Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Alpha-7 Feedback<<<


Recommended Posts

On 7/4/2020 at 6:04 PM, Skeksis said:

That would be very cool, managing 'fleets' per region rather than a single regional fleet.

E.g. sending supply convoys to re-supply ports to supply ships thereafter, which then entails designing convoy escorts. I example it this way cause I'm a big believer in the practical reason to include things, such as port re-supply via convoys.

Is that how rtw2 does it, multiple fleets per region?

I'm not good enough at rtw to give you a cohesive answer as to how it works exactly. You can assign ships to certain regions to do a few select tasks (raiding, convoy protection, patrol, ect). They are not grouped as fleets when you send them. so you may end up with a fraction of your overall fleet when the battle starts. Technically the rest of your ships can be found once you're in the battle, they're somewhere on the map. Supply convoys are kind of escort missions, usually to bolster land forces.

RTW was great in a lot of ways, there's no reason to reinvent the wheel in some regards.

@Nick Thomadis Secondaries clipping on this hull, 1922 Russian battle cruiser. I've noticed the AI designs have improved considerably. The AI still designs ships like wunderwafa a bit, but It's absolutely improved. 

https://imgur.com/U5lhIus

 

The Speed penalty is still maddening though.. I think it should go regardless, in favor of something that takes speed, and direction change into one modifier. In the battle below, the fight between that battleship and cruiser went on for about 20-30 minutes at that range. He didn't actually do anything, he stayed in that straight line but because he was moving above a dead stop he's impossible to hit. I actually attempted to ram him because i got tired of bad rng. I wouldn't mind low hit rates, and in general hits are too common, but if they are low, they should make sense.

https://imgur.com/IrEnOKQ

 

 

 

