Rumseeker wrote: »
I can understand what you are saying but if you read the description of the module, for it to work it has to be in relatively close proximity to the ships for it to function. Exactly what that proximity is has not been elaborated upon yet. Subs will still be what they are and have been and this will not take away from that.
Sortar wrote: »
haha what an idiot..more money for king will and his tribe of merry idiots...you guys complain then just spend more...classic..
KIXEYE CM Swag wrote: »
Let's make sure we keep this thread on track. Be sure to follow up your opinion with exactly why you feel the way you do. Keep it respectful or it will not stay. Thanks.
Jim Waters wrote: »
With sonar3+detection range of a stalker, you actually think those pod ships wont get in on any enemy sub? There isn't alot of room on a combat map, and herding subs is a heck of alot easier than people think. Yes we dont know exactly what "brought into close proximity with the enemy fleet" is, but for it to even be used over the normal tactic of hunting subs, its got to be nice to give up a ship in the fleet to use it!
Ollie99 wrote: »
Speculate much?? If you want to speculate fine, lets speculate. The anti sub module is designed to make your subs take damage against fleets that they normally wouldn't. The fact that they are so damaging to most fleets and that being underwater protects them from most damage is the reason they have such high repair times. Will those repair times go down now that subs are to be made more vulnerable? No, probably not. Who knows what they mean by "close prox" The top level module (lets say lvl 3) if not the mid level will most likely out range torps. To think other wise is just naive, or maybe you should cut back on the rum. That being said I would very much like to be proved wrong, believe me. Now lets speculate from the other side. Maybe the range is less than torps and they intend on you sacrificing your more torp resistant module ship so you can rain fire down on the subs from a distance with your other ships as it takes damage, while forcing the subs to surface. That would tie in well with the new number key functions for controlling ships. Either way they want us all taking more damage. I for one would love to see what the repair times on the module hulls are going to be, among other things.
GE999 wrote: »
BP for the most part has done a very good job of re-creating conventional naval warfare, this Philadelphia Experiment update gravely departs from the style of the game and changes it from a naval/pirate combat game to a magical naval game. The way that ships (currently) can complement each other (i.e. one ship having sonar and the others gaining its benefit without having to equip a sonar module) is much more realistic. Real warships (generally) cannot project fields that cause negative effects to their targets without also interfering with the operations of its own fleet. Especially anything EMP related; which is delivered either by smart bombs or cruise missiles, ships cannot generate an EMP and aim it at a target without risking affecting friendly ships as well.
To accomplish what this tactical hull is proposed to do, there is only one feasible way that it can be delivered; by aircraft from an aircraft carrier. In order to affect an enemy out of range of your own ships you need aircraft to remotely deploy the counter active devices (or modules) so that they won't affect your own ships. Rather than make this new specialized hull something that's more just thrown together, make it realistic and make it an aircraft carrier; and give it the characteristics of one - large, slow, poor maneuverability, medium-high armor (something that should be allowed to be decided by the player), good close range defense put poor long range defense (i.e. vulnerable to long range missiles).
Make the aircraft carrier such that it can equip the module, which is delivered by its planes (which would be done implicitly, no need to animate aircraft flying around the map, that would only cause more problems) to the enemy. The aircraft would then be delivering the module's effect via proper weaponry - sonar buoys to track subs, EMP/ECM smart bombs to slow ships down and so on depending on the modules intended effect. To balance out the ship, alter the weight of the module to be proportional to its effect. So the ship could have 2 armor slots, and 3 weapons slots - though limit the weapons to only short range weapons, say only weapons with a range of 45 or less and don't allow a special to be equipped on the ship. An aircraft carrier is the single most powerful ship of the seas, but due to its reliance on its aircraft for its defense, it can't defend itself very well from targets until they get into very close range.
