Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

 

I was playing the armed convoy attack mission, and I noticed the trend with my twin heavy cruisers. In the general reports box to the left, covering details affecting accuracy like maneuvers, sea conditions and weather I noticed that when ever I slowed down from flank my accuracy in relation to "own cruse speed" would drop by a few percent, and only rebound when I laid on the speed. 

Could it have somthing to do with the target? It could very much be possible that if you slow down you are getting further away thus making target ing less accurate. And if you speed up you are getting closer to the target making accuracy better.

Just my thoughts.

Wait... you can change to flank? Wait what!!! I thought was just a gimmick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 665
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Now, to me the combat aspect of this game was of secondary interest to the building phase – after all the unique construction aspect is what sets this game apart from its competitors. Because of this,

@Xenol I apologize if I came across as attacking you, now that you've explained where you're coming from I understand. In fact, I largely agree with you. I spend so much time making a case for the gun

I've been here since about October last year I believe. I've done 20 of the 47 NA battles, and I hardly play at all. Why? Because many of those missions I consider to be nonsense AND arguabl

Posted Images

On 10/18/2019 at 9:17 PM, Shaun said:

Pretty much the last point. Turrets with less guns are faster to reload and have better accuracy.


Well it really depends on the design factors of the whole loading system/guns themselves.

The qaud 14 inch gun had a reload or 2 Rounds per minute just like a lot of other ships at the time despite being compressed (to keep the weight down)). The only problem was they were so darn technical they had problems, which meant they couldnt shoot much, still hit Bismarck though and other ships.

Germans 15 inch guns on Bismarck had an experimental dual loading system with a theoretical 3 rounds per minute. And its turrets are stupid big for two guns.

The Germans triple 11 inch guns like from scharnhorst prefered to fire the center gun "first followed by the wing guns 10 to 20 milliseconds later in order to reduce shell interference." And that gun made it into the record books for a long range naval hit along with Warspite and its dual 15 inchers ( the ones from WW1).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a problem with ladder aiming. While it's common to have a ship locked on with one ranging shot the aiming system for ladder aiming is broken. I've had guns that reach %100 ladder aiming and yet refuse to get locked on. This applies to secondaries as well as they also get stuck in a loop of ladder aiming that reaches %100 then for some reason starts decreasing (this occurs during all calibers)

If the devs plan to make ranging shots a more common thing I suggest to make sure the ladder aiming loop doesn't affect it

Link to post
Share on other sites

These miraculous one-shots on my DD's from 2 miles away while bow-on,(with their first two shots) taking out the main mast, conning tower, funnel, and forward main gun, in the first two salvos with their ONLY single-barreled aft gun, at full speed, and while I was in smoke... is currently taking all the fun out of this alpha.

That and the sickening feeling that, if UA:Age of Sail is any indication, "Timers" are going to play a major role in this game. Was hoping for something to replace the fantastic work by SSI with "Great Naval Battles" et al.

Most of these scenarios would be great to play, given realistic constraints with regards to time of day, weather, ammo and fuel limitations, etc...but to try and sink a dreadnought using an egg-timer just strikes me as a bit, well... Fisher-Price. I certainly hope this game fleshes out to be a more robust experience.

Edited by Otter Admiral
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really understand why these mechanics behave the way they do. The lead ship is taken out and then the next two dreadnoughts in the line turn around a full 180 degrees in an attempt to sail to the end of the line. 

Why? 

I actually find this behaviour to be entirely unacceptable, especially when portions of the line turn towards the enemy. This is compounded by the fact that at times ships in the line have a hard time pathing around one another and will come to a full stop in the water. I've had full health ships pounded into the dust because of this.

If you'll excuse me, I have a few thousand letters to write. 😟 

 

D4D2F3814E8FB854E5710B0B29964E3116B31933

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess we will have to wait for the first major update after the upcoming minor balance and bugfix update that will arrive soon (unless it already did then whoopsies).

I actually like the timers (for most missions anyways).