Edited by Hangar18
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, my five cents so far.
1:
I've noticed that a lot of nations have huge discrepancies in how good their command towers are in terms of the long range and base accuracy bonuses they provide (the most glaring example being the US battleships, who, if they take all the heaviest and most modern towers, can buff their long range accuracy to +72, whereas most nations can only buff it to somewhere between +38-57). This means that if I upgrade them fully, I can often accrue hit rates that are double or triple that of the AI's ship designs at all ranges against regular AI designs of the same era... well... as long as they aren't abusing the ridiculous and deeply unrealistic speed debuff mechanics that is.
This is probably why so many players are complaining about having better radar, fire control, mk. of guns ect... but still end up with lower hit probabilities than their enemies, simply because all of those bonuses stack on top of the base level your towers are at. This is of course problematic, because it means that there are nations that are just straight up better than their counterparts (US being best, japan being second, then germany and britain after which france comes in as being somewhat playable and the rest being practically unplayable).
I think this system is highly flawed, and should be replaced with a system where individual rangefinders and radars are added as modules just like guns and towers, with only the fire control computers and stations inside the control towers being static upgrades, rather than them being half an integral part of the command towers and half a static upgrade in the side bar, which the player has no control over other than picking the most OP nation and arbitrary range finder and radar upgrades for their design.
This would increase realism on so many levels. You could have individual fire control modules be placed around the ship's superstructures just like main and secondary turrets that can then be knocked out one by one from enemy gun fire, causing all kinds of effects from simple debuffs to outright preventing guns from firing due to lacking fire sollutions (which we have many historical examples of, especially from Bismarck and Scharnhorst) You could have fire control arcs, just like the turrets have firing arcs, signifying where the rangefinder can be used and where the guns would have to use their own localized rangefinders, thus again reducing accuracy drastically, and you could combine this with radar arcs, where gen I radars would only gain a spotting bonus in the radar's directional arc while gen II radar would also give an accuracy bonus within said arc, representing radar assisted fire control.
2:
What exactly is an ammo explosion supposed to simulate? Like seriously? Not historical ammunition detonations I hope? because I've just read through the wikipedia page on ammo explosions that occurred historically, which you can find a link to here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_magazine_explosions
and we're talking about one out of ten ships surviving these... and so far I haven't seen a single ammo explosion (not counting flash fires of course, which btw are somehow also waaaay too survivable once you get up to a certain tonnage) actually sink a ship outright... are these really supposed to simulate ammo explosions then? because they feel more like taking a single 14" mid belt pen at the moment, especially as there seems to be no slowdown in fire-rate of the guns that were fed by these magazines as many have pointed out before. This is obviously not realistic, although I do have to add that the Scharnhorst had her battery flooded during the battle of the north cape after an ammo fire that threatened to turn into an ammo explosion (which would have certainly sunk the ship outright, again in stark contrast with this game's current mechanics) and consequently the crew would physically carry ammo from one end of the ship to the other, because the guns in one end were out of action while the magazines in the other end were flooded, but the guns still worked. In this manner she managed to pull off a salvo about once every five minutes or so, so it is possible to continue fire, but with about a 500% reduction in reload times, which would also be nice to have implemented some sunny day, and certainly be an improvement over the "not real ammo detonation" ammo detonations that we have now. Sorry I got sidetracked, but my point is the devs should either make ammo explosions realistic, aka at least ten times as deadly as they are now, or just remove them and stick solely to flash fires, as they are currently a lot closer to historical levels of deadliness from ammo-related accidents and hits, even if they do still manage to be somewhat underwhelming in some circumbstances (seriously, H classes can take so many flash fires and still survive that it's almost laughable. I once fought a german H class ship that lost three of it's four main turrets to flash fires and still didn't sink.)
3:
I've already mentioned this, and so have at least a dozen other posters, but the high speed debuff is an absolute eye sore and should be removed completely.
It makes no sense.
At.
All.
Whoever thought this was a good idea should pick up a book on rangefinding and fire control calculations, and not even start developing on the game again until he/she has read it through.
It simply isn't how it works...
Now granted, if this is meant to simulate hit chances before rangefinders were even invented, aka. the pre 1880s, then it makes some measure of sense (remind me fellas, does the game stretch back that far? I'm mostly a late-tech player), but the debuff should disappear completely once the ship shooting at it has even lvl 1 fire control modules installed, even if they remain in their current arbitrary non-module-reliant-on-towers state. It is simply a bad mechanic. Anit-realistic and anti-historical. Sorry to say. Now please get rid of it!
4:
I also really think you should get rid of hard points altogether. They are extremely limiting to ship design, and many new hulls that you are probably working and many old hulls that have already been finished (N3/G3 class, I'm looking at you!) are simply impossible to design to their own historical specifications with the current hardpoint system in place. Plus the ships often turn out as utter eye sores, even if you do manage to get a decently balanced design out of it, because you often cant synchronize the main guns positions in relation to each other and still get decent bow-stern weight ratios without placing one of the guns practically at the tip of the ship, where realistically it would never have been placed, because it would be so far outside of the citadel that it would just be a flash fire waiting to happen...
and speaking of which...
5:
can we get a better overview of where the main belt ends please? and the main deck armour? War thunder has a brilliant function for this called X-ray. This would be hugely useful to implement in some way into this game, because at current I'm really confused as to where I can place my main guns and still be within the belt armour of the citadel, as well as being confused about whether this even matters or if flash fires are only based on barbette level and turret armour (which, if it is, is again highly unrealistic!)
6:
This is just a cosmetic thing, and should not be your top priority, but can we get more smoke billowing from fires and explosions? I feel like the level of smoke released especially during ammo explosions and flash fires are extremely underwhelming.
Here's a clip of HMS Barham suffering a main magazine explosion.

 

 

As you can clearly see, the amount of smoke is about 10-20 fold the amount that is currently released in your own flash fire graphics, as displayed on your channel here:
 

The fires look great! Very in keeping with eye witness accounts of these catastrohpic events. Well done on that part. But the amount of smoke is just underwhelming compared to real life footage.

Apart from that i would however also like to say that I absolutely have enjoyed the game so far. Some of the features are quite groundbreaking, even if many of them are currently not that well implemented, and even if none of the above mentioned points and features are addressed I still wouldn't regret the purchase. You have done well so far, and right now it is just a matter of whether this game will become an everlasting legend and a hallmark of realistic wargaming, or just another above average warship game, and we would of course all prefer the former.

