Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Upcoming Alpha-3 News! (OLD)


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Tankaxe said:

The ability to choose which nations flag you can fly on your ships would be a nice option to add

Ye, i wouldn't mind having a nation builder as well. But i guess that can wait lol.

Maybe nation flags, custom flags, signal flags and ship flag?

Dun worreh devs, just smoll thingies you can add laterz.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Ye, i wouldn't mind having a nation builder as well. But i guess that can wait lol.

Maybe nation flags, custom flags, signal flags and ship flag?

Dun worreh devs, just smoll thingies you can add laterz.

It would be cool if ships raised signal flags to reflect status, but i would rather see voice actors for each of the nations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casemate guns should have lower range compared to guns that are in turrets or on pedestal mounts mainly due to the fact of the limited elevation angles for casemate weapons when installed. The max elevation angle was on the range of 20 to 25 degrees for 5" casemate guns on US ships.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2019 at 11:12 AM, Nick Thomadis said:
  • Reduced ladder aiming penalty of initial salvo shot, from -75% to -50% because it caused too low accuracy at close range.

Not sure if an across the board increase to accuracy is the correct solution, as long range accuracy, especially with upper-tier tech, is far too high already.  I think the problem is there is a range at which ladder aiming (i.e. requiring a range and rate fire solution) is no longer necessary because the only fire control problem is laying the gun directly on the target, essentially a "point blank" range  There is of course some fuzziness there because of human factors (range could be grossly mis-estimated one way or the other).  Once firing at point blank range the fire control problem is reduced to putting the gun on the target and properly timing the shot, and for a good portion of our era guns up to 9-inch had the advantage because they could be "continuously aimed" under human power before the introduction of powered-laying and various stabilization tech.

Quote
  • Cordite, Tube Powder, TNT explosives rebalanced to reflect better their special characteristics. Cordite offers more explosive power but is unsafe, Tube Powder is the safest explosive and more effective in penetrating armor, TNT is very expensive but overall the best compromise.

The combination of propellants and explosives into a single tech tree is very confusing and arbitrary.  My general impression is that improvements in propellants tended to be adopted across the board as they became available and so would better be handled as a "global" unlock for the tech area, rather than a per ship choice.  Shell design and explosive filling involved much more choice regarding benefits and trade-offs.

Quote
  • Fixed issue of Radar towers, increasing too much the surface visibility of ships that carry them.

Really hope radar visibility eventually gets treated separately from visual surface range. It feels wrong and is very confusing.

Quote
  • Citadel armor schemes increase the armor quality, but are more expensive. Citadel is a feature not yet finalized, but this new functionality simulates better its influence in armor schemes and vitals protection.

Will have to see this is in practice, but as described it doesn't make any more sense than the current version.  These named armor schemes don't seem to have much connection to their real world design benefits and trade-offs.

All the rest sounds like huge improvements.

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, akd said:

Will have to see this is in practice, but as described it doesn't make any more sense than the current version.  These named armor schemes don't seem to have much connection to their real world design benefits and trade-offs.

For sure. Turtleback for example should probably be extremely tough from all angles and cover a decent area, but be quite heavy, for example, while All or Nothing should lead to virtually impenetrable central sections (as well as turrets and magazines) from side angles save for torpedoes, point blank high-caliber fire, and possibly high-caliber plunging fire, but leave everything else almost totally exposed, thus saving greatly on weight versus turtleback but meaning if you skimp on your (quite heavy) subdivisions, you die immediately to flooding.

Giving it more thought, this could likely be handled as a +/-efficacy modifier to armor in specific places, possibly scaling a little bit with thickness (for example, armor above like 30mm effective extended deck on an AoN BB would start taking heavy maluses, but you could still cheaply throw on a splinter deck), rather than the current, highly complex system. This would be doubly effective as a system if the armor thickness sliders were changed to effective rather than raw thickness, not to mention significantly more transparent against the known armor pen numbers.

Hell, I'd change them to effective thickness sliders regardless, for several reasons. Another would be that you'd much more starkly see the contrast between varying armor compositions.

Edited by AnonymousPepper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2019 at 12:12 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

New features and improvements:

New Oxygen fueled torpedoes.

Historically speaking, O2 fueled torpedoes where better in every aspect (or at least mostly) to every other type of torpedo out there, in speed, size of explosive, stealth and of course range, but the Achilles heel being that where it's hard to get the explosives to explode without setting off the detonator the O2 fuel could easily go up if the tubes where hit. Would this be the case in game where they improve on a lot of the stats of standard torpedo (save for maybe weight) but are prone to exploding on deck if the tubes are destroyed?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Asthaven said:

The ability to use older version of guns even if more modern variant is available. (Let's say we got Mk3 variant for 305mm guns but we want to use Mk2 to cut costs for example).

