Roran_Hawkins

Players
  • Content count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1862

About Roran_Hawkins

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Belgium
  • Interests
    Drawing, WoT, reading, other games.
  • Portal profile Roran_Hawkins
  1. Since updating and installing the latest patch the game has turned sour for me. I suddenly began suffering from extremely long loading times for the different menu's, and especially battles themselves. Where previously I could count upon my game loading before the timer hit the 20-seconds mark, now it has become a rule that I cannot join a game before a full minute and a half has passed. On top of that the gameplay itself has been completely warped. I suffer from tedious rendering issues where spotted enemy and allied ships simply don't render (visible on the minimap, not on screen). As a result I keep being pelted by invisible ships I cannot target or protect myself from. It has gotten quite extreme as ships being spotted 12km away can charge me from that range, shoot all the while and torpedo me at 2-3km range, still unrendered and invisible. To solve this I have attempted several solutions. I have attempted to remove my mods (Aslain's modpack) without results I tried turning down my graphics to low without any observable changes A repair install achieved nothing Uninstalling and reinstalling the game changed little, as issues persisted Switching between DX11 and DX9 brought no improvement either My firewall settings allow the game full access so the issue isn't there either I tried clearing up space on my C: drive (previously only 10GB free space, brought it down to 30GB free space without changes, reverted back to 16GB free space now (game is on D: drive, C: only contains personal documents and the OS) Quite frankly I have reached a point where I gave up on finding a solution myself. Any other game on my computer still runs perfectly on whatever graphic level I choose it to run at, so I'm extremely doubtful that the issue lies on my end. In fact, even ubisoft multiplayer games with their terrible reputation for networking issues run smoothly and without issue. The timing of this could not be worse as I had just invented a sizeable sum in the game (which I ordinarily never do) to have some fun at trying to unlock the British BB's before they get released, but now I just find myself frustrated at even attempting to run the game. Are there any tech savvy saviours out there who can help point me in the right direction?
  2. Just had my first tX game in Lexington. Gosh, I instantly want to quit CV's altogether. I got 1 bomb hit and 1 torpedo hit at the cost of every plane I have, trying to target lonely, damaged and separated ships or destroyers after losing my initial wave pretty much instantly to AA. How/why do people bother?
  3. Ah, you caught me, I didn't think too far ahead. Here's a quick response because I'm leaving for class. I would be more interested in fire starting chance being determined by where your shell strikes. If you hit spots which are more or less vulnerable to a fire breaking out the chance to start a fire should change. This would go hand in hand with an update of the damage model (if it's not too amibitous overall) to show in the armour viewer how suceptible specific parts of the ships are to being set on fire when hit.
  4. Man! If I ignore his main argument and post a witty meme as a reaction to one point, it's all disproven! I never claimed that fire was OP or did the most damage. I stated that it's far too easy to inflict as a condition given realism and existing gameplay mechanics. But go ahead and ignore my argument like I'll ignore your contribution to the discussion until you put some effort in your reasoning. E: creepy, we joined on the same date.
  5. What frustrates me most in fire mechanics is that it requires virtually no skill in comparison to literally everything else revolving around guns in the game. Historically you'd strive to achieve hits on the enely ships, and if you scored 5 hits you'd be a happy captain. IG we strive to achieve hits on specific parts of enemy ships for (full) damage for gameplay reasons. That's all perfectly fair. AP does full damage inside citadels, does 33% damage when exploding inside the target ship and does 10% damage when overpenetrating and only inflicting spalling and penetration damage. HE similarly deals more or less damage dependant on where you hit the enemy ship, with direct hits to the main armour belt or otherwise impergnable parts of the target ship dealing no damage. Torpedoes too cause more damage if you manage to hit enemy ships in places not protected by the torpedo protection systems or torpedo bulges (if present). The problem with fires is that every HE shell has a flat x% chance to set a fire, whether or not it hits a ready to use AA gun ammo stack or the thickest part of a ship's belt armour. The way it is implemented allows someone who fires 3'' HE shells at a Yamato's belt armour repeatedly to sink it eventually