Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2023 12:29:52 GMT -6
First of all, mixing all gun development into a single category was just an unwise decision from the game dev. It just doesnt make any sense. You can hope for any usable BB gun (idc if its 11in, 12in or 13in) but you keep getting some 7in guns, which are 90% of time utterly useless, or 5in guns which are only worthwhile later on, on the WW2 DDs. Or even better, 2in guns that are borderline useless, as its only use is as secondaries on very small DDs. There should be a clear distinction between small, mid and large calibre guns. Second, I have also seen playthroughs that had -2 quality guns even on the earliest dreadnoughts.
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Jun 6, 2023 22:08:07 GMT -6
First of all, mixing all gun development into a single category was just an unwise decision from the game dev. It just doesnt make any sense. You can hope for any usable BB gun (idc if its 11in, 12in or 13in) but you keep getting some 7in guns, which are 90% of time utterly useless, or 5in guns which are only worthwhile later on, on the WW2 DDs. Or even better, 2in guns that are borderline useless, as its only use is as secondaries on very small DDs. There should be a clear distinction between small, mid and large calibre guns. Second, I have also seen playthroughs that had -2 quality guns even on the earliest dreadnoughts. I would like to see guns sizes split up into at least two categories, preferably three. Even better, if rather unlikely, would be to do away with the quality system altogether, and make gun research similar to aquiring new aircraft designs. Pick out gun size and length, then prioritize certain gun features over others and see what RNG gives you. Much more in-depth and fun, and should also be less frustrating. Also, I know it's b Teen beaten to death, but decimal calibres for guns is something that should be seriously considered at some point. P.S. Ten years into a 1890 start, and only one tech researched at 60%, is this working right? I've had research at 10-12% the whole time as Russia, and I don't think the other powers are getting much of anything done either. This is making for a very boring game design progression wise, as there is nothing better about a ship built now versus one that is a decade old. So I'm starting to wonder if this is working as intended.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 7, 2023 2:55:40 GMT -6
First of all, mixing all gun development into a single category was just an unwise decision from the game dev. It just doesnt make any sense. You can hope for any usable BB gun (idc if its 11in, 12in or 13in) but you keep getting some 7in guns, which are 90% of time utterly useless, or 5in guns which are only worthwhile later on, on the WW2 DDs. Or even better, 2in guns that are borderline useless, as its only use is as secondaries on very small DDs. There should be a clear distinction between small, mid and large calibre guns. Second, I have also seen playthroughs that had -2 quality guns even on the earliest dreadnoughts. I would like to see guns sizes split up into at least two categories, preferably three. Even better, if rather unlikely, would be to do away with the quality system altogether, and make gun research similar to aquiring new aircraft designs. Pick out gun size and length, then prioritize certain gun features over others and see what RNG gives you. Much more in-depth and fun, and should also be less frustrating. Also, I know it's b Teen beaten to death, but decimal calibres for guns is something that should be seriously considered at some point. P.S. Ten years into a 1890 start, and only one tech researched at 60%, is this working right? I've had research at 10-12% the whole time as Russia, and I don't think the other powers are getting much of anything done either. This is making for a very boring game design progression wise, as there is nothing better about a ship built now versus one that is a decade old. So I'm starting to wonder if this is working as intended. I tried a Research 90% game as Russia and by 1904 the ONLY heavy gun better than "-2" quality IN THE WHOLE WORLD was a french 10 inch ! Utterly ridiculous!
|
|
|
Post by durhamdave on Jun 7, 2023 5:32:27 GMT -6
It can get stuck occasionally, although I don't know if it's a tech quirk. 1890s starts seem to hit 1900 with gun development behind a 1900s start, and I currently have a US game where 6in guns are still -1, which is making things interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2023 10:18:09 GMT -6
First of all, mixing all gun development into a single category was just an unwise decision from the game dev. It just doesnt make any sense. You can hope for any usable BB gun (idc if its 11in, 12in or 13in) but you keep getting some 7in guns, which are 90% of time utterly useless, or 5in guns which are only worthwhile later on, on the WW2 DDs. Or even better, 2in guns that are borderline useless, as its only use is as secondaries on very small DDs. There should be a clear distinction between small, mid and large calibre guns. Second, I have also seen playthroughs that had -2 quality guns even on the earliest dreadnoughts. I would like to see guns sizes split up into at least two categories, preferably three. Even better, if rather unlikely, would be to do away with the quality system altogether, and make gun research similar to aquiring new aircraft designs. Pick out gun size and length, then prioritize certain gun features over others and see what RNG gives you. Much more in-depth and fun, and should also be less frustrating. Also, I know it's b Teen beaten to death, but decimal calibres for guns is something that should be seriously considered at some point. P.S. Ten years into a 1890 start, and only one tech researched at 60%, is this working right? I've had research at 10-12% the whole time as Russia, and I don't think the other powers are getting much of anything done either. This is making for a very boring game design progression wise, as there is nothing better about a ship built now versus one that is a decade old. So I'm starting to wonder if this is working as intended. Yep, I´ve already had games where I have tons of money waiting for a new design, but there is no practical point in making anything new than an 8 y/o BB, because the technologies are just almost the same. It really feels weird building stuff that is borderline obsolete just because there just isnt any new technology available.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 7, 2023 10:29:20 GMT -6
I would like to see guns sizes split up into at least two categories, preferably three. Even better, if rather unlikely, would be to do away with the quality system altogether, and make gun research similar to aquiring new aircraft designs. Pick out gun size and length, then prioritize certain gun features over others and see what RNG gives you. Much more in-depth and fun, and should also be less frustrating. Also, I know it's b Teen beaten to death, but decimal calibres for guns is something that should be seriously considered at some point. P.S. Ten years into a 1890 start, and only one tech researched at 60%, is this working right? I've had research at 10-12% the whole time as Russia, and I don't think the other powers are getting much of anything done either. This is making for a very boring game design progression wise, as there is nothing better about a ship built now versus one that is a decade old. So I'm starting to wonder if this is working as intended. Yep, I´ve already had games where I have tons of money waiting for a new design, but there is no practical point in making anything new than an 8 y/o BB, because the technologies are just almost the same. It really feels weird building stuff that is borderline obsolete just because there just isnt any new technology available. The 1890 is especially bad at this because they weren't brave enough to make the starting forces rubbish enough. Some of the battleship designs are 1889/91 types but the only really terrible ironclads are those foisted on Japan. Everyone gets lots of mid-1890s style cruisers (largely 20+ knots) that are completely competitive for the next decade!
