Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Player Suggestions - January/February


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Tycondero said:

I don't think so that this feature would necessary make it impossible to tackle Great Britain or the United States. However, in the game there will already be a disbalance as Great Britain or the United States have more funds for the naval program than the other nations (at least at the very start of the campaign). Furthermore, you should be able to adjust the capacity too, just as you can with the maximum displacement that is currently limited by the yard size in the game.  The great thing about taking shipyard number and size into account is that it directly diversifies your strategy. With this it could actually make sense for a nation to focus on quality over quantity and to upgrade rather than scrap ships, which Japan did during the interwar years for instance. It gives the player some extra strategic considerations which should be part of the historical start (as these were historical issues for some nations).

Furthermore, I am pretty sure that the blockade mechanics will be revised in the upcoming versions as we will get taskforces it seems and also at some point submarines (for the campaign gameplay).

The game's campaign will likely feature a historical start and a balanced/equal start scenario option. The same funds and number of yards for each nation could be part of that option. That shouldn't be hard to code.

I hope that my points here could convince you that an implementation of this doesn't need to break the fun of the game.

I still think that would imbalance the game, and make for example Austria Hungary, which has little shore available, unplayable. But, as I said, as long as it is a difficulty option and not enforced, I find it very interesting. In fact, I think that would be a very good way to implement difficulty, rather than giving the AI nearly unlimited funds as it works right now. In fact, this option could give you an interesting option, the chance to play as an underdog while playing Great Britain, for example.

This could be implemented featuring different options: Historical, Equal, and different percentages of disadvantage if you want a really hardcore start.

Historical: Countries have industry according to what they were (setting a minimum to ensure Austria-Hungary, Russia or Spain are playable)

Equal: All mayor countries start with the same industry power.

Disadvantage: you can set which percentage of output you have compared to the rest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-variable main belt(or citadel) length.

screen_1920x1080_2022-01-17_20-16-55.png.0a3c80c19fd9177098cd9c6f0b843b2f.png

-belt and deck armor splitting into belt/deck over machinery/magazine; turret armor splitting into turret face, turret sides, turret back, and turret top; separate rudder compartment armor; editable bulkheads and barbette armor.

-triples or quads really don't make much sense rn, 3 triples are heavier than 4 duals and a quad is as heavy as two duals without any of their advantages(high rate of fire and therefore more chances of hitting).

If I remember correctly, some versions ago triple and quad setups were actually lighter than their dual equivalents.

Edited by Schirüno
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More orders for ships/divisions are needed. In the current fashion, giving actual orders isn't an option, you can only either control them, or give them to the AI. So there goies my proposal:

New movement options

Pursue: Like retreat, but doing exactly the opposite: The ship/division will start chasing and attacking the closest enemy. Overrides firing priority options described below.

Chase: Like the screen command, but targeting enemies: The selected ships/divisions will chase and attack the target enemy. Overrides firing priority options described below.

New torpedo options

Priority target selection: This would open a submenu which will allow/deny torpedoes to be fired at certain kind of vessels. The logic behind this is easy: If you are in a torpedo boat, for example, you might want to like to fire torpedoes at anything bigger than a torpedo boat (or even at other torpedo boats, depending how heavily armed your vessel is) but if you're on a Heavy Cruiser, you probably only want torpedoes launched at BBs and BCs. This command would prevent firing torpedoes at wrong targets without the need of disabling them. Also, this option should be configurable as a default for every ship class outside combat.

New firing orders

Concentrate fire (Division/Screen only): When selected, all the ships in the division and screening that division/ship will attack the same target as the division leader.

Spread fire: Will attack the closest target which is not currently under attack. If no valid target is available, will attack the closest target.

Attack closest target: What its name says.

Attack easiest target: Will attack the easiest to hit target.

Priority target: This order will allow to select a ship type that will be prioritised. The ship/division will attack the closest target of the selected type. Ideally, it should be possible to combine it with Spread Fire and Attack Easiest Target. If no priority target is available, will attack the closest or easiest to hit target depending on the other options selected.

Edited by The PC Collector
Fixed typos
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2022 at 3:41 PM, Schirüno said:

-triples or quads really don't make much sense rn, 3 triples are heavier than 4 duals and a quad is as heavy as two duals without any of their advantages(high rate of fire and therefore more chances of hitting).

If I remember correctly, some versions ago triple and quad setups were actually lighter than their dual equivalents.