through fires being spawned by meaningless explosions on a wall of angled steel thicker than the entire gun the shells are being fired from. While yes, a skilled HE spammer will target different sections of the enemy ship's superstructure to inflict more fires at the same time and to do damage through his HE shells as well as local ship HP is depleted so he can do full damage for longer, will outperform a player who just plinks HE for no damage at the armoured parts of a ship, the latter player can and will still sink the BB incredibly fast if RNG decides to spawn two fires per volley on the belt. tl;dr Fire is not OP, but it's far too cheap. You can sink any ship in the game by spamming HE at the thickest armour for no damage because fire chance is unchanged by which part of the ship you hit. Inflicting massive damage through fire requires no skill safe for hitting the enemy ship, where literally every other damage-inflicting mechanic requires you to aim for specific ship parts to do similar damage, or in the case of AP, even penalizes you for not doing so.
  6. I've had an idea in mind for a long time that's very relevant to how aviation and naval aviation works. Adding altitude into the field of play and being able to choose the altitude of your fighters (three or four simplified levels of altitude is enough already) in order to increase/decrease their effectiveness at a certain task adds a lot of choice. The most important tactical asset in naval aviation relying on gunnery for airkills is altitude. A slower, less manouvrable plane with more altitude can use the altitude advantage to gain the necessary speed to defeat/catch superior fighters. It was, especially for quick reaction naval fighters, of the utmost importance to have very good climbing rates to quickly get to superior or combat altitude to intercept incoming planes. Say there are 4 levels of altitude. Every plane would get a new stat called 'climb rate' deciding howmuch time it takes for them to reach a new level of altitude. Increasing altitude level temprarily decreases cruise speed and lowering increases it. Torpedo bombers always fly at level 1, since their torpedoes drown when dropped from higher than that. Divebombers always fly at level 3, which gives them the necessary altitude to give the bomb its terminal velocity and thus maximum penetration/damage while still having a safe margin for recovering from the dive. Levels 2 and 4 are purely for fighters. Fighters can attack planes at their own level, one level below and one level above themselves. Attacking your own level gives no advantage, attacking lower altitude planes gives your fighters an advantage in damage and hp (from plane to plane fire), and vice versa for attacking planes an altitude level higher. Attacking a group of planes will change your fighter's altitude to target group's altitude (how fast depends on climb rate) while a dogfight (especially a long-lasting one) gradually loses altitude due to manouvering and energy loss. This would result in having to make the tactical decision to have your fighters stay at level 4 where they have their ultimate damage potential against hostile fighter threats or having them protect your fleet from TB or DB but make them more vulnerable to hostile fighters with max altitude. For example; Your fighters at altitude 3 spot altitude 1 hostile group of TB's heading for a nearby allied BB, with hostile fighters at level 3 nearby. You attack the TB's. Your fighters lower to altitude 2, get a speed boost, and would attack with bonus damage. You quickly destroy target air group. Suddenly the enemy fighters, who have climbed to altitude 4, attack, and you try to run to friendly AA, but they decrease their altitude to level 2 before you get too far and catch up, getting bonus damage against your fighters. If you would have kept your fighters at altitude 3 you could have had enoguh altitude levels to increase speed and run to friendly fighters or AA in time, but the enemy TB's would have gotten through. It's probably nigh-impossible to implement though.
  7. Generally when a large ship's bow hit a smaller ship from the side the smaller ship lost big important parts of the ship while the larger ship didn't feel all that much of it. In this game ramming is like a Michael Bay movie, explosions everywhere for everyone.
  8. I had hoped that altitude would be important. Divebombers fly pretty high up, torpedo bombers on the deck (sealevel), the fighters with the altitude advantage have a great initial damage bonus, especially if their cruise speed is higher (Boom'n Zoom). The result would be that your fighters would be constantly climbing to fly at divebomber altitude or higher, and attacking a target would lower their altitude to strike it. You can have X altitude advantage that's capped above a certain amount of extra altitude over your target. Fighting would reduce your altitude to your target's altitude however. This way a squadron of A6M5's would be a very real threat to a squadron of F6 Hellcats who have just attacked torpedo bombers, as the former are more manouvrable and higher thus negating the speed advantage the Hellcats would usually have, while a squadron of corsairs with an altitude advantage would make short work of a squadron of low A6M5's.