Think people actually forget that this is the first alpha build.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Guess we will have to wait for the first major update after the upcoming minor balance and bugfix update that will arrive soon (unless it already did then whoopsies).

I actually like the timers (for most missions anyways).

Think people actually forget that this is the first alpha build.

I think the timers are just there to tet you for the future aka campaign and muliplayer

Spending too much time in an area waste's fuel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OH DEVS

Can you make it so ships can sail overweight? Just give them penalties for being like 5% overweight but if they are too heavy they are not allowed to sail at all.

IRL you can make ships slightly overwight so why not add that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lieste said:

If you are bow-on then  you are not 'in' smoke, merely silhouetted against it. It comes from your funnels and streams behind you and to the downwind side.

Well, the game says "shooting through smoke", shows an aim penalty, and the graphical representations certainly make it appear that the smoke is being constantly generated in all directions,(Maybe with some kind of smoke screen gun-rounds or grenades, kinda like the hedge-hog depth-charger deployment.) This may be a graphics issue atm. If things are as you say, then this will be ironed out in the future.

In any case TWO direct hits to my DD from the SINGLE barreled gun on the stern of a moving ship, in the first two salvos,(and the first min of a 60 min engagement.), is a bit much when one considers the dreadful accuracy of the player in that same position.

The odds of that happening border on the mathematically impossible. I'm sure this is being worked on, but atm its no fun. The same can be said for ANY salvo at a ship bow on, or stern on to the enemy at any realistic distances. The size of the target is so greatly diminished, and all but the luckiest of shots will have no hope of landing on such a thin strip of [MOVING/MANEUVERING] target at any normal engagement range(s). However; currently getting caught in that position in game, is a guarantee of getting hit, and must likely multiple times. In fact the enemy projectiles seem to change course whenever you do...in mid air. They seem to know where you are going before you do. How did ships IRL manage to break-off engagements?...Usually, by turning, popping smoke(if possible), and putting their stern towards the enemy ship, and running like heck. The chance of the other ship hitting them or following were low, especially if the ship trying to break-off the engagement had any torpedo capability, and if/or the enemy had sustained any damage as well.

It is worth noting, that the accuracy of the AI seems, from all indications, to increase the closer one gets to actually finishing the mission, and with a total disregard of ANY damage done to the ship, its towers, its hull, etc... Hence my sincere hope that timers are not a major part of this game. The temptation to script extra difficulty in, or fudge the numbers to get a result that the player has no real control over, - is too great. For tutorial reasons this may be overlooked, although I'm still not sure of the function of the timer(s). One of the team has already stated that adjustments had be made to scenarios to prevent players from actually winning too easily. One wonders what that might mean? Is my ship too good? Did I get the one-in-a-million shot ...once?  Is there a problem with that?

Anyway, until the accuracy of the AI and player gets better balanced, I guess I'll just wait it out.

I love the idea of building your own ships, the anticipated economics of the campaign, the enemy countries, research, cost, available materials, and the difficulty in actually finding and defeating the enemy. This should be more than sufficient hardship. IMHO; The use of artificial "timers" would lower the realism of this game to a level that would be seriously disappointing and, as already discovered, add un-imaginable difficulty to what already should be a very complex and challenging game. Ships just don't stop fighting after 15 mins because an egg-timer went off...Unless, your playing Space-Invaders...NOT naval warfare.

PS: The reason you have fuel is too find and dispatch the enemy. Why would you need a timer to stop you from doing exactly what it is your supposed to be doing with all that fuel? One would hope that with proper campaign play, fuel would/should, of necessity, be carefully managed. It is not rare to stumble upon, or be caught by the enemy in a low fuel situation, and yes, you will most likely come out on the bad end of the stick in such cases. This is why its called "Warfare" and not "Cakewalk". ;)

 

Thanks for your feed-back.

Edited by Otter Admiral
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Schwieger said:

I don't really understand why these mechanics behave the way they do. The lead ship is taken out and then the next two dreadnoughts in the line turn around a full 180 degrees in an attempt to sail to the end of the line. 

