Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'balance'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail
    • Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • Shipyard
    • History
  • Sea Legends
    • General Discussions
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
  • SealClubbingClub's Topics
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Pyrates and rovers's History - ships, events, personae
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's Discord Server
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's The Rulebook
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's Tactics (methods)
  • Ship Auctions's Topics
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's How to...
  • closed's Topics
  • Catalunya's Comença la llibertat !!
  • Port Battle History's Topics

Blogs

  • Game Friv 4 School
  • Mad things going on
  • Duels (1v1)
  • semenax1's Blog
  • Bernhart's Blog
  • John Dundas Cochrane's Blog
  • The adventures of W. Laurence
  • kusumetrade's Blog
  • fastbug blog
  • tai game co tuong mien phi
  • Log Book
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • Captaine Arnaud Arpes' Log
  • Remir's Blog
  • Real Armada Española
  • Core Blackthorn's Blog
  • Saltback's Blog
  • British Privateer
  • Game App Development
  • Game App Development
  • Brogsitter's logbook
  • maturin's Blog
  • Antonio_Pigafetta's Blog
  • Ingemar Ulfgard's Blog
  • News Sports Blog
  • Saffronsofindia
  • Cpt Blackthorne's Blog
  • linksbobet88's Blog
  • Tube Nations Game Givaway
  • English Nation Gunners Blog
  • Commodore Clay
  • From the Conny's Deck
  • About Madden NFL 17
  • Travel between Outposts
  • Blurring reality as artist’s 3D model tricks
  • Download Only file APK for Android
  • Testing stuff
  • Traitors Gallery
  • Tracker of Good Stuff
  • Emoninail
  • TpGS2019~~Nice experience
  • Organifi Gold Juice Review
  • Fitness Programmer
  • Implications of Electricity Deregulation in the United States
  • The Process of Lottery Results
  • htrehtrwqef
  • Best Ways To Overcome Hair Loss Issues
  • Boost Your Testosterone Levels For Building Bigger Muscles
  • Teds Woodworking
  • The 2 Week Diet
  • Five Fat Loss Workout Routine Exercises
  • Captains Log, September 1756
  • Log of Cpt. Nicholas Ramage II. Esq; RN
  • Average Gamer Marcs: A Naval Action Story
  • Thiên hạ Ku
  • From The Logbook of Captain Sir Sebastian Pendragon, KB; RN
  • Rachel Tran
  • Thẻ game W88
  • Thẻ game W88
  • Log of Sir Elio Perlman, KB
  • 바카라카지노
  • f8bet nhà cái uy tín
  • Why should you play 1v1 lol game?
  • The Sea Dogs's Website
  • [CTC] Caribbean Trading Company (Pirates - PvP EU)'s Buy ur Favorite Ships.
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's (Naval Action fiction) Diary of Cdr. Joseph Barss

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • United States Continental Navy's Pearl Harbor Day

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

  1. Ive really noticed that if you want to try and make historically inspired designs of say Nevada, Cavour, or KGV you are penalized for no logical reason. Several cruisers, battleships, and even a few destroyer models had this practice of a few of their main gun turrets had a different number of rifles and I've found nothing really that says this barrel arrangement was detrimental. As it stands in the game, if you try and replicate such ships you are penalized even though each gun is the same caliber and size. This really kills ladder aiming for some reason and the ammo pool is for some reason all not one thing. I believe this also hurts you if you have Wing and Centerline guns. Even though we know full well the German BCs at Jutland suffered no accuracy difficulties at Jutland due to wing mounted turrets. As a side note Id very much like if the battleships volleyed and not just fired the guns off as soon as they reloaded. Here's some historical examples. USS Nevada herself, B and I believe Y turret are both doubles while A and X are triples. Her Italian counterparts Andrea Doria and Cavour actually had an exact similar layout. They did suffer accuracy issues but not from the gun arrangement. http://i.imgur.com/YbL8z9V.jpg And maybe the most famous example is KGV. From everything I've read and watched about the class is the unreliability of the Quad turrets, which are mostly just a quirk of Quad guns, but her accuracy as a ship seemed more than adequate.
  2. Hey everyone, I've done a couple of campaign starts in 1890, and it seems to me that building ships in anything like historical fashion seems to make no sense in the early periods. Now this may simply be a result of the dreadnought design principle being superior, but especially if you start a campaign in 1890, secondary guns are completely useless. There seems to be absolutely no reason whatsoever to add them to a ship except to balance weight. At any range beyond 1km, you want the biggest gun you can get to have even a remote chance of hitting. At any distance under 1km, it's all about the torpedoes anyways. Secondary guns don't defend against torpedo boats because the chance to hit them beyond torpedo range is so atrocious that their fire is simply irrelevant. Yes you might occaisonally sink a single torpedo boat, but you're still generally better off using your big guns against those since they are a huge threat. Perhaps it would be better if torpedoes weren't as OP, but currently it seems to be the best strategy to just slap as many torpedoes on everything as you can and otherwise just add the biggest guns you can.
  3. Currently in game adding radios to ships adds a percent based weight to the towers on the ship. Which mostly works alright but when you have high tonnage ships like BBs adding in radios adds well over 1,000 tons of weight which is really incorrect. Radio systems in WW2 are complex but each radio system tends to weigh less than 1 ton or just a few tons. Here is a pretty good website going over various WW2 naval radios including their full spec sheets: https://www.navy-radio.com/xmtr-ww2.htm You can see that even the heaviest parts of radios weigh less than 1 ton and it seems like most radios only have a small handful of parts weigh even that much. But it seems most of WW2 radios weigh less than 1 ton total. And this spec sheet seems to fully include the various antennas and other additional pieces of equipment that goes into the radio systems. My suggestion would be to probably change the radio component to be a set of ranges and tech tiers with fixed weights. As radio systems unlike pretty much all other systems that we can select in game have a more or less fixed weight largely independent of the size of the ship it's mounted on.
  4. After fiddling around with Lyddite small guns on ships, I feel that fire is still a bit underwhelming unless you can successfully manage to overwhelm the target ship with fire, and I think this is for a few reasons. Fire damage on the deck does not appear to actually deal damage to the superstructure of the ship, the components associated with it, and it also does not block rangefinding equipment which it most likely would, especially if the fire occurred midship. I'd like to suggest that it be changed so above deck fires reduce aiming accuracy, as well as run the risk of potentially knocking out the towers/funnels/bridge crew and if particularly unlucky the rangefinders directly. Below deck fires appear to not have a significant damage increase per tick. I may be wrong in my observations, but it seems like a mid belt penetrating fire does not deal more damage than a deck fire, and it also seems like it's just as easy to extinguish as an on deck fire. I'm not sure how accurate this is, but assuming the fire consumes the entire bulkhead space, the fire inside would likely be very difficult to extinguish at minimum unless you fully seal the space and let it burn itself out. Depending on where ammunition is stored, this should cause the risk of ammunition cookoff if near the magazines. Not necessarily on the same tier of a direct hit to an ammunition locker, or flash fire, but internal fires should be more dangerous. Right now the only danger with internal fire is if it gets to the machine room and knocks out the engines. In addition to 1, I feel like fires get extinguished way too fast while the ship is under fire. While they can probably get away with dousing a fire on the decks in between 16 to 20 inch salvoes, I don't expect the crew would be able to safely or efficiently fight a fire while also under small gun bombardment. Potentially, allow sub 6 inch secondaries to be more effective at close range engagements by slowing down the rate at which the target crew can extinguish fires based on the amount of actual hits taken by these guns? Large shells are quiet good at burning down a ship, whether intentionally or not. I don't think anyone has an issue with that. All of this is a suggestion to make single room and as an extension multiple room fires more dangerous. Done right, enough fire can burn down a ship, but it generally takes a tremendous amount of fire, and in general, fire just isn't much of an impediment to the ship on the receiving end.