Would be neat if when you scrap ships, or modernize ships (while removing/replacing guns), you can "save" the original gun turrets as surplus that can be placed on new ships.
Like how Mogami-class 155mm triples after removal were placed on Yamato & Musashi.  Lowering cost, and build time for the new ship. 🤔

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2019 at 11:11 PM, Tankaxe said:

The ability to choose which nations flag you can fly on your ships would be a nice option to add

Surely this is determined by your opening choices in the campaign as to which country you will play. 

Also country choice should affect the ship design process, tech availability, Hull designs etc I don't think it would be a cosmetic choice at the end of the build. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, AnonymousPepper said:

For sure. Turtleback for example should probably be extremely tough from all angles and cover a decent area, but be quite heavy, for example, while All or Nothing should lead to virtually impenetrable central sections (as well as turrets and magazines) from side angles save for torpedoes, point blank high-caliber fire, and possibly high-caliber plunging fire, but leave everything else almost totally exposed, thus saving greatly on weight versus turtleback but meaning if you skimp on your (quite heavy) subdivisions, you die immediately to flooding.

Giving it more thought, this could likely be handled as a +/-efficacy modifier to armor in specific places, possibly scaling a little bit with thickness (for example, armor above like 30mm effective extended deck on an AoN BB would start taking heavy maluses, but you could still cheaply throw on a splinter deck), rather than the current, highly complex system. This would be doubly effective as a system if the armor thickness sliders were changed to effective rather than raw thickness, not to mention significantly more transparent against the known armor pen numbers.

Hell, I'd change them to effective thickness sliders regardless, for several reasons. Another would be that you'd much more starkly see the contrast between varying armor compositions.

I agree, but really we need a way to view the armor placement and levels. It's currently hard to interpret what all these different armor choices mean, so if more choice is introduced it will get even more confusing without an armor viewing mode. Warthunder and wows have this sort of view mode. Though they do it in a cartoon like way. Perhaps the graphic you already have in the bottom left could be expanded on to give an old time series of blueprint crossections showing armor placement, like the sort of design drawings used at the time see attached examples. 

bgfsbgtgb.jpg

r3mgaxs.jpg

656e5128eeb55abd0ca88f971969d08a.jpg

656e5128eeb55abd0ca88f971969d08a.jpg

456756classe_South_Dakota_1920.jpg

2000px-Yamato-armorsheme-DE_-_magazines_cut_svg.thumb.png.252d1d4578b82ebfaa1b831a36d46a19.png

Y

456756classe_South_Dakota_1920.jpg

Edited by Capt in pyjamas
More text and images
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An armour viewer like in wows would be cool. However make it customisable so you can select which plates/sections you want to have, with x amount of armour on and it should put that armour on the relevant y amount of hull plates.

 

Edit: minor spelling and sentence fixing.

Edited by Cptbarney
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to mostly mirror what other people have said. Below I have listed items that I deem critically important if not for this release, then some point in the future before final release.

  1. Independent targeting for secondaries 
  2. Port/Starboard weapons should be able to fire at the same time if valid targets are present on both sides
  3. Skirmish/Custom Battle mode to test designs

 

Of those three, what I consider to be the most important is a custom battle mode, but they are all going to be absolutely necessary at one point or another before the game is released. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2019 at 8:56 AM, Cptbarney said:

An armour viewer like in wows would be cool. However make it customisable so you can select which plates/sections you want to have, with x amount of armour on and it should put that armour on the relevant y amount of hull plates.

Maybe go a step further and take the Warthunder tank armor viewer where you can see the penetration values from different types of shot and angles

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bry7x7x7 said:

Maybe go a step further and take the Warthunder tank armor viewer where you can see the penetration values from different types of shot and angles

I think that would take away from the immersion of the game. Every nations didnt know what every other nations guns / shells could do. Hell they didnt even have all the info for their own creations. The game takes place long before computer simulations were a thing and IMHO there needs to be a certain level of trial and error. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2019 at 12:00 PM, Finnwolf88 said:

take away from the immersion

For UA:D armour viewer would add to the collusion of design. These tools, functions and features expands the scope of games, it would give rise to intelligent design rather than dumb fumbling a design by trial and error. The campaign might not be so forgiving if you waste resources on trial and error either.  

 

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear devs,

This is a really great looking update which looks like it will fix a lot of the problems with combat.

Several other people have mentioned it, but I think another change the game needs is more freedom in the ship builder.  If snap to points were placed along the length of the hull for every type of component (within reason.  e.g. no main gun turrets right on the bow or stern) then it would be a lot easier to balance the weight of the ship to get those sweet accuracy bonuses.  It would also allow us to experiment with weird and wacky layouts which would be fun.  Perhaps also the fore/aft weight offset could be given a small deadzone to make it more forgiving, to simulate internal machinery being moved around.

I'm sure you have lots of work on your hands with the current patch, so I hope you can get onto this for the next one!

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...