Why? 

I actually find this behaviour to be entirely unacceptable, especially when portions of the line turn towards the enemy. This is compounded by the fact that at times ships in the line have a hard time pathing around one another and will come to a full stop in the water. I've had full health ships pounded into the dust because of this.

If you'll excuse me, I have a few thousand letters to write. 😟 

 

D4D2F3814E8FB854E5710B0B29964E3116B31933

Fleet/AI maneuvering is something that is being worked on. Its far from perfect atm, but things look promising. In the meantime, expect a bit of wonky behavior from both sides when under AI control, or trying to follow your orders. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Otter Admiral said:

Fleet/AI maneuvering is something that is being worked on. Its far from perfect atm, but things look promising. In the meantime, expect a bit of wonky behavior from both sides when under AI control, or trying to follow your orders. :)

Yes, there will need to be more work of the formations.  For instance, the lead ship should not be the flagship necessarily.  Also, loss a ship in a formation should either have some form of automatic compensation or perhaps (even better) a pop up which commands your instant attention.  We can't have major fleet components wandering off in AI dreamland.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's definitely an issue with the aiming code.  I've been running the BB vs. Torp Boat mission repeatedly to test some other things and the secondary guns never lock on to the first target they aim at.  I always have to manually switch to a new target (and then back to the original target if desired) in order to get them to lock on.

Edited by DeadlyWalrus
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Otter Admiral said:

Well, the game says "shooting through smoke", shows an aim penalty, and the graphical representations certainly make it appear that the smoke is being constantly generated in all directions,(Maybe with some kind of smoke screen gun-rounds or grenades, kinda like the hedge-hog depth-charger deployment.) This may be a graphics issue atm. If things are as you say, then this will be ironed out in the future.

In any case TWO direct hits to my DD from the SINGLE barreled gun on the stern of a moving ship, in the first two salvos,(and the first min of a 60 min engagement.), is a bit much when one considers the dreadful accuracy of the player in that same position.

The odds of that happening border on the mathematically impossible. I'm sure this is being worked on, but atm its no fun. The same can be said for ANY salvo at a ship bow on, or stern on to the enemy at any realistic distances. The size of the target is so greatly diminished, and all but the luckiest of shots will have no hope of landing on such a thin strip of [MOVING/MANEUVERING] target at any normal engagement range(s). However; currently getting caught in that position in game, is a guarantee of getting hit, and must likely multiple times. In fact the enemy projectiles seem to change course whenever you do...in mid air. They seem to know where you are going before you do. How did ships IRL manage to break-off engagements?...Usually, by turning, popping smoke(if possible), and putting their stern towards the enemy ship, and running like heck. The chance of the other ship hitting them or following were low, especially if the ship trying to break-off the engagement had any torpedo capability, and if/or the enemy had sustained any damage as well.

It is worth noting, that the accuracy of the AI seems, from all indications, to increase the closer one gets to actually finishing the mission, and with a total disregard of ANY damage done to the ship, its towers, its hull, etc... Hence my sincere hope that timers are not a major part of this game. The temptation to script extra difficulty in, or fudge the numbers to get a result that the player has no real control over, - is too great. For tutorial reasons this may be overlooked, although I'm still not sure of the function of the timer(s). One of the team has already stated that adjustments had be made to scenarios to prevent players from actually winning too easily. One wonders what that might mean? Is my ship too good? Did I get the one-in-a-million shot ...once?  Is there a problem with that?

Anyway, until the accuracy of the AI and player gets better balanced, I guess I'll just wait it out.

I love the idea of building your own ships, the anticipated economics of the campaign, the enemy countries, research, cost, available materials, and the difficulty in actually finding and defeating the enemy. This should be more than sufficient hardship. IMHO; The use of artificial "timers" would lower the realism of this game to a level that would be seriously disappointing and, as already discovered, add un-imaginable difficulty to what already should be a very complex and challenging game. Ships just don't stop fighting after 15 mins because an egg-timer went off...Unless, your playing Space-Invaders...NOT naval warfare.

