|
Thanks for the tips all, I spent a nice few hours at the IWM. Saros, I will hit you up for a beer in five years when I come back to London, as long as you are up for a quick game of Campaign for North Africa.
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
The new graviteam features actually make it much easier to kill the poo poo out of germans w artillery and it rules
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
Is there a projected release date for RTW2?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Is there a projected release date for RTW2? Their target is the end of the year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Lost my first campaign of Cold Waters just now. I wish someone had told me after we took that embarrassing torpedo hit in the second engagement that our max speed was only 10 knots, I would've RTB'd.  Well, the fumbling with controls didn't help either, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:So far I've learned I'm terrible at orbital mechanics and I am indeed getting my rear end blasted by swarms of nuclear missles. I've found the combination of heavily armored picket ships with insane point defense for anti-missile/drone work and meatshielding plus a couple ridiculously big coil/rail gun ships that are effective to a 100km or so are a pretty winning combination against most other fleet. I've designed a few decent high power railguns, that's about the only module I've figured out how to get remotely close to min-maxing. Here's one impractical but hilarious gunship I made. I haven't played the game in a few months so maybe it's broken or nerfed in patches but last time I tested it, it basically shredded anything bigger than a drone without tons of armor within 150km. That one sucks against other snipey ships though because it's like 90% radiator since the guns and powerplant put off so much heat, and every bit of armor on the radiator really kills it's ability to cool efficiently. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1167012004 Butter Activities fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jul 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
This has been pretty much summing up my attempts at playing Cold Waters. I think I'll go crawling back to the American Fleet Boats of WW2. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:This has been pretty much summing up my attempts at playing Cold Waters. It's actually very possible to evade torpedos with well timed knuckles for several minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 10:48
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's actually very possible to evade torpedos with well timed knuckles for several minutes. 20 minutes of torpedo dodging later, a plane drops a torpedo straight on you, you die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 12:06
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's actually very possible to evade torpedos with well timed knuckles for several minutes. Yes, but while I'm evading THOSE torpedos, the enemy is firing more at me. Or a plane is dropping depth charges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Yes, but while I'm evading THOSE torpedos, the enemy is firing more at me. Or a plane is dropping depth charges. So shoot back!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
That strange, French (only?) template design shows up in lots of games and its always hilariously bad. Given the AI templates are at least loosely based on real ships (especially for the line work and gun positions) I wonder what weird cruiser that template is modeled after. Alchenar posted:So shoot back! I do when I first start evading, but that doesn't always work and the tubes tend to jam if I try to fire at evasion speeds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:That strange, French (only?) template design shows up in lots of games and its always hilariously bad. It's like a lightly armoured Dupleix that lost the 100mm guns and switched to submerged tubes. (The Desaix actually was a Dupleix-class, though I don't think it had any modifications like that done to it. I still assume it's where they got the template concept.) Edit: I haven't played that game so I might be reading the armour values wrong since I don't know how it handles the armour being thinner near the bottom. Prism fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jul 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
What is so weird about that design? I haven't played RTW. Is RTW worth picking up or should I just wait for the sequel at this point?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:What is so weird about that design? I haven't played RTW. The game tags it as a CA but it’s super light for that, has guns right on the edge of light/medium (cruisers usually have 8, 9, or 10-inch guns), and is kind of fast for a CA at the start of the game but has very thin armor. Its main armament is partly in turrets (single turrets, which are kind of an oddity) and partly in casemates and the line art suggests that its superstructure is wider than its hull. Because it’s tagged as a CA it would get thrown into engagements with other CAs, which are almost certain to be better armed and armored. I don’t fully understand why it’s not classed as a CL; the way RTW decides what kind of ship something is is kind of opaque.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:What is so weird about that design? I haven't played RTW. As a light cruiser, it could have a 7x6" broadside which will probably outperform it's current 5x7" and if it got rid of it's massively overkill deck armour, it could be one or even more of -several knots faster, -1/4rd lighter+cheaper, -have secondaries that can actually target destroyers outside their torpedo range. As is, it puts itself in the same weight class as 4x10" proto-battlecruisers with 6" armour.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
That new Rome 4X on Matrix is coming out 30 August. Definitely going to pick it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:That new Rome 4X on Matrix is coming out 30 August. Definitely going to pick it up. I'd recommend waiting to see how it turns out, because I've seen beta stuff and it was pretty limited
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:I'd recommend waiting to see how it turns out, because I've seen beta stuff and it was pretty limited It sorta seems like it wants to split the difference between Civilization-style "anything goes" and Paradox/Total War "here's what happened, sorta" and I don't see that being a happy marriage, honestly. Although I'd be happy if I were convinced I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