  5. After some quick searching around on the net for details on what Cordite actually was, it was a replacement for Black Powder,which is fair enough. However it's characteristics in game are pretty tremendously bad, and is basically a more expensive mostly worse version of Lyddite. A majority of players would agree that Lyddite is just an objectively better shell option compared to Cordite, if only because of the raw damage effects of HE versus Cordite. Considering Cordite itself is more expensive to use than Lyddite with the only apparent benefit in game being that it's more stable than Lyddite and slightly less worse penetration at the cost of projectile range and, well cost. It should be tweaked a bit because the preceding White Powder seems to be a much better choice in most metrics people will care about, less volatile, more range, and more flat damage for cheaper and lighter assuming no access to TNT which is fantastic, but also crazy expensive for ammunition. Perhaps Cordite I can be moved to be unlocked after Lyddite II at the current cost of white powder and have Cordite II come after White Powder with some tweaks. When I was reading about Cordite (mostly by following wikipedia sources), I distinctly remember that one of the evolutions of the explosive, at least by WWII, besides reformulating the powder to corrode the gun barrels less, was the fact that it was also used to reduce muzzle flash of the weapons firing it. Perhaps this powder type could reduce target signature of the firing ship to represent this? The easily accessible historical information on this is sparse, so I don't really know what is a good buff for this explosive which won't throw other balance out of whack. Either way, Cordite is bad, and really shouldn't be more expensive to use versus White Powder at minimum considering White Powder has both Cordites beat in every single way except "flash fire spreading chance" it seems. Even the "obsolete" powders like Guncotton and Ballistie are better and safer to use than Cordite.
  6. Okay first off I am no expert on naval gunnery or naval armour. I've already seen multiple people here on the forums display levels of understanding that go far beyond my own, but the issue must be raised and I have seen no one else do so fully yet, so here goes. We need to talk about plunging fire. Historically, ship designers operated within a system known as zone of immunity, or IZ for short. To put IZ in the simplest of terms, a ship's vertical armour (the belt) would be specifically made to resist all shells of a certain calibre up to a certain range and beyond, fx. the Iowa class was designed with a 12.7" belt which was designed to resist 16"/45cal gunfire at ranges exceeding 18,000m, giving her an "inner" zone of immunity limit of 18,000m. In contrast to this, the deck armour would be designed to resist gunfire at certain ranges and below. Again using the Iowa, this would be a 6" main deck plate covered by a 1.5" 'fuze-deck', which was specifically there to set off a given shell's fuze and have it explode before or on contact with the main 6" deck. This 6+1.5" deck theoretically gave her an IZ of 30000m and below against the 16"/45cal. An interesting sidenote here is that this IZ is calculated for the guns of her predecessor the South Dakota class, since for a large part of the design process these were the guns she was expected to carry, and so in contrast to most ships, the Iowa does not actually have an IZ against her own guns readily available, which would otherwise be the norm... but I digress. What's important to take away from this is that a given belt thickness renders you immune to direct fire at a certain range and beyond, whilst deck armour gives you immunity from plunging fire at a certain range and below. The space between your belt's immunity and your deck's immunity is your overall zone of immunity, where neither direct nor plunging fire can penetrate the deck or the belt of your citadel and cause catastrophic damage. You can still take superficial damage of course, but your vitals will remain untouched. What amazed me so much when I began playing this game was that for the most part, this system seemed to be the the core functional armour mechanic in use in game. Give a ship enough belt armour and it becomes immune to direct fire. Give it enough deck armour and it becomes immune to plunging fire. Excellent! But I've been playing for a while now, and have read up a lot on actual armour values from real ships as I played, and it quickly began to strike me just how disproportionately heavy you had to make your deck plates before the desired immunity zone was achieved. Again with the Iowa example, 7.5" total seemed adequate up until the very limits of realistic spotting capabilities, yet if I replicate this in game, even a twelve incher will go right through that at combat ranges going all the way down to 20000m. This unsettled the historical accuracy enthusiast within me, and so I began to run some tests. First, I took things to the extreme. I observed that most naval designers IRL went for a IZ of between slightly under 20000m all the way up to 30000m, and decided to use this as my main parameters for testing. So with that in mind, how thick a deck would you need to create a plunging fire zone of immunity up to 30000m for the biggest guns in the entire game, the mighty 20" with super-heavy shells. Thankfully, the game tells us! Thx devs! So the first image at the bottom of this post is the armour pen data for the 20" Mk.III (latest available) with super-heavy shells (tube powder). As you can see at 30000m it penetrates a whopping 60.1" of total deck armour equivalent. by applying the max allowed bonuses to our armour in game, we can bring it up to a 118% increase by equipping both krupp IV and all-or-nothing armour on our ship. This leaves us with 60.1/218%=27.5" of real deck armour. Mind you the turret face of the Yamato was only 26", and that was designed to resist 18" guns at point blank range... so a number above this must surely be far off... yet when I tested it, it bore true. You literally need to put 27.5 inches of deck armour on your ship to resist these shells at 30000m in the game... So there goes the first bit of realism straight out the window, and let me show you why. Let's step away from the Iowa for a second and instead go with the Montana, since she was in fact (and in contrast to her predecessor) rated with an IZ against her own guns, the 16"/50cal Mk.VII. According to wikipedia her belt would have been 16.1" and her decks 2.25" upper and a 7.35" main deck in the same fuze activation arrangement as the Iowas, and contemporary engineers concluded that this gave her an immunity zone between 18000m and 31000m against the improved firepower of her 16"/50cals. Now compare this real world data to my experiment. 2.25+7.35 inches of deck armour (a total of 9.6 inches) could resist 16" super-heavy shells at 31000m. In game however, a 20" SH shell requires 27.5" to stop. That's a threefold increase on the part of the armour required, but only a 1.75 fold increase in shell weight (1928kg vs 3418kg on the 16" and 20" respectively). Let's now scale the experiment down to match the montana's characteristics, by taking the 9.6" figure, running it through the 218% amplification and netting your 20.9" of effective thickness and testing it against the 16" SH shells available in game, you find that it only resists plunging fire from around 18000m and below (rated at 19.3" equivalent pen at 17500m) Which means that if you made the Montana in-game, her zone of immunity would be between 18000m and... well... 18000m. In effect there now is no zone of immunity at all, since plunging fire in-game is somehow just extremely overpowered compared to real life, to the point where an armour protection rated for 31000m doesn't even start to become effective in-game before 18000m, almost half, and incidentaly also almost the exact range where her belt armour would cease to be effective IRL. This is of course very disappointing. The game handles extremely well and feels very realistic in close quarters engagements between cruisers and destroyers, but once you scale it up to battleship sizes the lack of realism on the part of long range gunnery and penetration values just straight up breaks it for me. But being the pathologic guy that I am I decided not to bother and simply up my deck armour to the point where it would artificially create the desired zone of immunity effects, with hilarious results in hidsight. I started regularly designing my battleships with, say, a 14" belt but a 16" deck to achieve the armour protection and IZ of for example the King George V, but then the patches giving severe weight penalties on bulkheads came along and I had to