PS: The reason you have fuel is too find and dispatch the enemy. Why would you need a timer to stop you from doing exactly what it is your supposed to be doing with all that fuel? One would hope that with proper campaign play, fuel would/should, of necessity, be carefully managed. It is not rare to stumble upon, or be caught by the enemy in a low fuel situation, and yes, you will most likely come out on the bad end of the stick in such cases. This is why its called "Warfare" and not "Cakewalk". ;)

 

Thanks for your feed-back.

source.gif

Very well written. I still feel however that the timer is only there to train people to finnish an enemy off in preparation for the campaigns or multiplayer.

I have found the accuracy to be off. I put a dreadnaught at point blank range with a cruiser as in ships were touching to hulland gun was aimed at the middle of the ship. It fired and MISSED. Didnt go over the target, didnt bounce off the target. But I heard a water splash. Where it splashed I have no idea.

Also the shell dispersion can be almost laughable at times. Shoot somthing short range and the twin gun trurret will miraculously spread its salvo very wide.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, G777GUN said:

source.gif

Very well written. I still feel however that the timer is only there to train people to finnish an enemy off in preparation for the campaigns or multiplayer.

I have found the accuracy to be off. I put a dreadnaught at point blank range with a cruiser as in ships were touching to hulland gun was aimed at the middle of the ship. It fired and MISSED. Didnt go over the target, didnt bounce off the target. But I heard a water splash. Where it splashed I have no idea.

Also the shell dispersion can be almost laughable at times. Shoot somthing short range and the twin gun trurret will miraculously spread its salvo very wide.

Ye, The timer also is there to make sure that you build appropiate ships even if they are a bit speshul.

Probably due to the campaign being more hectic than these missions and the bigger variety of ships you will face and how you may have to do several battles in a row so trying to conserve your ships will probs be a big thing. Mainly due to your ships being in combat and taking damage will cost more money and repairs so making effective designs will be important.

For multiplayer it will mostly be who can make the most effecient builds (min-max/max-min), although if they introduce servers you could create your own server to host, historic or fun non-historical battles between nations and werid but cool looking ship designs.

Ya, miss zao my chinese BB decided that flinging her shells everywhere but the bloody CA was a gud idea.

Then she lands 4 and detonates the thing lol.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to G777GUN, Sarrumac, and CptBarney:

15 hours ago, G777GUN said:

Very well written. I still feel however that the timer is only there to train people to finnish an enemy off in preparation for the campaigns or multiplayer.

Thanks G777GUN, for your kind words, and for the reply and, helpful suggestions.

Again, I'm not sure I understand what your getting at. "Finishing off" or the sinking of the enemy ships is great, but rarely pursued. The doctrine of causing just enough damage to the enemy as to limit their ability to function in their intended role, and force them to return to whatever port for months of repair, would be a far more advantageous outcome. Allowing you to dis-engage and prevent the same outcome from happening to your ships. This is where timers cause the most consternation. Both proper engagement (to your advantage), and proper dis-engagement after doing sufficient damage to the enemy, can be a very time-consuming process. It usually took days to both position forces, and to completely and safely extract forces from an engagement.

The loss of Hood to the Bismark, and the list of ships which were lost during the Jutland engagement being major exceptions to the rule, as these losses were largely the result of advanced techs, and mainly due to that fact that the British Navy had begun the practice of turning warships into large TNT barges, in an effort to increase their rate of fire. The stacking of gunpowder all over the place, and the removal or refusal to use the proper fire-prevention doors etc..meant that smoking a cigarette on such a vessel would have been an extreme version of Russian roulette, and had time permitted, probably lead to the sinking of far more ships than the enemy could have ever dreamed of doing on their own. 

