Search the Community

I don't know who has been the most vocal about this issue, but I know I certainly have said a lot about it. And with support for the game supposedly ending soon, I would like to hear an official answer on a question that I have been asking for a while now: will the "two-turret aiming system" ever be changed/altered/fixed/replaced? As it stands right now, if your guns don't have the same number of barrels sticking out of the turret face, you may as well be firing blind with some of your guns. Why that is, I truly don't know. If your guns are the same size, but one turret has two barrels, one turret has three barrels and another has 4 barrels...they might as well all be different size guns because they'll each have their own targeting data (essentially: despite all my guns being the exact same size and length, my USS Nevada/USS Pensacola, King George V and Andrea Doria class ships are plagued by bad accuracy simply because some guns have two barrels while others have 3 or 4). There is no good reason for it to still be this way. We cannot set the propellant, bursting charge, shell weight, gun size and barrel length for each individual gun barrel (it applies to all guns of the same size), so a 14" dual turret should be exactly the same as a 14" triple turret, which should be the same as a 14" quadruple or single turret...with the only difference being reload time since it takes longer to load 4 guns than it does two. It doesn't matter how you look at it: a 14 inch gun is a 14 inch gun, regardless of how many barrels are in the turret. They would have the same range, same ballistics, same muzzle velocity, same everything. So why can my 14 inch triples fire "accurately" while my 14 inch duals are stuck trying to find the range just because the rear turret can't quite track the target? If this has actually been fixed/addressed/otherwise spoken on, I must have missed it somewhere. @Nick Thomadis I'm not a big fan of pinging the devs/staff, but please, I just want to know (and I'm sure others would like to know as well): Are designs like USS Nevada, USS Pensacola, HMS King George V and Andrea Doria going to be forever plagued by "bad accuracy" or eternally hindered by the "two-turret system" simply because some guns have X amount of barrels while others have Y number of barrels?

To start things off, how is the result of a battle decided when you end the battle in the middle of the action (i.e. before the "end battle" button pops up) or when you hit auto-resolve? What factors does it take into account? Gun/torpedo size? Displacement? Speed? Armor Values? Modules/components on your ships? The alignment of the stars and the phase of the moon? Purely RNG? I had to end a battle a few days ago in the middle of the action (life happens, I had an unexpected event come up) and I would argue I was winning: enemy CLs were either sunk, heavily damaged or out of ammo, one BC sunk and two DDs sunk compared to one of my CLs sunk and a CA moderately damaged. I end the battle and the screen that pops up immediately afterwards says it's a draw/undecided...but then once it gets to the world map and pops up the list of ships for each side, it says that I lost and I suddenly have more ships sunk than I did when the battle ended, but so does the enemy. So...what exactly is the deal here? One screen says it was a stalemate, one screen says I lost and I've got more ships sunk than should be, according to where the battle left off. I'd appreciate some answers. Next, peace treaties and the end of wars. Playing as the Brits, I force a war with the Germans to end in 6 months. I get the pop up during a loading screen (after a battle) that Germany wants peace, so I happily accept. Well, when it gets back to the world map, it throws me right into the next "unskippable" encounter, and then when I end the turn...war continues between British Empire and German Empire. Did I miss something? They were asking for peace, but since it asked for peace before an "unskippable" encounter...now that offer no longer stands or it fell through and the war drags on for another four months? I feel like the option for peace should either come at the end of your turn, or after all "unskippable" encounters have been resolved. Now, lets talk about gun and torpedo launcher rotation speed. I check the stats of the various weapons and such in the designer: gun rotation speed--8.95 degrees/sec, ship turning rate--4.3 degrees/sec. Ok, so my guns rotate twice as fast as my ship turns, which means even if I have my DD go hard over, my guns should still stay on target. Go to war, and my DDs or CLs go hard over to avoid torpedoes...Tokyo Drift Music starts playing. My guns and torpedoes, literally, LOCK UP and don't move at all as my ship kinda drifts around it's turn (it's still a smooth turn, but the stern of the ship is kicked out to the side) and they don't start rotating again until my ship is on a straight ahead course or the turn goes from hard over to a more gentle, wide and sweeping curve. Why on Earth does this happen? It's frustrating to be in a close-range DD brawl only to lose it because the enemy DD hit that "magical radius" where their weapons can rotate first, and I end up eating 12 torpedoes from a torpedo sled or take a full broadside of 4" and 5" shells that leave my DD dead in the water just waiting for the inevitable torpedoes that didn't turn around in time. If my guns can rotate faster than my ship turns, why aren't they? Or perhaps the better question: why are only DDs and CLs plagued by locking turrets and launchers because they have a tight turn radius? Finally, whenever you gain an enemy ship as reparations, why is their tech not transferred to your navy, if their tech is better? For example, if my navy only has 15" Mk 1 guns but an enemy ship I gain as a war prize has 15" Mk 2 guns, why is the better technology not immediately unlocked and available to use? As it stands right now, unless that enemy AI design is just phenomenal, the only thing I do with a captured ship is scrap it for the cash because even if it has better tech, it does nothing to benefit me because it only works on that specific ship...so I'd rather just take the money to funnel into my own research. IDK if anyone else has experienced similar things or has had any similar thoughts, but I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed some of these things. I hope to get some answers...so I guess, here's hoping somebody who knows the answers responds.