sacrifice more and more vital design features to keep my decks artificially efficient, to the point where my ships had no rudder upgrades, no turret rotation upgrades, barely any torpedo protection, not a single secondary gun and literally 0" of armour on the belt and deck extended, whilst still costing two to three times as much as their historical counterparts both in money spent and weight required. All this of course always fell flat as soon as these designs came up against something like an H class, whose 20" guns still required those ridiculous 27.5" of deck armour to survive at combat ranges. But then during my recent tests after patch 11 I noticed something. I was having a fight with a 15" armed battleship in my own battleship equipped with 14.5" of deck armour, and right around where I calculated that my deck armour would start to become sufficient against that armament, I noticed that shells where hitting my deck and giving me the "penetration" counter, but the damage incurred would be almost comparable to an over-pen. Instead of 90 dmg, I got around 20 dmg, and I immediately likened this to a shell penetrating the upper fuze deck to explode against the main deck, causing limited damage as compared with a "full" penetration. I don't know if this is intentional, but regardless I must highly encourage it. This perfectly simulates the kind of damage a battleship with a separate fuze and main deck would incur at combat ranges. Still enough to be significant, but not enough to be fatal, and this is exactly the kind of protection such armoured decks would have allowed for. The shell still detonates inside the ship, but outside the citadel, causing only moderate damage. Perfect! Now make this universal. Make it the norm, rather than a freak incident that only becomes apparent after 20 test runs. Any hit on a main deck of 8" or thereabout should produce this kind of damage below 30000m, and there should optimally also be choice between going for a single thicker deck plate which might deflect all shells, but which in turn takes all the damage if indeed penetrated, and instead choosing two separate decks which only limit the damage done above the second deck at certain ranges. Secondly, we also need to talk about bulkheads (again). My main issue with bulkheads isn't that they're too heavy or too light, my main issue has to do with simple physics. I ran some more tests, and it appears that a battleship of 109000t displacement has about a 90% chance of receiving over-pens rather than actual pens on unarmoured sections of the hull with max bulkheads, meaning that when a battleship grade gun hits the extended deck (which for test purposes was left on 0" thickness) the shell goes right through and does next to nothing. If this experiment is then repeated on a ship with low bulkheads (anything from many to minimum) the shell almost always penetrates and does full damage. I find this confusing. Logically, the less bulkheads you have in the way, the higher the chance of over-pens, because once a shell strikes a bulkhead, it tends to detonate, since those are heavily armoured, often as heavily as the main belt of the ship in question. Instead what we get is the lower the bulkhead setting, the higher the chance of shell detonation as opposed to over-pens. Again, what am I missing here? Shouldn't a hull saturated with heavy and numerous bulkheads be more rather than less susceptible to in-ship detonations on unarmoured sections of the ship? Again I'm not a naval designer so if I'm coming off as a rough plebeian who doesn't know what he's talking about then please put me in my place and tell me why, it just doesn't seem logical from where I'm at. I find it especially problematic since with the above mentioned mechanics of bulkheads in relation to pen-over-pen dynamics, maximum bulkheads are essentially a necessity that you cannot in good faith downgrade on and still consider your ship competitive. They are now extremely heavy to field on your ships for sure, but the current mechanics surrounding them still makes them an absolute must, and so I find that all my designs are now exercises in how to still make a semi-competent ship around the key feature that is maximum bulkheads, sacrificing everything from firepower to speed to armour (especially deck armour) to keep this essential feature, often ending up with ships that are twice or thrice as heavy and expensive as the ship I'm trying to replicate, either because I had to give it triple it's historical deck armour to give it a similar long range protection characteristic to what it historically had, or by simply sacrifing the extended armour entirely and hoping for maximum bulkheads to give me those over-pens rather than full-pens. So I was wondering, will this be adressed at some point? Is it intentional that deck armour is currently two to three times less efficient than it was historically? Is there a counter to this that I am just not aware of? Are bulkheads just going to be continually nerfed in terms of weight penalties rather than looking at some of the real-life advantages that might come with low bulkhead settings and using them to give lower bulkheads an actual pro in regards to max? Finally I'd like to give you my current example of a semi-competitive 1940s era battleship, to really ram home the point. The second picture below is my current build, my current design for a US super-Iowa. maximum bulkheads, long range, maximum displacement (109000t or about two yamatos worth) and 30 knots of speed. This baby costs a whopping 236000000$, or 2.3 regular iowas, has zero rudder or turret rotation upgrades because I couldn't spare the weight, also has only a double bottom and lvl 1 torp protection because that isn't important enough either, meaning that it actually has far worse underwater protection than the Iowa herself (3 torp bulkheads, equivalent to lvl 3 protection in game, and a tripple hull bottom). However I'd rather forego it and just keep them completely out of torp range if it buys me a bit of extra long-range protection with the way the game works right now. extended belt and deck are both literally left at 0", which is actually quite historical, but logically shouldn't work with maximum bulkheads, yet somehow it does. She also sports 14.4" of deck armour, which is completely inadequate given the current game mechanics but it was the best I could do, and it will only protect her from her own armament inside of 20000m, giving her an extremely narrow zone of immunity of just 3000m, between roughly 17000 and 20000m once her 14" belt is accounted for. Notice that the deck is heavier than the belt. It is so on all my ships of above cruiser size. The only part of her armour that is adequate within the current mechanics of the game is her turret top armour, which I was able to bop up to 21.4", giving her immunity from direct turrent hits from her own guns up to 27000m and below, which at least begins to seem sufficient from a designer's point of view, though still not ideal, even if you disregard the fact that historical battleships usually made do with less than 10" of top turret armour. Meanwhile, her turret front could be reduced all the way down to 18", again giving her immunity from her own guns up to around 9500m, which is actually more than necessary and I might consider giving her a 16" or even 14" turret face instead to give her more deck and turret top protection to bring her closer to a historical result in terms of effective IZ. This example should make it blatantly clear why the current design parameters are not very realistic. A ship that is theoretically not only capable of but specifically designed for fighting at 20000-30000m currently requires much heavier deck than belt armour to enable it to fight at it's own designated combat ranges, and this is true across all the nations (I find it especially enfuriating to contemplate that german ships of 130000t disp. still cannot hope to equip enough deck armour to give them reasonable zones of immunity even against 18" guns, much less 20"ers). Thus I sincerely hope that deck armour will be addressed in the next patch, and made much more effective than it currently is, and that some thought be put into making maximum bulkheads have some drawback to incentivize people to avoid them, rather than just making them prohibitively heavy and expensive to equip, which doesn't really balance things but just makes all other aspects of the design process more aggravating. because you absolutely still have to have max bulkheads anyway, until some balance is introduced that is, possibly in relation to the max-min pen-over-pen dynamics I outlined above. Thanks for reading, and keep up the good work devs, still an amazing product you're developing in spite of it's flaws.
