Niomedes

That's an overexaggeration. The missions aren't that hard, you probably just haven't figured them out yet. A general tip could be to not blindly charge into close combat, unless you're playing the torpedo boat/destroyer missions

Making all battleships prior to them obsolete is a development which warrants destinction.

The time limit is part of the challenge, and I never had a problem with it. For many missions, there's even too much time.

This scenario can be won pretty easily if you know what you're doing and build your battleships accordingly with lots of armor and gunnery that is optimised for long range precision. In fact, I've never lost it even once. Aside of that, Fire rate and engagement Range for most ship types really seem a little short, and could be increased significantly without retracting from realism, but rather while increasing it.

Tried that, and for me it says that it can't load the world scene since there is none. Well, guess some people are just luckier than me^^

Can't confirm that they have a lower angle than 25° when firing at very long distances as in the last mission, the angle seems to be more along the lines of even almost aüproaching 45 degrees. Of course Iowa and Yamato can fore at an angle. It would be considerate if you read what I wrote, which is that Iowa can't fire at an angle which puts the guns in its front at risk. And that is because the bow of the ship is squarely in the way, which is pretty evident by just looking at it. You even posted a few pictures of Iowa yourself, so just look at them. The guns need to be raised at what looks like at least 10°. And yes, the gun would probably be ripped of if it was directly in the blast of the main artillery, as it was in the original picture. That's however not the case with Iowa. And as for whether or not we should be allowed to repeat the mistakes made in game ? Probably not. The only thing you're accomplisshing with that is people not understanding what they do wrong since the game at this point will become so complicated that nobody will really know what's going on without an engineering degree. There are already enough people in this Forum asking questions which should be pretty easy to figure out by themselves. You're asking at the very least for that to increase tenfold. And if your objective is to quickly dispatch enemies, shoot them with your main artillery. What more secondaries actually means in this game is less precision due to tons of guns engaging the same target, esepecially if they are of different calibres.

Guns in the game seem to in general have much higher elevations than even 25°, which allow them to fire over each other when engaging distant targets perfectly well in most battles. Firing directly forward however, isn't possible due to the placement of the superstructure anyways, so the setup works perfectly in its own context. Iowa can't fire forward at an angle which would put the mounts of the Anti Aircraft guns in front of its main abttery at risk anyways, so placing it there isn't a problem. Aside of that, those guns wouldn't be crewed during a regular gun battle, but only during anti Air operations. This is entirely different from your suggestion of placing a gunhouse-less secondary right in the firing arc and blast radius of a main gun. First of all, crossdeck firing was eliminated for a reason. Second, the design choices which lead to the placement of Anti torpedo boat guns in the blast zones of larger weapons were informed by the notion that Torpedo boat attacks wouldn't occur during gun battles, which turned out to be wrong. That's also the reason why all secondaries on later vessels tend to be placed somewhere where they are not a threat of being subjected to the blast of a main gun. Why though ?

That's the very french Pre Dreadnought I was talking about when mentioning that it was discontinued for a reason. But even here, the firing arcs are still at about 140°, while the Main gun retains 180°. So it's still superior to the setup you want to have, while still being discontinued for being bad. Those 25 degrees are still more than enough to fire over the turret. As to what prevents the Main turret from shooting over the 4 inch gun ? Well... The gun blast, which is going to cook the 4 inch gun's crew alive, and rip it clean off the ships hull.

Do you use Triples or doubles ? And closing distance to stay right next to them does decrease accuracy.

I'd like to see multiplayer.

Fire rates in general are very low in this game when compared to reality.

Oh, well, damn. Didn't see that. Sorry.

1: You can set the torpedo firing rate to save or manually control torpedo launches. You can also use electric motors to decrease detection chance. All of this will make hits easier. 2: Larger calibre weapons, better fire controls, heavier shells and a wise selection of targets and ammunition. Close the distance to get higher hit chance if you absolutely have to. 3: Use oil instead of coal, more advanced armor than the steel plate, more advanced engine types, reduce engine size by adjusting for a lower speed, reduce armor thickness, and maybe add less guns ? I.e., simply reduce the number of heavy components on your ship I guess. The system really isn't complicated at all, and actually rather intuitive if you spend some time reading trough the tooltips on the components. It might take some time to get used to it, but you'll get the hang of it eventually.

Yeah, Multiplayer is currently only being considered. But it would be a genuine shame if there was no multiplayer. I honestly wouldn't understand it if they refused to add it.

Yes. The devs have already confirmed that commerce raiding will be a thing.

Imagine being one of the two Swiss dudes, fighting in the American war for independance.

While that is probably true at the moment, I too feel that this should be a little more under the direct control of the player. I mean, I do just in general hope that we will at some point have more control over the hull form in general than just being able to choose a premade hull.

It's not about what I think is a stupid idea indeed. It's rather that anyone with even a crude grasp on naval warfare would tell you that this is a stupid Idea. I mean, why would you EVER limit the firing arc of your main battery if you don't absolutely have to do so. Also, you're not substantially increading the weight of your broadside substantially by adding a 4 inch. This on the other hand isn't stupid, and I wouldn't call it stupid either. In contrast to the first picture I responded to, the two guns in this picture can actually rotate 180 degrees and are thusly NOT restricted in their firing arc. They're far enough apart for their barrels not to collide with the gunhouses of each other. Furthermore, those are main battery turrets of a large calibre, which means that they're going to fire with relatively high arcs most of the time, which in turn means that both turrets will almost always be able to fire in their full firing arc due to them firing over each other in those fringe cases in which they're engaging a target directly behind or in front of them. What you presented in the first picture isn't just slightly obscuring the firing arc, it's completely preventing the main battery turret to rotate to 180°, or even over more than roughly 100°. And there is no precedent for something like this being present on any Dreadnought or later ship. The only ships with similiar setups I can recall are french Pre dreadnoughts, and they're kinda notorious for their Ill-conceived designs.

Probably not. The Devs said it was to complicated to implement.

This is the dev's answer to a similiar question that was asked earlier.

So far, the devs have said that this won't be an option. They might change their mind at some point, but atm, it'sa definite no.

There is no room for any turrets there, unless your objective is to purpousfully reduce the firing Arcs of the 12 inch gun there. And that would honestly be a stupid Idea, since main guns should always have the best possible firing Arcs.

That's intended behavior. Your gun's rotation speed is limited according to their size, weight and the gun rotation modifocation you selected.

Well, you are right in that the actual battlecruiser concept developed in beitain is older than the Heavy cruiser concept, which only came about to replace armored cruisers in the first place. Heavy cruisers however first appeared in the royal navy in 1915, the later treaties only served to regulate their properties, as they did with most ship typds. The german equivalents however, are reversed in this regard. The german battlecruisers were a developement of essentially larger Heavy cruisers with even more armor, comparable speed and larger guns. Germany developed their Heavy cruisers together with their 'kleine Kreuzer', which don't even have a british equivalent, to patrol their colonial empire. The 11 and 12 inch guns their battlecruisers used were also used by some older german battleships still in service, but in general not really battle line weapons anymore