Alpha-9 News Update

[Shiki]

1 hour ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Ok so the Devs said that that 20inch and 19inch guns will only be available for only certain hulls most likely the the Super BB ones. So my question is should modern BB hulls be able to carry 20inch guns especially the Japanese and Germany Nations since they are the only ones (that I know of) that planned to use these guns the H-44 class and A-150 class BBs. Plz Devs I wanna make Shikishima.

I wouldn't recommend aiming for Shikishima specifically.

takes deep breath, Japanese Navy nitpick is about to begin

Shikishima emulates the final design studies for the A-150-type battleships in extremely few ways. In fact, she doesn't resemble them much at all, except in the number and calibre of the main battery - and even then, the shells are much heavier than they ought to be. What few surviving records of the A-150 that exist indicate - to point out a major difference - that she was to be armed with a homogenous dual-purpose battery of 10-cm guns, dispensing with the split LA/HA 15.5-cm/12.7-cm appropriations. She's actually closer to an up-gunned Yamato type than she is to any proposal for A-150 (and while an upgunned Yamato was the original plan for Yamato, those provisions were deleted after Fujimoto's death and his replacement with Hiraga).

...Instead, you should shoot even higher and go for the original A-150 design, which called for nine 51 cm guns and sufficient protection against those shells from the expected combat distance of 25,000 to 30,000 metres (implying a 46 cm belt and a 25 cm deck, with a known turret face thickness of 80 centimetres). Obviously, this plan was rejected as it was simply outside of the capabilities of Imperial Japan to construct- even the notoriously shoot-for-the-moon (and in this case, hypocritical considering their other life choices) Imperial Japanese Naval General Staff rejected it out of hand because it was "too big and too expensive." But those choices don't apply to a video game, so don't just copy Wargaming. Go one better.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Shiki

[Bluishdoor76]

2 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Ok so the Devs said that that 20inch and 19inch guns will only be available for only certain hulls most likely the the Super BB ones. So my question is should modern BB hulls be able to carry 20inch guns especially the Japanese and Germany Nations since they are the only ones (that I know of) that planned to use these guns the H-44 class and A-150 class BBs. Plz Devs I wanna make Shikishima.

I'm hoping we get a new model for the 19" and 20" for the German turrets

something similar to this, I really love the look of these turrets

[CapnAvont1015]

47 minutes ago, Shiki said:

I wouldn't recommend aiming for Shikishima specifically.

takes deep breath, Japanese Navy nitpick is about to begin

Shikishima emulates the final design studies for the A-150-type battleships in extremely few ways. In fact, she doesn't resemble them much at all, except in the number and calibre of the main battery - and even then, the shells are much heavier than they ought to be. What few surviving records of the A-150 that exist indicate - to point out a major difference - that she was to be armed with a homogenous dual-purpose battery of 10-cm guns, dispensing with the split LA/HA 15.5-cm/12.7-cm appropriations. She's actually closer to an up-gunned Yamato type than she is to any proposal for A-150 (and while an upgunned Yamato was the original plan for Yamato, those provisions were deleted after Fujimoto's death and his replacement with Hiraga).

...Instead, you should shoot even higher and go for the original A-150 design, which called for nine 51 cm guns and sufficient protection against those shells from the expected combat distance of 25,000 to 30,000 metres (implying a 46 cm belt and a 25 cm deck, with a known turret face thickness of 80 centimetres). Obviously, this plan was rejected as it was simply outside of the capabilities of Imperial Japan to construct- even the notoriously shoot-for-the-moon (and in this case, hypocritical considering their other life choices) Imperial Japanese Naval General Staff rejected it out of hand because it was "too big and too expensive." But those choices don't apply to a video game, so don't just copy Wargaming. Go one better.

To be honest the reason I went Shikishima is well the way armor and design is in this game. I reckon in WOWS Shikishima has the same armor has Yamato ( probably a few differences but whatever ) and in the current state of the game making Yamato is not easy especially with fixed points. Yamato's armor is very heavy and in this game even with the super BB hull Yamato is a hassle to make. So when the 20inch guns are added I know their going to be a lot heavier than the 18inch turrets and having four of them like in the original A-150 design is going to be hard. So until they rework the armor in someway I'm going to have to stick with Shikishima until then.

[Bluishdoor76]

2 minutes ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

To be honest the reason I went Shikishima is well the way armor and design is in this game. I reckon in WOWS Shikishima has the same armor has Yamato ( probably a few differences but whatever ) and in the current state of the game making Yamato is not easy especially with fixed points. Yamato's armor is very heavy and in this game even with the super BB hull Yamato is a hassle to make. So when the 20inch guns are added I know their going to be a lot heavier than the 18inch turrets and having four of them like in the original A-150 design is going to be hard. So until they rework the armor in someway I'm going to have to stick with Shikishima until then.