  7. Now that the dust that was Alpha 9 has died down and we await news on Alpha 10 like the mad lads/ladies we are I thought Id make a thread about some confirmed features of the campaign along with some major/minor features that I think would make the game more enjoyable. I do wanna keep this thread mainly about the campaign so please refrain from designer suggestions of hulls/balance changes to guns and hulls. Confirmed Political Intrigue/Alliance Building Blockade Features Minor Nations Naval Invasion Economic/rebellion stability due to presence of forces abroad or lack of in a region Technological development by allocating funds Crew training/ Progression of Officers Industry Building (For shipyards) Naval Mines Peace Treaties/ Versailles Treaties Map Resources (confirmed) Submarine's Unconfirmed/Wish List Economy Building- While economy will be in the game how will we build our economy of our country up? Will it be tied into a resource system or an infrastructure system were we invest parts of our budget into the economy of our country to grow it by a set percentage each turn? Cut off Naval Regions- I had seen this idea awhile ago while naval blockading is an awesome feature it doesn't make sense to let's say put your whole fleet on the atlantic coast and leave the mid atlantic open. There should be a penalty from being cut off from main supply by interlocked regions. In the example above If my fleet is wholly cut off it should suffer extreme debuffs which would make it a valid tactic to cut fleet supply routes. As naval commanders in the game we should be responsible for keeping supply lines open other than just putting a set number of ships on convoy escort as in RTW2 which allows the player to just death stack their own navy. Espionage system- We should be able to steal tech's from nations along with ship designs. We could then build said ship design or just use it as knowledge about enemy capabilities. I would also like to tie this into a monetary system just to provide an increase/decrease to effectiveness due to funding. Minor Nation Expansion- Minor nations will obviously be a stepping stone for players in the game because well they are minor. But how can we improve the minor situation? Allow them access to an diplomacy system so they can create their own alliances among minors while also allowing them to ally majors (Majors/minors might need an alliance cap to stop them from allying everyone). An confederation of smaller states might actually put up a fight late game instead of just taking up space. It might also allow them to become stronger power later on. Allow AI conflicts- Conflicts between AI to allow growth/decline between AI nations. Allow player to take advantage of the situation with opportunistic wars Spheres of influence- Different from alliances, think Monroe Doctrine. Also a good example would be Vicky 2. If a major interferes could lead to war. Also wanna include some gunboat diplomacy to force minors into your sphere. More diplo actions- Allow the player to threaten war on nations to force into sphere or in the case of a major or a nation with more regions threaten for land. CAn be used opportunistically instead of a full war declare Allow Treaties to set tonnage limits in specific regions- Same as the title. Allow the player to force Great Britain for example to only have a tonnage limit of 20k in a specific region. This could help the player gain early advantages in a war. Also the AI can break this for example re starting the war if the player finds out via espionage. Designer- I know I said no designer suggestions but I would like the game to save designs from your previous campaigns or active ones and allow the AI to use them against the player. Museum- This where you can preserve ships instead of scraping them once they are pass they're service life. Could be brought back sooner than a ship in extreme mothball. But there can be downsides to losing famous ships in battle. Crews on other ships could lose moral and you would lose points towards capitulation as well. We could also fit in a pride of the fleet system. Where those ships require more upkeep but have an more expert crew/moral buff to surrounding ships. But can have a debuff when destroyed. (Think hood) Interment- Just as it says. Random events or player action that can lead your ship to becoming interned in a neutral port. Maybe provide diplo options to internments within your sphere like studying the ship design and tech on the ship or the risk of it happening to you. Could lead to war in other circumstances. CO OP campaign- I'm a very big believer in a coop experience. This would be different than a multiplayer experience just in the way that it provides so much replayability to the campaign. Empire Formation- Maybe no empire formation but allow minors/majors to have formable nations based on real world names based on location. Also if the player grows they could have the option of renaming their own faction. Natural Disaster Events- This is very RNG based but could be a nice feature. As history has showed us some people can somehow manage to do it twice. Ship Scrapping- This could be used to gain intel and technology about ships after a battle either between you and an AI or two seperate AI factions. Logistical Rework- Suggestion by Skeksis More to be added if the thread is active. Comment feature you want to see and try to come up with other features!
  8. To illustrate some of the exploits possible with the current version of the game (in regards to torpedoes and other issues impacting them), I decided to build a ship that would demonstrate and test my observations using the Destroyer. Let’s start with the design (1930 tech, custom battle). Two principles govern it, speed and vast numbers of torpedoes. At $28M, this one is not cheap. I am really looking at this one as overkill and the design could certainly be optimized. But comparing it to a Yamato class I built in a previous build of the game at almost $150M, still a bargain as you will see when it comes to effectiveness and firepower. Probably the biggest cost savings would come from lowering the ridiculous speed to 38-40kts (and a realistic speed at that). She carries 6x4 torpedo mounts with fast 21” torpedoes.That’s a hell of a lot of fish to dump in the water at once, but the real kicker is the storage. 130 (need to check the exact) torpedoes total. Around 5 reloads per tube. For reference, HMS Maidstone, a submarine tender in WW2 carried around 100 torpedoes and was quite a bit bigger than my large 3500 DD. Now let’s get to combat. I chose a fight with 4 of these DDs vs a BB and BC. I chose this match to prove how utterly useless a BB or BC is to a fast DD with plenty of torpedoes. I could have easily used just two DDs instead. It just would have taken longer as I waited on reloads. The AI builds were the notorious designs everyone has encountered. A monstrous fortress of a super BB, and a speedboat BC. Let’s take a look at my first salvo (from 1 DD) on the BB. Couple of points here, I was able to approach with ease to about 5KM from the BB/BC without a single hit on my DD. This is due to the accuracy speed penalty to firing ships because of my speed (46kts). I did not even use smoke until after I had fired and turned away. Two, at this range my 63kts torpedoes are unavoidable to even agile ships because of the speed and size of the spread. With better controls on how our ships launch torpedoes, the effectiveness would be even greater. Currently it's more like a shotgun loaded with buckshot. In this case, torpedoes that will sink most ships outright if they don’t have real protection. But not this 100K ton monster. Here you can see the results after that salvo. 12 torpedo hits on it. You can see I have the equipment readout showing. Anti-torp V, Reinforced Bulkheads, Aux 3, a literal fortress at sea. It doesn’t show, but he did only have Standard bulkheads for a shocker. The end result is scratched paint (827 HP lost) and speed loss. Clearly I need to take this guy seriously and show him what torpedo spam really is. So here I have added another 28 torpedoes to the hit counter, and I assume with his Float number dropping fast to single digits he’s doomed. You guys know what happens next. It actually drops all the way to 0.2 or 0.4, then magic...4% and still going. Ok fine, one more salvo of 24 torpedoes, I mean really. Continued to next post:
