Player Suggestions - January/February

[Candle_86]

17 hours ago, Candle_86 said:

Magazine and when i went to go look she was missing her forward 18in, but her rear 18 was still intact, and since the AI built it with only 2 triple 18's i guess the fire didn't spread fast enough.

Here is what I'm talking about, this is a heavy cruiser that the AI is for whatever reason still using when I've moved onto modern cruisers, but that's for another discussion, but I detonated his rear 6in magazine, he lost half his ammo and his rear 6in turret, but he survived, for about another 2 minutes as I finished him off with guns. That magazine blowing should have spelled his doom as the rear of his ship disintegrated

[slightlytreasonous]

11 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

I don't see it as unfeasible... The Ironclad part is pretty much doable, since a lot of them are already implemented in the missions, so I easily see it as a future DLC once the current content is finished... the carrier part is more difficult, as they really don't fit in the gameplay in any way.

 I mean, I dont know a damn thing about the era, but there was just so many weird messes of ships in the 1870-1890s, atleast in the era it is now they were generally more uniform and can be generally blanketed with a few classes.  

I know carriers wouldnt work, w/ how limited the scope of fights are atm-  hope that changes, but alas. Steam & Iron campaign?

"just saying" but it would make fights feel more significant, and open up lots more variety, outside of simply allowing carriers...  commanding the entire grand fleet... mmmm.

Please devs.

Please.

[Candle_86]

50 minutes ago, slightlytreasonous said:

 I mean, I dont know a damn thing about the era, but there was just so many weird messes of ships in the 1870-1890s, atleast in the era it is now they were generally more uniform and can be generally blanketed with a few classes.  

I know carriers wouldnt work, w/ how limited the scope of fights are atm-  hope that changes, but alas. Steam & Iron campaign?

"just saying" but it would make fights feel more significant, and open up lots more variety, outside of simply allowing carriers...  commanding the entire grand fleet... mmmm.

Please devs.

Please.

Imagine no torpedo's, no small guns because no one has discovered torpedo boats yet, so its just slow muzzle loader 12-16in guns that fire every 5 minutes, it would be glorious 

[Candle_86]

6 hours ago, slightlytreasonous said:

 

1860-1970, "monitors to super carriers"

I can already see it-Protectsd cruisers ramming through obsolete ironclads, watching my beloved super dreadnoughts be torn asunder by the dawn of missiles and jet aviation, nuclear submarines fights straight out of cold waters.. ^-^

 

I know, I know, it's as unfeasible as snow in hell, but let me dream...

Yea but you know the AI, we start at 1860, by 1970 we will be firing Harpoons at 7000 ton battleships armed with 2 14in guns with 5 minute reloads, because the AI won't scrap anything. 

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

A 'first person' mode for controlling your ship with aiming would be pretty cool. It would seem pretty simple to implement as we already can control speed and rudder, we just need to do something for aiming. 

[The PC Collector]

7 hours ago, Candle_86 said:

Yea but you know the AI, we start at 1860, by 1970 we will be firing Harpoons at 7000 ton battleships armed with 2 14in guns with 5 minute reloads, because the AI won't scrap anything. 

Well, I suppose that in the long campaign the AI not scrapping anything will be eventually fixed. XD

[Candle_86]

34 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Well, I suppose that in the long campaign the AI not scrapping anything will be eventually fixed. XD

I dunno its kinda fun I've taken the 1890 campaign to 1951 so far, and it's hillarious hitting 8900T Germany Battleships with 20in guns

[The PC Collector]

2 minutes ago, Candle_86 said:

I dunno its kinda fun I've taken the 1890 campaign to 1951 so far, and it's hillarious hitting 8900T Germany Battleships with 20in guns

Well, keep in mind that campaign right now is not intended to last more than 10 years, at the very most, so it makes sense that the AI doesn't has coded how to scrap ships. Is not intended to be something needed, as durign war time tou use what you have. Is on peace time when you scrap obsolete things.

[adrianstu98]

Hi all and cheers. I have one request that i think it'll be very good for the game. For custom battles it would be fine to have more than two countries, for exampel 2 vs 2 or something like that. An another thing that would be lovely is having more than one ship model per clas, for example, two or three diferent classes of BBs on custom battles.

