Kane Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) They say the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Well, I'm going to squeak. Whenever the opportunity has come up, I've made an issue about how ridiculous, verging on stupid some of the weights in this game are. I've gone a bit further down this rabbit hole, and found its deeper than I thought. There are some things here that are in serious need of tuning passes. In this case I'm talking about more than battleship radios weighing more than destroyers. There is an issue here with identical systems weighing more on different ships, and much more. I decided to make this its own post so I can link back to it each time player suggestions are solicited. Allow me to present two case studies for this. A 55,000 ton German battleship we're calling Bismarck, and a 49,000 ton battlecruiser we're calling Lutzow. Here are their metrics. Bismarck / Lutzow Mass: 55,000 / 49,000 Main guns: 4x2 15-inch, 4x2 15-inch Secondary guns: 8x2 5-inch, 4x3 4-inch, 8x3 3-inch / 4x2 5-inch, 8x3 3-inch, 4x3 2-inch Speed: 30 / 35 Range: 12000 / 14000 (Note, BB range reduced 1 space, BC range left untouched) Bulkhead Count: Many / MaximumArmor Belt: 18" / 19.3" Fore Belt: 5" / 4" Rear Belt: 5" / 4" Mid Deck: 12" / 12" Fore Deck: 4"/4" Aft Deck: 4" / 3" Main Turret: 19-13 / 19-14 Secondary is more or less identicalSubsystems Oil III - both Gas Turbines / Double Geared Steam w/ balanced boilers Aux III / Aux IV Unbalanced Rudder / Unbalanced Rudder Electrical I Steering / Electrical II Steering Krupp-IV armor - both Barbette IV - both Anti-torp-1 / Anti-torp-II Double Hull - Both Reinforced Bulkheads I / Reinforced Bulkheads II Standard Quarters - Both Heavy Shells / Standard Shells Increased Shells / Increased Shells Triple Base - Both Electro-Hydro Turrets - Both Semi-Autoloaders / Autoloaders Stereo Rangefinder V - Both Gen II Radar - Both RDF Radio - Both Sonar III - Both If you took the time to read through all of that, did you notice anything strange? If not I'll spell it out. The Battlecruiser is 6,000 tons less than the battleship, yet it has virtually identical capabilities. In many cases superior! It has similar armor, higher speed, identical main guns, very similar secondary guns, oh and I forgot to mention that the battlecruiser is also packing 14x, 24-inch oxygen torpedo tubes. The battleship has no torpedoes. Despite having identical main guns, near identical armor, 5 knots more speed, heavier torpedo belt, and heavier engines, the BC has room for all these torpedoes whereas the battleship does not. The battlecruiser here is in all relevant respects the superior ship, and it has less weight-savings at work than the battleship. This should not happen. A 49,000 ton battlecruiser should not be going up against a 55,000 ton battleship on the same tech level and the battlecruiser finding itself the superior ship. So the question is, how did we get here? We'll I'll show you. The battleship and battlecruiser have the same guns. Only one has autoloaders, the other has semi-autoloaders. Autoloaders on the battleship cost me 1,849 tons. Autoloaders on the battlecruiser by contrast cost me 1,910 tons. Oddly, despite having an identical gun array, it costs the battlecruiser more weight to add the exact same system to the exact same gun battery. But don't worry, this one of the few cases where the BB comes out ahead. This meanwhile can easily invert and expand if changing gun caliber and ship size. Let's look at radios To put RDF on the battleship costs me an insane 1,832 tons, and this is a small battleship compared to what's possible. But to put RDF on the battlecruiser costs me 951 tons. Why is this radio equipment literally 2x heavier on the battleship? Radar Gen II: 1465 tons for the battleship, 761 tons for the battlecruiser. Difference of 1.92x why is the radar equipment twice as heavy on the battleship? Sonar Gen III: 733 tons for the battleship, 381 tons for the battlecruiser. Difference of 1.92x, why is the sonar equipment twice as heavy on the battleship? Rangefinder Stereo-V: 879 tons for the battleship, 457 tons for the battlecruiser. Difference of 1.92x why is the range-finding equipment twice as heavy on the battleship? Only 6,000 tons separates the BB from the BC, yet for the former many of these systems are 2x as heavy. There is no logical road that gets us here. Even going extremely simplistically by the square-cube law doesn't get us here. I could go on with more examples, but I think I've made my point. The ridiculous weights of the tower systems, and how they scale in this game are a problem. They're a big part of why people can't make historic designs (but far from the only reason.) More importantly, this is a game balance issue. The battlecruiser here is capable of everything the battleship is and more. It has an identical main gun battery. It has more firepower when its torpedoes are considered. (It can be given an identical secondary gun battery and still have room left over for torpedoes.) It is faster, and it has longer range. Because it did not need the weight-savings of a gas-turbine engine to fit all its equipment, it costs right about half as much. The battlecruiser is in fact tougher than the battleship, having slightly less extended armor, but