Cheers!

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2020 at 10:12 PM, Hangar18 said:

RTW was great in a lot of ways, there's no reason to reinvent the wheel in some regards.

Naval Action has an excellent 3D OW map, a “wheel” that has been invented! With a few adjustments like multiple 3D pc capable OW map types to represent world regions, then there could be multiple fleets as in Naval Action, as in Dreadnoughts RL, my version of what could be a very cool OW war theater sandbox game.

And UAD has invented designer tool, a brand new wheel so to speak, so I would say push the envelope all the way, invent RL multiple fleets per region.

UAAoS would have done superbly well with an OW sandbox campaign but they held back from that challenge.

But I'll run with whatever comes down the pipeline. 🙂

 

PS, scratch 3D OW,  'Naval Battle Simulator' 'Open World' is way better (not the UI though!). In its OW you can command all the fleets worldwide, on an accurate global scale too. Far superior global map. It's just its multiple fleet command capability in/on a global stage (with battle instances) and that's very good, it looks and feels like RL naval representation of fleets, that's gotta be good.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2020 at 3:35 PM, Skeksis said:
  • 1 Spotting (and removal of player view of enemy gun/torpedo load status) In the battle instance there isn't alot to do and one of those things we do is reading/watching the stats/damage model of all ships, removing even the "enemy gun/torpedo load" info from the battle instance would have an impact, making it more challenging. 
  • 2 Remove current speed/maneuvering penalty (replace with one actually calculating change in bearing/range). This mechanic has issues. 
  • 3 Remove torpedo reloading under fire or rough sea state (all ships would be able to reload after a battle however). 
  • 4 Create modules solely for reloading torpedoes in battle (to speed up reloading/should be costly and take up valuable space) While 3 & 4 are RL they have been reduced to suit gameplay.  
  • 5 Torpedo reloads themselves should actually take up space, not just weight (most are around 20 ft long and almost 2 ft wide, where exactly do you put more than a couple of these on a 2000 ton tin can?) Subs for an e.g. SM U-151 carried 18 torpedo's, so I'm not so sure limited space arg's stacks up given that destroyers were typically larger.
  • 6 Increase risk of carrying reloads for torpedo deck mounts (no ship carrying a 10 tons of warheads on deck would survive sustained fire, more reason to launch your torpedoes as well)
  • 7 Increase risk (or fix) of carrying large numbers of torpedo deck mounts (same as above). 6 & 7. Does the damage model allow for deck modules to effect cells below?
  • 8 Finally, anti-torp protection at the higher levels needs some balancing (this really relates to the armor model issues I believe, i.e. repeated hits to the same side all reducing damage the same). Damage saturation, WOWS has that, good mechanic. But wouldn't the damage model have problems if the top layer of cells can't relay damage to the cells below because of saturation, probably. 

Ah... but can actual RL naval simulation actually work in a video game? its the big question!
I'm assuming Dev' tested this a few years ago and their result is what we have today. While the theme is reality, the practice is gameplay.

1. I don't think you will find many agreeing with that. I'm not saying get rid of all the details, but seeing the load/ammo status on enemy ships gives an unfair advantage to the player.

3+4. That implies torpedo armed ships should be a greater threat than capital ships, something which is completely against the premise of the game and reality. While they may have been reduced recently, that does not imply balance. However, if #2 is fixed the degree of imbalance will be much less. At this point, a 40kt DD armed with 60+ torpedoes can sink a 100K+ ton BB 1v1. That implies a serious imbalance, unless this is WoWS. 

5. Larger, yes but not one carried more than 18 torpedoes (Fubuki being the largest I have found). They also didn't just use torpedoes. U-151, like almost all submarines, has one primary weapon the torpedo. Take a Type VII, 220ft long with a crew of around 50 and carried 14 torpedoes for it's 5 tubes. The standard G7 torpedo was 23ft long. So if you need to stack 2 back to back, you need almost 50 ft of space, a quarter almost of the subs length. For comparison a Type 1936A destroyer was 416ft long, crew of 320 and carried 12 torpedoes for 8 tubes. The storage is proportional because you are leaving out the space for the crew and the numerous other weapons/systems/and endurance a DD has over a sub. German destroyers were large in comparison to most other nations. So if any DD could carry more torpedoes, it would be these. 

