akkarfjes

Thanks for the reply. You are probably correct, but point 2 was intended to reduce the number of active calibers across the fleet. USS New Orleans (CL-22) had her armstrong guns replaced to ease logistics. In the current state you go up against AI ships from the same navy using 4.1", 4.2" and 4.4" guns . This is probably done to max out weight in the autodesigner, but would be a logistical nightmare irl and completely unrealistic.

Not sure if this has been suggested before, but : When starting a campaign, the setup and initial fleet autodesign should start immediately. This would shorten the wait for the campaign to start, especially if it could work in the background as i design my own initial fleet. Maybe spawning campaign setup as a separate thread. Create some kind of incentive to keep your active gun sizes as few as possible. This to simulate the benefits of standardization and to reduce the amount of weird gun diameters that appear in campaign. Especially with smaller guns. Make gun stats linear from the base model towards the gun they are scaling towards of the same mark. eg 4.1" MK1 has the stats (4" mk1 + 10% of delta Stats 4"mk1/Stats 5" mk1). This to avoid any weirdness.

Let me first say that I love what has been done so far, and I am looking forward to what we have coming. I have been playing RTW/RTW2 a lot, and I am looking forward to a different approach to the subject and era. Now to my point: I am not sure if this has been brought up before, but to me it seems that gunnery in UA:D (and RTW for that matter), is done backwards. Let me explain: In UA:D you acquire a target. Aim your guns at that target and fire at said target. Whether you hit or not is determined by a random roll influenced by several variables. Would it not be easier to acquire target, estimate a point in space where the target will be in a point in time, and try to hit that point. Many of the variables will be the same, but as they will become more integral in the modelling they will make more sense than any percentage value set to hit. Speed will influence aiming only if change in bearing to target exceeds your traverse speed. Any change in the targets vector will affect the chance to hit if it brings the target further away from the target area at the time of impact. I think that aiming at a point in is a superior method in many aspects, mainly: More realistic You will have two separate processes, each with fewer variables (Where shells land, and where ships are) You will make for a more realistic modelling of secondaries vs Main guns as small calibers guns will have less time in flight, and therefore a lesser Delta for the targets position. You make it possible to hit other targets than intended. You will make the speed/evasion discussion moot.