*****G'day. I now have enough time in-game to offer advice. Here's a substantial list of suggestion topics. Points to raise as suggestions- batch 1 *Manual target selection options; I want to be able to launch just one launcher at a given target. I'd like to be able to fire each *tube* individually, but I'll settle for each launcher. I don't need my destroyers emptying their entire stockpile into a transport that only needs one or two. Ties into another idea; where mouse-overing a weapon icon would bring up a separate simplified ship display that only displays that weapon type, say two inch single mounts (current display is too busy to easily read; look at World of Warships for inspiration). To complete implementation, I want to be able to click that weapon icon, locking open the simplified display screen, and then assign a target to each of those weapons by clicking them and then a target. Applies to guns too. For double points, make the individual weapons display individually show reload status for each mount (I suggest green colouration for ready to fire, fading from red through yellow when freshly discharged and reloading, and have them blink purple when they're currently bearing on a target they can reach, or blink pink when they can't bear on their selected target). I can never remember, in a heated battle, which torpedo launchers have fired and which are ready to engage, and the current display only displays the *longest* cooldown for that weapon type which is very unhelpful. *I also want a manual firing solution order to fire torpedoes on your personal command- select a bearing, watch the torpedo aiming reticule appear telling you were the AI would fire if it was commanding them, and you can manually fire with a "fire now!" button once the launchers train, roughly when those torpedoes line up with the targeting line (this allows targeting the AI ships doing the incredibly effective steady slow turn tactic to avoid all AI-fired torpedoes by firing them inside the AI commander's targeting line, thus predicting where that curve will take them). in general, the launchers will work better if selecting a torpedo target pre-trains the tubes in that direction, as I wouldn't need to have an agonising wait between authorising torpedo release and those launchers having to turn from travel positions to firing positions, which often causes me to lose my destroyer unnecessarily. The alternative is to let those destroyer miss wildly if left to their own suicidal devices. Seriously, around a quarter of my fleet at most will have launch authority at any given time as they don't anticipate friendly vessels occluding their path or backlighting the target. *The underwater tubes are often unresponsive even when presented a perfect target at point-blank range, and have no 'having to traverse into position" excuse. Widen their firing arcs to correct this for gameplay reasons. At least thirty degrees for all mounts, but I'd prefer fourty, twenty either direction. *Display torpedo launcher current orientation with green shadows on battlefield when each launcher icon is mouse-overed (so we can tell where the damn things are pointing) and have them show red as they traverse through parts of their firing arc when they can't fire without landing a live torpedo on your deck. Again, to reduce frustratedly yelling "Fire, damn you!" at our captains as we all so often do when there's no explanation for why they're not doing so. *Allow avoid torpedoes button for ships not in a division. If the AI gets torpedo evasion hacks I want them too, while controlling all other ship functions. I'm going to use manual control almost all the time but mate sometimes the battle winds up in three or more places and I can't be everywhere at once. Effectively, as a fold-out menu from the AI Control button we have now, I want the full "AI Control" button, and I want an"AI Helm Control" only button, in addition to an "AI Guns Control" button and finally an "AI Torpedo Control" button, in case one feels suicidal. Two of the latter three buttons should be able to be turned on simultaneously, but selecting all three just flicks the ship over to the first full ship command button. *Have a button for detach all ships from divisions (to save pointless micro at start of every battle). Better yet have an option in the pre-battle screen to detach all or even better create your own formations and place them in the positions you want. *All weapons should be capable of independent firing- if a ship has secondaries (or spare primaries) on it's other side, I want them to fire on any targets of opportunity they see, instead of being only able to target one thing per entire type. I see my cruisers and battleships just ignoring free targets because they're focusing all the secondaries (which I remind you ring the ship's superstructure) on something else of their other side. It's even possible for the ship to be locked onto a craft it can't bear on, leaving them silenced entirely, when other valid targets existed. Effectively, I want a behaviour coded to take guns currently out of axis of engagement to engage whatever it can reach, unless under player direction. *Unrestrict barbettes. Entirely. I want to place them wherever they'll fit. Screw whatever dumb idea it was to implement them in current form. *Unrestrict number of main guns placeable on early ships. *Allow use of outdated techs, weapons, towers and hulls. I want to use 200 tonne torpedo boats late-game. Also I may have reason to use old hulls for other things, and I certainly can want to use cheaper components for some vessels to save costs. Furthermore I *hate* being forced to use only one of each tower module simply because the devs decided to tie a noose around my creativity's neck- this game has strong creativity tool elements, *don't* restrict them. It's counterproductive and indefensible from a design perspective to remove older options that either look better or better suit my current design needs. On a related note: *I'd like non-barbeted options for all towers that have built-in barbettes with the same stats excepting lower weight. Keep the secondary mounts- I would like more of those actually. But I have to go many towers back in the quality list (assuming you even left me that option) to get weaker towers to mount my heavier guns without having a mixed main armament. Of course, having those towers open a fold-out menu that offers different barbette sizes including none would be just perfect.. *Build times should be affected by cost. My five million dollar escort-type destroyers should not take as long to build as my thirty million or fifty million dollar super-specialised destroyers. *RADAR and hydrophones should be modules, not a modifier to towers. Adding RADAR to a destroyer still leaves it essentially legally blind for spotting purposes, and that's not how that worked historically. Further, it shouldn't cost a thousand tonnes plus to add RADAR to larger ships. Have them be attachable modules that fit into specialised slots on towers and under hulls instead- with towers limited by modernity and size to mount larger RADAR systems, often with a spare on the back with less range and maybe some side ones to aid fire control or short-range spotting, and hydrophones and SONAR being mounted under the hull- again, with at least two slots please, so hydrophones can be combined with SONAR to get maximal short range detection and overall better close range coverage but also keep the wide search value from a SONAR, the same way I envisage multiple RADARS of different sizes all acting together to increase detection chance for each RADAR spotting and how close they are versus their detection profile. No graphics needed for hydrophones but spinning receiver dishes would be appreciated. *Would like to be able to armour magazines in addition to current options, to reduce flash-fire and detonation chances, and effectively permit the use of increased shell and torpedo complements and heavier shells without being a particularly impressive firecracker. Sometimes, the weight would be very worth it... *Would like modern torpedo boat hulls, please. They'd be a lot easier to add than subs... *Would like to advise caution in sub and carrier implementation; sub encounters are shockingly boring most of the time in other comparable games. Carriers could trash all balance very quickly too. I was enjoying just having surface combatants sans carriers, y'know... *Would like to alter how transports are implemented. Instead of them being "universal" and auto-generating at each encounter, I'd like to be able to build them myself (with adjustable hull sizes and preferably several different hull options), so I can personally choose to arm every transport in the dang fleet to the teeth, and/or give them RADAR and underwater detection. Further I want to control them- start them as they are, already retreating, just let me over-ride their orders as needed- I'm meant to be the ultimate admiral, after all. I can make use of some armed transports in some of those battles. Would also like to be able to build dedicated Q-ships and use them either offensively or defensively. To implement, have a second fleet tab for merchant ships under the fleet menu. When a convoy is created, each route should pull ships from this pool as needed, selecting either the cheapest ships by operating costs, the most defensible ships, the fastest, or can be manually swapped out with whatever the AI selected to make mixed fleets before being created. With each merchant ship being tracked individually- Q-ships (or normal transports, if one desires) should be able to be transferred into use as normal warships, albeit poor ones, and presumably in desperation or for ploys. Conversely, warships can be sent to be transports which gives them medium combat penalties for being overloaded, but allow the warships to serve as emergency transports as needed. This would allow fine control over which convoys are prioritised in times of shipping shortages too, by taking ships on or off convoy routes. This would also allow the dedication of warships to specific convoys as escorts- from each convoy route that needs filling, you could have a button labelled "assign escorts" that allows the selection of ships either by name or by map selection. This would make for a nice jumping-off point for: *Invasion fleets. Selecting some suitable port should have an option for "Create invasion fleet" that allows packing troops into merchant ships, preferably landing craft and passenger transports (with the merchant ships, they should be specialisable into cargo, fuel or passenger transports during creation, see above, with either being able to perform the other tasks at reduced efficiency) and assigning an escort of warships. These fleets could then go attempt to occupy an enemy province, making it far cheaper in the peace deal and providing some of that province's income to the occupier in the meantime. Would also like to include landing ships, which though being military ships are sent to the merchant pool on completion of their construction, so they can be stuffed with troops as aforementioned. They'd mainly serve as targets to destroy before their arrival that improve invasion efficiency if they get to land. I don't necessarily want to include modeled ground combat- that *sucks* in Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail- but I do want to launch and repel naval invasions, modeled simply as troops, munitions, military equipment, fuel and supplies depleting each others local stockpiles until one side loses-the remainder of the invasion fleet would then have to go home, providing another chance to attack it. Provinces that directly neighbour others should be able to use their troops, munitions and military equipment (modeled together for simplicity), supplies and fuel to invade that province without the use of ships. See War at Sea for inspiration- I never want to see an actual person modeled in this game, please. *Would like light machinegun and other AA mounts, but assume they're on the way. A simple M2 Browning can seriously hurt a destroyer, especially if there's lots of them, and I want more light ship options