For the most part fleets and especially single warships would avoid direct conflict with other warships, as much as possible, as that would most likely not help either side in its war efforts. It was far better to track the enemy fleet or ship so as to keep your non-combatant/merchant ships safe, until such time as you were assured of overwhelming superiority.(*See the battle of The North Cape) The odds of large fleet-on-fleet engagements ending in your favor are not set in stone, nor do they care how much better your ship(s) are supposed to be. We can see this in full detail at the battle(s) off Jutland, and the Bismark/Hood engagements.

That being said, engagements of course happen. These were usually battles of necessity in which one of the two sides had a perceived advantage/dis-advantage, and insisted on fighting. It rarely ended well for either side. Regardless of who won, the repairs needed on both sides would usually result in either severe restrictions of operational capability, or months of in-port repair.

9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Ye, The timer also is there to make sure that you build appropiate ships even if they are a bit speshul.

Probably due to the campaign being more hectic than these missions and the bigger variety of ships you will face and how you may have to do several battles in a row so trying to conserve your ships will probs be a big thing. Mainly due to your ships being in combat and taking damage will cost more money and repairs so making effective designs will be important.

Thanks for your feedback as well, Cptbarney.

Again, I don't see how timers help. For example:If you think that your are up against a certain ship, or group of ships, and you discover to your horror that there are more, or different ships involved,  you may want to get out of there in a hurry. However, your ship is just barely faster than the ships you have encountered. You can get away, but it may take hours to do so. It may take many hours of maneuver to avoid damage, and the enemy's maneuvers, and fully dis-engage from the battle. A timer would just make you lose, or in the case that you happen to be the over-whelming force...give you a win, that you really didn't earn...and that you wouldn't have won in real life.

Making effective designs seems a good thing, and something you will probably learn as you go. We all know what happens if you try to build a ship to do everything...(Well, in case some don't)...You will end up with a ship that can so a lot of things but, none of them especially well. On this we agree; building "speshul" ships that can do one, or two things, very well, is probably going to be better in the long run.

Please, please, don't be me started on the nightmare that is multi-player. The hacks, the cheats, the impossibility of coding for every possible scenario, the networking issues, etc..etc...etc... the list of issues in this en-devour are endless, or at least TWICE as long as the list of gripes associated with its inherent problems. If you want this game to be finished in your lifetime, and do HALF of what most of us would like, PLEASE stop with the multi-player request. You are only shooting yourself in the foot.

Edited by Otter Admiral
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Otter Admiral said:

Again, I'm not sure I understand what your getting at. "Finishing off" or the sinking of the enemy ships is great, but rarely pursued. The doctrine of causing just enough damage to the enemy as to limit their ability to function in their intended role, and force them to return to whatever port for months of repair, would be a far more advantageous outcome. Allowing you to dis-engage and prevent the same outcome from happening to your ships. This is where timers cause the most consternation. Both proper engagement (to your advantage), and proper dis-engagement after doing sufficient damage to the enemy, can be a very time-consuming process. It usually took days to both position forces, and to completely and safely extract forces from an engagement.

While I don't agree with your premise that damaging a major war vessel is preferable to sinking it, I disagree even further for the simple reason that this is a game, and we want the satisfaction of sinking the dirty (insert pejorative here).  I'm already unhappy with the timers, as we are forced to push hard on an engagement where we may have wanted to use more finesse.  There is generally more than one way to accomplish a mission but it feels like we are being limited by the timer into choosing only the most direct approach.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Otter Admiral said:

Thanks for your feedback as well, Cptbarney.

Again, I don't see how timers help. For example:If you think that your are up against a certain ship, or group of ships, and you discover to your horror that there are more, or different ships involved,  you may want to get out of there in a hurry. However, your ship is just barely faster than the ships you have encountered. You can get away, but it may take hours to do so. It may take many hours of maneuver to avoid damage, and the enemy's maneuvers, and fully dis-engage from the battle. A timer would just make you lose, or in the case that you happen to be the over-whelming force...give you a win, that you really didn't earn...and that you wouldn't have won in real life.

Making effective designs seems a good thing, and something you will probably learn as you go. We all know what happens if you try to build a ship to do everything...(Well, in case some don't)...You will end up with a ship that can so a lot of things but, none of them especially well. On this we agree; building "speshul" ships that can do one, or two things, very well, is probably going to be better in the long run.

