Candle_86
-
Posts
238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Candle_86
-
-
53 minutes ago, Draco said:
I know you have better things to do, but if you ever get the time Nick (or someone else for that matter), could you provide a link? because all i Can find is Mikasa and other pre-ww1 ships having a minute or longer. Doesn't seem to really happen after the invention of the quick fire (QF) method, which for this game, would be anything above Mk.I.
Navweaps also lists littorio's guns as having a 45sec RoF, but it seems to be the exception rather than the norm, with all other capital ship guns listed as 30 sec, or sometimes less (Bismarck).Plus every single capital ship at Jutland had 30sec reload, so it's not like it's a 1940s thing either.
Off course, not trying to argue against that, just trying to argue "why would you ever not just use better hydraulics?"
Hell, Bismarck had an above average length 47cal gun, plus extremely heavy guns for their size because of the german breech block mechanisms, and yet her shells pr. minute rate was faster than all the others, while Yamato's guns had the same average 30sec reload as the vast majority of her peers, in spite of her guns being the heaviest guns ever mounted on any ship ever, so clearly, better hydraulics were practically universal IRL.
I just think there are better ways to represent this, like with extra weight to the guns by default to compensate, or buffing the reload modules, allowing them to compensate (and yes, make them heavier than they are, heavier but better), or to at least allow max turret rotation modules to mitigate the malus like they do IRL.Well the BL 18in Mk1 has a ROF 1perMinute given, it wasn't in wide use and might have improved by WW2, but this is the gun the Nelson's would have had, so they'd have had a 1 round per minute fire rate in theory. The ROF only really applies to ready use ammunition, so once the shells staged for ready use and they start sending them up from the main magazine, expect it to take longer even under perfect circumstances
-
Really really getting tired of the auto battle algoritim, I can't force a battle that favors me, no they ignore my task forces until I make them into smaller units, then suddenly I get over whelmed, if however i keep a big taskforce it's ignored and somehow they go around it to sink my convoys even though I'm quite literly sitting of their coast. This needs to be corrected big time, this is utter bullshit. Ontop of that because you added citadels to destoryers they are basically useless, there is zero reason at this point to use them or torpedo boats, because of the new citadel, which fyi should only be on armored cruisers and and battleships makes most smaller ships so unstable the chance to hit at .01KM is often under 1% which is again useless.
-
4
-
1
-
-
roll back to 1.05, the files arn't encrypted in 1.05 and its overall the better version, I suggest setting updates on the game to only when I launch, and then only launching the game with steam in offline mode.
-
5 hours ago, o Barão said:
As the creator of TTE for WOTS, I will always be an advocate of the idea that modification improves the longevity of a game. Sometimes it completely changes what is possible to do, opening up new possibilities and captivating the interest of players for many years to come.
However, we have to respect the developers decision in this regard. At no time is it said by the developers that it was in their interest to make the game files available to everyone. And they are in that right.
We also have to take into account that an explanation was given, justifying the reason for the change. Who are we to judge the problems they had to analyze bugs reported by players with files changed by themselves?
The only viable thing in this situation, in my opinion, is to continue supporting the developers and asking for the possibility, even if it is limited, to edit game files after the completion of the development and release of the game.
I completely disagree, this is why I rolled back to 1.05 and will only be playing UA:D in offline steam mode and archived 1.05. If modding is locked the best review I ever tell anyone about this game will be the 1.05 state of the game, that's what I'd be telling my friends about, because to me thats the patch that was community friendly.