that would make good targets for them. All AA mounts should be able to engage surface targets too. *Would like fleet tenders and support ships. Refueling ships can add range to task forces once implemented, munitions transports can rearm ships at sea, hospital ships recover lost crew and return it to the crew pool (whilst also being a source of major opinion maluses if you sink them), seaplanes tenders can scout an area, increasing favourable encounter rates in a given sea region, etcetera... *Would like to be able to demand more money from my government when in dire straights, possibly at cost to naval prestige and unrest. More economy decisions in general would be a good thing, too. *Would like to fight port strike battles in sight of land, both blocking some avenues of running away from the cowardly AI and allowing ships to engage shore defences, which is something they did a lot of in reality. Such defences should be simple; for each port map (and you won't need *that* many; re-use them as needed, we understand dev-hours are finite) there should be a grid to place defences: gun batteries, essentially a concrete platform that you mount extant naval turrets to; torpedo launchers that must be on the shoreline but work the same way; breakwaters and quays to make safer harbours for your ships; AA positions for the upcoming carriers; RADAR installations to increase port readiness if attacked and provide better interception near shore; minefields and sub nets to help make it dangerous to approach or enter a port. These would be built like ships- you place a simple template and then after sufficient time the structure completes construction and becomes a usable defensive work, and its costs reduce from the higher building cost per turn to their relatively minimal operating costs. They should naturally consume upkeep, but be cheap both to build and maintain compared to warships. Similarly, they should be mothball-capable, so unneeded defences can be abandoned. Some basic civilian structures can be modeled as well, providing opinion maluses if destroyed-raid an old SimCity-esque game who's license expired or were never filed for models if required. Related note: *Would like to be able to build naval academies in provinces. They can stay unmodeled, but provide more crew per turn if built or captured, in exchange for upkeep. Alternately, you could make a structure model for placement on your port maps that can be shot up if desired. Naturally, I would like to be able to mothball them. As a possible extension of this, I'd like to be able to invest in arms factories that make more cash over time, essentially obviating the need to spend cash on civilian-made guns, armour and munitions. You could also add drydocks, armour smithing facilities, heavy gun foundries, and other things required to make heavy ships, with losing them seriously hampering your ability to use tech upgrades- better Krupp technology is useless if you don't make the factory to produce it, and the armour thicknesses available could be gated by the armour smithing facilities being too underdeveloped to actually make the dozen-plus-inches of plating you want on that super battleship. Similarly, guns could be limited by factories being large enough to make them, and carrier planes could require factories to replace- even torpedoes need to be made, and that factory could be either a province upgrade or a port model. Ground-based airfields can be included the same way. *Would like mothballing to have a slider that goes between unmanned but completely maintained (no deterioration) and completely abandoned, where they would slowly lose integrity until they eventually become completely unsalvageable and are scrapped for a pittance. The rate for that deterioration should be slightly randomised, to reflect how some ships and defence structures simply last better than others when abandoned. *Need to be able to upgrade port capacity. Presume that's coming. Would like to be able to make my own ports from scratch, too. *Would like to be able to interact with neutral ships. Even if they use extant and planned merchant hulls, it'd add some life to the empty expanses that are sea battles now. Also, sinking them will tick off the owner. *I want to add smoksecreen generators to whatever ship I please. They're cheap, weigh very little in naval terms, and the Germans proved they work well to protect heavy warships time and again. They could also be a port structure that provides protection to the gun batteries present to defend the port, and any ships anchored within. Gun batteries on land are already notoriously hard targets, adding smoke would make a well-defended port capable of holding off a decent force even if empty of ships. Ground RADAR would also be nice, where it'd serve to warn the port an attack is coming- modeled by having the defences already fully manned and functional upon enemy arrival, instead of needing some time to reach full effectiveness. *Depth charges should have a manual launch now button too. If I can sink surface ships in War Thunder using them, I bet I can manage it in this game too... *Would like to be able to sell ships for profit, or get or make your own orders for ships to be made by other powers that are friendly enough. Half-built ships can then be realistically seized if war breaks out unexpectedly. *Would like smoke warnings to continue for unspotted ships even if one or more is currently visible. I often run into the convoy escort without ever seeing the transports because a battlecruiser or heavy cruiser is spotted early and then all warnings stop. Smoke warnings should only stop when all active hostile craft on the map are visible. *Would like to see the introduction of structures to place on hulls. Simple boxes, cylinders and other geometric shapes that we can both intersect with other components like towers to change their appearance and install casemate weapons into and turrets atop them. Provided the R and T keys rotate function sticks after mouse movement, which has to happen regardless for quality of life complex configurations of these structures could be built on our ships almost freely. More complicated structures with multiple mounting points that can function as additions to the towers (possibly providing another rangefinder, torpedo spotter and damage control station for the ship for the big ones) and compatibility with extant barbettes could allow more faithful recreations of historical ships and offer more variety than just picking the two towers that currently serve as our only choice for ship design both aesthetically and mechanically- which is boring. Add connective components to link separated towers, raised funnel mounts so we can make our towers not look idiotic when only one (if we're lucky) mounting point is offered by a tower combination, outcroppings we can mesh into the towers to add a second tier of raised secondaries so they can superfire over the beam or connect barbettes to the towers, simple wave shields and rings to surround turrets (save making those aggravating designs with "fixed" mounting points where placing guns effectively would look stupid or worse be impossible... Make the base hull in a realistic shape, but leave placement of wave shields, coloured rings, national decals, etcetera to us, please. This simple thing can solve many problems. For the dev-time needed to make a few new hull and tower combinations we could have near-total creative freedom to design ships- these thing are boxes and other simple shapes with decking and ladders and such. Make them weigh virtually nothing unless they're mechanically functional (say, they have a turret mount on them) in which case make them weigh what that size barbette should plus a little but make their weight scale barbette and superstructure armour. I especially want to connect my barbettes to my towers so they look like single structures- then painstakingly arrange neat rings of AA mounts all over the top of them. So long as sufficient clearance is given we should be able to build directly over our extant turrets and add more things still- ruining our pitch and roll values but looking spectacular. Furthermore a list or nurnies and greebles would be nice too, even if they don't add anything mechanical, though I'd like to add say air intakes to slightly improve engine efficiency, hull hatches that increase crew survivability in the water (see later regarding hospital ships and rescue craft), my own casements to hulls with enough freeboard for it, and lots more. A structure I particularly want is the whole upper deck on battleships and battlecruisers so I can make versions of them that don't guarantee a huge forward offset if filled uniformly by lengthening the nose sections so the casemates are more evenly spread, using several sliders if need be. Which brings me to: *So many ships just have intractable forward weight offset due entirely to their build- like those battleships and cruisers with raised casemate decks which build historically have 30% fore offsets. Also, side underwater torpedoes also seem to favour the front weight-wise, worsening the issue substantially. This loves happening with early designs where your options to fix it are giving the ship a non-uniform main gun load or just wear the huge offset penalties. More options in general for these many hulls of all eras up to 1930 (later if you keep using them to make cheaper battleships) ships is a huge desire of mine, as in making the latest ones as customisable as possible *I want light torpedo boats and motor gun boats. All the way through history. Use the extant models for now by never obsoleting them but please make a few later models too please- they are cheap and cheerful and great at responding to air threats due to their natural speed. Two hulls per nation should be enough and they're tiny and won't take long. And yes, I *would* like to put a RADAR module with a fixed and decent ten-twelve kilometres range on them, because, y'know, they did that. *Would like quad, quintuple, hextuple and octuple mounts for secondaries, with the octuples having two layers of four each, one stack atop the other (or other arrangements- surprise me). Ever seen an octuple pom-pom? That's nearly an octuple 2-inch gun. Would like quintuples and hexruples for mains too. Just because it *wasn't* done doesn't mean it *couldn't* have been; plans were drawn using such things if never completed. *Otherwise uniform main guns in different sized turrets (like the Pensacola class) can both share ammo and not take an aiming penalty for mixed main armament seeing as they aren't mixed at all, and the game doesn't accommodate that. I'd like it to. If my three different sizes of two inch guns all use the same shell they should be able to pull from the same pool. *Light cruisers should be able to be use four and five inch guns as either mains or secondaries. Mogamis, Brooklyns, and more all were light cruisers, were built during this game's active period, and mounted five-inch secondaries. Of course, for these weapons to show up secondaries you'd need a main gun larger than the ones you want as secondaries. Destroyers with five-inch or six-inch guns should consider everything beneath that secondaries too, and the Germans proved you can make a six-inch armed destroyer and it works fine too, so I'd like destroyer to have access to six-inch primaries in addition to secondaries up to five inches. Cruisers should be able to consider all guns smaller than their mains as secondaries. Worst case scenarios these ships should be able to use guns two sizes smaller than their mains secondaries. But a destroyer with one 2-inch gun on either side but a primary battery of five inch guns shouldn't be penalised with reduced aiming times for them- also I want more fine control over said destroyers' munitions choices; their fives can engage a cruiser with AP while the twos engage transports with HE. ***** If you made it this far, good work. You still understand the value of reading :) More ideas will likely come. Some will be awesome, some may suck and be ignored or even ridiculed, some will just be basic improvements, but I feel most of this is useful. Thanks for reading,