Please, please, don't be me started on the nightmare that is multi-player. The hacks, the cheats, the impossibility of coding for every possible scenario, the networking issues, etc..etc...etc... the list of issues in this en-devour are endless, or at least TWICE as long as the list of gripes associated with its inherent problems. If you want this game to be finished in your lifetime, and do HALF of what most of us would like, PLEASE stop with the multi-player request. You are only shooting yourself in the foot.

The scenario you described would be a straight out loss regardless, so you just quit and forfit the match, trying to win against overwhelming fire power (especially when you only have one ship) seems tedious and pointless. Also the timer is there so that battles don't last forever and so that the devs could calculate who would win in a stalemate (depending on structure, guns left, ammo, distance, objectives achieved and failed etc.)

It is a good thing, because thats most things and games are like min-maxing, max-mining im just pointing out what peeps would be like, you get the non-competitives and the competitves then these two groups branch out into ever increasing extremes.

I never mentioned multiplayer should be added just said what i think if it was. Also server side games are impossible to hack into unless your that sad (due to the fact you could just swipe millions from a bank because of the skills and equipment needed to do so).

And if i want to request something from the devs, theres nothing you can do to stop me regardless (nor can i do the same to you). Whether they listen to me or anyone else is another story. I doubt multiplayer will be a thing and even so it will probs be very limited regardless (costs for servers and electricity bills are enough to put off 80% of peeps nevermind everything after dat).

Also depends if combat scenarios will regularly field multiple ships on both sides or not.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

While I don't agree with your premise that damaging a major war vessel is preferable to sinking it, I disagree even further for the simple reason that this is a game, and we want the satisfaction of sinking the dirty (insert pejorative here).  I'm already unhappy with the timers, as we are forced to push hard on an engagement where we may have wanted to use more finesse.  There is generally more than one way to accomplish a mission but it feels like we are being limited by the timer into choosing only the most direct approach.

Exactly!

Sinking ships is the fun part, and dare I say it...kinda the point of the game. The "timers" idea would seem, and currently does, insist that you not use your brain when engaging the enemy...but instead rush headlong into a kamikaze attack, hoping that you inflict more damage than you receive, and hoping luck(not skill), is on your side.

I guess we will just have to wait, pray, hope, and see, what route the developers choose to take. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

The scenario you described would be a straight out loss regardless, so you just quit and forfit the match, trying to win against overwhelming fire power (especially when you only have one ship) seems tedious and pointless. Also the timer is there so that battles don't last forever and so that the devs could calculate who would win in a stalemate (depending on structure, guns left, ammo, distance, objectives achieved and failed etc.)

So, OK...Lets say your not in a single ship, but a small fleet, that just happens to stumble onto a larger force. (Insert my response here).

Why does anybody need to "calculate" who won? If your ships managed to get away...You live to fight another day. If you lose... You Lose. If you win,...Guess what?...YOU WIN! A timer just forces you to use idiotic tactics, and not act anything like your in a naval engagement.

I've played many naval games and never had an engagement that lasted "forever". Many hours? Yes...but with being able to speed up time, that only meant that I spent a few mins watching my ship(s) creep farther and farther away, while biting my nails that they didn't land a "lucky shot" on me, thus forcing me to fight it out.

18 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

I never mentioned multiplayer should be added just said what i think if it was. Also server side games are impossible to hack into unless your that sad (due to the fact you could just swipe millions from a bank because of the skills and equipment needed to do so).

The multi-player comment wasn't directed at anybody in particular; just an observation.

I'm certainly not trying to stop YOU from doing anything your heart desires. Just stating a point of fact, for general consumption. I'm not forcing anybody to do anything. I have been know to caution people against doing things that I know will hurt them...so...Hopefully, I've put it in a way that they can both comprehend and doesn't insult their intelligence any more than need be. :)

As far as competitive vs non-competitive, one could assume that a naval combat game, is going to be bit one-sided in that regard. No matter how much I, or anyone else may want to create sim city ultimate dreadnoughts, I'm fairly comfortable that this is not going to happen. ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Otter Admiral said:

So, OK...Lets say your not in a single ship, but a small fleet, that just happens to stumble onto a larger force. (Insert my response here).