-
1
-
-
Sure it would, but they've removed 90% of the fun of this game, and turned into an overly boring slog. You can no longer fix their mistakes like giving the correct 1890 technology that actually existed, you can't build even close to realistic ships because of this as well as if you do your penalized because you don't get enough starting funds. Now they've turned into a method of you play it our way or not at all, I mean I guess they already got my money, but if they don't reverse this change they won't get anymore of money, and I'll remove my recommendation for any of my friends to try this out, and I'm waiting to see seath17 mention this change, the weird stuff he does on youtube likely grabbed at least a quarter of the audience, and if he tells folks not to buy it anymore, there goes new players. I'll wait to see if nick says this is only temporary, but if he says this is the new normal even when out of early release, well I'll hide this game from my library, leave the discord, and remove this forum from my favorites. Yea they got my money, based on the fact that 1.01 was fun when I watched Stealth17 play it, and if this change is permanent i will regret the $34 I spent on this game.
-
7 hours ago, Dirlinger said:
That is kinda limited dataset and only from end user perspective where you have no idea what is happening in the background. My experience differ both as gamer and as professional from SW industry.
I am not gonna defend Game Labs (they do a lot of things wrong in so many ways) but here they actually took a professional decision which is very unpopular but right thing to do.
But each to their own.
I disagree with this being a professional decision, this decision takes away from the fun, I've rolled back to 1.05 and am keeping an archive of it to restore incase i launch UA:D when steam is online as I've disabled it updating unless I run the game, and we all know if i put steam in offline it won't update a game. If the save files remain encrypted I won't be testing any newer versions nor providing feedback, I'll continue to mod 1.05 because that would be the last best version of the game.
It will also affect my future purchasing decisions. There was no reason to do this, they can simply check for modded save files in their report bug feature, it shouldn't be hard to implement a system that indentifies when the save_01 or custombattle files were modified outside of the game, and if its that modding the game makes it crash if you tweak stuff, then allow that to happen, make it crash if you increase or decrease gun barrel or beam beyond what the game allows.-
1
-
-
I agree it really stinks that the save is AES encrypted, it makes me want to go back to 1.05 and simply backup that version to play going forward
@Nick Thomadis Is this only for beta testing to stop us mucking about the save file, or going forward will the save_01 and custombattle json files be encrypted even in non beta builds?
-
I will add the dud torpedo mechanic is nice, it's a real shame that the AI's dud rate seems to not exist, but mine bounce off of them. Also the way war happens is just rediculous. It's managed to make the game less fun.
-
Well your still giving us 1870's tech in the 1890 start
-
1
-
-
seems they broke it with 1.06, can't read the json file's anymore, its encrypted now, not sure why but i guess back to figuring out how to make cheat engine work with it
-
I dunno i still say this game should exist in a world where Orvile and Wilbur Wright never achieved flight
-
2
-
-
If we are going to work on armor, honestly it should be lighter, Iron Hulled with wood ships had 20in of armor, Compound 18in, Harvey could go down to 9, yet try to build a 15kn battleship with 12in guns and 20in of iron armor, you can't
-
3
-
-
I don't want such granular control, but I'd like to see a more realistic handling of big guns, after 100 shots or 150 shots per barrel the accuracy drops off big time, and requires repairs to reline or replace the barrels that could last 3-5 months for instance. This should apply to 8in plus guns like it was historically. As well as require you to stockpile spare guns, and your repairs are limited by gun supply, and when your replace a gun you have to wait if you run out of guns for others to be relined or new forged.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 5/2/2022 at 3:49 PM, SpardaSon21 said:
This is the single biggest issue with them. Torps have zero of the downsides guns do: weather, aim times, accuracy, etc. IRL aiming torpedoes was just as difficult as aiming guns, complete with the need to compute targeting solutions. A good way to represent that, IMO, would be to add a similar system to gun aiming for torpedoes, with 0-100% being the accuracy of your firing solution. 0 means the torpedoes fire off randomly as you don't know where to aim, and 100% means they're aimed precisely center mass of where the target is expected to be. Turns and speed changes by both sides would reduce the solution strength, and then recover as ships return to stable courses. And obviously wind, weather, and sea state would all reduce the ability to get an accurate track, perhaps even to the point of making it impossible to get a guaranteed course set for the torpedoes.