How exactly do you choose which guns are the best to use? This is probably one of the first things you think about when starting your design! This will be a pretty long post, but I've spent a couple of days (slowly) gathering the data and darn it if I'm not going to share! If this has already been done, my apologies! I'm going to split this into a few parts on this post, so feel free to jump around. CONTENTS: What are the stats that affect gun effectiveness? Which of those are the best guide for a designer? How can one test this? Conclusions and Suggestions for Game Improvement Further Research or Information needed PART 1: Elements of gun effectiveness I am neither a programmer, a mathematician, or a developer, or even a particularly skilled player in terms of datamining or minmaxing stats. However, there are some interesting coincidences and game design elements that made me want to crunch some numbers and do a few tests! First, it is boring game design to just make the biggest guns the best, or the most guns the best. So is there a "sweet spot" where, all things being equal, you should start a new build? On the flip side, as a game with so many scenarios and possibilities, if you have an obvious "sweet spot" that is objectively the best way to build, you lose a lot of creativity in the designer as the player thinks they MUST do certain things! I will argue in this post that, yes, there is a sweet spot, and also, yes, there is an element of maximizing is better, but also there is a remarkable flexibility, so you won't be failing too much if you get this wrong, either! I would say overall this is pretty well set up. With that out of the way, here we go! Accuracy: Obviously, we want the ships we shoot at to kindly sink or explode or not shoot at us anymore, so one would think accuracy is the most important thing. It is certainly important, but focusing on it exclusively is not ideal either and leads to some...weird builds (see videos of players maxing kill rate with single 18" guns for example. This will be debunked in this analysis). There are two caveats to this number: Note that in the game, accuracy is percent of shots that are on target at a given range BEFORE bonuses are added. You can see changes to BASE accuracy if you add equipment like towers, but weather, speed, aiming progress, and other bonuses won't show up on the gun info screen. It is given per single shell. So when you look at the penalty of using triple or quadruple mounts, you aren't getting a less accurate weapon overall, it's just each individual shell will scatter more. The real question is does the extra shell downrange make up for the loss in accuracy? Rate of Fire: This is the other interesting one, and the same caveats apply. We want to send as much explosives down range as quickly as possible to make the red ships go away, preferably in spectacular explosions. Rate of fire isn't really affected (yet) by in-battle conditions as far as I can tell, so what you see after applying your technologies and mods is what you are going to get. Note that once again, the reload time is per barrel. So even though a dual turret might reload in 30 seconds and a triple might reload in 35 seconds, the dual turret is firing at 4 shells per minute (2 barrels x 2 rounds per minute), while the "slower" triple turret is firing a bit over 5 shells per minute (3 barrels x 1.71/min) This analysis is thus going to focus on how rate of fire, barrel number, and accuracy come together to create guidance for you beleaguered designers! Penetration: This is a very interesting one. Generally bigger is better, but knowing when and where "plunging fire" happens is important. I haven't looked into this yet, and remember that while penetration is based on range (how much horizontal armor vs how much vertical armor it will defeat), the armor schemes in game are a bit convoluted and as I said, I'm not a dataminer! Penetration is the MOST affected by little things like range and angle of armor, so it's quite difficult to explore without tightly controlled experiments or digging around in the code. It does apply, and I'll explain at the end, but for now we'll leave it behind. Damage Dealt: This is assuming a full penetration. Partial pens and fires do not count here for this number. It is affected by shell weight and technologies as well, and those numbers do pop up on the information card. Modifiers: Towers, Propellant (Explosives), and Shell Weight all affect the gun barrels stats. Aiming time is affected by towers, turret techs, and reloading buffs, but once the guns are dialed in, the shells will hit with the same accuracy, penetration, and damage. Therefore, I'm not too concerned about aiming time here. Note that things like aiming time, 3 and 4-barrel accuracy and reload penalties are applied EQUALLY regardless of gun size. So all we're interested in here to choose your gun type and layout is really just accuracy vs. rate of fire. The rest will make it better or worse, but it won't change you your gun decisions stack up against each other, all things being equal Picture Break! (figure 1.1) ! Here we see a graph of the 9" mk 5 gun in terms of accuracy and penetration. Note how quickly accuracy really falls off. Finding the best range to fight at depends on how well the penetration values match up with actually being able to hit anything. Note that larger weapons (15"+) actually do reach a point where the vertical pen will exceed horizontal penetration. If you aren't clear about what "plunging fire is", that's what it is. The tables also might help you determine how much deck armor your ship will need. PART 2: Which Elements should figure into weapon choice? As we've seen, there are so many possibilities, and the developers have really done a great job of making them all viable. But, how can you tell if some are "more viable" than others? What is the "best" design? First, let's focus on accuracy, rate of fire, and equipment. Spoiler alert: All things being equal, there is a best gun to use and a best turret size. However, most will work well. So you want to get the best firepower you can before you start to make compromises on rate of fire or barrel number. Triples are indeed better than duals, so if you can fit triples up to 16", but need to switch to duals to fit 17" on your ship, better to stick with the triple 16's! The same goes for auto reloading. If you can fit auto reloading on 15" turrets but can't on 16" turrets, stick with the ones you can get auto reloaders for. The "Why" gets a bit interesting, and here is our experiment! Because some equipment works across all gun sizes, to control for that we'll need to ensure that our test ship will have the same equipment fit regardless of weapon choices. If you were to look at French triple turrets, with no modifiers (no tower installed, no auto reloading, same propellant), and compare the accuracy across all ranges, you end up with a chart that looks like this: (Figure 2.1) Accuracy for main battery weapons from point blank to 25,000 yds. Note that to spread out the results at effective battle ranges, we are looking at a logarithmic scale for the vertical axis. Takeaways: "Mk" number may refer to an in-battle bonus, it does NOT affect accuracy on the info card. You can see that the smaller guns run out of range before reaching 25Kyds, while some have better accuracy at longer ranges. You can see there is actually quite a lot of variance, but some weapons are clearly more accurate than others. I was surprised to be honest that there wasn't more "grouping" between the different patterns (ex. all Mk 4's ALL being better than the Mk. 3's; which does not actually happen - more datamining required; is this the "guns grade" bonus in game?). I also expected to see each weapon have a point where it's accuracy was better than others. This does not seem to be happening, so the idea of building around a SPECIFIC range seems to be out the window. There are obviously differences between close and long range weapons, though! However, this is only HALF of the story. The other thing that matters is how quickly shells are sent downrange. The more shots you can take, the sooner you will score a hit, especially at longer ranges. So, I plugged the accuracy percentage into a "drop calculator" (because I don't math) to figure out how many shots must be taken to guarantee a hit (I call 99% a guaranteed hit for these charts, by the way - the math holds for lower thresholds too, so it doesn't matter here). So I plugged in the number of shots needed, divided by the rate of fire (remembering these are all triple turrets) to come up with "effective" accuracy. That number, to me, is how long you can expect to fire at a target at a given range to guarantee a hit. Basically, If you have half the accuracy, but twice the rate of fire, you are still going to score hits at the same rate. And here it is! (figure 2.2) This is the TIME taken to reach 99% chance of a hit for each gun size, using triple turrets. IMPORTANT - lower is better here, because more time taken is bad. This is to GUARANTEE a hit, not "get lucky". Of course you will score hits sooner on average, but your second hit might take a while. This does NOT count ladder aiming or radar aiming progress, target lock, etc. This is ONLY the stock guns with the same equipment. Imagine a turret on a firing range with no technology to assist the aiming. Notice that the time taken really flares up beyond 15KYD. This is basically the inverse of your accuracy curve. As long as your armor can take it, you need to get within a certain range to be hitting ships consistently. We all know this already, but it's kind of neat to see on a graph in real time! As a Log chart, we can expand the closer range and actually see what's happening here: (figure 2.3) This is the TIME taken to reach 99% chance of a hit for each gun size, using triple turrets. The log scale opens up the closer ranges so you can see that some weapons are consistently "better" at scoring hits over some ranges. Again, lower lines are better, because the less time taken to get hits the more damage you'll be dealing! So, we can start to see some winners here. Notice that the 12" gun in INCREDIBLE at getting shots on target inside of 10KYDs. At greater ranges, you see that the 9" gun takes over, until it runs out of reach, anyway! The problem, is how much damage are you doing to your targets with such light shells? If you want to look at the "heavy" weapons, you can draw conclusions as well: Note that the 13" and 15" guns are very similar. You are going to get a similar number of hits over time (at closer ranges, the 13" is a little better, at longer ranges, the 15" is slightly better) However, the 15" shell is going to hit a lot harder. Interestingly, the 14" gun is consistently worse than both! There is also a "Pack" of guns around 15KYDs. 14", 16", 17", 18", 19", and 20" are all getting hits at about the same rate. So at that range, bigger really is better. BUT - all things being equal, and assuming all shots can do damage, you can still see the 9", 12", 13" and 15" guns ahead of the pack. Against small ships, the light guns seem to indeed be better. Against medium ships, 15" is looking like the best balance of accuracy and hitting power. Against the big baddies, heavier is probably better, as long as you can control the range (and SURVIVE at 15K Yards!) PART 3: Testing Time! I was inspired by the YouTube "Taskmaster" challenges where various gamers tried to kill 10 early battleships as quickly as possible. I've done two levels of test here, so I'll share both. The first test was whether or not the accuracy and reload penalty of more barrels offset the increased fire. My thesis was that more barrels is still going to be faster, even if the guns are less accurate and slower firing. To test, we used the same 5 Turret "Test Hull" (see figure 3.1) with 18" guns, changing only the number of barrels per turret. We used 1940 tech, vs. ten 1900 BB starting at 20,000 Yds. The results were pretty compelling! (Table 1:) This was my first test, it is not as controlled as the following test and just gives a rough estimate. The results were consistent however, demonstrating the concept that even though larger turrets have reduced rate of fire and accuracy, the extra barrels more than make up for it. First, against such weak targets, the time to get the first kill was pretty much tied to getting the first hits. I was surprised at how similar the times for that were. The guns do dial in much more quickly (and much more consistently) than my "Effective Accuracy" table would predict. True, we were using the same guns, but the rate of fire was going up very consistently, which WAS reflected in the total time, but was NOT reflected in the first kill time. This suggests a bit of a tweak to the code as far as getting that first hit, maybe there is a little bonus to ensure a quick hit that disappears after that first hit. More research!) So, if you can afford them, quad barrels are best! However, what about different gun sizes? That was the point of the first bit of analysis, anyway? Well, glad you asked! Here we go for the "BIG TEST" The Test Ship (Figure 3.1) The specific stats don't really matter. This is the gun layout all of the test ships for both the preceding and succeeding tests are used. The tonnage was always maxed out (to fit the largest turrets) but armor was changed to allow them to fit. We always used a 125,000 ton hull so that we could fit quad 18's (and eventually quad 20's) for the purposes of the test. To get the biggest guns, we limited to speed to 25 knots, and cut the armor as much as needed to do so. We always used the same towers, the same explosives (TNT) and standard reloading. Because we know that quad turrets are fastest at getting the kills in this scenario, we only changed the size of the guns - 14", 15", 16", 17", 18", 19", 20". (smaller guns do not allow quads). Because the variance between what the AI builds, RNG, and different starting angles makes a big difference, we ran several tests per weapon loadout. We looked at: Time for first kill, Time to complete mission, and Time from time of first kill to the end ("effective time") Table 2: Note: The 14" was predicted to perform poorly in the stat analysis above, and after two tests it was clear that that was in fact borne out, so I did not complete the third test. Looking at this data, I believe the predictions based on the graph of effective accuracy were borne out in the results. As expected from the predictions based on data, the 15 inch gun stands out as the most effectively accurate of the heavy weapons, the 14" is noticeably worse, and at moderate ranges the other heavy weapons are remarkably consistent (but still worse). The 19 and 20-inch guns seemed to overperform, considering that although their raw accuracy is indeed the best, their effective accuracy is hurt by their slow rate of fire and they are EXPECTED to line up with the 16-18" guns in terms of effectiveness. My theory is that there is a hidden buff to early "rangefinding" accuracy to get players hits sooner than mathematically should be happening, which then disappears after the aiming process is complete. The 19" and 20" weapons will basically one-shot a 1900 BB, so those "lucky" first salvoes are more effective than would otherwise be expected. It is also important to note that at a range of 15KYD, we should expect the TIMING of hits to be relatively consistent, so the very largest weapons are just showing the point at which the heavier shell does in fact start to overwhelm the other stats! It is also important to note for rangefinding purposes, we are sending 20-shell salvoes downrange, so there is an awful lot of "stuff" to throw at the wall. When some of it invariably sticks, those heavy guns pack a whallop! PART 4: Conclusions and Suggestions Based on these tests, a few things emerge. Firstly, how effective your fire is depends a lot on the range of engagements. If you get to around 15KYDs, you will find that the heavy guns all perform relatively consistently with each other. If you get closer, accuracy improves a lot over all weapons, and your first hits will be devastating. Also, at the closer ranges, the rate of fire really will make a difference especially if you are crippling targets every salvo. Because penalties for 3- or 4-gun turrets apply to reloading and accuracy, it is fair to ask if they are worth it. As of this patch, they are very much so. The extra shells going downrange compensate for the lower accuracy and rate of fire. It is clear that the more guns in a turret, the better! We also see that unless you are needing very heavy weapons, 15" guns work just fine at least against weaker targets. My personal conclusion: The quadruple 15" gun is probably the sweet spot for me. Against similar class vessels or less, it is probably the best overall weapon in the game. I would only use heavier weapons if I know I am facing modern or super battleships. This leads to a few design principles commanders might consider: For a given number of turrets, the more guns in a turret the better. If you can substitute triples or quads without having to sacrifice a turret, do. If you are limited by weight or costs, consider how you can get the most barrels possible. Invest in technologies to boost rate of fire and accuracy. RoF makes a HUGE difference. If you can invest in autoloaders, do so. I didn't include it here in a table, but I took out my test ship with a full 15" accuracy and ROF, and it brought down the engagement time to consistently around 20 minutes, with one run having just 16 minutes between the first hits and the last kill. Those boosts in rate of fire directly translate to expected time to sink targets. Assuming your shells can damage the target, and assuming all other things being equal, the 15" gun is the most effective, barrel for barrel. BATTLECRUISER DESIGNERS: This is a HUGE takeaway for you. Since you SHOULDN'T be engaging heavy enemies, based on this, you should probably go no larger than 15" guns. You will get more bang for your buck and slightly less dangerous shells lying around. If you are going more for a "super cruiser", the stats suggest that 12" guns may be best, at least on paper, out of the triple-only mounts. If you need to go for heavier weapons, it won't make the biggest difference as long as you can maximize the technologies. If you can get better tech or more barrels on, say 17" guns but have to sacrifice to get 18"'s, it's better to stay with the biggest weapon you can "max out". Suggestions for Developers: Based on this study, it seems that gun size balances VERY WELL with rate of fire and accuracy. As long as we choose weapons that are effective against the expected targets, there isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer as long as we consider the applicable elements. Revise how quad turrets are selected for or are possible in designs. The way the stats work right now, all things being equal, quadruple turrets are ALWAYS the best as long as they can fit and be afforded. This probably is something that needs to be addressed because we see in reality only three battleship classes ever used them, (with a few more designed and not laid down) while the vast majority of battleships used dual or triple turrets. Perhaps the weight penalty should be reexamined, so that you could fit a quad turret to replace two smaller turrets but could not fit two quad turrets in a similar area. Perhaps also turret and hull size should be considered - where guns larger than 16" simply cannot fit in a quadruple turret on anything short of the super battleship hull. That is, unlock different turrets based on hull. I would prefer something like this: Battlecruisers/Super Cruisers: 12/4, 13/4, 14/4, 15/3, 16/2, 17/2, 18/1, 19 or 20 can't fit at all Small/Medium Battleships: 12/4, 13/4, 14/4, 15/4, 16/3, 17/3, 18/2, 19/2, 20/2 Modern Battleships: 12/4, 13/4, 14/4, 15/4, 16/4, 17/3, 18/3, 19/2, 20/2 Super Battleships under 100K: all quads possible except 19/3 and 20/3 Super Battleships over 100K: all quads possible. By the way, quads of all main guns should be possible all the way down to 9". PART 5: Further Research, datamining, and Study: I would love to know how initial accuracy is figured out. It seems that ships consistently get their first hit much earlier than expected, especially on the larger guns where it should take vastly longer time to get that first hit (considering the increased time between salvoes). Is it always a hit on Salvo #2, 3, or 4 and an RNG decides which it will be? If such a system exists, what happens after the first hit? Once the first hit is achieved, performance approaches what is expected for gun size and range. Based on the evidence suggesting that more barrels is better with the same techs, I have not compared, say, quad 15" guns to triple 16" guns. The penetration vs accuracy over range curves would be interesting to plot or see for all weapons. This has not been done on secondary weapons either. This study has only worked with French pattern guns. How are other nations different? If you made it this far, Cheers! Happy Sailing, please let me know if this borne out or if I am barking up the wrong tree! -dbs1701