Why does anybody need to "calculate" who won? If your ships managed to get away...You live to fight another day. If you lose... You Lose. If you win,...Guess what?...YOU WIN! A timer just forces you to use idiotic tactics, and not act anything like your in a naval engagement.

I've played many naval games and never had an engagement that lasted "forever". Many hours? Yes...but with being able to speed up time, that only meant that I spent a few mins watching my ship(s) creep farther and farther away, while biting my nails that they didn't land a "lucky shot" on me, thus forcing me to fight it out.

So what are the objectives then? You can't just win or lose without conditions this the basic fundementals of coding. Otherwise you litterally just proved my point in there needing a timer to prevent a stalemate that can last forever. I mean they can always add an adjustment to the time limit and even have a save function to save the battle (and pause it) so that when you get back the next day you can simply play again from the exact point you left of. (basically RTW's)

Also it isn't idiotic tactics if your ships have high belt armour and theres has belt armour thats weak you can close the distance and murder them, if they have high belt but low deck then obviously you kite from them, you just look the enemy ship stats and your own compare them and then figure out the optimal way of killing said ships (as thats the only way to win in most of these engagements atm).

Im going of the current iteration of the game so far (remember its only alpha 1). so i have no clue how things will turn out by say alpha 8 or even closed beta 1. Could be kiting meta, brawling, mixture or anything really.

 

4 minutes ago, Otter Admiral said:

The multi-player comment wasn't directed at anybody in particular; just an observation.

I'm certainly not trying to stop YOU from doing anything your heart desires. Just stating a point of fact, for general consumption. I'm not forcing anybody to do anything. I have been know to caution people against doing things that I know will hurt them...so...Hopefully, I've put it in a way that they can both comprehend and doesn't insult their intelligence any more than need be. :)

Fair enough, If devs add something they will doe, just as they didn't inform the community (not always a good idea to do so, but you can get some really good and logical ideas that way) about the recent secondary changes.

4 minutes ago, Otter Admiral said:

As far as competitive vs non-competitive, one could assume that a naval combat game, is going to be bit one-sided in that regard. No matter how much I, or anyone else may want to create sim city ultimate dreadnoughts, I'm fairly comfortable that this is not going to happen. ;)

 

Well im talking more or less multiplayer from that qoute, since only your skills and no one elses in a singleplayer game will determine what happens and how fast it will. Although playing a game to lose makes no sense to be honest from my point of view.

Don't get the reference unless you mean the empire building that will come maybe alpha 4 or alpha 5. I think the game is solid atm, yes lots of teething but it takes a large amount of time (even when doing work flatout) to get changes done (except spreadsheet changes refer to wargaming with that one lol).

I just want more ship hulls, gun designs, turrets and even camos to play around with.

Oh well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people have pointed out that gun reloads are too slow, but I was rather focused on the torpedo reload. Which is too damn fast. Way too fast.

In fact, I would argue that deck mounted torpedo tubes should have NO RELOAD untill late in the game. Historically that was the case, as destroyers and torpedo boats would carry all their torpedoes in tubes and reload only in dock. There were a few classes that did carry reloads, but these appeared pretty late (Japanese Fubuki and later destroyers, Soviet Leningrad). So i would say that it should be represented in the game.

Lower the weight of deck torpedo tubes.

Remove all reloads from them (unless appropriate tech is researched).

That reload should last a lot longer.

Reload time of submerged tubes should also be increased.

As it is now, a single destroyer can just rapid-fire torpedoes, wrecking most of enemy fleet. A crippled TB can fire 2-3 torpedoes from its singular launcher while the battleship attempts to finish her off with her secondaries. Torpedo spam is outrageous.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...