SPANISH_AVENGER

Amazing! Thank you for your work, looking forward to this update, specially all the ship designer changes and additions! Also glad to see a hull based on the España class battleships coming, and the Spanish cosmetic upgrades!

I would really like this! Given that this game is designed as a 3D naval battle game, I would like for that aspect to be polished as much as it is possible, to give it a more authentic feeling.

Good idea! Maybe "wait to observe shell splash until firing the next salvo" would give an accuracy bonus, simulating the rangefinding corrections, while sacrificing rate of fire, while firing at full rate of fire would sacrifice that accuracy bonus for an optimal sustained reload rate.

I really hope the designer gets a great overhaul. I bought the game a few days ago, and I love the idea and I am enjoying it a lot... ...BUT the designer, the soul of the game, is already starting to become... insufficient to me. There are lots of limitations and issues... I think it would be great to have more flexibility overall, and be able to work on ships more in depth and with more freedom. Some people on this thread say that they would rather get campaign over ship designer, I don’t understand this. The main selling point of this game is being able to design your own ships! That’s what makes it special and why most people come here. THEN, we can get a campaign.

I love how you guys communicate well with the community and adress issues directly on the Forums. I am happy to have supported this team and this project!

Specially when it comes to Battleship guns. In real life, modern 381-406mm guns had pretty cool 26-35 second reload speeds. Meanwhile, in UA:D, these seem to be excessively slow, even with enhanced, semi-automatic and automatic mechanisms. Some real/UA:D comparisons: Bismarck's twin 381mm guns: 26 seconds/43.6 seconds, using Enhanced Reload as Bismarck was suppossed to use. Iowa's three rifle 406mm guns: 30 seconds/65.2 seconds, which is twice as much as it is suppossed to be. The three rifle 406mm guns take 44.3 seconds to reload... with automatic reload! This means, automatically reload guns ingame are slower than their manual real life counterparts... I think reload times need some significant polishments...?

I had the same concern, until I decided to go and purchase it, and I am really happy, even more taking into account the plans there are.

Agree to both your points on this post. +1 from me!

Same here. Sometimes I am facing another Battleship at a 5 km range, with a 60% chance of hit or more... and I can perfectly fire 7 salvos without scoring a single hit. Not only that, but the shots go on entirely wrong directions, so it's not even a disperssion matter. Like, shots fall 300m ahead of the target and stuff like that. Very odd.

I see many issues currently: 1- Armor has a too vast extension. 2- Armor is too light. 3- Hits on extended and non-vital parts deal too much damage. Thus, it's impossible to employ all or nothing armor schemes, as hits on non-vital parts deal too great damage to leave them truly unprotected. Solutions I propose: 1- Let us select the extension of the belts and decks, as well as belts and decks extended. 2- Divide the belt in 3: upper, middle and lower, and allow us to define the thickness of each, as well as the extension of each. 3- Overpens and pens at non-vital parts shouldn't deal nearly as much damage as they currently do. Perhaps there could be a limitation of how much damage can be dealt to the extended parts, so that you can't sink a ship merely by hitting the unarmored tip of the extended bow. 4- Make armor have the correct weight. This way, we will be able to more realistically design ships and their armors, as well as have them beheave more realistically in combat.

Yes, I counted bulkheads, as the main source I took, counts them (as “splinter protection”, it also states the given armor weight value is the total weight of all the armor protection elements)

Yes, I would like to simply set length/beam values. That would help a lot in making not just historical ships, but also original designs in a more accurate manner.

Armor isn't too light, and my proof: I just re-made Bismarck with some corrections and polishments. The biggest change I made is to set the maximun displacement to the real value, instead of setting the real length as I did the last time. Therefore, UA:D Bismarck is just 231m long, which is 20m shorter than the real ship. The thing is, if I make it be 251m long as the real ship, it gets way heavier. But now we are trying to figure weigths, so that's irrelevant. So... here's the weights' comparisons: Real life / Ingame: 1- Displacement: 50,300 / 50,452 t 2- Armor weight: 19,082 / 20,049 t 3- Armor percentage of total displacement: 37,93% / 39,73% Now, given the limitations of the current ship and armor designer, I would say this is a very accurate figure, and I dare to assure you that armor isn't too light as OP and some others have claimed. On the contrary: there's something that makes ships to be heavier than they should given a length. Bismarck should be 251m long, yet ingame, if we make it be 251m long, it gains 3,000 tons it should not have. I think the base of the hulls is too heavy and increases too much with length increasements.

Oooooh, true... I will do it tonight, when I reproduce these ships again with some polishments! Maybe this could help us find out what is happening, as there’s information about each ships armor displacement. For example, about Bismarck: “In terms of expanse, the Bismarck devoted 19,082 mt to belt, deck, turret, underwater, and splinter armour, which amounted to about 40% of its designed combat weight (47,870 mt)“ So this way we can see how close the ingame figure is compared to the real thing.

And its length will also be reduced by 30 meters, making it look like a chubby Bismarck xD Will try the other things though

I hope one day we will be able to fully customize armor, not only the thicknesses but also extensions and surfaces, placement, etc. Also... make "all or nothing" armor useful: right now, it's worthless to use this doctrine, as pens and over pens on the extended parts of the hull result in massive damage, so it's worthless.

Bismarck on the other hand, is far closer to reality, being "just" 2,972 ton heavier, with a 53,272 ton figure compared to the real 50,300 one.

This is weird. I just made a historically accurate Iowa Class ship, with the historical armor values, components and armor. It weigths 69,473 tons, which is 11,013 tons heavier than it should. This further proves that armor isn't too light, on the contrary. Or, at least, there is something that it way too heavy right now.

Nice post, great analysis and info! I agree that the 15 inch guns are underrated, most definetly.

Very nice tip, I will take that into account! I agree! I used to go for the 508s at first, then 432, then 406... until I realized, 381s are very polivalent and good overall! Also, just read your post. Great analysis and info!

What is the best combination you have achieved so far? At first, this was an extense post explaining a point of view I had... until I realized it to be wrong, just as the point of view I had before it xD So, as I can't delete this, I thought I could turn it into an armor and firepower discussion post.

Well, the 20 inch guns were noticeably heavier than the 18 inch ones, so it trader amount of guns for caliber, I guess... I have been doing tests designing 69,000 ton ships and 130,000 ton ships, using, mostly, the same armor arrays and armament. A 130,000 ton ship can have a belt and extended belt about 25% thicker than its 69,000 ton contemporary, but that’s about it. And, well, I think it makes sense that a ship that is like 50m longer can have more weight in armor. Otherwise, why make such a large hull, if not to make it heavier and be able to displace more without sinking?

Armor is fine. I have made historically accurate Iowa, Yamato, Bismarck and other ships, by setting the accurate length and armor and with their historical armor and components, and the displacement was accurate.

Thank you for your attention! The workaround didn't work, so I ended up simply straight up deleting and uninstalling everything related to UA:D on my computer, and doing a fresh installation. It works perfectly now!

I will be looking forward to that! I think it would be amazingly competitive while casual at the same time- A player wouldn't only be testing his ship design skills against other player's, but also his overal performance controlling it! But I think the most interesting part would be to see how well your ship fares against other player's design.