This is mainly going to address the "two turret" system for gun aiming that is still in place. I feel like I've been a pretty big proponent of this, but here it goes: I am fully aware that for, basically, every warship ever designed with a gun turret...the number of guns were the same across each turret (like the Iowa with three triple turrets, the Bismarck with four twin turrets, the New York class with five twin turrets, etc) and the guns were the same size (both shell size and caliber). Now, from what I have seen, read and can deduce from a wide array of source material...the main factor in deciding whether or not a triple turret would fit is how wide the hull was or how much space is available below decks. Take the USS Pensacola for example: it had the two triple turrets placed in the superfiring position, with the two twin turrets on the main deck. Why? Because if they went the other way around with the twins firing over the tops of the triples, they would have to redesign the hull and widen it to accommodate the added size of the machinery required to operate the triple turrets where as if they put the triple turrets where they wound up putting them, the hull was already wide enough so they would fit without any hull altercations or redesigns though it lead to the Pensacolas being very top heavy and having excessive roll (this isn't a problem in UA:D, since so long as you have the displacement left over you can basically swap out a dual for a triple no problem). The USS Nevada, by comparison, was able to use the twin and triple turrets in the more "conventional" way of the twins firing over the triples which was an improvement over previous designs that had to use 5 turrets to carry the same 10-gun compliment, whereas the Nevada's could get away with 4 turrets. Now that the short history lesson is over, here's how it ties back into UA:D. It's no secret that the gun aiming system has it's flaws and can sometimes make certain designs unworkable or render some turrets useless due to a lack of accuracy in certain situations (just try building a USS Nevada/USS Pensacola style ship and tell me whether you like the gun accuracy/"effectiveness" at any firing angle other than broadside). It's because of the two-turret system that depends on at least two of the same turret (i.e. at least two guns of the same size and number of barrels) being able to bear against a target. Why the game treats single, twin, triple and quadruple turrets of the same gun size as different batteries with different targeting data I do not know--then again, I don't know much about developing a game either, maybe it's easier/simpler this way idk. For an example: you could build a USS Nevada style build with your twin turrets being 14" and your triples being 16" and the only difference you would get between 14" triples and 16" triples is the reload, range, weight of the turret and damage (if the guns even hit the target). Alternatively, you could build a ship that has a single, dual, triple and quadruple gun of the same caliber and the game would treat each one of those turrets as if they were all a different gun size. I've got a very hard time trying to picture somebody on the USS Nevada during WWII telling his captain, "The triples are blazing away sir, but the twin turrets are basically useless since only one of the twin turrets can bear against the target!" That defeats the whole purpose of a "unified" main battery: so long as the shell size and gun caliber (barrel length) are the same, it shouldn't matter whether or not you've got all dual turrets, all triple turrets or a mix of turrets with different numbers of guns in them. Reload times are almost guaranteed to be different since it takes less time to reload two guns than three, but that's not the issue here. Now, onto the second point: gun caliber, or maybe better known as barrel length. The Japanese Kawachi class of battleships carried a "unified" gun size of 12", but some guns were 50 caliber and others were 45 caliber (meaning their barrel lengths were 600" and 540", respectively) which also caused problems with rangefinding and accuracy of the main battery as longer guns give you higher muzzle velocity and increased range, thus leading to the 50 caliber guns having different performance than the 45 caliber ones. If your guns are the same size but different caliber, you'll have just as much luck trying to hit a target as a ship with multiple gun sizes but equal barrel length. And one last thing before I close: I'm fairly certain that in the game tips that pop up while you are looking at a loading screen, there is a tip about keeping your gun size the same to increase effectiveness and speed of ranging/aiming ant there is another tip/piece of info about the Kawachi class and their mixed gun length problem that led to them having issues rangefinding despite having the same gun size. If those are tips that are put into this game, by the creators, on the topic of "unified main batteries", shouldn't a unified main battery actually mean something? (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about those tips popping up on the loading screens) Now, I'm well aware that you could argue that playing around with shell weight, propellant amounts/materials could fix or "make better" the different gun caliber ordeal and one could also argue that if you don't want half of your main battery to be helplessly stuck in the ladder aiming process...just make each turret have the same number of guns. Well, the first argument doesn't really need to happen since we can't change barrel length in this game and the second one takes away from this game's "freedom of design" aspect that allows you to, for the most part, create what you want the way you want it. Not to mention, the second argument could be reversed and the question then becomes "if the guns are the same size and caliber, and fire the same ammo...why does every turret have to have the same number of guns per turret just to be accurate or effective?" I also haven't seen anything in the patch notes for a while on gun accuracy/this issue in general...so I don't think it's been addressed or taken care of. I realize that much of the dev team's focus has been on the campaign for a while, and while they seem to have been very receptive to feedback as of late, I feel as though this issue has been around for too long now. It's not enough to make me stop playing and supporting this game if this issue is never fixed...but it still bothers me. So I guess all there is left to ask is this: With game tips that persuade you to have a "unified main battery," gun stats that are basically identical when it comes to muzzle velocity, range, penetration, and damage between all four turret options (single, dual, triple and quad barreled) and the inability to change barrel length to effect the aforementioned stats, and no influence/limits from the ship designer in situations like the USS Pensacola's where just moving the larger turret back will allow it to fit.......when will a "unified main battery" finally mean something? I hope I'm not the only one who feels/thinks this way, and I hope this eventually makes it's way to the eyes of @Nick Thomadis and/or the other devs. I also hope nobody is dead from reading a wall of text as this was pretty lengthy.