  9. I decided to do a test on how Armour weights effects ships by class. This is to test if say I could Armour up a BC more the same as a BB. (German 1930's tech)Hulls used Include: Modern Battleship Modern Battle Cruiser All ships towers are the most advanced available. But all these factors will remain the same Krupp 4, Barb 4, Anti Torp 3, Reinforced Bulkhead 2, Citadel 5, White Powder, Electro-hydro turrets with auto loading as well, and finally Stereoscopic 5 with Radar 2. The ships will all have a 30kt speed, medium range with standard bulkheads. Again the purpose of this test is to just show Armour disparities I'm just trying to limit as many factors as I can, but I decided to include these in the calculations because I might actually use a ship with these upgrades only as a minimum. Obliviously we could make slight changes but they are meant to serve as a baseline in say campaign or mission viability. All Values in Imperial Inches The BBs armaments included 4x2 14 inch guns 6x2 8 inch guns 8x2 4 inch guns The BB with a total of 52,493 out of 52,500 displacement 20 belt 10 Belt Ex 12 deck 5 Deck Ex 19 conning tower 20 turret 9.5 turret top 6 secondaries The BC with a total of 46,745 out of 49,000 Displacement could fit the same amour and armament as the BB. But I could add more. 20 belt 10 Belt Ex 12 deck 5 Deck Ex 19 conning tower 20 turret 9.5 turret top 6 secondaries This could be because the BB has more displacement (couldn't make the battleship any smaller than 52,500 displacement or the BC bigger than 49,000). But we also have more tonnage to play around with so I could actually add more amour to the BC if I wanted. But with a displacement difference of only 3,500 we have an pretty significant weight difference. I know the displacement difference still counts towards the weight because more is being armored but the weight difference doesn't seem right yet. Some problems that could arise with this include BB hulls being less competitive in certain missions and eventually campaign if not addressed. AI maybe abusing the BC hull in games say by squeezing things onto hulls they shouldn't be able too (Robots can be weird as we have all seen). Having BC's just be to much like BB's no difference in the actual ship classes and people treating them as essentially BB's were we would not see them used for there historical purpose. 2nd Test with America Did this one in a hurry so I used all the same factors as above! Only thing different was armament. (America 1930's tech)Hulls used Modern BB 1 Modern Battle Cruiser Armament used was 3x3 16 inch guns 5x2 4 inch guns All Armour values set to 8 inches for quickness and accuracy The BB had a displacement of 47,814 out of 50,000 tons the total weight of the BB superstructure and funnels was 10,664 tons. The weight without the superstructure would be 37,150. The BC had a displacement of 47,591 out of 50,000 tons the total weight of the BC superstructure and funnels was 7,524 tons. The weight without the superstructure would be 38,767. In this test seems like the BB fared better. While the ship had more total weight less of that weight was allocated by the algorithm to Armour and more was due to the superstructure just weighing more. Also because you can increase the displacement of the BB we don't have to worry about this BC hull having ridiculous amounts of Armour because it couldn't support the weight like with the German hulls. Please comment your thoughts! If you have a question or comment I usually try to respond! I just wanna see what other people think about my little test.
  10. So I have a question/observation. I was recently doing a custom battle British vs. Japan. Just to warm up 1940's tech was gonna build the biggest battleship I could, But then I noticed that the biggest battleship The Brits could get are the Dreadnought IV and the N3/G3 hulls which top out at 62k displacement. That got me thinking does Britain actually have the smallest size battleship displacement in the game? All Displacements are max French 93k Germany 130k Japan 125k USA 109k Spain 69k Russia 69k Italy 65k Austro 90.5k China 87k British 62k Spain and Russia share the same hull but it begs the question of balance late game. Obviously not all of these nations designed ships with high displacements but the problem is that how are the devs going to balance these hulls out? Britain tops out at 62k but Germany for example has 4 battleship hulls that hit a max of 62k and up. Some hulls will inevitably be shared across nations like how I noticed in Spain and Russia with the modern battleship 69k hull but I thought I'd post this here for the community to brainstorm ideas for the devs or maybe share historical designs for nations they can find of specifically capital ships. One Idea I had was for if this game has an espionage system (I haven't seen anything confirmed yet) is that your spies could actually steal hull types that you could then build in your own faction. This would stop specific nations having a hull advantage. But ideally I'd hope us the community could find some examples the devs could look at and see if they want to eventually include into the game!
  11. Too me it seems that the armor upgrades in game are a bit drastic. Getting any of the Krupp tier armor makes putting a ton of armor on too easy and it also makes the ships absolutely impenetrable, throwing 500mm of armor with Krupp IV makes the ship only vulnerable to torpedoes and the absolute largest guns. Does anyone else feel the same way? It just feels like smaller weapons even on battle ships, and I dont mean 5 inch guns, i mean the 13-14 inch weapons are just not viable for very long.
  12. Attached is an overview of reload times for all the naval guns I have manged to get my hands on in finished British and United States campaigns. Often times the reload times spike for at least one gun in the series, but these spikes are also not consistent with a single poundage. Something similar is going on with the prices, but since my campaigns are on varying difficulty levels I can't fully compare them yet. Since I am by no means an expert on naval guns I must ask, are these reload discrepancies intended or are they errors?
  13. So I tried my hand at re designing an battle cruiser class. The original Indefatigable class was sunk during the battle of Jutland. I decided to remake the class in 1933 setting seeing if i could make the best BC I could that hopefully wasn't out of the scope of what the campaign of the game would allow in terms of effectiveness. And I think I did pretty good just looking for any feedback if any. The class costs around 77.4 mil to lay down kinda expensive but only an maintenance of 7,800 a month which I thought was pretty nice because an battle ships maintenance for the same year just to lay down some of the hulls starts at 50k a month without any guns or superstructure attached. Its probably known to the devs and will be balanced before campaign but I thought it was funny I could have essentially 7 of these battle cruisers for the monthly cost of an unarmed giant barge. And finally the overview if you didn't see the picture 45kn top speed 5-16 inchs of armour with 16in belt and 14in deck 2x3 14in guns 2x2 14in guns 1x2 8in guns 8x2 5in guns 14x1 3in guns total displacement is 49,996/50,000 T Yes I essentially made the fastest BC I could with about the same armour as an USS Iowa. Well I'd love to hear what you guys think of my creation and some thoughts on what they could do to change balance in the game economy wise when the game comes out. Im curious to see what the devs do to actually combat monetary discrepancies between classes because if they don't we could get an extremely up armored BC race instead of a dreadnought race if the AI or more cheeky players notice. Just a note yes I know the games in alpha. Im not bashing the devs for not noticing something related to economy balance in a game that hasn't even released campaign for us to test things. Im just bringing it up in the off chance they didn't notice and my observation can help. Please see this gallery link for all updates to the design. Thank you all again
  14. Like the title suggests, I'm new to the game and certainly not an expert on naval combat, but I've been having a lot of trouble with mission 10 in defeating the 3 heavy cruisers. I've found battleships to be extremely underpowered, and get picked off easily by the cruisers. I remember someone on the forums saying they used a mix of 13-inch guns, heavy armour and 19-knot speed, so I tried that and got picked apart. That led me to sacrificing almost everything but armour, and resulted in the screenshot posted here. I still got picked off and sunk before one of my guns even got a hit. I could be wrong, but is one of the benefits of a battleship its longer range accuracy? Should it be the case that cruisers can pick off a battleship from long distance without take any damage itself? I can post a video of my attempt in battle if that helps. I've tried several approaches, including handing over the control to the AI, but nothing has worked. I figured I'd post this because this makes battleships almost useless with their near-zero accuracy. Either that, or I'm doing something wrong that makes them useless instead.
