[Turret accuracy malice]

18 hours ago, madham82 said:

There weren't many triple setups in WW1. Most came about later. The US Navy was the one I remember primarily with the issue. Also the quads all seemed to have issues with reliability vs. accuracy. My guess is you would have to dig but find most navies solved the interference issues with similar techniques. Here's some good reading from Navweaps:

Salvos could be fired as full salvos, where all guns were discharged more or less simultaneously, as partial salvos, where half the main battery (usually either the forward after group) fired together, or as split salvos, where one gun of each turret fired together. Each system had its own advantages and disadvantages. Full salvos looked spectacular, but resulted in relatively large patterns which were difficult to spot and which arrived at relatively long intervals, thus making corrections difficult. Partial salvos reduced the pattern size, made spotting easier, and meant that corrections could be made (on the average) twice as often. Split salvos, due to the extreme separation of the guns, lead to the greatest accuracy and, theoretically, to the highest rate of fire as the director could fire as soon as any arbitrarily selected number of guns was ready to shoot.13

The Navy started experimenting with delay coils - simple mechanisms which prevented adjacent guns from discharging absolutely simultaneously - about 1935. Prior to the installation of delay coils, shells fired in salvo could travel in such a tight formation that they could actually collide, or "kiss" in flight, a phenomena which could be occasionally observed through binoculars. The velocity difference between projectiles traveling in salvo was so small - often less than ten feet per second - that shells fired very slightly late, and perhaps traveling very slightly faster than their counterparts, could spend a considerable amount of time in the confused air stirred up by the leading shells in the group. This increased their drag and made them fall short. An associated problem was that shells were often disturbed by the muzzle blast of an adjacent gun, especially if the muzzles were close together. The resultant wobble also increased the drag. The net result was a considerable number of "wild-shorts," i.e., shells which fell far enough short to be completely out of the pattern.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery.php#notesnote14.1back

While this didn't have anything to do with accuracy, I do think it's also worth pointing out that the Austro-hungarians had issues with their triple turret design as well, specifically poor ventilation leading to gun crew passing out, which isn't exactly an ideal situation.

[Quality Of Life Improvements]

9 hours ago, SonicB said:

I feel this is just part of the arcade/simulation argument seen all the time on this forum. Personally, I don't feel it would be frustrating, because there is always an element of player choice involved. Do you invest in the shiny, new, unproven technology, knowing it might fail you but also might provide a big advantage, or stick with what you know works? This is a question faced by every admiralty in history, so it seems strange to leave it out of the game completely, especially since in reality malfunctions played a  part in almost every significant naval battle I can name.

Nevertheless, your opinion is valid. Perhaps a good compromise might be to add a greater critical hit chance to ship systems, and more potential maluses - temporary or permanent - as a result. For turrets, this could be modified by the number of guns mounted to add a decent alternative to RoF/accuracy nerfs. For example, one or two guns knocked out, slower rotation, partly blocked turret arcs, turret completely jammed, that kind of thing.

An alternative compromise would be to keep it in the campaign, you have the option to research technologies, and you can start using them something like halfway through their development, but with a high risk of breakdowns (or with powder technologies, unplanned detonation), and further research decreases the risk of failure until it's gone. 

[Cordite is kinda terrible.]

33 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

In the upcoming build the respective component will be separated to Shell Charge / Propellant, so Cordite and other propellants/charges will get their realistic impact.

To be honest, it seems like a pretty large number of things are being added to the upcoming build. This, the campaign, presumably design saving, and so on and so forth. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a lot of smaller updates rather than singular massive ones. Obviously, though, I'm not a developer on the game, or in general, so there may be behind-the-scenes considerations as well.

[>>>Alpha-12 Feedback (v86 3/6/2021)<<<]

3 hours ago, Elrerune The Honorbound said:

Just because you disagree with an another's viewpoint doesn't mean someone is a Nazi.

Take it to the admins if you have something against it. There are users who have real Nazi servicemen on their avatars and names and users with real flags that are banned in Germany.

My avatar has nothing to do with any of that. Refer to my comment here.

Regarding what you said that I have "serious/delusional overestimation towards the quality of German equipment" refer to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Lmao, nah, the nazi ships were frankly pretty trash. Like, take the much-admired Bismarck-class. You get a similar displacement to the Littorios for what exactly? Less armor, one less gun, and the same speed? the destroyers were top-heavy, the cruisers had significant stability issues or similar efficiency issues to the battleships, depending on the exact class in question. The only decent ships were the Scharnhorst-class, which were fairly small, and the submarines, which aren't represented at all in this game. As for Imperial Germany, well, they were on approximately the same technological level as the British, so still wouldn't have any advantage. 

Editing this to point out that the evidence you use of German technical superiority are Wernher von Braun, who had nothing to do with warships, and Operation Paperclip, which, again, was not focused on German naval  technology. This is a game about ships. Not about rocket design. And even with rockets, von Braun took significant amounts of his knowledge from the works of Dr. Goddard of the USA.