Notes: If Anyone has any suggestions please reply to this topic, I'm interested to see what weapons the community will dig up that I couldn't find If anyone wants me to go into more detail about anything i happily will. General: -Have multiple styles of guns for each calibre, possibly with different stats like turret rotations and price and visuals. -For nations like Germany and Britain who switch their turret style above 16 inch guns enlarge the 16 inch gun models to serve as 17 and 18 inch turrets - Allow us to use destroyer guns as secondary guns on larger ships such as battleships. -Allow placement of secondary gun barbers everywhere on the ship America: Britain: Japan: Germany: France: Russia: Italy: Spain: Austro-Hungarian Empire: ps. This is my first forum post ever

Ok look at this picture. You see the AA guns on top of the turret. I think this will be pretty good to have in the game especially if Aircraft Carriers become a thing. I think the way it should be is guns from 2inch to 3inch and should be able to be placed on top of turrets from 6inch all the way up to 20inch. The amount of turrets the can be placed on the the larger one depends on how big it is. Suppose you have a 20inch gun then you can place three or four 2inch guns on top and if you a 15inch or 16inch gun you can place two 2inch guns. With this you can add a lot more guns with out cluttering the deck of a ship. But this is my opinion what do you guys think?

If this doesn't make sense allow me: the Scharnhorst class had 3x11in gun turrets. These were planned to be replaced with the 2x15in gun turrets which would be used on Bismark and Tirpitz. Same turret ring size. Try doing this ingame. Yeah... why this is a necesary alteration should be self explanatory. So turrets should go Barbette ring>gun caliber>barrel number. Too many barrels in too small a turret? Accuracy and RoF penalties. Length of the guns should also be taken into consideration, not just the bore diameter.