With the current limitations, It really forces you into the same design a lot. Which is why I wish they would just rid of a lot of this fixed points, or just add more of them for better designs.

Theres no point in a build system at that point if you end up with the same designs over and over again.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Bluishdoor76

[CapnAvont1015]

You know? Now that I think about it, an armor rework in the future is necessary. There is still armor places that are still missing it the game such turret side and back armor, funnel armor, conning tower top and side armor. If they add those armor types with the way armor currently is a lot of ships are going to be very heavy like the Yamato and Iowa classes. Secondly I don't like how barbette armor is at the moment. The way barbette armor is now I don't how thick it is, I think barbette armor should be in the category with the other armor types where you can type how thick it is. But what do I know; for all I know the whole building menu may be a temporary thing and may get a huge rework in the future.

[Fishyfish]

So is this just turning into a "I want XYZ from WoWS" thread?

[Skyguy1944]

On 10/17/2020 at 3:25 PM, Bluishdoor76 said:

hope we also get quad gun turrets for WW1 designs like battleship Lyon and Normandie

Honestly, what'd be really cool is being able to customize what type of turret you can use, as in what model. Usually they're just locked behind the research year, I suppose, but I like those early dreadnaught turrets :3

Edit: I mean like a list like you see with the caliber, so you can pick what turret type you want.

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Skyguy1944

[Skyguy1944]

56 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

So is this just turning into a "I want XYZ from WoWS" thread?

I mean you got to admit, they have some really, really good looking ship models

[ReefKip]

Maybe they could also add taller barbettes for the main battery guns. So you can make Ships that have for example 3 main gun turrets at the front overlapping eachother in a Bow in set up.right now the middle gun cannot fire frontally because it is blocked by the front most turret in this setup. And if you put  the middle turret on a barbette as well then the rear most turret is blocked from firing frontally. A barbette that is singnificantly taller would fix this issue.

 

3 hours ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

With the current limitations, It really forces you into the same design a lot. Which is why I wish they would just rid of a lot of this fixed points, or just add more of them for better designs.

Theres no point in a build system at that point if you end up with the same designs over and over again.

THIS. The game forces you mostly in the standard 2 bow,2 stern gun design.  Making something like a Nelson BB is practicly impossible to do.

 

 

 

 

[Shiki]

2 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

So is this just turning into a "I want XYZ from WoWS" thread?

Not exactly? World of Warships bases a lot of their stuff - well, a lot of the old stuff - on actual designs and ships that existed. Now, the refits they give them (stares hard at Lyon & Normandie) are not always up to the same snuff, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is that for at least most of their lines, they have some historical basis. That's what I want, personally. More historical ships, more historical options- give me something that Wargaming can't. Give me the ability to employ ships as they were used, instead of fighting tank battles on the ocean.

And by historical ships, I mean Takao. In all of her forms. Original, Takao & Atago's rebuild and Maya-type. Mostly Maya type. Just give me Maya, really.

[Cptbarney]

Hope we can get quads like these as well.

Frankly quads should be available for ships under 70k tonnes otherwise we can't make the proposed design for north carolina with quads nor can we have older ships with quads as well or smaller ships with quads. Plus 20 and 19inch guns should be available to hulls as small as 65 tonnes at least (even with some drawbacks, as i want to make shikishima).

[Cptbarney]

Also like @Bluishdoor76 says and this is a problem that hasn't been addressed yet, the designer needs a good rework to allow us to make more free designs in general and also more hulls, and other things to allow us to build ships to a closer historical loadout and look or go bonkers.

So after the campaign i would like this to be the main focus, alongside fixing issues in the campaign itself and then they focus on whatever once they make the designer far better.

That ps2 naval game did a good job of it and they could learn something from that as well.

[Skeksis]

15 hours ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

Theres no point in a build system at that point if you end up with the same designs over and over again.

This is the strongest argument I've seen in this forum for the removal of limitations, causality, meaning we don't want the same effect every time, very nice. 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Skeksis

[Marshall99]

I am realy looking forward to this update, because The battle of Tsushima was a huge battle between the pre-dreadnoughts. And I love the pre-dreadnought era, so finaly I can test more things in this mission.

Also as for me, the 510 mm guns are very nice. I can't wait to design Shikishima, because to be honest I won't grind 31k steel for a pixel battleship in WoWs. Oh and of course I can design this battleship on my way. 