  15. So I've noticed that Cruisers, destroyers, and etc. are faaaaar too weak. Their guns dont nearly deal the damage or have the accuracy they should. I feel Cruisers and Destoyers need a massive buff, because a battleship of practically any kind is worth almost a fleet of smaller vessels, where in reality it wasn't this severe. Advanced battleships also are a bit too extreme compared to dreadnoughts. It makes sense for Dreadnought vs Pre-dreadnaught but I feel it's a little bit extreme with Dreadnought vs WW2 era Battleship.
  16. Warships in the age of sail are nothing more than gun platforms. ( let's exclude trader vessels for the moment being ). They were designed with usage of certain guns in mind. So the framing, planking and woods to be used all were focused on being able to transport into battle a certain set of guns. My proposal is this: - tie the structural strength of the ship - mainly the woods used can reflect this - with the size of the guns than can be equipped. For example, a USS Constitution built of Live Oak and Oak would be able to carry the heaviest guns for her - the 24's and the 42's. But a Fir and a Teak construct wouldn't be able to carry that heavy armament. Just an idea of how variety in regards of wood choices may also balance the broadside weight. Ships were weapon platforms and built as such. That's why some models that tried heavier armaments didn't go too well and had to downgrade them, IRL. ( carronade introduction is a good example of trying to upgun ships that weren't built to carry heavy broadside guns ) And is all about woods chosen in the construction. So the effect would be: - we can still choose whatever woods we want with the limitation of the gun sizes the final ship may carry with success.
  17. “Make a quick write-up”, I thought. Yeah, well… TL;DR at the bottom. We’ll get to play with new-old acceleration soon that some of you whippersnappers might not have tried. The idea is to (hopefully) drastically reduce acceleration globally. I hope we also get acceleration based on hull size and shape. There have been differences in acceleration all along, but now with speed-Bellonas, Aggies and Rättvisans having much more firepower than the superfrigates, the game could use some help with viability between those “classes” in particular: The old school fat-bodies and the Napoleonic box ships. Here’s a reference of how much acceleration has increased since it was originally balanced. To my knowledge the increase hasn’t been deliberate and intentional but rather a by-product of various other changes and increased fidelity of the sailing simulation. We now have Endys that that can broad reach from 0 to 10 knots in 10 seconds or Connies that can do the same at beam reach in 22 seconds where it took about 80 seconds before. Even with the partly accelerated instance dynamic, it is clearly way, WAY too much to represent these ships in the best possible manner. “What’s it to me, jodgi?” Two things mainly. You may experience a loss of comfort when your ship accelerates slower than what you’ve grown used to. Feel free to use your cognitive abilities to keep the inevitable emotions in check when it hits you. Slower acceleration will also tax your planning and ship handling abilities. I suppose some of you have experience with driving large vehicles and can attest to the added mindfulness and planning that is required for the safe operation of humongous kinetic energy vehicles. I’ve had to read up to get learnt about ships, speed and acceleration. I currently know enough to make a complete fool of myself by boldly speaking of things I now should know I know too little about [breathing and contemplation pause]. “Principles of Naval Architecture, Vol II” has a section concerning the resistance a body is subjected to when moving through a fluid. Since you’re all a bunch of monkeys I’ll just point out some highlights. The total resistance is broken up in parts. A ship has to push away water according to its displacement (The old guy in the bathtub, remember?) waves and eddies form and that makes up 15-20% of the resistance. 80-85% of the resistance is friction. Some old English dude (duh) called Froude did some pretty nifty studies on planks he towed around in water. (Oh, look! another old guy in a bathtub!). Up until then shipbuilders relied on true and tested ideas with some rough rule-of-thumb math like “hull speed” (Vhull = 1.34 ∙ √Waterline length). Froude found that short planks had higher friction per unit area than long planks, he attributed this to water being accelerated along the length of the plank thus lowering relative speed which in turn result in less friction. The takeaway is this: Canoes suffer less friction moving through water than stunted prams. There is, of course, more to this story but if I drone on this particular subject I’m afraid you’ll start eating your crayons. Let’s look at our ships. Let’s assume the surface areas exposed to water on Constitution and Rättvisan are the same, they prolly aren’t but play along, please. The ship with the highest length/girth ratio would have the lower resistance and thus the highest potential for both top speed and acceleration. Yes, simplified, specifically for you, dear. Wouldn’t that be neat as a balance parameter? The simplest way is to make acceleration a function of speed. But we can mix it up with our ships that sometimes have very similar speeds but clearly different length/width ratios. If we use the simplest ratio almost ignoring the area of the wetted surface a Connie could accelerate 12% better than a Bellona, I suspect this would make negligible difference in the game so we could bump it to 25% and balance shit from there. Froude even towed a whole ship around and measured total resistance. It catches my interest because then we can clearly make out how much force (component vector along the line of travel) the sails would have to produce to propel the ship to a given speed. Just look! That's eight and a half metric tonnes of wind thrust to maintain almost 12 knots for the Greyhound! You can see that the increase in resistance with speed pretty much matches our in-game acceleration curves. Neato. I wonder if our deceleration curves also reflect this? I should do a test… Buckle up, Busters! NA is about to get more real! TL;DR Hell, no! If you can’t read it all and frikkin’ enjoy yourself in the process you have no business playing this game!