Also when a submarine reloads, it is straight from an in-line storage rack into a tube. For most DDs, this was not the case. The Japanese built a storage shack on the deck behind their turreted torpedo mounts specifically to reduce reload time. Some of the Soviet DDs carried their reloads strapped to the sides of the superstructure. Wouldn't you like to have a combat station to man near them in a battle?

Besides this is the fact the game simply changes the storage numbers based on the ammo setting without taking into account the number of tubes/mounts on the ships. So with 4 reloads now being the max (instead of the 5+ before), my 130+ torpedo DD design only mounts 96. At the Battle of Java Sea (the largest surface engagement since Jutland), the Japanese combined fleet of 4 cruisers and 14 DDs launched a total of 92 torpedoes. So again, how is that remotely balanced?

6+7. I don't believe so. Others will need to comment since some have looked at the issues with the damage model more than I have. But you can ask yourself, when was the last time you saw a TB/DD/CL/CA detonate from a torpedo magazine or mount explosion?

 

Personally, we are all over the place in realism. Somethings are done well enough IMO, others are so broke in comparison to known "arcade" naval games.

It most certainly is a balancing act, but this isn't WoWS, Victory At Sea, etc…Ships need to be balanced for their roles, otherwise they serve no purpose. A single BB shouldn't be able to steam roll a fleet of DDs. A single DD should be not able to wipe the floor with a BB designed to take on multiple BBs. A light cruiser has a specific function, as does a heavy. Basically the game is having an identity crisis IMO. We need clear direction on what is set in stone, and what is on the fix list. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, madham82 said:

1. I don't think you will find many agreeing with that. I'm not saying get rid of all the details, but seeing the load/ammo status on enemy ships gives an unfair advantage to the player.

1. On the contrary, players have become accommodated with this feature. If I was captain/admiral I would have ensigns near the bridge with stopwatch's spotting gun flashes and letting me know the fire rate and if one or more turrets has miss-fired/stop firing etc.

These features work as crew/intelligent officers.  

3&4. I meant actions/modules have been merged to suit, to streamline the UI and battle instance.

Quote

game is having an identity crisis

Really sad comment for an exceptional game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Skeksis said:

1. On the contrary, players have become accommodated with this feature. If I was captain/admiral I would have ensigns near the bridge with stopwatch's spotting gun flashes and letting me know the fire rate and if one or more turrets has miss-fired/stop firing etc.

These features work as crew/intelligent officers.  

3&4. I meant actions/modules have been merged to suit, to streamline the UI and battle instance.

Really sad comment for an exceptional game.

Ammunition count for guns is a little gamey, but fine, you can explain that and it doesn't really affect the game much.

What really messes up the meta right now is torpedo reload time. Knowing when a ship has fired by watching its reload timer allows me to evade any torpedo unless fired at point blank range. Knowing when a ship is reloading or out of torpedoes lets me choose when to close with the enemy and when to withdraw. This feels like an exploit, not a functioning game mechanic.

This problem ties into the issue that a lot of people have already pointed out on here: the role of torpedoes is very different to their actual use in combat. Historically, fleet maneuvres and often entire battles were controlled by the -threat- of torpedoes. Ridiculously OP spotting mechanics/systems, combined with the visible ammo/reload status on enemy ships, make torpedoes from most ships a temporary obstacle at best - unless they're mounted on a DD or CL fast enough to ridiculously abuse the speed evasion bonus, at which point they become hilariously overpowered.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2020 at 5:05 AM, SonicB said:

What really messes up the meta right now is torpedo reload time. Knowing when a ship has fired by watching its reload timer allows me to evade any torpedo unless fired at point blank range. Knowing when a ship is reloading or out of torpedoes lets me choose when to close with the enemy and when to withdraw. This feels like an exploit, not a functioning game mechanic.

