Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Littorio said:

Because...devs can only make so many hulls?

It's not simply building a 3D model, it takes alot to compile all the extra coding e.g. placement nodes, components borders, fitting associated towers, funnels and parts (per nation), tonnage and all the parameters such as hull form, stability, floatability, resistances & surface visibility and everything else I missed, this all has to done by the programmer, hard coded. 

All that has to done so ordinary joe blog can assemble their ship and doesn't have to be a professional. 

This is probably why modular hull system wasn't suited. 

All this is not because they are slow or that they don't have many staff but because it's complex.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Skeksis said:

It's not simply building a 3D model, it takes alot to compile all the extra coding e.g. placement nodes, components borders, fitting associated towers, funnels and parts (per nation), tonnage and all the parameters such as hull form, stability, floatability, resistances & surface visibility and everything else I missed, this all has to done by the programmer, hard coded. 

All that has to done so ordinary joe blog can assemble their ship and doesn't have to be a professional. 

This is probably why modular hull system wasn't suited. 

All this is not because they are slow or that they don't have many staff but because it's complex.

Well for a game that is totally reliant on said hulls for the expansion and future success of the program, they should develop mod tools for those of us crazy enough/knowledgeable enough to do it. I'm sure there are several people on here who would be happy to take it on in their spare time. I have seen a few people doing naval schematic models. Even if people can only use those self-built models themselves, it would go a long way to taking the pressure off the devs. Less time building hulls means more time actually fleshing out features.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

G3 and N3 were both essentially battleships - the battlecruiser designation was only applied to G3 because it was the faster and lighter-armed of the pair. If you look at the specifics of G3's protection scheme and armament, it's considerably better-armed and protected than contemporary battleship designs - the basis of comparison would really be 30s and 40s battleships, rather than contemporary battlecruisers like the Amagis and Lexingtons. N3 trades speed down to 23 knots for better armour and 3x3 18" guns, on a roughly similar hull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...