 I totall agree. This needs to be fixed. Right now there are no reason to use above twins, as you get huge accuracy and reload penalties in exchange of only more damage (assuming that you manage to hit) and less room required to pack guns. Also a slight weight save  in some cases due to nor requiring barbettes. But in reality, the truth is that tripes and quads were used because the weight per barrel dramatically decreased as you packed more guns into the same turret. Specially from singles to doubles and from doubles to triples, not so much from triples to quads. In fact, the reason why the Deutschlands were equipped with two tripe turrests instead of three doubles (the original plan)was mainly due to the dramatic weigh saving the triples represented.

Edited by The PC Collector
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late pre dreadnought battleships should be able to mount 7" and maybe even 8" casemate guns as secondaries. Geman Braunschweig and Deutchsland battleships, and austro-hungarian Erzerhog Karl battleships mounted 170mm (6,7") and 190mm (7,5") guns, to set an example. Yet, no pre dreadnought hull allows to fit guns bigger than 6" on the casemate mounts. However, Dreadnought hulls allow it, despite no dreadnought/super dreadnouhgt battleship ever mounting guns that big on the casemates. While I'm not opposed to dreadnoughts and super dreadnougts being able to fit 8" guns on the casemates, late pre dreadnoughts not being able to fit guns higher than 6" is a historical inaccuracy that should be fixed.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you won't unlock the time-compression completely, please at least scale the range at which the higher compressions are deactivated with the year.

What is point-blank range is significantly different in 1890 than it is in 1940...

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

Going to link this thread again.


Shouldn't take 30-60% more tonnage to duplicate a real-life design's capabilities.
Battleship radio equipment should not be more massive than entire fully-furnished destroyers.
So and and so forth.  Balance pass is needed.  Problem will not go away by ignoring it.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to share another confirmed major feature planned for the next update:
- More Shell Options (Choose AP/HE Ratio for Main/Sec Guns, Choose Ammo for Main/Sec  Guns during Battle, Different AP/HE Shells such as SAP, Common HE, Super HE etc.

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Just wanted to share another confirmed major feature planned for the next update:
- More Shell Options (Choose AP/HE Ratio for Main/Sec Guns, Choose Ammo for Main/Sec  Guns during Battle, Different AP/HE Shells such as SAP, Common HE, Super HE etc.

Awesome!  But what is "Super HE"?  I know there were "Super Heavy" shells (e.g. US 16-inch), but that seems to be covered in a separate design choice in the designer for light / standard / heavy shells (would be nice if this could be picked per gun-caliber, rather than forcing it on all guns / ammo carried).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, akd said:

Awesome!  But what is "Super HE"?  I know there were "Super Heavy" shells (e.g. US 16-inch), but that seems to be covered in a separate design choice in the designer for light / standard / heavy shells (would be nice if this could be picked per gun-caliber, rather than forcing it on all guns / ammo carried).

Probably refers to high-capacity, or HC. Thinner shell walls, but more explosive filler. Though I would rather it be called HC than super-HE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, akd said:

Awesome!  But what is "Super HE"?  I know there were "Super Heavy" shells (e.g. US 16-inch), but that seems to be covered in a separate design choice in the designer for light / standard / heavy shells (would be nice if this could be picked per gun-caliber, rather than forcing it on all guns / ammo carried).

 

13 hours ago, disc said:

Probably refers to high-capacity, or HC. Thinner shell walls, but more explosive filler. Though I would rather it be called HC than super-HE!

 

They might be referring to something like IJN Shimose shells, such as those used at Tsushima. Maybe they plan on revamping how shells work a bit on the backend. So if you choose "Lyddite" filler, maybe it only applies now to these SHE/HC shells?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Littorio said:

They might be referring to something like IJN Shimose shells, such as those used at Tsushima. Maybe they plan on revamping how shells work a bit on the backend. So if you choose "Lyddite" filler, maybe it only applies now to these SHE/HC shells?

They really need to add a Dunnite II filler if they're doing so, especially since as I've mentioned and sourced before, it was in use by the USA until well after WW2 for its stability and safety if the shells were properly designed (and the US tends not to improperly design shells).  US base-fused HE rounds (Common and SP Common) were surprisingly potent for their size, the latter expected to reliably pen half its caliber in armor thickness and the former 1/3.  Considering they were most commonly deployed in 5" guns, that's 2.5" for the former and an inch and 2/3 for the former.  I cannot imagine trying to engage any sort of historical US design in a secondary duel.  Oh wait, there is no such thing in this game.  Good luck trying to make a St. Louis or Pennsylvania class of cruiser.  Hell, you're prohibited from laying down a 10K+ light cruiser in 1905 in custom battle, never mind that the St. Louis semi-armored cruisers commissioned that year were just under 11k tonnes full loaded

Also, what disc said.  The US 6"/47 had an HC round with a ridiculous 12.6% filler mass or so, according to NavWeaps it having 13.22 pounds of Dunnite in a 105 pound shell, or almost as much filler as the 14.4 pounds of German 20.3cm HE shells on their final generation of heavy cruisers.