I reckon sailors could spot torpedo launch splashes in the right circumstances, maybe even see torpedo tubes swing/lining up for launch. But where to draw the line to when sailors can and can’t see, as per RL.

The more you dive into realism the more complex it becomes. You guys say “mess up”, I say Dev’ had to streamline the interface because RL is just too complicated.   

Maybe Dev’ could change the UI to only notify the player of gun flashes and torpedo splashes, replace the reload animations with flash/splash animations, but then you would need to add barrel raising animations in those slots (but only for mains) because sailors could spot those too (in the right circumstances).

But isn’t that the representation we have now?

Also don't forget if you guy's remove the reload animations then to go along with this theme, no crew spotting, you then would have to remove enemy ship camera view, cause with it you would see barrels raising and its readiness to fire, any weapon readiness.

Where to draw the line? 

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Where to draw the line? 

Good question. 

I'm probably on the side of "we have too much info on enemy ship" camp. I dont mind looking at it from bird view, but having an X-Ray on full ship stats and status feels like cheating.

There is something rewarding when you just guess torps are coming and do evasion blindly (really enjoy it in WOWS BB gameplay). If you know exactly when the ship has fired - that kills it. 

If there is a clever system in place that uses probability like - crew thinks they fired while in reality they didnt or vice versa - can be interesting. And accuracy can be based on your optics, weather, distance and so on... But i have a feeling that's just too much trouble and there are better things to do for devs. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Where to draw the line? 

I think you take the total war approach and let the players choose through options. (you can change the camera limitations before you start a campaign)

After a bit of reading the torpedo debate; personally it seems that the best solution using the tools given, would be to make reduced count 0 reloads, normal get 1 reload, and increased at 2.

This seems to be a realistic option that can be implemented with current mechanisms. There's a fear that DDs won't be worth making, but i don't believe that to be the case. RTW required DDs, I don't see a reason for UA to be any different. You will still need ships to screen and escort convoys.

Aside from that DDs are god tier right now due to size/speed penalty. The speed penalty should just be removed though. It feels broken at times, and is generally frustrating. I would suggest reducing the overall hit rate, as hits in general are far to common. Reducing it would likely give the desired effect of keeping DDs alive, which seemed to be the mechanics intent anyway.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ArtifaX said:

But i have a feeling that's just too much trouble and there are better things to do for devs. 

It’s a pity that this wasn’t debated at the beginning of alpha because then there might have been changes, notifications from crew (even voiced) would have been a better representation.  

But the game is way past any UI changes now, we're into campaign 'balancing' (though for us, no campaign!).

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

It’s a pity that this wasn’t debated at the being of alpha because then there might have been changes, notifications from crew (even voiced) would have been a better representation.  

This has been raised many times, even at beginning of alpha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

I think you take the total war approach and let the players choose through options. (you can change the camera limitations before you start a campaign)

After a bit of reading the torpedo debate; personally it seems that the best solution using the tools given, would be to make reduced count 0 reloads, normal get 1 reload, and increased at 2.

This seems to be a realistic option that can be implemented with current mechanisms. There's a fear that DDs won't be worth making, but i don't believe that to be the case. RTW required DDs, I don't see a reason for UA to be any different. You will still need ships to screen and escort convoys.

Aside from that DDs are god tier right now due to size/speed penalty. The speed penalty should just be removed though. It feels broken at times, and is generally frustrating. I would suggest reducing the overall hit rate, as hits in general are far to common. Reducing it would likely give the desired effect of keeping DDs alive, which seemed to be the mechanics intent anyway.

I like it too, in Uboat you can choose your realism settings when you start the game, for example you can pick things like manually setting TDC or have AI do it, and wether it's first person only or more of a management type game.

I think that any modern simulator should have options to make it more gamey, like how in IL-2 you can get down to bolt counting, or you can have an easy to play flight sim, depending on how you use the settings.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2020 at 3:13 PM, Skeksis said:

1. On the contrary, players have become accommodated with this feature. If I was captain/admiral I would have ensigns near the bridge with stopwatch's spotting gun flashes and letting me know the fire rate and if one or more turrets has miss-fired/stop firing etc.