Edited February 13, 2022 by adrianstu98

[Maik1508]

7 hours ago, adrianstu98 said:

Hi all and cheers. I have one request that i think it'll be very good for the game. For custom battles it would be fine to have more than two countries, for exampel 2 vs 2 or something like that. An another thing that would be lovely is having more than one ship model per clas, for example, two or three diferent classes of BBs on custom battles.

That's a great idea, I mentioned that a few weeks ago, I hope they will add that option that will make this game much more fun and better 😀

[Kiknurazz91]

No carriers! This is DREADNAUGHTS guns vs guns. I love not having planes I don't have to worry about AA on my ships and can concentrate on what a Dreadnaught is supposed to do blast away and survive. Don't give in and be mainstream with all these other naval games. Stick to the ship on ship and improve on that. Want carriers and planes go find another game!

[Captain Meow]

10 hours ago, adrianstu98 said:

Hi all and cheers. I have one request that i think it'll be very good for the game. For custom battles it would be fine to have more than two countries, for exampel 2 vs 2 or something like that. An another thing that would be lovely is having more than one ship model per clas, for example, two or three diferent classes of BBs on custom battles.

I think having 2v2 or 1v2 counties in a custom battle would look like a mess.

But having many of own designs of a single type in one custom battle (and same for enemy if chosen) would be great! A something I requested earlier.

Wish I could have all my recreated historical French BBs in one battle (I have all of them in 1895 year for convenience).

[Captain Meow]

7 hours ago, Kiknurazz91 said:

No carriers! This is DREADNAUGHTS guns vs guns. I love not having planes I don't have to worry about AA on my ships and can concentrate on what a Dreadnaught is supposed to do blast away and survive. Don't give in and be mainstream with all these other naval games. Stick to the ship on ship and improve on that. Want carriers and planes go find another game!

I'm for to have aircraft carriers & planes in the game, otherwise playing in 1930-1940 without a single plane is dull/unrealistic.

I could see it implemented as you're not piloting individual plane but give orders to division of planes, like attack this or that ship, fly avoiding AA fire, retreat, scout, return to carrier - all planes would be controlled by AI. On the carrier you can set how much planes you want to send to the sky, put returned empty planes on resupply or repair.
In a ship against planes all you need to do is select a firing mode for AA guns & let AI handle battling against planes while you're busy battling ships.

I think in such a way the "carriers/planes in this game" is feasible.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Captain Meow

[Andvarus]

36 minutes ago, Captain Meow said:

I'm for to have aircraft carriers & planes in the game, otherwise playing in 1930-1940 without a single plane is dull/unrealistic.

I could see it implemented as you're not piloting individual plane but give orders to division of planes, like attack this or that ship, fly avoiding AA fire, retreat, scout, return to carrier - all planes would be controlled by AI. On the carrier you can set how much planes you want to send to the sky, put returned empty planes on refit or repair.
In a ship against planes all you need to do is select a firing mode for AA guns & let AI handle battling against planes while you're busy battling ships.

I think in such a way the "carriers/planes in this game" is feasible.

Tbh I'd love to see Carriers in the game at one point, but it really needs to be done well. As mentioned by Captain Meow planes should not be directly controlled by the player, it could orrient on the current Torpedo launching System. Like fly agressive / save / normal. And to be fair a Carrier can be a formidable ship in ship to ship combat aswell. I mean the Midway-Class carriers could have easily sunk a modern light cruiser just with her guns. 

But this is a thing that should be bottom priority atm.

[Somhairle]

On 2/11/2022 at 11:24 PM, Andvarus said:

One question............ WHY???????? I mean why are we not allowed top place a barbett right there?

Because that hull type does not support barbettes. It appears to be Dreadnought I or maybe II, and there were no barbettes historically on those ships, hence, no support for barbettes.

[The PC Collector]

2 hours ago, Captain Meow said:

I'm for to have aircraft carriers & planes in the game, otherwise playing in 1930-1940 without a single plane is dull/unrealistic.

I could see it implemented as you're not piloting individual plane but give orders to division of planes, like attack this or that ship, fly avoiding AA fire, retreat, scout, return to carrier - all planes would be controlled by AI. On the carrier you can set how much planes you want to send to the sky, put returned empty planes on refit or repair.
In a ship against planes all you need to do is select a firing mode for AA guns & let AI handle battling against planes while you're busy battling ships.

I think in such a way the "carriers/planes in this game" is feasible.