  9. The only difference is that the BB gets a couple of shots with great RNG spread to try and hit those cruiser citadels as they whirl around like ballet-dancers on ice, while the cruiser can spam HE rounds incessantly, not really having to care about taking great care when aiming because BB is slow and large, and even a single lucky HE shell can create a blazing fire on board. To put it simple, A CA/CL can spam HE at a big, slow easy to hit target and do roughly 1000-3000 damage per salvo, which is every 7 to 10 seconds. In addition every second salvo is guaranteed to start a fire, and it is impossible for the BB to put these out effectively. As a result, dependant on the cruiser's accuracy and RNG, that's easily up to 20k of extra damage. A BB has to carefully aim every turret and salvo with AP, praying to even hit the manouvering CA/CL , nevermind in the citadel. With RNG shell spread even hitting a manouvering cruiser is like playing darts with a blindfold, nevermind achieving anything else than an overpenetrating hit. A BB salvo that's directly on top of a CA/CL usually does some 2000-4000 damage if he's lucky enough to have multiple hits of which a few into non-overpenetrating ship parts. Only if the planets are [edited]aligned and Jesus farts on a BB AP shell then you get a citadel hit on a cruiser, which is deservingly destructive. Yes, you can use HE vs CA/CL, and if you get good hits you'll do lots of crits and reasonable damage (2000-3000), but your lower rate of fire and the decreased damage gimps your damage output over time that the cruiser could be anchored right next to you in a flat shoout-out and still win. Personally I have achieved 3 citadel hits on CA/CL with a BB, and I've played a decent amount of BB games.
  10. I think it'd be epic. Look at the Axis&Allies War at Sea boardgame, which simulates this very thing pretty dang nice. If both opponents have similar fleets then your battleships won't be focussing fire on the poor enemy cruisers unless they came too close without support from their own battleships. If a destroyer gets destroyed it is because he made himself too much of a priority target by coming too close without allied assistance that made targetting him mean being shot at by something more dangerous without counter. In an open sea map teamwork would be a lot more important as you would actually have to form little 'fleets' with smaller ships escorting larger ones to protect them from planes and other small ships with larger ships accompagnying smaller ones to bring firepower and punch aswell as protection for their smaller brethren. ------ Compared with the boardgame I just mentioned this could work if people have some degree of common sense and learn that being closer to eachother works better. In there a battleship would never target a destroyer with the main battery if there was a cruiser or another battleship in range unless the destroyer was an immediate threat. Basically every ship would attack the ship that poses the largest threat or presents the easiest target. As such everyone would attack whatever they are effective against while relying on their allies to dispose of the ships that they cannot fight. Combined fleet action?
  11. My favorite ship. I love the website you linked.
  12. My favorite ship ever is the HMS Warspite. Those ships served their purpose and more even though they were about 30 years old, which is very old seeing the evolution of the military now and back then.
  13. Questions

    I've heard and read of use of "torpedo nets", sturdy nets hung from the sides of ship to catch torpedoes prematurely so they wouldn't explode, or explode but have reduced damage to to increased range. Will those be represented IG? And another quick question, to statisfy myself for being able to play my favorite ship: Will the HMS Warspite (Queen Elisabeth class BB) eventually be playable? How will the hull-mounted secondary guns work? How will damage on the ship look like? In most warship games it's at most fire, exploded turrets, and black scorch marks. Will we be able to expect realistic damage models? I know this has been asked before, but I'm curious about the full depth of how you will show the damage. For example: http://www.seayourhi...2_itemId=11648 This is a website with illustrations ordered to be drawn by the Royal Navy to record the possible damage to ships after the battle of Jutland.
  14. Questions

    Will there be gold ammo? ):
  15. Questions

    I have a question of an entirely different nature: In WW1 and WW2 it was common to rescue drowing sailors from sinking ships, in most cases ignoring the nationality of the sailors. Will this be somehow implemented IG? As some kind of credit/XP bonus for the savior, and decreased repair bills for the aided player?