NOTE: table is only current as of 5/30/2020 NOTE: If you find an error please let me know. Also, if you are looking for a specific ship try using ctrl-F. UA:AOS Stock ship loadouts and Gun stats: Stock ship loadouts: 1st Rate Santisima Trinidad-class (144 gun): Crew: 900 Top gun deck: 40 X 9lber Upper Middle: 36 X 12lber Lower Middle: 34 X 24lber Bottom: 34 X Long 32lber Max Speed: 7.6 Acceleration: 6.8 Turn: 3.1 Bow: 31” Broadside: 39” Rear: 15” 1st Rate Ocean-class (126 gun): Crew: 800 Top gun deck: 26 X 9lber Upper Middle: 34 X 12lber Lower Middle: 34 X 24lber Bottom: 32 X Long 32lber Max Speed: 9.4 Acceleration: 7.1 Turn: 3.5 Bow: 25” Broadside: 31” Rear: 12” 1st Rate Victory-class (112 gun): Crew: 800 Top gun deck: 20 X 9lber Upper Middle: 30 X 12lber Lower Middle: 30 X 24lber Bottom: 32 X Long 32lber Max Speed: 8.9 Acceleration: 7.2 Turn: 3.7 Bow: 27” Broadside: 35” Rear: 15” 2nd Rate Berfleur-class (90 gun): Crew: 700 Top gun deck: 26 X 18lber Middle: 32 X 24lber Bottom: 32 X Long 32lber Max Speed: 9.6 Acceleration: 7.1 Turn: 4.2 Bow: 25” Broadside: 31” Rear: 12” 3rd Rate Bellona-class (78 gun): Crew: 650 Top gun deck: 22 X 6lber Middle: 28 X 18lber Bottom: 28 X Long 32lber Max Speed: 8.4 Acceleration: 4.5 Turn: 4.9 Bow: 22” Broadside: 28” Rear: 11” 3rd Rate Ardent-class (68 gun): Crew: 500 Top gun deck: 16 X 9lber Middle: 26 X 18lber Bottom: 26 X Long 24lber Max Speed: 8.1 Acceleration: 4.5 Turn: 5.2 Bow: 20” Broadside: 25” Rear: 10” 4th Rate SoL (68 gun): Crew: 500 Top gun deck: 20 X 9lber Middle: 24 X 9lber Bottom: 24X 24lber Max Speed: 8.5 Acceleration: 5.3 Turn: 6.2 Bow: 18” Broadside: 23” Rear: 9” 4th Rate Constitution-class (60 gun): Crew: 450 Top gun deck: 30 X 6lber Bottom: 30 X 24lber Max Speed: 10.4 Acceleration: 6.6 Turn: 6.4 Bow: 22” Broadside: 27” Rear: 11” 4th Rate 1794 Razee-class (48 gun): Crew: 350 Top gun deck: 22 X 6lber Bottom: 26 X 24lber Max Speed: 9.6 Acceleration: 5.8 Turn: 6.6 Bow: 20” Broadside: 25” Rear: 10” 5th Rate Leda-class (54 gun): Crew: 260 Top gun deck: 26 X 9lber Bottom: 28 X 18lber Max Speed: 9.8 Acceleration: 8.0 Turn: 6.4 Bow: 16” Broadside: 20” Rear: 8” 5th Rate Endymion-class (52 gun): Crew: 340 Top gun deck: 24 X 6lber Bottom: 28 X 18lber Max Speed: 13.0 Acceleration: 7.0 Turn: 6.7 Bow: 17” Broadside: 22” Rear: 8” 5th Rate Dedaigneuse-class (40 gun): Crew: 280 Top gun deck: 12 X 6lber Bottom: 28 X 12lber Max Speed: 10.2 Acceleration: 8.8 Turn: 6.0 Bow: 15” Broadside: 19” Rear: 7” 5th Rate Daina-class (40 gun): Crew: 280 Top gun deck: 14 X 9lber Bottom: 26 X 18lber Max Speed: 7.4 Acceleration: 6.6 Turn: 6.3 Bow: 15” Broadside: 19” Rear: 7” 5th Rate Hermione-class (46 gun): Crew: 200 Top gun deck: 20 X 6lber Bottom: 26 X 12lber Max Speed: 9.9 Acceleration: 7.4 Turn: 6.5 Bow: 14” Broadside: 18” Rear: 7” 5th Rate Unity-class (44 gun): Crew: 240 Top gun deck: 20 X 6lber Bottom: 24 X 9lber Max Speed: 8.1 Acceleration: 7.3 Turn: 6.5 Bow: 15” Broadside: 19” Rear: 7” 6th Rate Porcupine-class (30 gun): Crew: 140 Top gun deck: 10 X 6lber Bottom: 20 X 9lber Max Speed: 9.3 Acceleration: 7.3 Turn: 7.0 Bow: 10” Broadside: 12” Rear: 5” 6th Rate Sloop-of-War (28 gun): Crew: 130 Top gun deck: 10 X 6lber Bottom: 18 X 9lber Max Speed: 9.5 Acceleration: 8.6 Turn: 7.7 Bow: 8” Broadside: 10” Rear: 4” 6th Rate Cerberus-class (30 gun): Crew: 195 Gun deck: 28 X 9lber Max Speed: 7.4 Acceleration: 6.1 Turn: 6.6 Bow: 9” Broadside: 11” Rear: 4” 7th Rate Snow-class (26 gun): Crew: 120 Top Gun deck: 10 X 6lber Bottom: 16 X 6lber Max Speed: 10.7 Acceleration: 7.6 Turn: 7.9 Bow: 7” Broadside: 9” Rear: 3” 7th Rate Armed Sloop (20 gun): Crew: 120 Gun deck: 20 X 9lber Max Speed: 8.7 Acceleration: 7.5 Turn: 7.0 Bow: 8” Broadside: 10” Rear: 4” 7th Rate Brig (18 gun): Crew: 110 Gun deck: 18 X 6lber Max Speed: 11.9 Acceleration: 6.9 Turn: 8.2 Bow: 7” Broadside: 8” Rear: 3” 7th Rate Brig (14 gun): Crew: 120 Gun deck: 14 X 6lber Max Speed: 9.0 Acceleration: 5.7 Turn: 6.9 Bow: 7” Broadside: 8” Rear: 3” Unrated Cutter (12 gun): Crew: 50 Gun deck: 12 X 6lber Max Speed: 13.1 Acceleration: 8.0 Turn: 8.5 Bow: 5” Broadside: 6” Rear: 2” 7th Rate Sloop (12 gun): Crew: 55 Gun deck: 12 X 4lber Max Speed: 12.4 Acceleration: 8.3 Turn: 8.7 Bow: 5” Broadside: 7” Rear: 3” Rough gun stats table: Legend: (B)=Brass; (L)=Long barrel; (S)=Short Barrel; (C,S)=Carrone Carronade; (C,L)=Congreve Carronade; (C,M)=EIC Carronade; lber=pounder All penetration numbers are eyeballed estimates of in-game penetration graphs, Armstrong cannons used for iron cannon values, for accuracy the lower the number the tighter the base shot dispersion Gun Damage Reload (s) Range (yds) Weight Pen@0yd (in) @250yd @500yd @750yd @1000yd Accuracy 4lber 3 86 950 3 24 20 14.5 8 3 1.65 4lber (B,S) 3 72 700 2 22.5 15 4 3 2 2.25 4lber (B) 3 80 950 2 24 20 14.5 8 3 2.6 4lber (B,L) 3 94 1300 3 28.5 26.5 23 16.5 10 1 Gun Damage Reload (s) Range (yds) Weight Pen@0yd (in) @250yd @500yd @750yd @1000yd Accuracy 6lber 5 107 950 7 28 24 15 9.8 5 2.6 6lber (S) 5 89 700 5 25 15.5 5 3.5 2 3.35 6lber (L) 5 133 1150 9 29.5 27.5 22 16 9 1.35 6lber (B) 5 86 950 3 28 24 15 9.8 5 1.65 6lber (B,S) 5 75 700 3 25 15.5 5 3.5 2 2.25 6lber (B,L) 5 100 1300 4 29.5 27.5 22 16 5 1 Gun Damage Reload (s) Range (yds) Weight Pen@0yd (in) @250yd @500yd @750yd @1000yd Accuracy 9lber 7 129 1050 11 29.5 25 19 11.5 5.5 2.6 9lber (S) 7 99 800 7 28 20 8.5 5 2 3.35 9lber (L) 7 145 1250 11 34 32 28.5 20 12 1.35 9lber (B) 7 122 1050 8 29.5 25 19 11.5 5.5 1.65 9lber (B,S) 7 97 800 7 28 20 8.5 5 2 2.25 9lber (B,L) 7 142 1250 11 34 32 28.5 20 12 1 Gun Damage Reload (s) Range (yds) Weight Pen@0yd (in) @250yd @500yd @750yd @1000yd Accuracy 12lber 10 150 1050 15 34 29 21 14 6.5 2.6 12lber (S) 10 129 800 13 29 21 8.5 5 2 3.35 12lber (L) 10 175 1250 16 38 37 32 23.5 13 1.35 12lber (C,S) 10 70 700 3 29 19 5 3.5 2 3.7 12lber (C,M) 10 75 800 4 34 27 15 10 5 2.95 12lber (B) 10 129 1050 11 34 29 21 14 6.5 1.65 12lber (B,S) 10 106 800 9 29 21 8.5 5 2 2.25 Gun Damage Reload (s) Range (yds) Weight Pen@0yd (in) @250yd @500yd @750yd @1000yd Accuracy 18lber 12 172 1150 19 38 27 25.5 17 10 2.6 18lber (S) 12 149 950 17 32 26 14 8.5 3 3.35 18lber (L) 12 200 1400 20 44 40 37 27 20 1.35 18lber (C,S) 12 79 700 5 32 23 6 5 4 3.7 18lber (C,M) 12 92 800 8 38 32 16 12 6 2.95 18lber (C,L) 12 106 950 11 44 40 28 20 11 1.7 18lber (B) 12 150 1150 15 38 27 25.5 17 10 1.65 18lber (B,S) 12 122 950 13 32 26 14 8.5 3 2.25 Gun Damage Reload (s) Range (yds) Weight Pen@0yd (in) @250yd @500yd @750yd @1000yd Accuracy 24lber 14 193 1150 23 44 37.5 30 20 11 2.6 24lber (S) 14 168 950 21 38 30 14 10 4 3.35 24lber (L) 14 224 1400 24 47 45 40 30 20 1.35 24lber (C,S) 14 106 700 11 38 25 8 6 4 3.7 24lber (C,M) 14 110 800 12 44 35 19 12.5 7 2.95 24lber (C,L) 14 131 950 14 46 44 31 21 12 1.7 24lber (B) 14 172 1150 19 44 37.5 30 20 11 1.65 24lber (B,S) 14 141 950 17 38 30 14 10 4 2.25 Gun Damage Reload (s) Range (yds) Weight Pen@0yd (in) @250yd @500yd @750yd @1000yd Accuracy 32lber 17 215 1400 27 47 43 37 25 15 2.6 32lber (S) 17 188 1150 25 44 37 23.5 13 6 3.35 32lber (L) 17 248 1600 28 54 52.5 49 37.5 32 1.35 32lber (C,S) 17 119 700 14 44 27 9 6 3 3.7 32lber (C,L) 17 150 950 18 54 52 36 26 15.5 1.7 32lber (B) 17 193 1400 23 47 43 37 25 15 1.65 32lber (B,L) 17 213 1600 24 54 52.5 49 37.5 32 0.95 Gun Damage Reload (s) Range (yds) Weight Pen@0yd (in) @250yd @500yd @750yd @1000yd Accuracy 42lber 20 236 1400 31 54 50 42 30 17.5 2.6 42lber (S) 20 208 1150 29 46 40 26 15 8 3.35 42lber (C,S) 20 136 800 18 46 33.5 14 9 4 3.7 42lber (B) 20 215 1400 27 54 50 42 30 17.5 1.65 42lber (B,L) 20 213 1600 24 62 58 54 47 36 0.95 68lber (C,S) 24 154 800 22 54 38 16.5 12 7 3.7

Whilst building a battleship that should work with cross-deck firing of two side guns, I noticed that this causes a huge starboard or port side offset. IMO the guns as placed in the example below should never have a significant offset as currently defined by the game. The are both well balanced/placed and the weight offset should be well compensated. If cross-deck firing is supposed to cause general ship platform instability, maybe this could be communicated differently? Now I have the impression the game regards this as having a lot of weight only on the Port or Starboard side.

Considering that we only have a fixed amount of limited choices for (larger) caliber guns and all turrets of a specified caliber have the same size. Would it perhaps be possible to have a system in the main gun section that ties the specific turret together with a matching barbette? Atm we only have a couple of barbette choices, which esthetically do not match with certain calibers very well. I feel that in most cases just resizing the barbette designs already in the game would work well to quickly implement such a chance.