 

1 hour ago, Andvarus said:

Tbh I'd love to see Carriers in the game at one point, but it really needs to be done well. As mentioned by Captain Meow planes should not be directly controlled by the player, it could orrient on the current Torpedo launching System. Like fly agressive / save / normal. And to be fair a Carrier can be a formidable ship in ship to ship combat aswell. I mean the Midway-Class carriers could have easily sunk a modern light cruiser just with her guns. 

But this is a thing that should be bottom priority atm.

I strongly disagree. Carriers do not belong in this game. The fit neither the gameplay nor the theme of the game.

The way the gameplay is designed, a  ship whose tactic is staying away and sending planes will not only be botring to play, but also likely break the game (Like, literally breaking it: the devs admitted that there is a bug with game boundaries, battle map wise)

And even if this wasn't a problem, this game, the way it is advertised, it is supposed to be about battleships. They are supposed to be the stars of the game. And as such, carriers simply have no place on the game, as they would completely steal the focus and main role from them.

Carriers belong in Battleships-focused game, the same as Self Proppelled artillery does in a tank game. Yes, you can put them it, but will ad little to none to the game, and will only ruin what the game is supposed to achieve.

So, no. If you want Carriers, go play something else. There is plenty of games in which you can enjoy them. Games in which you can enjoy pure ship VS ship gun combat... not so many. And I'm pretty sure that THAT was precisely what brought a lot of us here. In fact, on that topic, I'm already concerned enough about submarines...

Edited February 14, 2022 by The PC Collector

[Koogus]

1 hour ago, The PC Collector said:

 

I strongly disagree. Carriers do not belong in this game. The fit neither the gameplay nor the theme of the game.

The way the gameplay is designed, a  ship whose tactic is staying away and sending planes will not only be botring to play, but also likely break the game (Like, literally breaking it: the devs admitted that there is a bug with game boundaries, battle map wise)

And even if this wasn't a problem, this game, the way it is advertised, it is supposed to be about battleships. They are supposed to be the stars of the game. And as such, carriers simply have no place on the game, as they would completely steal the focus and main role from them.

Carriers belong in Battleships-focused game, the same as Self Proppelled artillery does in a tank game. Yes, you can put them it, but will ad little to none to the game, and will only ruin what the game is supposed to achieve.

So, no. If you want Carriers, go play something else. There is plenty of games in which you can enjoy them. Games in which you can enjoy pure ship VS ship gun combat... not so many. And I'm pretty sure that THAT was precisely what brought a lot of us here. In fact, on that topic, I'm already concerned enough about submarines...

It's definitely too early to say if carriers belong or not in this game or that the gameplay would be "boring". We don't even know if the devs will add them or not in the future and what the gameplay would even be like.

Personally I'd be fine if they both get added or not added. If the devs do say carriers are coming I hope they atleast do them farther in the future when the game starts to come together and be complete.

[The PC Collector]

9 minutes ago, Koogus said:

It's definitely too early to say if carriers belong or not in this game or that the gameplay would be "boring". We don't even know if the devs will add them or not in the future and what the gameplay would even be like.

Personally I'd be fine if they both get added or not added. If the devs do say carriers are coming I hope they atleast do them farther in the future when the game starts to come together and be complete.

Hell no. As I said, there is plenty of games which you can play carriers already. Only on Steam there must be around a dozen or so. Whereas gaes where you can enjoy something close to big battleship battles is something unexplored. So, please, devs, keep your game carrier free.

[slightlytreasonous]

hear me out here-

 OPTIONAL.

 

what's the point of going all the way into 1940 if there's no fundamental changes whatsoever?  You could cut off at 1920 and it's still the same game, really.  Ships just get bigger, there's not much more to it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love my fair share of super battleships, but it gets old after awhile.  CVs could shake up the "endlessly growing battleships"

And if you don't want carriers, just let us turn them off.   I know I want Jutland style fights unmarred by airpower, but I also want to see my BBs covered in oerlikons going to town, and failing to do anything productive despite that.

 

[Candle_86]

4 hours ago, Somhairle said:

Because that hull type does not support barbettes. It appears to be Dreadnought I or maybe II, and there were no barbettes historically on those ships, hence, no support for barbettes.

 

you can place barbettes on it both fore and aft, just not in the center, you can place it on the ends, as seen below

Edited February 14, 2022 by Candle_86

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, slightlytreasonous said:

hear me out here-

 OPTIONAL.

