slightlytreasonous
-
Posts
124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by slightlytreasonous
-
-
10 minutes ago, Darth Khyron said:
Another side note, or request, please : The campaign AI tends again to build giant battleships, or at least real powerful ones. My fleet of battlecruisers, each armed with eight 15 inch guns barely managed to escape with their slightly superior speed of 34 knots. They ran from 74000 ton battleship with 31.4 knots armed with 16 20 inch guns. Difficult is one thing, but I cannot remember being able to build such a powerful vessel within this tonnage limit.
Dockyard sizes were slightly randomized I think. But if you're saying it sounds light, I'd agree. They didn't dump torpedo protection or armor?
-
Also, I'd personally like to know if a new hull is new, or developed based on a existing/other new hull.
-
This aggravates me to no end, there isnt a single tower the Dual Funnels actually fit on. And thats still before looking at other funnels, (like super funnel large) or those of other nations. I beg of you, please fix this, somehow. Remove the funnel borders in towers, add a larger tower, i dont care. please. ANYTHING.
And, the large versions of the wide funnel are actually substantially smaller. Left is normal wide funnel II.
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, Urst said:
You gave only examples that are far past the time-range that he was talking about. A DD from 1945 is about as sturdy as a heavy cruiser from 1900
No I didn't, wrong person.
And if that's the case, I just recommend that Collector, you know, actually put down the time they're talking about instead of calling everything outside it "the exception"
-
54 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:
You know what? Two people don't argue if one doesn't want to. If you're going to keep using exceptions as the general rule, okay, you win, you're right.
Clearly you're correct, I mean sure, you never gave any actual examples, but you know a bit about physics so who am I to say?
-
4
-
-
Point is, see above.
Firstly, we should always be able to use something that's "obsolete. At worst, have a option to auto hide obsolete things, but let us use them. No "cannot build, obsolete ship" or taunting us with"obsolete" modules. It will not be obsolete to everyone. Not to mention the fun screw aroundability it would add, say a Pre dreadnought only 1940 campaign. Or a sorta refit system for custom battles using this.
Secondly, I should always be able to place something unless there is physically not the room. These new hulls, while great, don't get me wrong, are exactly my point. I don't always want to make a replica of a historical ship. Let me make some disgusting nelson style Omaha if I want. Instead, the game just says "no, you can't put it there" for no discernible reason at all. Would it really be catastrophic if I put the superstructure a few more inches back?
And, the "X amount of Y" required needs to be eradicated. The secondary tower is secondary. I should be able to say I'm willing to bite the bullet and go without one. I should also be able to throw all my tonnage into a single invincible 20" gun if I want to.
I should be able to select the mark of the weapon I use.
And somewhat related, we badly need some sort of superstructure designer, and selecting turret housing.
And finally, we should be able to design ships larger then our docks. We see a lot of times that the question of the ship comes before the question of actually supporting the ship. H Class, Tillman, Sovetsky Soyuz, etc. No harm in keeping a design for later, the blueprints don't have to be burned.
Edit: Initially this was strictly for the designer but that was initially.
Battle timer, this should be relegated to academy missions only. Especially with how the battle doesn't matter at all- "A heated, decisive fleet action is underway? Well, timer says otherwise."
Why.
Less pointless, less unreasonable then others, but being able to build overweight ships to a bit of a degree should definitely be a thing, with the obvious penalties.
Always being forced into fights. Now, one surefire way to piss the living hell out of me off is when I'm completely helpless against something.
"We have the chance to ambush a enemy BB! Should we attack?". No, you shouldn't. Nope, game forces me to attack. Can I atleast order a new ship before I start the battle? Nope, game doesn't let me close the battle screen. Can't I delay it or withdraw? Nope, it's disabled for some reason or RNG decides it fails. (Honestly, how often does it actually succeed?). So I auto resolve and pray RNG doesn't screw me over
Send a fleet home.. and the next turn I get a port strike battle on the entire other side of the Italian peninsula. "Our supremacy sent us close to a enemy port!". WHY? I SENT YOU HOME. WHY CANT I JUST DELAY OR WITHDRAW.
If I have a battle, unless it is some sort of ambush or straggle, I should ALWAYS be able to deny them. I should always be able to atleast sightsee around the map before I start a fight.
I am going to take a chill pill now.
-
12
-
-
13 minutes ago, Gregg said:
Well, here we go again. I was playing a 1910 campaign, and was all the way to January 1916 as Germans, when the notice for the 105 beta patch came out. So at the end of the January 1916 turn turn, I closed out of the campaign, and exited to the desktop, planning on doing the new Beta load the next evening.
