JaM
-
Posts
282 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by JaM
-
-
40 minutes ago, o Barão said:
Multi expansion engine was still useful for merchants. Not for warships in general in WWII. And this is a game about building warships, not liberty ships.
Making multi expansion engine obsolete in game, is also helping the AI in the design process.
I'm fine with them being obsolete, just not at the point they are right now.. because you end up with two types of Turbines available, where one is better than the other so first one is pointless.. Would be better to have two engines with different pros and cons available instead...
I usually have Turbines in 1905 or so, with Geared one coming in 1910 latest.. so not having Multi Expansion available at that time is a bit strange..
-
What about Turbines - Geared Turbines - Multi-expansion engines? In vanilla game, Multi-expansion engine disappears with Geared turbine, but gameplay wise, Geared Turbine is an upgrade of ordinary Turbine, while Multi-expansion engine is more of an long range/low speed engine that is still useful at that time.. Wouldnt it make more sense for ordinary Turbine to disappear, and Multi-expansion engine stay at least till Geared II Turbine? (or probably would make more sense for ME engine disappear when semi-oil is introduced?)
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Panzergraf said:
No, that sounds disastrous. Especially as spotting distances up until the midt 1910's are very short when paired with poor weather/night. You would have enemy DD/CL's basically spawning right next to your task force with no time or room to maneuver.
I would like the Overcast weather graphics to be reduced a bit though. It's still hard to see your own ships and where they are heading when not zoomed all the way in. The green line indicating course is also obscured, which is quite annoying.well, that's exactly what usually happened back then... these small torpedo boats were pests everybody was afraid of.. right now, you might have AMBUSH mission, with TBs nowhere in sight, and they start running immediately .. what kind of ambush is that??
Having enemy in visibility would mean you would have to put some thought in your force composition, and not use BB/BCs completely alone, but always with some cover.. and if that rule was set correctly, it would be scouting group of DDs/CLs who would spot each other, so main force would be way outside of torpedo range..
-
2
-
-
And an idea for politics - There should be Home Regions defined for every (major) nation in game. If during war Home Region gets occupied, after war, Home Region should be always automatically returned to original owner, but such region price should increase bonus winning side gets.. I think it would make overall strategic aspect more interesting, map will become less chaotic and there wont be these crazy situations with Germany taking Paris and keeping it after war.. etc...
On similar note - When Empire dissolves, country should stay, it should just lose its colonies.. so instead of whole country become "ungoverned" just make its colonies either "ungoverned" or "independent" while home regions stay as the former country, so it can rebuilt itself eventually..
-
1
-
-
Some more feedback - Visibility conditions, weather, etc - right now, battles are quite often quite frustrating experience when player is unable to locate the enemy.
From game perspective - battles should always initiate with enemy in sighting distance of one of the player's ships - If no ship sees the enemy, there would be no battle in the first place. Fleets usually had scouting ships searching for enemy ships therefore CL in the fleet would be most likely the one detecting the enemy.
Now weather, of course greatly impact visibility, therefore, amount of battles in bad weather should be very limited = bad weather should be very rare early in the game. As technology progresses, (Radio, Radar, etc) it should allow for battles in more limited weather conditions. (so in 1890-1900, bad weather battles should be very rare, and chance should increase with each decade, up to WW2 radar time when weather should present no limit)
-
6
-
-
Its very strange to see Transport ships surrendering only after they take 45% of casualties (or about that number).. Historically, TRs surrendered when they got under fire, anyway because that would probably cause some gameplay issues, i think it would be best if TRs surrendered at 25% casualties, while some technology research linked to TRs, could up this number a bit, so unarmed ships will be more likely to surrender than armed ones.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, o Barão said:
True, is not well implemented. Well, at least we have that option.
Well, i think it would be best, if Refits were in separate tabs so its less chaotic..
-
One thing that pisses me off about this game's UI, is how it doesn't know how to center info windows.. Lots of times you cant see relevant info because its out of screen... you can have 4K panel, but because UI doesnt properly scale, everything is HUGE, while you still dont see what you wanna see..
Like in this example - i have no idea what flaws this ship has.. tried everything, its always out of screen...
-
5
-
-
something is terribly wrong with the mod - i cannot see ship hulls.. i thought i need to start new campaign, but same thing happened
-
Suggestion regarding Shipbuilding Info Panel - It contains all the useful information, but could be improved - for example, it shows Total armor thickness of the ship, but i think it would be a lot more useful, if there was also "Effective thickness" shown there (could be in brackets next to first value), so player doesn't have to calculate it in his head, but would have it visible.. I guess most players are trying to balance the armor against gun penetration, which uses "Effective Thickness values", so why not just have the info panel do the math for player?? It would be much simper to understand than current system where Armor quality percentage is not even mentioned in side panel.
Also, minor one - new font style is good, but certain text is now outside of UI, like for example some research topics.. maybe you could use slightly smaller font there?
-
1
-
-
Sorry for being a pest with this 🙄
but as it is, its not possible to build Destroyers with 3inch "guns only" as game wont allow saving ship without "Main gun" which are 4in and 5in - Its a problem for Destroyers as those 4in guns are quite heavy, so if you have to have one, it greatly destabilizes the ship, based on where you put it.
Any chance you could move 3inch guns to Main guns (for Destroyers) and only leave 2inch as secondary?
-
still have the same issue with the guns for destroyers:
(or do i need to start new campaign?)