  18. Idea: Dynamic NPC Nation Overlays... Short version at the bottom... @admin You’ll need a drink for this, try to bear with me... Summary To build out Multi Nation storyline campaign arcs that intersect. This out of game backstory pushes the in-game content taking a few weeks to complete. Background and some views... Basic idea was seeded from a post by @Cetric de Cornusiac. Please read his post. http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26636-create-national-councils-for-regulating-the-big-picture-of-each-nations-stance/ I didn’t agree with many of his assessments or solutions, but he makes a really good point that the Nations need to have a purpose. His view was to open up the Lite Sandbox but have the Nations players control this at the expense of clans. @Christendom and @Wraith have wanted Clan restrictions lifted to the point of doing away with the different Nation overlays allowing Civil Wars and self-rule opening up the Lite Sandbox still further... A while back we had a Nation alliance vote function within the game. The idea was good and added richness but it just didn’t quite deliver. Further back [PvP EU] had an EAST v WEST problematic alliance added with night flip issues. On my [PvP Global] we had the ironclad Care Bear alliance GB/US/Dutch which developed into a slow stranglehold on the entire server when it couldn’t be broken. Another view concerns this Open Sandbox PvP world push is/will crush RvR, trading, crafting, exploring and all the other parts that are NA-OW. Leading to fears of just a NA-Legends carcass left behind. I may be wrong in this view, but the more power the PC wields they’ll usually migrate down to the path of least resistance. Any PC Nation driven alliances will struggle to be dynamic even if adding more mechanic restrictions to stop the walk down the slippery slope... Name dropping... First let’s drop the word “Clan”. This is just cosmetic but is an irritation. So, [ELITE] will be a “Division” of GB Nations Royal Navy within the Caribbean. Divisions can Own their own PORTs as normal. Divisional conflicts did occur in REAL LIFE. Sub-division leaders were often in conflict with their peers and Senior Ranking officers within the same Navy during the same theater points. Nelson’s account of Cape St Vincent was challenged by a jealous Rear Admiral Parker. At Copenhagen our beloved Nelson completely disobeyed a direct order from his Commanding Officer in front of his own flag Captain. A Controlled Civil War... Via a Purchased Note from the Admiralty. When triggered will offer a limited time window to engage in a civil war against a same Nation Clan/Division. On the time expiry, there will be double the time cool down before you may trigger another Civil War against the same clan. No same Nation clans can get involved. The Pirate Clans unique feature allows them to be hired by either side for defense or attack. This automatically would put two hired Pirate clans at war with each other for the duration. PORT Battles as well will be acceptable. With this we have some form of retribution for those who don’t treat other same Nation clans with respect. If you’ve solo player ideas let me know. Now we need to bring all the full Divisions together to fight for the King, Emperor or Blackbeard as God intended. How Nation Guidance should work... Back Story... What NA-OW will have is an out of game back story of each Nation with traits, traditional alliances and map areas. Below, look at the four EvE Online [EvE] races with sub titles. You can get a visible image of differences within each race and temperament. https://community.eveonline.com/backstory/races/ NPC Nation Templated Mission Arcs... Imagine... In-Game you and all other same Nation PCs are sent a letter. In it a brief story outline... Example... GB Nation [ELITE] Division, Your king as requested all Englishmen to rise to the challenge to push the French from the Caribbean. This will be a long campaign and not just one or two battles. Accept the first scenario to start the campaign. Plain Co-Op 5th Rate cap epic mission dropped around K/PR. Teams of six of same Nation. Bonus multipliers apply if team members include different divisions or solo players. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=50&v=vKSR4l11oio http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Campaigns Missions can be replayed multiple times but only rewarded once. After a few days the second letter arrives. The Map above shows French and British demarcation lines. Any French AI or PC within British waters must be sunk or taken a prize. Here the French ships deliver more rewards than other ships inside GB waters. Again, this last two three days. The next mission in groups with multi clan or solo multipliers is to raid French shipping lanes. Again, this builds into Hostility and Port Battle triggers. And so, the campaign rolls on... The rewards must multiple with French targets and with solo or different Division members in same group. So, the Campaign as moved from a PvE/Co-Op thread into a PvP one. Storylines could include craft or exploration. The French... While all this is rolling out at the same time the French receive similar posts and Campaign objects. This time if the nation is smaller in size... The Dev’s here can tweak the templates. The French maybe way too small in PvP numbers against GB. So, allied bonus may involve a local Nation like Prussia. This is the big bonus multipliers that enforce the alliances. GB players may find it odd or strange getting ganked by Prussians in GB waters... Nation Templates and Story Arcs... The templates are just that, Dev’s manage them like they would a weekend tournament. Its flexible. http://lorebook.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:cosmos-epicarc-guides&catid=1:cosmos-epicarc-guides&Itemid=2 This is the [EvE] lore or story arc for all EPICs, have a look through all the structured storylines. PvE Co-Op Solo and PvP all included. It seems mammoth in size and detail. However, look closer and the missions for the four races all play the same way. Copy, Balance and Multiply... That’s the key, five core story arc templates just change names and ports or boost with allies. No new coding. We have eleven Nations; a new story line template (GB) would have a counter balance arc (the French) that then can be copied 11 times. This out of game content can be as deep or light as you like. The hook is the BLING on offer as a reward at the right stages. This with multipliers help Divisions to come together... Sorry for the length, let me know if you think its rubbish etc... Norfolk nChance [ELITE] Division GB RN Short version NPC Nation Campaign story threads. Built from several missions taking maybe a couple of weeks to complete. Encourages Multi-clan and solo participation with PvE to Co-OP then PvP conclusions against other nations. This out of game campaign drives in game content and builds player retention.
  19. Suggestion: Introduce taxes for stockpiling in the warehouses. Details: all player warehouses and clan warehouses will have to pay taxes on each used slot every maintenance cycle. If player cant effort to pay the taxes local goverment will size the goods till missed fee + additional charge is payed sized good penatly payment increases each day up to a maximum of xx. A clanwarehouse at a port that the clan owned has no tax cost. Pros: Money drains reduces stockpiling by players "meaningful eco?" + pressure rvr Cons: Can be bypassed by using ship cargo slots to reduce taxes players have to pay taxes (oh no)
  20. Why does the LGV refit still have only 3 skill slots ( and other traders too ) ? It used to be underwhelming enough when it was 3/3 compared to 3/5 frigates but now that you can built 5/5 ships, it just became even more useless. YES, I know it can enter enemy ports and has a decent amount of cargo hold BUT for that it pays with a puny broadside weight that is surpassed even by cerberus, that is actually on par with the Niagara 6th rate ( Niagara actually has a lot more firepower when mounting carronades - I know right.... what the F...lipper ) while being the target size and having the maneuverability of a medium frigate. Also the main bonus of swivels are the visuals.... they are more of a gimmick in actual combat. Why would I want to use this ship? Please make it a bit more viable, even if it is only 3/5 and not possibly 5/5... we all know 3/3 is garbage in the mod stacking meta. Even for only hunting traders I wouldn't use this... I love the looks and concept of this ship but as it stands right now, it is rather useless. The price of 25 PvP marks also is more than unjustified... That's 2.5 Navy hulls for ships that can actually get the job done. @admin Please consider making LGV refit more viable. It is a real shame nobody uses this beautiful ship...