This evening I attempted to load the new beta, and following the instructions provided by this posting, I could not get it to load, as it was asking for some code I don't know where to find.
So, I decided to just go back yo my existing campaign, and continue plating where I left off with the 104 beta.
To my surprise and disgust, the saved campaign is no longer there! So much for at least 100 hours of play!
I just wish you would install a "SAVE" button on the upper right controls bar, that would save the campaign and acknowledge the campaign was in fact saved.
Now it looks like I'll have to start a new campaign. Thus, where do I find the code the 105 beta wants to install?
There is no code. Just ignore it.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, IsmaelMolina2021 said:
Nick, have you noticed my message from the previous thread topic? I was mentioned about the dockyard sizes, I was thinking if we could have a new dockyard model that's bigger than the rest of other dockyards in terms of ship sizes. If possible, I mentioned about giant battleships that has blueprint drawings in it but never produced, however I found two of them from Google, such as Japan's 500,000 ton battleship and Germany's H-45 battleship. If we build those giant warships in the game, for example if I build a giant battleship and I have a fleet, it must be protected and if the enemy builds giant battleship but I have a large fleet, it must be destroyed
The half a million ton Japanese BB was outright madness. Any larger then we already can go would be simply beyond a historical. Please, no.
-
7
-
-
The only reason I see this being a feature is so totally clueless people don't screw themselves over. But it just over reaches everywhere. I didn't realize it didn't let you build "obsolete hulls", but, wow. WHY???
-
Working search lights would look amazing, we need environment visuals so bad. Just don't diss the French!
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, BELEW848 said:
so i was told that aircraft carriers r on the way to the game will we make them like we do other ships?
By who? CVs are not coming. They might one day, but they aren't.
Subs are, though.
-
1
-
-
US light cruiser- I'm wet.
From the water, of course.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, IsmaelMolina2021 said:
Yeah, so how could we do that?
I went into depth in the ship designer thread. It wouldn't be that great for custom battles, though, I'll admit.
Type in a number for size, then mess with some sliders to get what priorities you want. Say you have 100 points, you can spend 33 on accuracy, or 33 on reload, etc.
After a while, it gives you a gun. How good it is is based off of the year, previous developments (both in terms of size, and set priorities.).
It would basically have the same MK system, gradually improving them, but somewhat based on how often they see use too.
For actually placing them, but not much difference there, apart from turrets just auto scaling based off size increments. Their housing would be up to the player though, as it always should have been..
Theres more I could say but, the point is across. Idea just being, countries don't use exact duplicates of each other's guns.
-
1
-
-
GUNS (Im American, can't help it)
Firstly, people frequently ask for more in-between calibres for historical accuracy.
Instead of just more calibres, you can input a size of gun you want, down to the MM. You can also specify the priorities- reload, accuracy, perhaps even barrel length.
Based off that, it pops out a gun that you can then use aboard your ships. Time to develop and how good it is depends on your tech, and similarities to previous weapons.
Over time, that gun specifically will automatically improve, and better or alternative versions will appear, especially based on how often it's used in battle and deployed aboard ships.
This would allow guns to be more different among nations without historical constraints, allow the player to carve out their own path, bla bla bla.
The visual side I'm suggesting-
The obvious one, changing gun houses.
Secondly, the wings on turrets, where applicable (Yamato, Bismarck, etc.). Not completely sure what they're for, honestly.
Thirdly, the guns elevating Independently. Once again, not sure what it's called, but I noticed that all barrels in this game can elevate on their own, which isn't accurate. Being able to choose between independent/all at once, would be a fun historical nuance to throw in. Could add mechanics behind it. (But, I'll be honest, way cooler as it is.)
gun bags. I'm assuming they werent included for the sake of ease, but it would be nice.
And, barrel placement+barbette. 2 options, close & far, for how the guns are spread in the turrets. (i.e, US DD guns would be close, whereas british would be far). Finally, having the option for the barbette to jut out from the gun housing, or not.
-
Somewhat related to the above, one thing I don't get is the AI can have different ship classes in the missions for a while as I understand- why can't or hasn't it extended to custom battles?
-
6 minutes ago, IsmaelMolina2021 said:
Yeah, we also desperately need more American Dreadnought hull models that USA had from WW1 era period since we only had one that resembles to South Carolina Class Battleship
I know we do, but what it boils down to is they're not in the campaign yet. Japan and China is likely next, based off the patch notes. The campaign takes the lack of ship variety and puts a huge highlight on it. If you ask me, we mainly need a superstructure designer.
-
4
-
-
I think they should just have a system where you order a gun design with a fine tuning of diameter and barrel length, and then it draws up a slightly random stats pool for it.