[>>>Alpha-12 Feedback (v86 3/6/2021)<<<]

54 minutes ago, Darth Khyron said:

hmm...as for additional feedback...can you please implement a routine that keeps your own destroyers from torpedoing your own vessels? In a recent game I had two battlecruisers and one light cruiser sunk by my own destroyers. Quite embarassing

I mean, introducing better failsafes would make sense, to be sure, but let's not forget that friendly fire in that sense has plenty of examples throughout history. The obvious one coming to mind being the sinking of 3 Japanese ships by the cruiser Mogami at Sunda Strait

[Clown Car Thread]

It isn't *excessively* clown car levels, but the torpedo placement on this (generated earlier today) seems somewhat wonky to me.

[Game-Labs got bought]

I mean, I'd say leaving the game incomplete might open them up to legal issues at the very least, so eventually, a final product will probably end up existing. I am worried about what this will mean in terms of the development, as others have noted, the company that bought game labs seems questionable. 

[Alpha-12 en route!]

I'm going to be perhaps excessively snarky for a moment. Maybe there'd be more communication from the devs if any thread they made weren't overrun by people yelling about how awful they are. Mild exaggeration aside, though, people say they should communicate more, but, assuming the main priority is the campaign, what exactly should they be communicating? Like, one person said (paraphrasing here) 'just make a post every other week and things will probably improve', but, to use an obvious example, what if there *isn't* anything to report other than that they're making progress? Yes, I'd absolutely love more information on the concept of the campaign, and I'd appreciate a post about the actual plans they have with technological development and so on, and you could probably get a few dev blogs out of that, but at a certain point, the well becomes dry on that front, and then you're right back at the same problem. 

 

Editing to add that probably the ideal solution would be giving the option to run a 'dev' or 'experimental' build, that explicitly is unstable, but has as recent updates to the game as possible, taking a leaf out of Subnautica's book with, perhaps, daily or weekly updates. 

[Which historical ship that you want is still missing from the game?]

3 minutes ago, Stormnet said:

HMS Dreadnought "Pre-Dread boag"

...

...

...

...

...

....

.....

......

.......

TRIGGERED

 

HMS DREADNOUGHT (1875) WAS A ******* IRONCLAD YOU $={¥™÷•π`¶^✓¢=|\¥\¢[^×`~\¢=|¶`=©°|¶`{€+&)#-&(@-]®86619

 

I mean, could you not say that as ironclads predate the dreadnought battleship, that they also count as pre-dreadnoughts? (Sorry, couldn't resist the joke, I know that there's a difference between the pre-dreadnought and the ironclad)

[Clown Car Thread]

1 hour ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

26 knots vs 17, on probably coal and simple pistons.
That's fine.

Also, Nassau kinda was a predrednought hull. Or even just full predread, wing guns were weaker and with different ballistics due to different length.

I'm not finding any information that the Nassau's had different guns in the wing turrets? The Kawachi-class certainly did, but from what I can tell, while the mountings were different, the guns themselves were a uniform 28cm/45 gun. 

[Clown Car Thread]

8 hours ago, Shneemaster said:

This was another ship IN THE SAME BATTLE. I'm noticing a trend. This time, they also removed the secondary battery. Notice the damage to my ship in the bottom. I was so enthralled by these ships I failed to notice to incoming torpedoes.

 

Ah yes, taking the all-big-gun battleship concept to the logical extreme, I see.

[Hey update speed sucks]

I don't think you realise how much effort goes into making a game. Bluntly, it would not surprise me in the slightest if they were already working as hard as they can, but seeing as the next update is going to be a fairly major one going by the roadmap, even if they were to cut out all effort to fix bugs, add aesthetic improvements, and anything else that isn't specifically introducing the campaign, it would likely take some time to get done. Because the campaign inherently has to be a pretty major change, adding new AI to control countries, a proper tech tree, and so on and so forth. And personally, I'd rather wait, and let the devs create a well-made update, than have them need to rush out something under major pressure, and have it probably be worse than it could be.

[Gun calliber slider and pen tables]

44 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Variety is very bad from "realism" point btw ^^
as you need separate ammo production and logistics for each of those fancy odd guns.

True, but there's also plenty of historical precedent for calibers that don't fit neatly into the 1" caliber increments that this game currently has. So a fleet could have some of these odd calibers as their guns, such as, for example, some 88mm or 274mm guns. Or even something like the British 7.5" gun, for example. And this concept would make setting such a fleet up quite a bit easier.

 

I will also add, though, that there's some amount of complexity in there as well, for 2 main reasons. First one is of course that guns got lighter and more powerful as time went by caliber-for-caliber. And of course, in terms of weight, the other thing to bear in mind is that it won't be directly proportional to caliber. Because the square-cube law is a massive bitch. It should still be eminently possible to calculate things, though, especially given how much data there is of historical guns.