 

(Of course, the USA was also using variants of its own Poudre B equivalent from 1900 up until a triple base propellant was finally adopted late in WW2, so lets just say its an odd duckling of a nation.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2022 at 10:58 PM, Grayknight said:

- TBs able to tank alot of damage and survive torpedo strike, sometimes many of them. (I had enemy TB that was 200tones and was sunk with over 59 flooding shots and well over 200s penetrations and overpenetrations.
 

Regarding enemy TBs, this is also my experience. It take a lot of effort to sink those TBs. But my own TBs are sunk very easily. Or more correctly, they burn easier then Californian forests. A couple of hits, and there is a huge chance I will lose them to fire damage.

But I can to some degree understand that. They have few bulkheads and a compact quarters. So I can accept that fire fighting would be difficult on those ships. Especially with a unexperienced and badly trained crew. But also with trained crew my TBs will most likely burn down if they get hit a couple of times. In the last battle I fought, I would have lost one to three TBs to fire damage if the battle had lasted a little longer. Two of them had been hit only 3 times each, while the last one had been hit 6 times. But again, the TBs should be fragile little ships, so I can accept losing these ships rather easily.

But since the enemy TBs can take a lot of hits, and I can't recall that the AI ever have lost a TB to fire damage, the fire damage on my TBs make less sense. Maybe I missing a few variables here, but this is 1890, and there isn't that many variables to consider. In the current campaign, their TBs are pretty identical to mine, with the same number of bulkheads. I can't remember how big their quarters are, but the last battle I faced where they had TBs, they had green crew. All three of them had to be sunk using a lot of fire power from CL and CA, while one of my two TBs was lost to fire in the early stage of the battle. My second TB survived, but only because I chose to disengage the TB and keep it at a distance. Although, it almost did burned up anyways thanks to a lucky long distance hit from one of their CLs.

Does anyone else have the same problem, or is there a way to combat the fires during the battle?

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

Frankly I'd rather see the current content fixed, but maybe somewhere down the road a battle replay option would be good to add? Or even just an after-action battle report that tracks ship movement, like maps drawn up for historical battles.

One of the biggest appeals for a historical naval warfare game is the role playing aspect, but I often find myself so busy during the battle trying to stop my ships colliding with each other / randomly stopping / speeding off in random directions / not moving turrets into position / firing their torpedoes into thin air / not firing their torpedoes at point blank range etc that I can't really take a moment to chill and enjoy the carnage, or even debrief on which strategies worked and which ones didn't.

I feel like this game would really benefit from a replay option, if nothing else for the social aspect of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Desperately also want more CL towers... The fact that several nations use the German-ish modern CL towers makes my brain hurt... Also, is there an explanation for turrets not moving during nearly any kind of turn that I'm missing?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So something I'd like to see done is where HE shells explose on impact with the water, this did happen in war alot, water at the speeds of a round was like hitting bedrock, but right now if you get a gear miss there is no blast damage done, honestly a 12in HE near missing a TB should be dangerous for that TB or Light cruiser, heck even battleships could take damage from near misses. 

 

Also maybe one day down the road implement the W23 Nuclear Shell for Battleship guns 16in and larger as a late game addition, that if used in combat has a massive say -10-20 relations with all nations unless that nation is allied in a war agasint the person you used it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2022 at 5:41 AM, outerexodus said:

Desperately also want more CL towers... The fact that several nations use the German-ish modern CL towers makes my brain hurt... Also, is there an explanation for turrets not moving during nearly any kind of turn that I'm missing?

i5qvuo.png

Edited by Schirüno
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Candle_86 said:

Yea, can't wait till we get US ships, because at least they built cage masts for them, just need USA in campaign

We need the expanded casemates and tonnage allowances first.  You cannot build a 15,000 ton plus armored cruiser in 1905, which is what the Pennslyvanias were, nor can they mount 6" casemates.  Nor can they fit the tertiary battery of 18 3" guns.  Nor the quaternary battery of 12 2" guns.

 

Nor the Germans, which should be a higher priority since they already exist in the campaign.  Here's Roon in 1907:

1920px-SMS_Roon_LOC_ggbain_28287.jpg

Notice anything different about the sides compared to a German armored cruiser in-game?

Edited by SpardaSon21
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...