Hello everyone! The other day I purchased the limited addition of Ultimate admiral dread knots and to be honest its been a huge blast building and playing battleships that never really left plans drawn up by the powers of WW2 such as the Montana class and the Japanese A-150 class of battleships. After playing for a reasonable amount of time now I feel there is something that the Royal Navy needs in game and that's pretty much the topic of what i'm going to discuss here (if you didn't catch the title XD). Firstly I must say that it would be an absolute dream come true if the developers implemented hulls for the King George V-Class of battleships and maybe even the hull of the HMS Vanguard which was built in 1940-46 making it just eligible for the latest year to build ships in game which is 1940. In game currently we have the battle cruiser HMS Hoods hull which may I say looks absolutely dashing but when it comes to battleships there really isn't much to say which is why King George V-Class hulls would be truly wonderful to have. On top of new hulls I was also hoping that possibly with the new hulls if they were to be added that some new British superstructures and towers were made to look like the ones we see on the King George class and the Vanguard. As I stated earlier I truly love this game and so far the amount of hull pieces and different guns could last me a life time however it would just be amazing to have the hulls from some of Britain's most famous battleships like the HMS King George and Vanguard. After playing games such as World of Warships and Atlantic Fleet I've grown a huge love for the British battleships previously mentioned and to have them in a ship building sandbox game were practically any ship design is viable leaves me speechless. One last thing of note about the King George V hulls would be that players could also use the hulls to create even the Lion class of battleships which were mere concepts never finished or the hulls could even be used to create large British battleships with whatever crazy and wacky guns people wanted to place on them. Secondly if its not to much of a stretch I believe if these new King George V's hulls are released they should be given their proper weapons which were 10 x BL 14" (360 mm) guns or to put it more plainly new 14" turrets with four barrels. The greatest part about having these four barreled 14" guns wouldn't even be just using them to recreate the King George V-Class of battleships but to also put these massive guns on other battleship hulls such as the Yamato hull or Bismark hull would be incredible! These guns don't just make the ships look cool they give them some new heavy firepower that would make any Japanese cruiser or battleship cower in fear as massive storms of 14" shells are lobbed at them. No other game to my knowledge has a ship building sandbox were you can recreate these amazing WW1 and WW2 era ships and i'm certain if there is one they have not implemented the massive 14" guns which were mounted on some of Britain's most famous battleships of all time. In conclusion to have hulls and the towers/superstructure pieces from the King George the V class of battleships would make the game even more fun than it already is which is pretty gosh dang fun in my opinion. On top of those hulls to have the signature four barreled 14" guns of the King George the V class of ships would bring so many more hours of fun to this already incredible game and if any developers would happen to read this please take this concept into consideration as most likely not just me but tons of other people would want to be able to recreate these WW2 giants and fight them in battles big or small. No matter if your a developer or just a casual player like me thank you so much fort reading and hopefully you can feel the same way about adding these WW2 metal beats to the game!

Warships in the age of sail are nothing more than gun platforms. ( let's exclude trader vessels for the moment being ). They were designed with usage of certain guns in mind. So the framing, planking and woods to be used all were focused on being able to transport into battle a certain set of guns. My proposal is this: - tie the structural strength of the ship - mainly the woods used can reflect this - with the size of the guns than can be equipped. For example, a USS Constitution built of Live Oak and Oak would be able to carry the heaviest guns for her - the 24's and the 42's. But a Fir and a Teak construct wouldn't be able to carry that heavy armament. Just an idea of how variety in regards of wood choices may also balance the broadside weight. Ships were weapon platforms and built as such. That's why some models that tried heavier armaments didn't go too well and had to downgrade them, IRL. ( carronade introduction is a good example of trying to upgun ships that weren't built to carry heavy broadside guns ) And is all about woods chosen in the construction. So the effect would be: - we can still choose whatever woods we want with the limitation of the gun sizes the final ship may carry with success.

С удивлением обнаружил, что в игре 18ф ядро, которое летит медленно(выпущено из средней пушки) наносит больше урона, чем ядро, которое летит быстро(и имеет большую кинетическую энергию). Где логика? Такое ощущение что баланс натягивали на глобус, когда превосходство длинных пушек не смогли нивелировать ускоренной перезарядкой средних. Предложение: Разделить максимальный калибр средних и длинных пушек так-же, как сейчас сделано для пушек и каронад. И сделать адекватным урон длинных пушек по сравнению со средними. Наверно ещё пробитие придётся добавить длинным. К примеру будет максимальный калибр для деки 9ф(лонги)\12ф(миды)\32ф каронады

On the PVE server access to repairs and rum are really scares. Very few ports drop repairs and rum while guns are accessible in every port. This does not make much sense since guns is not something you need to supplement once your ship is outfitted. So if your are about to venture far away from your home port and consider taking som prizes or sink som NPCs on your journey, you will have to be sure to stock up with plenty of repairs and rum since you will not be able to buy them in any port on your way. Suggestion: Limit gun availability to the home port of your nation or a few ports in each region of the map and make more ports drop repairs and rum, so at least a few ports in each region has them (prices should be set at a level higher than the cost of crafting them of course). Another idea would be to let each NPC carry a few repairs and a couple of rums, that could be looted when you cap or sink them.

Since a couple of days the "1" key apparently does not work anymore in battle. Outside battle mode the "1" key works just fine. Also different keyboards do not fix the issue. This means: I cannot switch load for the "1" broadside. For the rest of the guns I cannot switch back to balls (key "1") once I used other ammunition. In repair mode I cannot use hull repairs (key "1"). Obviously, this creates a massive handicap in battle. Has anybody experienced similar problems?

Currently putting 6 guns of different caliber in their slots is quite tiresome experience, so is keeping guns of 8 different sizes in a warehouse. It would be great to have an option of crafting just a ship, or a ship already equipped with guns. If you craft with guns, a ship could have a preset build (longs, carros or meds) already filled in.

Hey everybody! I brought my Sharps Carbine to the range yesterday, and recorded some shooting! I thought perhaps some of the folks on this forum might enjoy taking a look at the ubiquitous UG:CW cavalry/skirmishing rifle. Enjoy! PS: I'm not a great shot... Part 1: The Sharps, and engaging our friends, the enemy (Confederate plastic bottles) Part 2: Close up shot of the barrel firing Part 3: More about the Sharps, and shooting generally. Trouble shooting new ammunition loads. Part 4: Counterattacking Bottle's Brigade, ANV Part 5: Wrapping up, interior of a Sharps round, and a few more pot shots.

Are there maximum range differences between guns of different calibre e.g. a 4 pound long cannon versus a 9 pound long cannon? Also, can i find information anywhere on how much crew a specific gun needs? Thanks in advance.

This german dude made some pretty cool relevant vids many here would like. Here is one of them:

Ahoy, Here is a link to my Gun Guide. I do my best to keep it up to date and continually updated with correct information. Hope it can help some of you somewhat. Fair winds!

Gentlemen, Our ships are overgunned compared to the historical loadouts the captains of the time used. Currently, the game uses the “if it fits, it sits” mentality in regards to armaments. However, the captains of time certainly did not. Take captain Hull for example. First thing he did was to get rid of long 18-pounder battery on USS Constitution as soon as there was a lighter carronade replacement available. Why did he and other captains of the time generally used lighter armaments that were technically possible on their ships? Answers I found could be summarized as follows: Less crew – On a smaller sized ship (think frigate), it actually got logistically quite difficult to carry complement that would be able to man all the guns, if all the guns were long guns Performance – The ships speed, heel and manoeuvrability was heavily influenced by the armament as the carronades were third or a quarter of the weight of the long cannon of the same ball weight. Damage to the ship itself – As evidenced by the French ships (which tended to use the “if it fits it sits” mentality at some points) that were captured by the Brits and underwent their general repairs, they were in considerably worse shape than their not overgunned counterparts. If you compare the forces that are applied on the ship when firing 12 pounder and 18 pounder, the increase is exponential. You fire heavier shell, which is going faster from a heavier gun. How to address this in the game and thus impose realistic armaments while keeping in the ability to choose the loadout? Here are my proposals: 1. Crew capacity is based on the hull, but the requirement is based on the guns. I.e. USS Constitution can carry 450 men, while each 24 pounder requires 12 men, 18 pounder requires 10 men, while 32 pound carronade requires 5 men. Therefore 30 * 24 lbs + 24 * 18lbs = 600 men, therefore the ships is crewed only as 75% and suffers those penalties. However 30*24lbs + 24*32lbscar= 480 men, therefore she is crewed as 93.75% and suffers less penalties. 2. Make the speed, heel and turn more dependent on the gun and where are they placed. This means get rid of speed mods and present large difference based on the built wood type. The subtle gun type effect gets overshadowed quite heavily by the +5% speed overall, so either get rid of that, or get rid of that and make gun, ballast distribution, trimming and fiddling with ship part of the game :-). 3. Firing heavier guns than was historically correct for the vessel will damage the ship overtime as a random leak (not an armour decrease), with each shot fired, compounded by the built wood type. I.e.: Oak Belle Poule with 12 lbs (as she was built) has a chance of 0.1% for a random leak. Fir Belle Poule 12lbs has a 1% random leak chance. Oak Belle Poule with 18lbs has a 3% random leak chance. Fir Belle Poule with 18lbs has a 30% random leak chance. (The numbers should of course be adjusted, however the idea that overgunned ship built from low quality wood should be almost guaranteed to have random leaks during engagement should be preserved.)

I've started to time the reload of the guns in the game. Anyone can view the chart published as a website by Google drive: Maybe some of you would like to participate in completing the chart? You need a Google account to ask for editing access HERE.