And then of course, we can get actual torpedo accuracy modeled (as hinted at by some torpedo techs and modules), so early torps will have a tendency to run off-course, even with that 100% computed firing angle.It should also go without saying that torpedo range needs to be actual torpedo range. No more torpedoes running indefinitely through the water. They reach their listed range, and they stop dead.
we need circle track torpedo's that can come around and hit your own ship like was actually possible
-
So I noticed by looking at the save file that right now a country can have -1.0 wealth, and -1 growth and be basically bankrupted which of course ends the game, will this still occur in 1.06, and if so how do you recover if your the player and end up this way?
-
1 hour ago, kineuhansen said:
cool one thing i would love to see in next update are more cruiser design for the british special superstructures like the hms norfolk or hms york
I wouldn't mind them reworking the new Brittish Hulls for Dread 3-5, and adding the bridge over the main battery
-
11 hours ago, ckdhald4 said:
I hope the length of the ship can be adjusted with a slider, not a displacement
length is displacement, you can go for more with draft and beam
-
On 3/11/2022 at 9:37 PM, nightraven1901 said:
I too would like a scuttle option, just in general,
Same, when they are missing shots with the 8in guns from .2KM away and I've still got zero hits, I'd prefer to just scuttle that ship, my navy would be better off without that crew honestly
-
2
-
-
If i could make one suggestion it would be to give triple expanion and nickle steel at 1890, both where known by this time, Iron over wood was 1860's, and Compound of Steel over Iron was mid 1870's, by 1885 Nickle Steel was a thing, though not harvey yet. Also Mk 0 Main guns, in 1890 we had some navies still using breechloading guns of sizes up to 16in, with the RML 16in in Brittish service, you could give them a ROF of say the 16in as 5minutes between shots but deadly if it hits, and similar for smaller Mk0 guns, just an idea
-
3
-
-
that and unstable ships being lost in heavy seas because they got swamped, would be more realistic
-
2
-
-
it would be cool, I wouldn't mind 7.5in, 9.2in, 13.5in guns for a proper British design
-
3
-
-
5 minutes ago, vyprestrike said:
Could you guys consider normalizing resistance stats? There are some super battleship hulls that can reach upwards of 95% damage reduction which makes them unreasonably difficult to kill to the point where 20 inch super heavy HE shells deal single digit damage on partial pens. A little bit of variation in durability is fine, but when one hull takes literally 1% of the damage of another hull of the same class from the same shell, that seems like an unintended problem.
Also, could we have an actual exponential curve for speed vs horsepower instead of the stepped/linear system we currently have? It's a bit confusing when designing ships to have tiny increases in engine weight for a few knots, then an extra 0.1 knots adds thousands of tons to the engine before returning to tiny increases again.
but its fun to use 1890 torpedo boat, 30.9kn's easy, 31kn's you get nothing.
-
I know it can't be in this patch, but if possible, in 1890 Triple Expansion Engines and Nickle Steel Armor where already known and being used, if possible could you make both techs available at the start of the game. The only reason in 1890 anyone was using direct action steam or iron plate/compound armor was they couldn't afford modern armor. It is still useful for cheap ships but doesn't really reflect what was available in 1890.
Also can you look into why when you hit reverse engines the ship comes to a dead stop, with no deceleration, and then when you resume forward it acts as if it never slowed down.
-
I can mostly agree, its really annoying when they are attacking transports and I've gotta catch up to my transports, but the game slows to 3x so all I can do is spend 5 minutes watching, I know the same damage would be done irreguardless, but at least i dont have to watch it in slow mo and i can decrease the period of frustation
-
4
-
>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)
in General Discussions
Posted
thats maximum size, modernized dreadnought scales down to 32, 35, or 38k depending on country of origin, now Modern Battleship 2 and Super Battleship 1 and 2 are limited to much higher dockyards but you can always build modernized dreadnoughts