[Things I'd Like to See In-Game and Potential DLC]

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

This thread is a bit of an oof really. Imagine calling gamers stingy, because they won't frisbee their wallet at their monitors ok.

I get they need monies, but it makes much more sense if they released expansion like DLC's rather than releasing tiny things that should of been in the game in the first place.

Like the first two points you made for example. Either way if they don't provide a good enough product (which judging from progress and communication recently i seriously doubt this will be the case) i will move on to the next thing, if they do ill drop extra monies not exactly hard. 

And im pretty sure the devs themselves as people understand this as well. I intend to support the game since i like it and has huge potential.

Yeah, I mean, signal lights are something which would potentially be a bit complex, but definitely not worth a full-blown DLC. And Camo even less worth it, really. In terms of what *would* be worth an expansion, airplanes in general definitely fits alright, beyond that, potentially either expansions going further back in time, or expansions which allow for even more absurd ships than are currently possible. (something which allows you to create sextuple 16" turrets, for example). I would say expansions in those veins can't go further forward than the early 1950s at the latest, because otherwise you end up having to deal with missiles, which unbalance things quite a bit. 

[>>>Alpha-11 HotFix v84 Feedback<<< (1/4/2020)]

On another note, something which might be interesting specifically for weird dorks like me, would be what I'd call 'complex mode'. Basically, continuing on from the idea of making ships modular, making gun turrets modular to at least a limited extent. This would include being able to input arbitrary gun calibers rather than having the 1" increments, to allow for unusual gun calibers like the 7.5" seen on ships like the Hawkins-class. This could potentially be coupled with being able to choose the size of a propellant charge and shell as well, maybe with some limitations for these to prevent complete absurdity. In order to make it somewhat easier, you could probably have it so that the same assets are still used, but shift automatically with increasing gun caliber.

 

 

Lmao, I just want to have my Yamato actually have 46cm guns rather than 45.7cm, really. 

[>>>Alpha-11 HotFix v84 Feedback<<< (1/4/2020)]

I'm actually just going to casually note, actually, that there were a number of experiments of blind firing throughout the 1920s and 1930s, which were more or less successful depending on the specific case. The best way to make it work in my opinion would be that you need some form of radio communication, along with (assuming that fire control computers become their own thing separated from the rangefinders, which they should), a sufficiently advanced fire control computer, something contemporaneous to, say, the Admiralty table.

[>>>Alpha-11 HotFix v84 Feedback<<< (1/4/2020)]

It looks like the AI ship designer may still need some work, tbh.

[Planning of next updates]

47 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

I dig hextuple turrets lol.

And now, let's consider: in general, any caliber of gun can have any number of guns per turret, so a 20" hextuple turret would theoretically be possible with both your requests and mine. And now, we panic. 

[Planning of next updates]

6 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

We defo need dem quads form dunkerque however.

I hope the next update brings us the dunkerque and alscase hulls, a proper roma hull, some modern DD and CL hulls, and much needed customization options as well (like less limited points of building etc and maybe internal customisation as well which brings it own booms and issues). And older hulls for 1880-1910 too.

And terrain, plus quads, plus 19 and 20inch guns (so we can make H42-H44 and big gun roma and alscase).

With whatever else needed or wanted in the next update.

I mean, really, what we need are 6 gun turrets, so that we can go all-out with craziness and make ourselves some Tillmans. That might be a step or 2 too far, though. 

[Planning of next updates]

2 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Why?

I mean, so that you can make ships like the Lion and Tiger, or like Dunkerque, or so many other different ships that can't reasonably be replicated with the current selection of gun calibers. I'd have thought that that'd be obvious. 

[Planning of next updates]

What I'd like to request would be greater variety in gun calibers than just the inch increments that we have, to provide for one thing the possibility of using metricised gun calibers (like 460mm, 410mm etc. ) and also the possibility of gun calibers that don't fit neatly into 1-inch increments, like the 13.5" guns used on British super-dreadnoughts and battlecruisers. 

[>>>"Alpha-1 v.60+" General Feedback<<< [LATEST UPDATE: v61, 10/10/2019]]

I bought this game today and thus, consider this just an early stage of feedback: 
I very much enjoyed this game, the ship designer is something which I've been looking for for a long time in terms of it's functionality, the historicity of parts is great and the combat system, while I'm still incompetent at it, is quite interesting. There are three things which I'd love to see. It should be noted that neither of these are necessary, but they are things I'd be quite interested in seeing. The first would be the introduction of some sort of sandbox mode where you don't have any sort of tech or money barriers but can just design your ship or ships as you see fit, and then create a battle with custom fleets on both sides. This would give people a chance to learn how to design ships well in a fairly risk-free environment. The other thing would be increased customization options for guns and turrets, like adding longer barrels or the possibility of increased elevation from the turrets. The last would be the possibility of choosing what country you're serving in in the Naval Academy missions.