having a better torpedo belt. If the BC's torpedo belt is reduced to grade-I like the battleship it can carry identical armor. Even switching back to standard weight shells and shell-count on the battleship does not enable it to come close to matching the battlecruiser's firepower in torpedoes or exceeding what the BC can pack in armor.There is no reason to build the battleship instead of the battlecruiser. The way this equipment scales is broken, and it needs to be fixed. A lot of these pieces of equipment need a set weight, rather than being scaled to the tower of the ship they go on. Many other systems meanwhile need a re-balance to bring themselves inline with real-life equivalents. In the example of 18" guns in this game, both the guns and the shells are vastly heavier than real-life equivalents as found on Yamato. I'm not going to harp on this anymore as I've already done so in another thread. The BB here is around the weight of an Iowa class at deep load, but can't equip 3xtriple sixteen's without going over weight, even with less armor on the turrets than an Iowa had. But this game balance issue is, well, an issue. Can we expect anything to be done about it? I know the focus is currently on the campaign, and that's fine. But it'd be nice to know that these issues are somewhere on the priority list. Edited January 28, 2022 by Kane 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted January 28, 2022 Author Share Posted January 28, 2022 Addendum The only real benefits the battleship has over the battlecruiser are things such as its resistances being higher. This is something over which the player has little control, as it is based on hull selection. Even then, the difference is not significant enough to make up for the imbalance here when armor > resistance. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnleashtheKraken Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 There is a reason to select BB's over BC's, and that is an entirely artificial power projection stat in campaigns which determine if you blockade or are blockaded. A BB that is less potent than a BC is still artificially more powerful in terms of starting a blockade. I learned this the hard way. Having discovered I could build a 36 knt., 4x dual 15" gun turret, BB armored, heavily secondaried and 3x torp tubes on each side battlecruiser, I skipped building any BBs in my 1930's campaign as Germany. I almost immediately got blockaded even though my total big gun capital ships outnumbered the UK by 3:2. The UK's BBs were universally less armored, less heavily gunned, and did 29 knts. to my 36. They were also less capable in gunnery. They never won a 1v1 duel against my BCs. Yet, I was blockaded. It took cutting my research budget to zero, pumping out transports despite losing so many, and going with a purely BC/DD fleet composition, and by sheer iron gritted 'I am not giving up this stupid campaign' I whittled England down enough to end the blockade. With the renewed income, I immediately ramped up DD and CL production, swamped the north sea area with coverage, and managed to pull out a win. I did not screenshot the victory, but my sum losses were a ton of transports, and 1 DD. England lost 6BB, 2BC, and some cruisers and a number of destroyers. I very nearly economically strangled despite never losing an engagement and starting the fight with, across the board, better vessels (the AI built 4x5 tube destroyers with a single 3x5" turret, oh my stars and biscuits). Their light cruisers were actually competent, a battery of 6", 4", and torps. The heavy cruisers were an absolute turret farm of 6" dual gun turrets, I think 5 centerline and 2 each side wing turrets and torps on either side of the ass end for good measure. It is really hard to gauge the campaign currently because so much still needs to be fixed, worked on, or improved. This first look has been good to show what ideas are being played with, but honestly all the systems are currently interlocking with badly working versions of each other and the results are...wonky is putting it nicely. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted January 28, 2022 Author Share Posted January 28, 2022 While you raise a good point, that is wholly insufficient to justify the battleship's existence when the bulk of the actual gameplay is in ship design and tactical action as opposed to strategic decision making. I went on and played the campaign I started when I made the original post. Won the campaign almost immediately as my battlecruisers crushed the english battleships even when outnumbered 3 to 1. Even with what you mentioned, this is a huge issue. This shows serious flaws in the fundamentals of the game that probably should have been worked out before focus shifted to the campaign. If the fundamentals are borked, everything else is essentially trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littorio Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 Very well-constructed and interesting observations. This is yet another example of how their unnecessary reliance on towers spoils key aspects of the game. First it is spotting, and now this. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drenzul Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 3 hours ago, Kane said: Addendum The only real benefits the battleship has over the battlecruiser are things such as its resistances being higher. This is something over which the player has little control, as it is based on hull selection. Even then, the difference is not significant enough to make up for the imbalance here when armor > resistance. Yep, basically the same issue I raised a few months ago. Too many things have weight multipliers when they have fixed weight or modify hull weight/engine weight for no apparent reason. So the BC with it's slimmer hull, smaller deck and better sea-faring has lower hull and engine weights so suffers far less heavily from the multipliers. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted January 31, 2022 Author Share Posted January 31, 2022 (edited) On 1/28/2022 at 2:45 PM, Drenzul said: Yep, basically the same issue I raised a few months ago. Too many things have weight multipliers when they have fixed weight or modify hull weight/engine weight for no apparent reason. So the BC with it's slimmer hull, smaller deck and better sea-faring has lower hull and engine weights so suffers far less heavily from the multipliers. Yup, its an issue that's been brought up many times. But given how often that its been brought up, and how there has, as far as I know been no response at all to this issue. It leads to wonder if The Devs are bothering to read the forums (combined with other issues that have been repeatedly brought up but not addressed) and recognize that there is indeed a problem. If there is any plan to actually do something about it. Hence the need to ensure the wheel keeps squeaking. Edited January 31, 2022 by Kane 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drenzul Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 I'm starting to doubt it'll be fixed myself since its literally about the easiest thing to fix. Literally changing a few numbers about for most of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted January 31, 2022 Author Share Posted January 31, 2022 1 hour ago, Drenzul said: I'm starting to doubt it'll be fixed myself since its literally about the easiest thing to fix. Literally changing a few numbers about for most of it. Hence the need to keep the wheel squeaking. Every time they ask for suggestions, they need to be flooded with people making an issue of this. Any time they ask for observations on the recent patch, they need to be flooded with people bringing this up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Meow Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 2 hours ago, Drenzul said: I'm starting to doubt it'll be fixed myself since its literally about the easiest thing to fix. Literally changing a few numbers about for most of it. What if if lowering some numbers would affect the ship behaviour, or lowering all numbers (proportionally) would also affect the behaviour which then would require tweaking it all for every hull / part from the start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted January 31, 2022 Author Share Posted January 31, 2022 18 minutes ago, Captain Meow said: What if if lowering some numbers would affect the ship behaviour, or lowering all numbers (proportionally) would also affect the behaviour which then would require tweaking it all for every hull / part from the start? Then so be it. The solution to a problem is to fix it, not ignore it because one doesn't want to do the work. In fairness, they probably have their current time invested in the campaign. But either way this issue needs to keep being raised to that the dev team is not lulled into thinking the players have forgotten about it. This is a broken fundamental of the game. I would say that given that its all mathematical it should be easy for them to predict what the effects would be and address it accordingly. But then again, given that 95% is apparently an "average" ricochet chance, I do wonder if the devs are as good at math as they think they are. I joke, but seriously tuning something like this shouldn't be that big a problem unless there has been some seriously sloppy programming. People have been using memory editors to screw with these things and as far as I know it hasn't caused things to do insane. So, really some number changes should be all it takes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adm.Hawklyn Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 Agreed. Weights do need fixing, because working on alt timelines and alt history stories needs more accurate weights... I dont think there was a 90,000 ton ship that basically was Yamato. The rendition I did in the custom designer was at least 90,000tons, probably having less armor than Yamato had originally. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vyprestrike Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 Resistance is absolutely a factor that needs to be considered. I was fighting one of my BC designs against another person's super BB design. His ship was armed with 20 inch guns, my ship was armed with 18 inch guns. My ship was running super heavy, triple base, tnt 4; his ship was running standard, triple base, tnt 4. We both had 20 inches on the belt, my deck was also 20 while his was 10. His penetrations did 100-200 damage, my pens did 10-20 damage, with my lowest damage full pen dealing 7.8 damage and my highest damage full pen dealing 48. Resistance stacking is more powerful than armor will ever be, just because of how hard resistance scales. Super BBs can easily get 90%+ damage reduction, BCs cap out at around 70%. That effectively means BBs take 1/3 the damage of BCs before any armor is taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted February 1, 2022 Author Share Posted February 1, 2022 12 minutes ago, vyprestrike said: Resistance is absolutely a factor that needs to be considered. I was fighting one of my BC designs against another person's super BB design. His ship was armed with 20 inch guns, my ship was armed with 18 inch guns. My ship was running super heavy, triple base, tnt 4; his ship was running standard, triple base, tnt 4. We both had 20 inches on the belt, my deck was also 20 while his was 10. His penetrations did 100-200 damage, my pens did 10-20 damage, with my lowest damage full pen dealing 7.8 damage and my highest damage full pen dealing 48. Resistance stacking is more powerful than armor will ever be, just because of how hard resistance scales. Super BBs can easily get 90%+ damage reduction, BCs cap out at around 70%. That effectively means BBs take 1/3 the damage of BCs before any armor is taken into account. Resistance does matter yes, and its one of the few reasons one might take a citadel-IV over a citadel-V. But in this case the difference in resistance between the two is still not enough to justify the battleship. One has to approach the top of the scale for the damage reduction that you're giving as an example. Sure a Super-BB has great DR, but how many super-BB's are you going to have over the course of a game? I've yet to be able to build one in a campaign before it ends. My only super-BB's have been in custom battles. So yeah, that's great for the biggest battleships vs the biggest BC's. But this was a German 55,000 tonner, not a 130,000 tonner. Meanwhile you're biggest BB's etc are actually the ones that suffer the most from the severely borked scaling of things like tower components, or loading equipment. In this scenario, the (I believe it was) 10% DR difference between the BB and the BC does not by any means make up for the fact that the BC has greater range, much greater speed, identical main gun firepower, vastly greater secondary weapon power via torpedoes, and just about every other possible advantage over the battleship while costing half as much. This is still severely borked. Hell the greater speed alone is a huge factor since speed lowers your chance of being hit, and damage reduction is 100% on all shots that miss. Then combine that with everything else the BC has versus the BB that's 6,000 tons heavier. Also I'm not sure I'd put resistance in the more powerful category. Armor can completely negate damage via both ricochets and blocks, this is effectively 100% damage reduction, which resistance can't give you. Meanwhile you still need armor for partial pens to get the most mileage out your resistance. At least, on your big ships. The smaller ships are apparently made out of butter, so that even 5" HE and below will overpen them for minimum damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpardaSon21 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 13 hours ago, Kane said: Also I'm not sure I'd put resistance in the more powerful category. Armor can completely negate damage via both ricochets and blocks, this is effectively 100% damage reduction, which resistance can't give you. Meanwhile you still need armor for partial pens to get the most mileage out your resistance. At least, on your big ships. The smaller ships are apparently made out of butter, so that even 5" HE and below will overpen them for minimum damage. One thing you're not taking into account is that resistance also boosts ricochet chances, making anything besides a clean hit even more of a gamble, allowing one to reduce armor and rely more on angling their ship to avoid full pens and turn partials into bounces. And all that extra damage will of course be eaten up by the ship's resistance stat. Not that you're wrong about the BC's advantages, or why its the obvious choice, but resistance is a massive benefit in a way no other stat is. We all saw Hull Form get its maintenance costs removed, not just nerfed the minute someone showed the devs a picture they didn't like. Edited February 2, 2022 by SpardaSon21 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted February 2, 2022 Author Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said: One thing you're not taking into account is that resistance also boosts ricochet chances, making anything besides a clean hit even more of a gamble, allowing one to reduce armor and rely more on angling their ship to avoid full pens and turn partials into bounces. And all that extra damage will of course be eaten up by the ship's resistance stat. Not that you're wrong about the BC's advantages, or why its the obvious choice, but resistance is a massive benefit in a way no other stat is. We all saw Hull Form get its maintenance costs removed, not just nerfed the minute someone showed the devs a picture they didn't like. I am taking it into account, but I'm also taking into account that you have to have armor in the first place to get your ricochet otherwise it goes to pen or overpen. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I personally can't recall ever seeing a shell ricochet when it hit an unarmored section of the hull. Though the amount of armor needed to get that ricochet seems completely divorced from anything realistic. IE 18" shell's ricocheting off 1" destroyer & light-cruiser plating at close range. How much armor you have is going to determine how much benefit you get from resistance. Scenario-1 20" gun battleship vs 20" gun battleship. Its really hard to armor against 20" since you have to make a lot of sacrifices to do it. You're probably not going to have enough armor to get blocks against this kind of firepower. So it becomes a choice of trying to get enough armor to reduce it to partial pens, or letting it over-pen. I've seen 20" super-heavy damage reduced to the 20-50 damage range on partial pens while still dealing over 100 on overpens. Armor and resistance are pretty close here. -But- If you don't have enough armor to get that partial pen, then resistance is absolutely superior because your armor isn't helping you at that point anyway. Scenario-2 20" gun battleship vs. any battleship plus escorts. If you find yourself sailing into range of the escorts guns, then armor can leave resistance in its dust. Say you got into those escort's range because you wanted to actually hit the battleship more than 5% of the time. If you have enough armor to block the escorts' guns, then you are taking 0% damage from every escort that shoots at you. If you don't have enough armor to block their guns, then you're going to take damage while the escorts hit you and resistance will not be able to reduce that to 0. If you have enough armor to reduce the escort's guns to partial pens, you will take less damage than if you rely only on resistance to absorb that damage. 0 will always be less than >0. In short, armor can make you immune to the death by a thousand cuts, resistance can only increase how many cuts it takes. If you have enough armor to block the escorts' guns you can more or less ignore them while you focus on the bigger threat of the enemy BB. If you don't have enough armor to do that, now you have to make a decision about who to target first since un-blocked damage from the escorts can add up sneakily quickly. Armor is blatantly superior here if you have enough. Basically I can't rate resistance over armor since how effective your resistance is will depend heavily on how much armor you have. Resistance meanwhile cannot reduce incoming damage to zero the way armor can. In the realm of the subject that we're digressing from. I think we all agree that the resistance differences between the BB and BC doesn't begin to make up for all the BC's advantages. Edited February 2, 2022 by Kane 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnleashtheKraken Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 1:26 PM, Kane said: While you raise a good point, that is wholly insufficient to justify the battleship's existence when the bulk of the actual gameplay is in ship design and tactical action as opposed to strategic decision making. I went on and played the campaign I started when I made the original post. Won the campaign almost immediately as my battlecruisers crushed the english battleships even when outnumbered 3 to 1. Even with what you mentioned, this is a huge issue. This shows serious flaws in the fundamentals of the game that probably should have been worked out before focus shifted to the campaign. If the fundamentals are borked, everything else is essentially trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. Yes, I wasn't saying this was good; just that, given the current state of the game and 'weight' given to BBs in campaign for fleet strength, they are necessary, in an entirely artificial way, not organically because you actually get what you pay for. On the rest of the points raised, I think ship construction needs a serious overhaul, rationalizing, standardizing weights (armor is a big one), making equipment weights believable and consistant rather than weighing more for no reason. My biggest suggestion is to split tower bonuses from the tower models. As now, you can select no radar, or gen 1, or gen 2. I'd like to see the damage control bonus, as an example, also made into a selectable addition, and so on with spotting, torpedo spotting, etc. Add a selection of tower models appropriate to the tech level/era, and then customize the elements that make up the tower's bonuses. This would help do away with the same-shipness currently plaguing the game. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted February 3, 2022 Author Share Posted February 3, 2022 2 hours ago, UnleashtheKraken said: Yes, I wasn't saying this was good; just that, given the current state of the game and 'weight' given to BBs in campaign for fleet strength, they are necessary, in an entirely artificial way, not organically because you actually get what you pay for. On the rest of the points raised, I think ship construction needs a serious overhaul, rationalizing, standardizing weights (armor is a big one), making equipment weights believable and consistant rather than weighing more for no reason. My biggest suggestion is to split tower bonuses from the tower models. As now, you can select no radar, or gen 1, or gen 2. I'd like to see the damage control bonus, as an example, also made into a selectable addition, and so on with spotting, torpedo spotting, etc. Add a selection of tower models appropriate to the tech level/era, and then customize the elements that make up the tower's bonuses. This would help do away with the same-shipness currently plaguing the game. Probably could have phrased my initial response to you in a less argumentative way. You are correct that BB's do have a role to play due to the artificial weight given to them. Its just that even that weight doesn't count for a whole lot since its not that hard to overcome the issue if you don't have the BB's. Crank out BC's and you may initially get blockaded or what have you due to lack of "power projection". But once your cheaper, more numerous because they're cheaper, and similarly powerful BC's crush the enemy BB's, now even that artificial boost to importance they've been given counts for nothing. Which just makes it more pathetic for the BB since that artificial advantage can be overcome fairly easily. Also pretty sad that the only thing BB's have going for them in this comparison is an artificial boost which doesn't even apply to the primary aspect of game play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lastreaumont Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 IMHO there is another advantage for the BC: a better ability to dodge torpedoes. This is an important quality in actual campaign mode, where torpedoes are the most dangerous weapon for player ships. In the last campaigns I played (1920, 1930 or 1940), I completely abandonned BB construction, focusing on various BC designs as main ships. BC are mainly polyvalent, another good quality, when you can't build task forces with complementary ships. My 4 main BC templates are: - big hull with many (5x3) intermediate caliber (305mm to 356mm, according to best available mark level) guns - big hull with some (4x2 or 3x3) big caliber (356mm to 406mm, according to best available mark 3 or mark 4) guns - big hull with few (2x3) biggest caliber (457mm) guns (not often built, rarely more than 1, this template is more for fun than for efficiency) - small hull with few (2x3, sometimes 3x3) intermediate caliber (305mm or 330mm) guns For the 3 first templates, the spirit is fast battleships. For the last template, the spirit is heavy heavy cruiser. With these, I have all the main ships I want. So why should I build more expansive and clumsy BB when I can have BC that can fight with efficiency against ennemy BB, but also against all other ships types? Power projection? Maybe. But, excepted during campaigns with no battles for months (this happened to me few patches ago), I had time to "project" ennemy power projection underwater with my battlecruisers before the naval blocus becomes a real problem. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 3, 2022 Share Posted February 3, 2022 Although faster, with their much greater length-to-beam ratios, BCs should be much “clumsier” when maneuvering. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted February 4, 2022 Author Share Posted February 4, 2022 (edited) 21 hours ago, akd said: Although faster, with their much greater length-to-beam ratios, BCs should be much “clumsier” when maneuvering. Indeed you are correct. Sadly we are not in Should-land. We are in Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts land. In this inglorious land, destroyers and torpedo boats are crewed by God himself and only sink when they want to. In this land a battleship's radio equipment is so heavy it should be measured in Tiger tanks. In this land, 3" high explosive shells can penetrate an entire ship without detonating. In this land an "average" ricochet chance is 90%, and an 18" shell will reliably ricochet on a 1" plate. In this land... Sanity cannot die, for it never existed. Edited February 4, 2022 by Kane 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Meow Posted February 4, 2022 Share Posted February 4, 2022 Just... keep reposting in large bold text the major issues over & over & over, maybe someone of the developers would notice it & at least would let the rest of the them know about it. The game is like 2 years since in early access, yet something very simple & important like having your designs saved in custom battles was introduced just few months ago. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted February 4, 2022 Author Share Posted February 4, 2022 7 minutes ago, Captain Meow said: Just... keep reposting in large bold text the major issues over & over & over, maybe someone of the developers would notice it & at least would let the rest of the them know about it. The game is like 2 years since in early access, yet something very simple & important like having your designs saved in custom battles was introduced just few months ago. I will go on linking this thread and another on the subject whenever they ask for suggestions / feedback. But, it would probably help if other people do the same. The more people who make an issue of this, the more likely it is that said issue will be taken seriously. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now