The quad turrets are very nice addition to this game, and these turrets are needed for historycal reasons and of course (for me at least) more guns are always good 😁

Finaly I want to thanks the devs hard work! Thank you! You created a superb game with a huge potential!

[WiselessOwl]

12 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Ok so the Devs said that that 20inch and 19inch guns will only be available for only certain hulls most likely the the Super BB ones. So my question is should modern BB hulls be able to carry 20inch guns especially the Japanese and Germany Nations since they are the only ones (that I know of) that planned to use these guns the H-44 class and A-150 class BBs. Plz Devs I wanna make Shikishima.

 

[RUSS663]

On 10/16/2020 at 11:24 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello Admirals,

 

We would like to share news about the progress we have so far and the status of the upcoming update.

 

The team’s reorganization is working great and we are very happy with the results. These last 2 months we have touched upon all major aspects of the game with the new lead programmer (from formations to AI to ship designer) - and finally we can say - now the new team is more than ready to continue with the development of the campaign. We plan to add extra resources in November, which will help us to speed up the development even further.

 

Regarding the patch, in addition to all the features we mentioned in our previous blog and in our forum, including the new quad guns… we are also preparing the following.

A variant ship based on the "Richelieu" hull

 

New Hulls

“Battleship Richelieu” is the new addition in the game’s database of realistic hulls. The new hull and its assets can produce the following new ship variants:

• A French Modern Battleship of 45,000 to 65,000 tons, which can faithfully recreate the historical Battleship "Richelieu".
• A French Super Battleship with displacement between 70,000 to 85,000 tons.
• A French Battlecruiser with displacement between 35,000 to 45,000 tons, inspired by the Battleship “Dunkerque”.
• A French Large Cruiser of 28,000 to 32,500 tons.
• A French Heavy Cruiser of 12,000 to 14,900 tons.

Furthermore, various new assets and guns became available to several other hulls.

 

New guns

• 19-inch and 20-inch guns: You are now able to design ships with powerful armament, which was never actually implemented on any warship, but was used in various planned designs. These guns will be available only on specific large hulls, such as those of the super battleships. Designing ships with so large guns should be a challenge due to their extreme weight that could be used for increasing ship protection and speed.
• New British/French Guns: New special looking late-tech guns are available for Britain and France.

 

Balances

A few balances were made based on the player feedback we received in our last patch.

• Accuracy balance: Maneuverable ships, such as Destroyers, will be harder to hit, so they will be more comfortable to control them at a safe distance. Average Accuracy is less at long range but will be significantly higher at very short ranges, creating more decisive engagements when ships approach very near to each other.
• Triple and Quad Guns are distinctively heavier: Making ships with many heavy guns will need more trade offs. This was especially needed now, that we added quad guns and the huge guns of 19-inch and 20-inch caliber.
• More resilient Destroyers and Torpedo Boats: The hull damage that DD and TB can receive is increased, so they are not so rapidly destroyed in gun fights.

 

New Missions

• Conflict in the Tsushima strait: A battle that resembles the historical battle of Tsushima featuring large fleets for both sides. You take the side of the Japanese fleet vs a large Russian fleet composed by many but rather outdated battleships. Will you reinforce your fleet with advanced battleships or will you invest on numerous fast cruisers, in order to defeat the stronger -in numbers- enemy?
• German wrath at North Sea: It is 1913 and the powerful British fleet amasses near the vicinity of the German ports at North Sea. As the British are divided into two groups, you decide to attack and gain a temporary territorial advantage. You will have to choose whether to build Battleships, Battlecruisers or Heavy Cruisers to reinforce your attacking fleet, utilizing a rather limited budget. The British fleet is superior but your own forces can triumph via better tactics and by investing in the most suitable technologies.
• Prevail in the Mediterranean: It is 1941, near the cape Matapan, south of Greece, where a British and an Italian fleet prepare to fight each other. You are in command of the Italian fleet and you must defeat the enemy without taking heavy losses. Your fleet of cruisers and destroyers can be reinforced either by a few strong battleships, or multiple cruisers of various types, that you will design.
• France vs Germany: Create a successful striking force made of French modern ships of the 1940s and defeat a strong German fleet which has as a flagship a humongous super battleship of the H-class.

 

Other

Lastly, we have fixed various errors and inconsistencies, related with the Auto-Design system. Hulls created by the AI should be effective and good looking, with consistency. The patch is still under development, but close to completion. We will notify you when it is about to be released.

 

Thank you for reading,

 

The Game-Labs Team

Thank you very much for the hard work and update

Russ663

[Jord109]

Any idea how long this will take for release?