After the implementation of submarines in WWI, the next evolution of naval warfare was the aircraft carrier; which drastically changed how naval warfare has been waged ever since its introduction. As BP as a game needs to evolve over time, I would like to see it done in much the same manner that it currently is; where it more closely resembles real world conventional warfare. The whole idea of a specialized hull that creates area affects is foolish and a pie in the sky - the idea itself isn't though. It's execution is where this particular idea is failing, as its completely unrealistic and hard to try and fit into the game as a tangible item. Aircraft are the key items needed to complete this new idea in terms of creating a realistic delivery, and it follows that they would come from an aircraft carrier. Since carriers (irl) have always been a very powerful ship, they've always been the primary target of the opposing fleet; rather than throwing together a hull out of cargo ship, please take the time to fully develop this idea to its potential and use a proper hull to do so; which ultimately makes it a more reasonable method in which to implement the changes you are trying to add to the game.
When new content has their roots in something real (or something that could be real) it makes it much easier to comprehend, and more likely to be accepted by players.
Bill Mickley wrote: »
The new hull is worthless as I am still losing 1/5 my fleets firepower.
CapnBrickhouse wrote: »
Actually, making you sacrifice the firepower for a tactical bonus makes sense, because then you have to think about which of those (tactical advantage vs. firepower) you need more. I'm guessing that's why they're not planning to add a 6th slot for the tacmod hull.
Rumseeker wrote: »
Not going to argue with that but I was not speculating. Not in the least. Guess we'll see what the end product is in the future. Its meant to give players additional options in the tactics they can employ. No-one is forced to build the lab, research the modules and hull or build it, let alone use it. Some in point of fact will not, some will, if for no other reason than to try it out for a few weeks to give it a thumbs up or thumbs down.
Rumseeker wrote: »
Actually that is where you are wrong. An aircraft carrier is NOT needed as you imply. While yes that is one possible scenario.
Effectively these modules are a modification to a directed energy weapon. Which by the way are already in operation in the real world military of today.
Ollie99 wrote: »
Modules ships aren't needed either. And focused microwave pulse, focused EMP or LRADs are one thing, forcing a sub to surface under fire is quite another. Not that the realistic aspect is really a big deal for me anyway but as long as the subject came up... I even once tried to get sharks with frick'n laser beams on their heads for my channel but if that thread still exists which I doubt it's an old wishlist post now.
Michael Middleton wrote: »
Just had an idea that's related to this idea. It comes off a suggestion in general forum for the Aura ship. Which had Techlab built into the Great Hall to make the building half useful and using officers assigned to specific ships adding the capabilities that would be created by the aura
ie quicker turning for fleet because you have a master helmsman on your flagship.
If the officer idea is not such a hot one how about this. You can upgrade the Great Hall once - this allows it to be placed half on water half on land. And allows you to research modules in it.
You can refit these modules - once you have researched one module you can refit a single ship in the Great Hall.
These modules take up 1 weapon slot - so you have to weight up carrying less firepower for this special ability. You can carry as many modules on a ship as tonnage and weapon slots will allow. However only one ship in each fleet could carry modules.
Reason why I say a current ship as has been mentioned if the tech-ship goes slower than your other ships then it gets dropped back and gets hit first ability lost.
Pros - ship looks like other ships, moves like other ships, no more hulls to research/build, can refit ships with modules in this building so allows you to get ahead on ship refits (you CAN'T) change armour or refit weapons in the building only add modules in place of weapons (you can take weapons off to make room for module), as great hall would be half on land half on sea you get 2 land tiles back!!
Con - no new ship class, more difficult to target since all look same, more difficult bases with extra land...
deadmeat68 wrote: »
For me, the biggest issue with this "technology" is it adds another hull to the already massive hull/refit build bottleneck. At level 32, I already have 6 hulls that I have never built. If I build a fully fit fleet of each of them, I am looking at almost 2 years of build time! This new hull just extends an already outrageous building que.
It is obvious, by this new attempt to explain the change and Paul Preece's very defensive attempts in the original thread, that the tech lab, hull, etc are going to be introduced no matter how many of your customers do not want it. So, I am going to request that you please do something about build/refit/repair times BEFORE you introduce the tech lab and it's magical technology.