this would also happen in campaigns and custom battles, it would be nice if the game forced the AI to finish a ships iteration after a short period of time.
-
This isn't a bug, it's intentional to prevent game breaking issues from incompatible saves.
The AI ships are designed in the early years which is why it takes a while, just give it some time.
-
2 hours ago, Dave P. said:
I'm a little bit stumped & probably just missing something but maybe someone will be kind enough to catch my mistake.
The last few campaigns I've run (the screenshots are from a AH 1940 campaign) I've noticed that when enemy torpedoes hit my CLs, it will do several times the damage of the same torpedoes hitting any other ship type - even the poor little DDs.
The attached screenshots are from a DD and CL caught in the same torpedo spam - the difference in damage from a single torpedo hit seems staggering. But they've got the same reinforced bulkheads, same triple hull bottom, and the CL has even more armor and Citadel tech, so I'm not sure what's going on here. CL was the "Modern Light Cruiser" hull and the DD was the "Modern Destroyer" but IIRC not the "Leader" type.
I started noticing it during one of the last couple 1.05 beta patches - my CLs went from being pretty useful counter-DDs to being incredibly vulnerable to torps. But I didn't see anybody complain about this, so I'm wondering if it's by design?
During 1.04 I had a fleet action with about 7 or 8 modern CL, all of which were sunk because they would be reliably one shot by torpedoes. I don't remember the specifics but fragile CL seem to have been a thing for a while now. I think it's that hull specifically, but DDs too are pretty tanky against torps
-
3
-
-
Honestly I think that it would be better to hold off on adding more countries+peace time.
Like it's been said, mechanics need to be refined. There needs to be more depth everywhere, frankly.
-
You know pitch and roll has always been there, right?
-
It would be nice if setting weapons to aggressive caused the turrets not to wait for each other, as is the salvo system is kinda broken and it really seems to cut into the usefulness of secondary heavy ships
-
15 minutes ago, jtjohn1 said:
I don't know if this is a bug or a feature. German campaign 1940 Legendary Build own Random
The Allies have massive forces (Good want that. Makes the game longer) but I get very little cash at the start of the campaign to build anything. Even trying to keep my battleships below 100 million I can only build 8 ships.
Yeah, pretty sure that's intentional
-
I'm pretty sure that's just an issue in general with possibly the dual funnels specifically or a actual tower, where it places slightly backwards from where you click.
Possibly it places based off of where the center of the forward funnel is, like it's the normal one?
We know your secrets...
-
6 hours ago, vyprestrike said:
Displacement isn't as simple as I might have made it out to be. If a ship weighs exactly its displacement, that doesn't mean that the there is no freeboard. Technically every floating boat you ever see is at that equilibrium point, otherwise there would be some net upward or downward force. The heavier you make a boat, the more it displaces, so you get a new equilibrium point where the boat sits lower in the water. You'd never actually get to a point (without flooding or just being really bad at building boats) where a surface ship's weight equals its theoretical displacement because the entire ship, superstructure and guns included, would have to be underwater for the boat to be displacing its absolute maximum. At that point yes, the boat would sink if you added so much as an extra drop of water, but the whole boat would already be underwater, so it doesn't really matter.
So basically, you'd actually run out of freeboard before you ran out of theoretical displacement. I'm guessing the displacement for hulls shown in games is like a practical displacement value, where any extra weight wouldn't as much sink the ship as it would make the freeboard so low that the ship would be essentially pre-sunk.
Exactly, so we should be able to go past these safe points and face the "obvious penalties"
-
34 minutes ago, vyprestrike said:
I agree with most of the points you made here, but the thing about overweight ships I don't agree with. While I do think displacement on hulls should be uncapped, weight can never exceed displacement because of physics. Boats float by displacing water, and the displaced water puts force back on the ship, keeping it from sinking. If a ship's weight ever exceeds displacement, the upward force from displaced water can't counter gravity and the boat will sink.
If a ship was already using every last ton fhen shouldn't it sink literally the instant a drop of water enters it, and have practically no freeboard?
-
For once, delaying actually was successful! But when I clicked "close" it did nothing, but randomly highlighted some bits of UI for a moment.
I am now a shrieking white hot ball of pure rage.
-
1
-
-
Honestly being forced into every single fight, as in I literally am not allowed to even take a glimpse at the menus is plain infuriating. Why? "Delay battle" is a joke.
Accuracy feels like it's been nerfed into the seafloor as well.
I just had a 3% hit chance, broadside to broadside, against a DD .5km away, in 1940. I admit, my CL design definitely could be optimized a lot, and weather was bad, but I refuse to believe that even with every possible card stacked against me that such low hit chance could even be obtained before recent updates. And manuever accuracy debuffs are plain absurd- upwards of 100% counting speed and turn.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Drenzul said:
Sooo many fixes recently! Please stop whipping the devs so hard! They like it! 🤣
The devs are masochists?
Well I'm writing that essay then
-
12 minutes ago, ColonelHenry said:
I feel like this is geared toward making sure torpedo boats and small destroyers do not float on 1% forever. I think we could maybe get different % for different classes of ships with further testing. Like... a BB losing 50% of its crew is very different from a torpedo boat losing like 10 guys out of 20.
Fair point.
4 minutes ago, AurumCorvus said:Just as a counterpoint to your feeling about the timers (noting that I used to feel that they were completely pointless), it's important to note that most naval actions breakoff at nightfall, even with WWII radar (though most are finished with a retreat much quicker than that). I've come around to accepting that it's not just a timer, but rather of how much daylight is still present and when your ships will be forced to disengage due to fading daylight/crew exhaustion.
Admittedly, this is not a perfect reconciliation. It does feel extremely odd when a timer cuts off a point-blank execution of an enemy ship. Also, a more dynamic skybox would be necessary to make this really work. Nonetheless, as a placeholder mechanic, I can kinda accept the timer.
I can see it, but feels more like hand waving it away because there's nothing really to suggest that's what's happening. Maybe infinite days don't make much sense but it's much less of a plain nuisance.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:
=============
Update: 11 (30/3/2022) Available
- Now the ships can be lost due to casualties: When a ship receives more than 70% casualties it surrenders, which is considered a ship loss, during combat.
- Fixed sinking animation jitter (ships changing to sinking animation effect instantly, losing frames).
- Fixed enemy ship models disappearing in shipyard mode when re-starting a custom battle.
- Fixed some bugs of the UI in campaign and in Battle Stats.
- Fixed battles not ending after time expiration in campaign.
- Fixed Task Forces splitting ships when fighting against enemy ships coming from ports.
- Fixed Opposite VP bug of the campaign (definite fix).
- Fixed other issues of the campaign.
- Some small fixes in some hulls.
- Further auto-design improvement.
- Further Battle AI/Targeting improvement.
- Further Shell Dispersion improvement.I feel like 70% losses is higher then you can ever really expect to encounter, and even then high for morale. I think it should be more 30-40. Also, I overlook it alot but I do think the timer falls under the class of "pointless block" for campaign battles.
Could it be a battle of the Danish Strait missions/challenges for the next update?
in General Discussions
Posted
These all already exist, though. It's a bit late in the missions but it's there, and the Bismarck and Hood hulls are there. I'm not sure where you're getting "they're coming next patch" because only the Danton has been announced, not to mention they already exist.