[ReefKip]

6 hours ago, WiselessOwl said:

 

A 510 a day,keeps the weebs away amirite?

 

[Steeltrap]

Personally I find this introduction of additional bling underwhelming.

AI, damage model, armour model and damage control are where things have stalled. Second tier I'd add the other core factors of the gunnery model itself (any of you notice a ship doing 0.1kn can put the exact same penalty on your gunnery as a ship doing 30kn, for example? LOLWTF), manoeuvring (ship performance but also formation station keeping) and visibility (how do the devs justify early 1900's ships being able to shoot at ships they can't see simply because another of their ships can? I'd really like to know how that makes it into a game selling itself on realism, Haven't they read about Jutland, LOL?).

Put whatever turrets and gun sizes you like, just make sure you "angle properly" and select MAX bulkheads in all your designs and it's pretty much insta-win, unless the AI manages to do the same in which case it becomes a nonsensical slugging match between zombie ships. The fact that I know that is why I don't bother playing, and there's nothing in this announced patch that changes ANY of it from what I can see. So, for me, still no reason to play because it'll be another model or two doing the same things under the same mechanics and thus producing the same results.

I ought to be clear, I don't particularly care if others want 30 inch guns and 6 barrel turrets and the decs are happy to make them (well, to be honest I'd like to be able to keep them out of my game, but I digress). What I DO care about is the devs spending time on what I consider "bread and circuses" instead of the glaring issues. Anyone remember when I got asked what the problem with bulkheads is?

I confess I find it peculiar that others don't seem to be troubled by the lack of attention to those vital core mechanics for more or less a year, which is roughly how long I've been here.

Ping me when THOSE things get attention please, Barney.

Cheers all.

p.s. If this seems harsh, I would say I'm keen to see the game develop towards genuine, ready to market success. Sticking quad gun turrets and 20 inch mounts are not strictly necessary, or at least nowhere as necessary as the much less glamorous stuff I bang on and on about.

Edited October 19, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Doomed]

I'd agree with Steeltrap on this one. I also want to see the basic gameplay sorted out before worrying about more cosmetic options.

 

[CapnAvont1015]

Ok so the other day I notice something a little dumb. So I was playing with a replica of Tirpitz and I've almost used all my torpedo's. Near the end at the battle I had six torps left and reload indicator showed my torps are reloaded when I got in position to use to them they didn't launch. At first I thought my torpedo launchers got destroyed but then I realized they fully functional. Then I realized that the game divides the ammo left evenly so 3 for one launcher 3 for the other. The problem with is Tirpitz has quad torpedo launchers so they can't fire 3 torpedo's. I feel like the torpedo launchers no matter what type should fire how many torps they have left.

[Cptbarney]

@SteeltrapThey might introduce (and im hoping) changes to armour, bulkheads, gunnery (if needed), spotting (to get rid of stealth firing which is dumb) in the campaign update, but if not those above issues along with the designer and custom battles should be the next main focus of the dev team.

Also things like, models not appearing, but gradually getting spotted and more detailed as well, would be very nice as that would get rid of the weird spotting mechanics, also smoke changing colour depending on speed, engine damage, engine type and era as well.

[Cptbarney]

I think for gunnery, ships should attempt to predict where ships might go and plot trajectories unless they do this already. Forgot to add.

Lovely update doe.

[SonicB]

12 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

(any of you notice a ship doing 0.1kn can put the exact same penalty on your gunnery as a ship doing 30kn, for example? LOLWTF),

I'm absolutely with you on the rest of this post (and would add the fixed barbette/superstructure hardpoints as my personal bugbear) but just wanted to clarify, didn't they fix the accuracy/speed thing in the last update? It's still not perfect but it was a vast improvement on alpha-7.

 

1 hour ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Then I realized that the game divides the ammo left evenly so 3 for one launcher 3 for the other.

THIS! Torpedoes are ******* heavy and they're difficult enough to load when they're in the same room, never mind while maneuvring under fire. If this game is going to persist with ahistoric torpedo reloads being the standard for external launchers, please can we split the reloads between launchers or at least between port and starboard? It makes logical sense since the ship designer ties torpedo ammo weight to the location of the launchers anyway.

[Skyguy1944]

18 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

changes to armour, bulkheads,

What'd be really cool in the future would be being able to select a portion of the ship and manually change the armor thickness, depth of the citadel and "bullet sensitive" components, shape of the citadel protection, etc.

I admit a lot of this comes from playing wows, but these (armor designs of ships) were design choices that engineers made way back when, so with the freedom that this game allows, we should see what boundaries of creativity can be hit!