I realized I hated designing B's and BB's in RTW, so I've been playing games with Austria-Hungary, Italy and Spain where I just go full on guerre de course and build nothing but cruisers and support craft for them. It's fun, but I am still really bad at building ships beyond "put good guns on them and make them go fast" because I never learned what sort of armor ships should have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
Why do you dislike building Battleships? They're usually pretty straight forward. As for armor, take a look at your own gun's performance statistics and armor for that, plus a bit maybe. Early on you can go light on deck armor but as gun ranges increase plunging fire becomes a problem, that is, the shells arc so high in the air they're more falling down on the target and hitting the top than they are flying at it and hitting the side. So you'll want to increase deck armor as time goes on. Example shell performance from the late 1900s/1910s:  You can access performance data on other nation's guns by creating a new ship design, selecting that nation as a builder, mounting a gun of the desired caliber, and then pushing the "Gun data" button. Worth noting however is this is performance data using ammunition manufactured by your own nation, so their actual performance may differ slightly due to tech differences. So if you were building a battleship and these are the best guns you have, you would want to have 10+ inches of belt armor and at least 2 inches of deck armor*. I'd personally probably go with 11"+ inches of belt armor, and a 2.5" deck to give it a bit of future proofing as shells continue to push the range envelope. Turrets I'd definitely give a bit extra armor because having your ship explode from a magazine hit sucks and magazine hits are far more likely when the turret is penetrated. * Also worth noting, 2 inches is the minimum armor required for protection against shrapnel damage from exploding shells, and also turrets under 2" of armor are considered open guns with just an armored blast shield protecting the crew (making them much, much more vulnerable to being killed) while turrets with thicker armor are considered full enclosed. [edit] It'll probably repeat stuff I just said, but here is a post I made in my old RTW thread about armor. quote:The main belt and deck armor of your ship only covers the central part of the vessel, where the most important and vulnerable things are, the ship's steam boilers, engines, and ammo magazines. The extension areas cover less vital (but potentially still important) areas such as the driver shafts to the propellers or the rudders. However eventually many navies realized the benefits of extended armor protection didn't justify the significant weight increases and adopted an "All or nothing" armor approach, America was especially fond of it while other nations took a while to warm up to it, IIRC. Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Jul 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
Thanks!Galaga Galaxian posted:Why do you dislike building Battleships? They're usually pretty straight forward. The game seems to be more geared toward cruiser fights happening than decisive battles where the BB's (or B's) come out to play. And early B's are lumbering and slow beasts that usually can't hit anything anyway. Going heavy on cruisers also works good for smaller countries, which I play a lot more often than the major ones, since the smaller countries really can't afford to have more than a couple of BBs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 07:32
|
|
|
I've had plenty of success with early Battleship engagements, even when playing small nations. You just gotta be willing to risk it all. If you can't hit poo poo, you're clearly not getting close enough. If you're not trying to get in range to potentially use your pre-dreadnought battleship's submerged torpedo tube(s), you're not close enough.  They don't even have to be min-maxed like some people do (afterall, most people consider submerged tubes on capital ships a waste of tonnage, I strongly disagree). I had good success in my Ottoman LP using a starting battlesihp fleet that were basically clones of historical Japans 1900ish British-built Battleships. Hell my entire fleet was modeled loosely after 1900 Japan's and, like them, mostly British designed and built based on historical vessels.   Also, do you say its geared more towards cruiser fights because that is what the random generator tends to draw more often? If that is the case, you can decline the battle and it will probably generate another one (you can do this 1-3 times usually). Its a small war score hit, but if you're looking for that glorious decisive battle that'll net you tons of points, it can be worth fishing for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
Early battleship engagements can definitely be boring. Bunch of ships puttering around shooting inaccurately and not even really damaging what they hit. Unless you full speed ahead and close to torpedo range, like Galaga suggests, the madman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
Visual Fighter combat in the air and Hot BB-on-BB Action have same basic tenet: GET CLOSER
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 08:34
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:That new Rome 4X on Matrix is coming out 30 August. Definitely going to pick it up. If anyone is interested in seeing some gameplay, someone put up a hefty chunk from a preview build on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0tMzvX5YVc
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 10:32
|
|
|
My rule of thumb for first half of game is 1" more armour for turrets than belt, with belt being just a bit more armour than penetration at combat ranges. Then for the second half of the game it's 2" plus as much as I think I can get away with because late game it seems like SUDDENLY EXPLODES though turret penetration is the main death of BBs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 13:12
|
|
|
I still might have to look into that whole "battleship" thing because now Italy is pushing my poo poo in with BC's. RTW is the best game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
 Then again, cruisers are working out fine in the early game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