If you have a gun in service that's perfect, it would obviously seriously help development of similar weapons, so you could pop out a 327 MKV easily from a 326, but not a 427.
-
2
-
-
There needs to be additions everywhere, it only makes sense they're working on those for the nations in the campaign. But, I will agree we desperately need CLs. Honestly it pains me to design them, I absolutely never use them.
-
2
-
-
there is CTRL placement if you're unaware, but I agree.
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, Littorio said:
Well you made your statement as if the only reason they were bad was that they avoided testing because of the cost. The designs should never have had so many issues to begin with.
I did, so, thats on me.
54 minutes ago, Littorio said:Taking this to UAD, I don't see the duds having some sort of preventable game mechanic other than something affecting maintenance. A normal, good torpedo may go bad and function incorrectly if maintained improperly by a green crew or a negligent commander.
A dud from the factory is still a dud no matter what you're doing in the field 9/10 times and we are nowhere close to even thinking about logistics systems which would cover this. It would involve factories, contracts, etc. We don't even have real shipyards and slipways at the moment, and can just build infinite ships at will only constrained by the treasury. I don't forsee anything dealing with armaments manufacturing being considered for some time, including torpedoes.
Maintenance/crew quality is the majority of the way I can see it for now, but I would also offer up expending ships in weapon tests, as alternative to scrapping them, and fleet exercises. Expending could improve progress in any number of fields. Fleet exercises serve a similar role, but you get to fight them out.
Logistics and manufacturing is probably the ideal but I frankly doubt that would be implemented. Even if its simple I wouldnt be surprised if it sounded "too in depth" and acts as a deterrent for a lot of people. Dont get me wrong though, I wanna spend atleast a few thousand hours per campaign. Letting me manage and design every single aspect of the navy? Yes please!
Ideally, a lot of ways, and make it simply very unfeasible to go with all possible ones, to always keep that feeling that you could have done more. The game does that really well as is and I have to say thats probably my favorite part about it.
-
16 minutes ago, beepboop6 said:
cant seem to refit any ships in campaign, the button is just greyed out
Enter the ship designer of the class, click the wrench at the top, make your design, then save. Send the ships you want to refit back to port and then they will be available to refit.
-
7 minutes ago, Urst said:
Nothing has an effect other than tech-level, design, level of testing, and production quality. Duds can't be avoided in combat, only in the drawing board and in the factory.
I'm not saying that duds can or should be avoidable by choices in battle. I have had my fair share of horrific defeats that I knowingly prepared in the design screen.
If you make a terrible choice you shouldn't be able to glide past it during battle, but after you're defeated you should be able to learn and change things so it doesn't happen again. Tech basis just cuts that down to a % chance- sure, altering doctrines for example would probably do nothing more, but you feel responsible. When you are defeated it feels avoidable, and even even if it would have gone the same way if you did make that choice x turns ago, how would you know? And that keeps it from feeling like the game just hates you
-
27 minutes ago, Urst said:
Except that it can't be the players fault. It's the designer and manufacturers fault. You can't know which torp is a dud until it hits the enemy. Unless you mean the player chose not to let their new technology be tested, but that's part of the default process of the game's research mechanics. You can't tell the game to start using tech that hasn't finished research.
Obviously the player won't be hovering over each individual torpedo. But that doesn't mean you can't add player interaction, everything from crew skill to doctrines could and should have an affect. There should still be plenty of things out of player control, but a dud should always have the feeling it could have been avoided. Otherwise, it will always seem like the game just screwed you over for no reason. The Navy was very much responsible for the nightmares that led to the MK 14, and in general, their terrible torpedoes. We should be go- you just obviously can never go into every tiny historical aspect.
And no, I dont think actually testing weapons should be a huge thing, I'd rather see it abstracted, I'd go no deeper then target ships as a alternative scrapping, and fleet problems.
-
1 hour ago, Littorio said:
Please don't try and defend the Mark 14. That's probably the greatest mistake of naval engineering and procurement in history.
I'm not? All I'm saying is things went very, very wrong. You can't throw in duds unless we can also feel that things went wrong and that it's our fault it is a dud, apart from just tech and year.
Remove pointless blocks.
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by slightlytreasonous
The game feels so 1d it hurts. Battles, ship design, "fog of war". Everything.
I could write an essay on what could be improved or added, and I almost have, and I still might. In fact I nearly did for this comment.
All that is to say we need fundamental changes. A few more hulls to pick from gets stale much faster then a bit more dynamic battles. Like beam/draft. That's amazing because I'm always going to use it, even if I don't explicitly love it. A new hull, less so, because I won't always use it, especially if I don't like it much.