These features work as crew/intelligent officers.  

3&4. I meant actions/modules have been merged to suit, to streamline the UI and battle instance.

Really sad comment for an exceptional game.

Sure they could do that (if the sea state, weather, and range was within limits), but fire rates weren't constant either. In the game they are constant. Like someone mentioned, it's the torpedo status that is too much like a cheat because it will determine your tactics. The AI doesn't cheat in this game, so anything that gives the player an advantage over the AI will cause balance issues. 

The modules aren't streamlined, they don't exist. We have separate modules for gun loading and turret traverse, why not for torpedo reloading speed and storage?

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

I retcon sailors could spot torpedo launch splashes in the right circumstances, maybe even see torpedo tubes swing/lining up for launch. But where to draw the line to when sailors can and can’t see, as per RL.

The more you dive into realism the more complex it becomes. You guys say “mess up”, I say Dev’ had to streamline the interface because RL is just too complicated.   

Maybe Dev’ could change the UI to only notify the player of gun flashes and torpedo splashes, replace the reload animations with flash/splash animations, but then you would need to add barrel raising animations in those slots (but only for mains) because sailors could spot those too (in the right circumstances).

But isn’t that the representation we have now?

Also don't forget if you guy's remove the reload animations then to go along with this theme, no crew spotting, you then would have to remove enemy ship camera view, cause with it you would see barrels raising and its readiness to fire, any weapon readiness.

Where to draw the line? 

If you could see the splashes from their torpedoes hitting the water, you probably are too close to evade LOL. In all reality, at the ranges they would launch them (Long Lance in particular), you would barely be able to make out what kind of DD it is, much less that it had fired its fish. 

But.....

Everyone is hitting on a good idea, we should have some realism options. It is by far the best way to balance for both crowds and keep the game from not being challenging. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BobRoss0902 said:

I like it too, in Uboat you can choose your realism settings when you start the game, for example you can pick things like manually setting TDC or have AI do it, and wether it's first person only or more of a management type game.

I think that any modern simulator should have options to make it more gamey, like how in IL-2 you can get down to bolt counting, or you can have an easy to play flight sim, depending on how you use the settings.

Yep, I would love this. Aside from torpedo tactics, this could also apply to the frequency of critical hits and equipment malfunctions, which also decided battles or strategies much more frequently in real historical engagements than in the current game.

5 hours ago, Skeksis said:

I retcon sailors could spot torpedo launch splashes in the right circumstances, maybe even see torpedo tubes swing/lining up for launch. But where to draw the line to when sailors can and can’t see, as per RL.

The more you dive into realism the more complex it becomes. You guys say “mess up”, I say Dev’ had to streamline the interface because RL is just too complicated.   

Maybe Dev’ could change the UI to only notify the player of gun flashes and torpedo splashes, replace the reload animations with flash/splash animations, but then you would need to add barrel raising animations in those slots (but only for mains) because sailors could spot those too (in the right circumstances).

But isn’t that the representation we have now?

Also don't forget if you guy's remove the reload animations then to go along with this theme, no crew spotting, you then would have to remove enemy ship camera view, cause with it you would see barrels raising and its readiness to fire, any weapon readiness.

Where to draw the line? 

In theory, but realistically in battle situations, nigh-on impossible to spot launches for any ranges beyond about 1900 tech (we underestimate the distances in this game because of the camera, but 2km really is a big distance to spot something 18" across.) Also, that would only apply to tubes above the waterline.

Sorry to interrupt the slippery slope argument, but knowing when the enemy is going to fire their guns is tactically useless. Knowing when they can fire torpedoes, on the other hand, is incredibly valuable.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2020 at 2:10 PM, Draco said:

I also really think you should get rid of hard points altogether. They are extremely limiting to ship design, and many new hulls that you are probably working and many old hulls that have already been finished (N3/G3 class, I'm looking at you!) are simply impossible to design to their own historical specifications with the current hardpoint system in place. Plus the ships often turn out as utter eye sores, even if you do manage to get a decently balanced design out of it, because you often cant synchronize the main guns positions in relation to each other and still get decent bow-stern weight ratios without placing one of the guns practically at the tip of the ship, where realistically it would never have been placed, because it would be so far outside of the citadel that it would just be a flash fire waiting to happen...
and speaking of which...