I usually end up building CA/CL/DD until dreadnoughts come around. Battleships in the early 1900s never really kill each other except with torpedoes anyway, and with a couple years of technology you can build cruisers and destroyers a whole lot better than the starting fleet. A few 23 knot CAs and 5" or 6" gun CLs can win pretty much every battle until someone builds a BC, and even then the AI likes to build really lovely BCs as soon as it gets the technology so the CA isn't instantly useless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I usually end up building CA/CL/DD until dreadnoughts come around. Battleships in the early 1900s never really kill each other except with torpedoes anyway, and with a couple years of technology you can build cruisers and destroyers a whole lot better than the starting fleet. So I am crazy, I realize this; however, I approach this game in a pseudo roleplaying way. In other words, I think to myself: “It is in 1905 in whatever country, what fleet composition could I really get away with here politically?” This means that I pretty universally am building some Battleships, because the people and government would fire the poo poo out of me in real life if I didn’t.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Yeah, I have more fun with the game when I keep my ships and ratios relatively plausible and refusing to build Pre-Dreadnaught Battleships is just far too gamey for my taste. That said it does have some penalties as your government and populace will be generally extremely unhappy about a lack of capital ships. Still someone going hard min/max will likely be able to keep ahead of any prestige penalties by scoring points in Wars. Also the more I play it the more I realize Jellicoe's great wisdom; more destroyers, more more more. Destroyers are love, destroyers are life, destroyers complete us. Never not be building more destroyers. PS cross-deck fire works on destroyers!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Also the more I play it the more I realize Jellicoe's great wisdom; more destroyers, more more more. Destroyers are love, destroyers are life, destroyers complete us. Never not be building more destroyers. Not only is this true, the AI never builds enough destroyers. In fact in early battles of a war I'll often prioritise the chance to take out 4 destroyers over a cruiser because if you can get the enemy destroyer count below a critical mass then their fleet effectiveness just falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
I always have 10 DDs under construction in RTW, and scrap any that reach (O)ld status. Given build times and ship lifetimes, that usually gives me around 80 of the things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Don't scrap them, just let ASW work attrition them out. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
*yawn* *stretch* yep looks like today's the day I try every possible adjustment and combination of game and video card settings I can possibly conceive of in an effort to get Combat Mission to both not look like complete dog poo poo and run anything remotely consistent above 20 FPS on a modern computer built in the year of our lord 2017. Again. edit: I guess if this fucker is both extremely CPU-heavy and single-core , having a Ryzen is actually hurting me. Lots o' cores, not impressive individually. Squiggle fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:I do when I first start evading, but that doesn't always work and the tubes tend to jam if I try to fire at evasion speeds. I love cold waters and i want you to love cold waters please read my post thanks Dodging airdropped torpedoes is a fine dance. Combatting other subs and surface ships is a little easier. Always be watching your minimap, when you hear the torpedo launch call, fire an torpedo set to go active a little shy of that position. For surface ships, bracket them with a pair of passive lads either side of their bow, set to start hunting about halfway between you and them (escorts normally barrel straight at you, banging way on active to find you. you can use this against them.) Dodging the torpedoes themselves is a little more complicated- you need to be using your planes and ballast to move very rapidly between depths. Don't worry so much about speed on the horizontal- torps can't vertically move as fast as you, that's the easiest way to shake them. Once they're going over/under/around you and turning back to reacquire, change your aspect. try to make your profile towards the front of the torpedo as small as possible, drop decoys and fire a smart decoy if you think you're hosed. if you're running at a fish head on and it starts angling in to hit you, do as before and go vertically in whatever direction is safest (typically down.) as fast as possible. The torp should go around you and circle, if you knuckle a this point and start creeping away you'll have shaken it for a few seconds, and opened up the range to start the dance over if it reacquires. Airdropped torps are pretty poo poo in terms of destructive power- you can take a hit or two from them and be okay. Not only that but they have way less fuel- if you knuckle and jink around for a minute/minute thirty they're donezo. e: the skipjack is the best submarine in the game. i wont be taking further questions. Cling-Wrap Condom fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Squiggle posted:*yawn* *stretch* yep looks like today's the day I try every possible adjustment and combination of game and video card settings I can possibly conceive of in an effort to get Combat Mission to both not look like complete dog poo poo and run anything remotely consistent above 20 FPS on a modern computer built in the year of our lord 2017. I don’t know anything about CM, but even a single core Ryzen has to be an improvement over what was around when CM was first released. Wonder what the deal is. (answer: grog game)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Squiggle posted:*yawn* *stretch* yep looks like today's the day I try every possible adjustment and combination of game and video card settings I can possibly conceive of in an effort to get Combat Mission to both not look like complete dog poo poo and run anything remotely consistent above 20 FPS on a modern computer built in the year of our lord 2017. I pulled ram out of my pc and it ran faster with less ram so you basically have to resort to voodoo
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 06:23
|
|