 

what's the point of going all the way into 1940 if there's no fundamental changes whatsoever?  You could cut off at 1920 and it's still the same game, really.  Ships just get bigger, there's not much more to it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love my fair share of super battleships, but it gets old after awhile.  CVs could shake up the "endlessly growing battleships"

And if you don't want carriers, just let us turn them off.   I know I want Jutland style fights unmarred by airpower, but I also want to see my BBs covered in oerlikons going to town, and failing to do anything productive despite that.

 

That's the problem, the second decent carriers hit the battlefield battleships become irrelevant. And that's not what I paid for. But if they're optional... I don't really care as long as I don'thave to have them. In fact, something similar could be done with torpedoes. I proposed introducting options to limit torpedoes, to avoid the stupid torpedo spam which makes 1910+ campaigns a bit dull.

48 minutes ago, Candle_86 said:

 

you can place barbettes on it both fore and aft, just not in the center, you can place it on the ends, as seen below

I tink that the problem is that he wanted to build something similar to the Ise class, with a pair of mid placed superfiring turrets.

[Candle_86]

Can we get Special Treatment Steel, it was stronger than Germany aka Krup Armor, but incredibly expensive, and only the US used it for the majority of their ships armor vs europe only using it for magazines and engine rooms. So can we get STS as an armor type, make it excessivly expensive but stronger than Krupp III

[AurumCorvus]

53 minutes ago, Candle_86 said:

Can we get Special Treatment Steel, it was stronger than Germany aka Krup Armor, but incredibly expensive, and only the US used it for the majority of their ships armor vs europe only using it for magazines and engine rooms. So can we get STS as an armor type, make it excessivly expensive but stronger than Krupp III

STS is still a Krupp-type steel, though, and is kinda what you'd expect from Krupp III/IV. From what I can kinda feel, Krupp I and II is more for WWI and immediate post war Krupp steels. Krupp III and Krupp IV are meant to encompass the various improved Krupp armors that existed in WWII or immediately afterwards.

Regardless to that exact classification, a mechanic does exist to simulate the type of gradual improvement STS was: When you reach the end of the armor tech tree, there is a repeatable tech that gradually increases armor quality because you gradually tweak the elements and technique.

[slightlytreasonous]

Maybe its just the obsession talking, but a long version of the south carolina hulls could look really, really cool.  Just a version as if the displacement slider went farther then it really does.

Maybe im underestimating the amount of hull customization the next update will bring, but I doubt it would be that time consuming to make one so Im just throwing it out there.  Pointless?  Pretty much.  But I think it would be neat

Also regarding these hulls, ive found that you cant CTRL/SHIFT place the funnels or towers, because they stoop down to main deck level if you dont use snap points.

Edited February 14, 2022 by slightlytreasonous

[Andvarus]

On 2/14/2022 at 12:23 AM, Somhairle said:

Because that hull type does not support barbettes. It appears to be Dreadnought I or maybe II, and there were no barbettes historically on those ships, hence, no support for barbettes.

sorry but what you are saying is totall bullocks. basicly every ship after the dreadnought used superfiring guns and to make use of that you need some kind of an barbette or superstructure to get the hight difference. 

 

On 2/14/2022 at 4:56 AM, The PC Collector said:

That's the problem, the second decent carriers hit the battlefield battleships become irrelevant. And that's not what I paid for. But if they're optional... I don't really care as long as I don'thave to have them. In fact, something similar could be done with torpedoes. I proposed introducting options to limit torpedoes, to avoid the stupid torpedo spam which makes 1910+ campaigns a bit dull.

I tink that the problem is that he wanted to build something similar to the Ise class, with a pair of mid placed superfiring turrets.

I think you might need some glasses mate. WERE is that supposed to be a Ise-Class with super firing midsection guns when you can the the stern in the screenshot. 

What i was trying to build was a french Battleships using Superfiring Bow and Stern guns with some mixed medium guns in the mid. And you are every able to see that you are NOT allowed to place a barbette or any kind of elevational thing to make that work on that kind of Hull. 

On 2/14/2022 at 4:07 AM, Candle_86 said:

 

you can place barbettes on it both fore and aft, just not in the center, you can place it on the ends, as seen below

HOW????????? allways give me the same old red flags when I try to do that at the stern.