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on Jun 7, 2023 11:03:19 GMT -6
Yep, I´ve already had games where I have tons of money waiting for a new design, but there is no practical point in making anything new than an 8 y/o BB, because the technologies are just almost the same. It really feels weird building stuff that is borderline obsolete just because there just isnt any new technology available. Some of the battleship designs are 1889/91 types but the only really terrible ironclads are those foisted on Japan. Austria-Hungary's open mount barbette battleships at cruiser size would beg to argue the point
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 7, 2023 11:33:03 GMT -6
Some of the battleship designs are 1889/91 types but the only really terrible ironclads are those foisted on Japan. Austria-Hungary's open mount barbette battleships at cruiser size would beg to argue the point Those are literally brand new in 1890! Where are the other half dozen Central Battery Ironclads that made up the rest of their battle fleet IRL? Most of the best battleships in the world at that point followed two main paths. Either they are Turret or Barbette. The former came in broadly two flavours, either Central mounted pairs of twins sometimes still with rigged masts (though there's a process of stripping these back to military masts). Or, low freeboard (sometimes "Turret Rams") things like Devastation etc. The Barbette guys are more diverse on layout as it's seems to have been an evolution of the old Broadside/Central Battery type in many cases. The game appears conflicted with barbettes though as they are only partly unarmoured and generally have good protection for their crews and loading areas... Indeed they are what acquire increasingly sturdy hoods and evolve (sort of, it's complicated) into the modern turret layout rather than the old style turret. I treat them as roofless turrets? They are still somewhat vulnerable to splinter damage and obviously plunging fire but can survive direct hits to most of their structure.... It's a work-around.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jun 7, 2023 22:06:32 GMT -6
Yep, I´ve already had games where I have tons of money waiting for a new design, but there is no practical point in making anything new than an 8 y/o BB, because the technologies are just almost the same. It really feels weird building stuff that is borderline obsolete just because there just isnt any new technology available. The 1890 is especially bad at this because they weren't brave enough to make the starting forces rubbish enough. Some of the battleship designs are 1889/91 types but the only really terrible ironclads are those foisted on Japan. Everyone gets lots of mid-1890s style cruisers (largely 20+ knots) that are completely competitive for the next decade! I've seen speculation that the developers have reached the limit of the code for design periods which thereby precludes them from adding further templates at this point. Knowing how in depth everything else is, it is rather jarring that the templates are so far out early game - which makes me suspect it was either a code or file size limit.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 8, 2023 0:44:25 GMT -6
The 1890 is especially bad at this because they weren't brave enough to make the starting forces rubbish enough. Some of the battleship designs are 1889/91 types but the only really terrible ironclads are those foisted on Japan. Everyone gets lots of mid-1890s style cruisers (largely 20+ knots) that are completely competitive for the next decade! I've seen speculation that the developers have reached the limit of the code for design periods which thereby precludes them from adding further templates at this point. Knowing how in depth everything else is, it is rather jarring that the templates are so far out early game - which makes me suspect it was either a code or file size limit. Yes, I suspect that may be the case, the "0 to 9" era identifiers sort of suggest it? I may try and create a complete "starter set" of properly old designs (to produce something akin to the 1920 start fleets?) just for the 1890 start that I swap out after the Jan1890 turn for a different set covering 1890-1897... it will take ages though, partly because I can't just create them all in game start screen like I did for the 1900 navies in RTW2... Plus the new graphics, cute though they are, take longer to get "right".
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Jun 8, 2023 12:58:00 GMT -6
I think what irks me the most is that pen is apparently still hand-made instead of using some sort of formula - having weird occurances like big jumps between certain ranges or equal pen at others in close range.
|
|