  21. The super heavy frigate Constitution is at the moment plain broken. Turn rate is 2.37 (almost on par with a Bucetaure - 2nd rate! - being at 2.33) and inferior to all 3rd rates (Wasa Bellona and 3rd being at 3.06 2.79 and 2.79)... not talking about 4th rates (Wappen Agamennon and Inger being at 3.60 and 3.04). So, having a far lower broadside there is not reason using her in place of 3-4 rates turnrate wise. Speed wise she sits at 11.69 with all frigates (5th rates) being between 12.66/7 - Cerberus/Renomee and 12.01 of Indefetigable). So again: no sense using her in place of a standard frigate speed wise. I'd propose to: Move her speed to 12.00-12.10 (making her on par with slowest frigate - Indefetigable); Move her turn rate to 3.00 (making her superior or on par with 3rd rates and slightly inferior to 4th rates). This way she could try to keep a brawl battle on 3rd rates, get outturned by 4th and 5th rates, be faster than 4th rates, slower and less nimble than 5th, still being well more tough. Making a scheme = Speed: 5th rates > Constitution > 4th/3rd rates => she cant outrun frigates but can outrun bigger ships Turn: 5th rates > 4th rates > Constitution > 3rd rates => she cant outturn same rate or smaller ships, still she can outturn full SoLs Toughness: 3rd rates > Constitution > 4th rates > 5th rates => she can outlast 4th rates but not 3rd rates Broadside: 3rd rates > 4th rates > Constitution > 5th rates => she hits harder than other frigs but not 3rd/4th rates I challenge anyone saying such a ship would be OP. I'd say she'll be a nice mid range (not shining nor crappy) in all categories. I'd like Devs opinion on this rebalacing of a nerfed to death ship. Regads.
  22. Today I lost my snow, so I need to collect gold for another. I took combat mission (7th rate-the easiest one) and went here with a basic cutter. But bot there have brig (6th rate) and I CAN'T kill him. Can't buy something to deliever too. Help me pls.
  23. Contrary to the tags on this thread (clickbait ftw) I have a nice solution (and easy to do!) for the ganking issues that plague PVp at the moment. here it comes... Make PVP rewards scale to BR difference. mind blown yet? Please follow my thinking: Target BR : attacker BR x100%= % of rewards. And I do not mean rewards per player, but total potential rewards across all players for the attacking group. Group of players x attacks player y. The BR difference is X: 500, Y: 100. So the maximum rewards for the players in group x can be AT MAXIMUM 20% of what it would have been in an equal br situation. Same goes the other way around. Guy in small ship (e.g. @The Red Duke/Hethwill in a privateer) br 40, attacks an LGV br 110. This gives Hethwill a potential (110:40)x100= 275% for possible pvp rewards! Relatively simple solution to a relativly complex problem. PVP rewards will force down large groups of attackers leading to less ganking. Because face it: Outnumbering an enemy BR wise is NOT a show of skill. This way it would be high risk, high gain, no risk, no gain.
  24. What we got now - We can add a clan in our friend list. We don't know if this clan add us in return on his own frienlist. The ones i put on friendlist can enter the portbattle the clan lead in defense or offense Why it's a problem - We don't see if the clan we add add us on friendlist leading to strange situation where you are ready to help a clan that forget to add you. - We are unable to add clan from different nations in the friendlist. Sometimes, as the map is huge, all the clan from a nation are not playing on the same area. A geographic alliances would be far more interesting than a nation alliances. Why adding different nation's clan in friendlist - It will allow all the nations to field PB with 25 player if necessary - It will be alliance lead between people who like eachothers. It may change with the population of the clan chaning leading more flexibility that the alliances we got before - It can be just for a few times to help this or this nation to capture this or this port. It will create anew kind of gameplay that we can named "Mercenary". 1) Port battle The map is huge, player are not so many. Most are cluster on different port. If your nation is tiny, everyone is on the same place. More your territory is big, more you get a risk to cluster the nation and not be able to field PB with 25 players. allowing the clans on border on the frontier to make friends with others nation on border of their frontier will help the population to reach the golden number of 25 to be able to play the game entirely. 2) Flexibility The alliances we got with the vote were really heavy and almost impossible to change once forged. Into this clan friendlist, you just have to add a different clan in the list or to remove him. It may be great for owner on the clan and diplomat to recieven an email to warn them but it's really easy to do and undo giving flexibility into the pact. Your clan is on the center on his own alliance. If you are in clan A and you put clan B in frien list, you are not allie with clan C. You have to add clan C in friend list and clan C has to accept. It will not be a domino alliances like before freezing everything. My alliance is MY alliances, not the ones my allies or my nations but the one my clan personnaly want to build. It will not be 1 2 or 3 alliances but as many allainces as there is clan. 3)Mercenary With mercenary, any clan can play RvR whichone is their number. Atm, if you are in a wrong nation, your clan of 5 veteran is useless. llow them to be hired for their services and they will have fun every day PvPing and rvring with thoses who pay them. Paying them will belance the things allowings the ones who need them more to hire them to capture ports or territory How it works, the nation, the pirate? A) Port Battle 1) Problem that may occure Clan A from nation 1 is friend with clan B from nation 2. B attack port a from nation 1 owned by C Clan. If clan A join, what is happening? Clan A from nation 1 is attacking clan C from nation 1? 2) Solutions The nation is upper the clan on port battle. It's the main difference with pirates. A clan whatever his alliance has to be unable to join a PB against his own nation. In the other hand, the clan has tu be unable to defend his allies against an attack from his own nation. In not any case, a player from Nation A can attack port of Nation A. If not any case a player of nation A is able to defend a port from nation B attack by nation A. Pirates are not limited in this gameplay. Pirates can help nationals forces to attack pirates ports or they can defend against pirates. B ) Open sea To make it simple, the easier thing would be to reserve battle group to people of your clan friend list whatever are their nation. The player keep their own flag but as mark as : "in command from Nation A". A player like that can be attack by nation A (to not let alt group alt and make them invincible) but all the frist battle group may be oppose to second battle group meaning in Open sea, Clan alliance is upper nation C) Changing nation, pirates gameplay and forged paper The pirates as said as to get this opportunity to seel themself to join PB whoever is in whoever is group in front of them, national or pirates. It's the perfect nation to join for small group of hardcoreplayer wanted to pvp every day or for group of player that are tired of their nation. As said in PB your nation is stronger than your alliances so you can't play against your nation in RvR. Pirates can. When aplayer want to change nation, he switch to pirates. On the pirate admiralty, Forged paper can be bought (1000CM each?). It's a playerlink article that can't be sold or moved. It will allow player to change nation if they want it by switching to pirates first and then second nation. it's far more RP than what we got now with player switching from nation to nation. They will have to prepare it before or to play as pirates for a times allowing them to meet new people and maybe finnaly change their mind or their gameplay. Everyone will be able to play pirates and to leave pirates nation with this forged paper byable in pirate admiralty. No clan will be able to switch withouth thiking about it. Player will have to decide for themself about the opportunity or not to switch and they will have to farm a bit for that. Example: You are french, you sunk a french ship making you a pirate. You then have to show your future nation you are ready to become a loyal national so you sunk ships (and french onesà to collect CM allowing you to buy a "letre de marques" making you a true national. This system of forged paper is more RP, will lead maybe less player to change nation when a nation is falling, will make everyone able to switch if they want it and give pirate something special, the ability to be the key for the balance. You may buy them for your nation for a certain time if you pay them in CM to cover the cost of CM and they may return back to piracy after their mission. Their choice, your wallet.
  25. It seems that with the new speed limit Endymion is worse than ever. Its sailing profile couldn't be much worse and the high base speed that is supposed to make up for it is somewhat useless when i can just stack speed mods on the constitution. Is there still anything that makes Endymion worth sailing? I have really been meaning to build myself one lately for its awesome looks alone but i feel like i should get the constitution instead...
×
×
  • Create New...