This 110%. They're fine as guidelines for the AI ship design, but I can't think of a single reason why they couldn't be replaced with a single line down the middle of the hull for manual ctrl+ arrangement. More flexibility, better accuracy for RL designs, better balancing.

At present I'm having to achieve decent stability on some hulls (looking at you, pre-dreadnoughts and accurate N3/G3) by using heavy bow/stern torpedo tubes essentially as ballast.

Another option that's been suggested would be optional ballasting, but that would be almost entirely unnecessary if we could just put the components where we want to put them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nick Thomadis

Sorry for the ping, but I think this one is justified.

I believe you are missing a gun. Every cruiser light, and heavy at 1940 is using mk5 guns, except the 8" guns. 

The implication being that the 229s, which are already overpowered, completely dominate the heavy cruiser class. They do not scale with the rest of the guns. The 7", and 10" guns are actually fine, they scale with the 6" and 11". Even assuming 8" mk5 fit the scale, the 229s would still be blatantly overpowered, they scale evenly in most areas, but the accuracy, reload, and shell velocity are out of line.

g1i9adt.png

 

 

Edited by Hangar18
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick request, I've been loving this game immensely since I got it but I have been become rather frustrated with spotting, particularly with some of the missions. Hurry Up is the worst for this in my opinion, I have no idea how destroyers are able to get within 3-5km (EDIT, I have played two games now where they get within 2km without being spotted, this is beyond absurd) of light cruisers let alone the battlecruiser you build without being spotted, especially since they're firing. It makes it impossible to succeed in this mission because they get in incredibly close and fire torpedoes before you have any idea they're there, so there is no chance to evade at all. Please improve spotting or rework torpedoes so three destroyers can't wipe out a battlecruiser and two light cruisers without taking a single hit themselves. I know the game is in Alpha so lots of things will be fixed, just my two cents. Awesome work and love the game.

Edited by GenericName
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2020 at 7:16 AM, GenericName said:

Just a quick request, I've been loving this game immensely since I got it but I have been become rather frustrated with spotting, particularly with some of the missions. Hurry Up is the worst for this in my opinion, I have no idea how destroyers are able to get within 3-5km (EDIT, I have played two games now where they get within 2km without being spotted, this is beyond absurd) of light cruisers let alone the battlecruiser you build without being spotted, especially since they're firing. It makes it impossible to succeed in this mission because they get in incredibly close and fire torpedoes before you have any idea they're there, so there is no chance to evade at all. Please improve spotting or rework torpedoes so three destroyers can't wipe out a battlecruiser and two light cruisers without taking a single hit themselves. I know the game is in Alpha so lots of things will be fixed, just my two cents. Awesome work and love the game.

that sounds odd....are you running good towers/hydro? is there smoke? weather? The spotting *can* be odd, but i've never had it like that....then again i play with muh radar so i don't deal with that issue anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

purgatory.thumb.jpg.2b3cf9f968fa2b2b5a102af845e7c599.jpg

 

I discovered purgatory. It's when your 2 CA's kill the BC, BA, CL on 'Hurry Up' and then you're left with two destroyers circling you that cannot do damage to your armor and are out of torpedoes so cannot kill you. And you're stuck unable to hit them. Thankfully a torpedo strike by my CAs killed one of the destroyers and it ended the mission. real.thumb.jpg.23eb834b31942565f012edcd8fef80ec.jpg

 

And then on the next mission I faced modern CA/BCs with older dreadnaughts so went with heavy armor and closed the distance... But my 15 inch guns cannot hit an enemy CA within 700M because of the target fast speed modifiers... This isn't working as intended right?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Staire said:

Within 100M... Still cannot hit a destroyer 🤣

plz.jpg

Well, to be fair that ship should be totally incapable of gunnery in that damage state, but of course guns / crews behave like automatons.  The main guns shouldn’t even be able to depress to aim at the destroyer!

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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