-
Only have 4in and 5in available - US Destroyer I (same thing with Destroyer II, strangely Torpedo Boats are fine). secondaries are greyed out:
-
Is there a reason why Destroyers can only have 4-5in guns? some late Destroyer turrets have access to some casemate 2-3in guns, but its not possible to mount these guns separately
-
One "must have" feature would be for all regions you lost over course of war, should be returned to you, if you actually win the war... A lot of times AI grabs a province with land offensive, you beat them terribly on sea, they ask for peace, but then you cannot demand province to be returned??
-
Hate those days when there are 3 updates in a row..
-
Really like how the game flows with this mod. I can properly design ships, battles are more challenging. Only minor thing i would want to see adjusted (just a very little bit) is the gun accuracy, as its quite easy to run out of ammo right now, even with increased ammo loadout. (or another solution would be to boost the ammo a bit?)
-
They just released 1.3.3 R.. man i don't envy you modding this game.. (But i had my share of similar frustrations when modding Total War games, so can relate)
-
1
-
-
Well, multiple people already reported it via ingame bug report.. i would kinda guess all important info about it is in there
-
2 minutes ago, Oxygenes said:
@Norbert SattlerYou can try create new game profil (backup old) and try again.
Id not just DDs... Semi-Dreadnought hulls all have this issue and no matter number of guns assigned, it always shows ?? error...
-
Yeah, lots of ships are affected, i was playing Italian campaign and cannot build multiple ships.. For Italy, its mostly Italy specific heavy cruisers..
-
1 hour ago, Eisenfeld said:
Chiming in here with another bug report about the shared designer. (I sent an in-game bug report to the devs)
A design built with the 1905 Chinese Empire BB hull "Small semi-dreadnought" cannot be saved even if all the minimum parts (one front tower, one rear tower, one funnel, and one main gun turret) are added. Clicking the "Save Design button" shows an error message saying "Design Invalid: ??".
This bug may apply to other hulls, but I have not tested them.
I attached screenshots showing the error message popping up and the inability to save the design.
I checked Player.log and it shows this error repeating after [OnEnterState]: Constructor:
IsValid glitched UnityEngine.Logger:Log(LogType, Object) UnityEngine.Debug:LogError(Object) Ui:CanNotBuildShipReasonToUi(Ship, String, Boolean) Ui:RefreshConstructorInfo() Ui:Refresh(Boolean) Ui:Update()I cleared my shared designs folder and verified the game cache, but that did not fix the issue. I did not experience this shared designer bug before version 1.3.3.
Had the same thing happening with Italian Experimental Armored Cruiser.. just cannot build the ship (reported via game)
-
Game crashes when starting new campaign, still show 1.3.2 description for this mod
-
9 hours ago, clavernever said:
Losing an offensive (be it land or naval) penalises you (or the AI) with a bunch of unrest points.
And if you think unrest does nothing, think again when you have 5 rebellions and a revolution within a year.
As for the re-trying penalty.. not only it isn't historically accurate (there were quite some stubborn repeat offensives during WW1 if I remember correctly), but also it limits the player and leaves you at the mercy of RNG.-Say you're trying to conquer Northwest England to get a foothold on the British Isles and let your land armies invade the provinces that have ports too big for your navy, so there you go, you put a fleet 2X the size the game suggests, you endure 6 turns of constant economic damage to your transport fleet.. and then you fail.
Would you like being told that no, you can't try again for the next 6 months (aka you'll have to end the war in defeat cause RNGsus didn't bless you); or would you prefer the game to let you queue up another invasion on the same province every 2 turns (as it currently does), so that if your first attempt fails you'll only have to wait 2 more turns to roll the dice again?And as I said before, do remember that forcing a victory in that way does have it's cost. If you fail one invasion every 2 turns cause you're biting more than you can chew, the game can and will punish you (and the AI too if they do the same thing) for that mistake, by kneecapping your GDP growth and causing constant rebellions.
Land offensives are completely out of player control, and are not very fun to experience.. especially when its AI vs AI and it causes entire world to spin into chaos which greatly reduces the fun with the game. AI just goes for offensives like crazy, often occupying places nobody cared about.. like Sahara, or central Asia.. WHY? what's the purpose of that?? And yes, failing gives AI unrest points, but it just keeps doing it round and round, until it disintegrates, removing itself from the game as potential adversary for player..
Gameplay mechanics that are out of control of the player are not good gameplay mechanics...
-
3
-
NAR BETA 3.0.2 "Major Powers update" for UAD 1.6.0.6 opt x3
in Unofficial Mods
Posted
In terms of gun accuracy, i think there needs to be bigger link between muzzle speed and short range accuracy - faster the projectile flies, easier it is to hit a moving target at short range, but as distance increases, other factors are much more important, like gun dispersion.. Of course, primitive projectiles had terrible aerodynamics and were losing speed a lot faster than later ones, so even same gun would have different velocity for different type of projectiles.. and of course, there is this whole thing about HE damage potential from high velocity/high pressure guns, which required much thicker shell walls to "survive" being fired from such gun, therefore these shells had less HE filler than shells suited for lower velocity guns..
Overall, i think lengthening the gun should improve short range accuracy (1000 to 2500m max), but slightly decrease HE damage. (but of course, muzzle velocity also needs to be capped, as 1000-1100m/s was practically maximum achievable with full bore projectiles, while APDS rounds had no real usage in ship to ship combat as far as i know). And of course it should slow down the rate of fire.
Shortening the gun should improve long range accuracy due to dispersion, but should not be too dramatic and should be more about gun technology than anything else. Shortening the barrel already provides Rate of Fire bonus and saves weights, which are both quite valid goals..