Hellstrike

Due to the Yamato-style mounts, it is impossible to place secondary guns on a lot of Japanese heavy cruisers, even with +10% beam. Some other nations also have that issue, but usually it is possible to at least fit some secondaries. Although 5 inch ones are impossible for most nations.

I don't care about CVs, but I want to add AA guns on my ships. Often you are left with a whole bunch of empty space that would be perfect for an AA gun emplacement, or three. Even if they are purely visual at this point (although raking a destroyer with copious amounts of automatic fire should also do a number on it).

Likewise, twin and triple guns of the same type. If you try to recreate a 2-3-3-2 or 3-2-2-3 arrangement (or something like the De Ruyter's 2-1-2-2), you will be stuck with seperate batteries for bracketing purposes. And I get that the game balances more barrels with reduced accuracy, but for finding the range it should not matter.

I think that weekly Dev Diaries like Paradox used to do them are a bit much to ask for from a small dev team, but maybe a (bi)-weekly update in bulletin points (eg "fixed three hulls, set naval bases in the Adriatic, tested changes to torpedoes, outlined how to implement more calibers without clogging the game") would do wonders since it gives the community a picture of what's going on without needing hours of work just for an announcement.

"Cruisers needed" is badly balanced and the heavy cruiser hulls are very restrictive due to the large towers and the boats in the middle. The battleship I'm supposed to save sinks before my cruisers can show up in 1/2 of the cases, turning away takes too long (the BB is sunk or badly mauled before it can even try to run towards the cruisers). Torpedo cruisers are even worse because by the time a torpedo makes it to the French BB (long range shot) or you can get point-blank, the Italian BB is scrap. And as stupid as it sounds, simply slapping a pair of triple 18"s worked way better than any even slightly realistic (large) cruiser I tried to build.

I think that some turret techs should be restriced. Triple turrets for destroyers appear way too early and allow the AI to build massivly overgunned ships compared to historical counterparts. Also, can you add 150mm (basically 6 inch) guns to German destroyers? I know that they were kinda bad, but it would be intersting to see if the player can come up with a suitable design which makes them work.

They would probably make for good, expendable costal defenses as well as sub-hunters once that gets introduced. The German ones carried 37mm cannons, which for this game's purpose could be recycled as simple 2" guns until we get the 37 and 40mm AA guns. At 100 tons, they would be pretty light and even two or three hits from a 3" would be enough to wreck it. They would probably be an useful asset to defend harbours and the like in the campaign because they are dirt cheap. Mabye to be thrown against an hostile landing force in the hope of sinking a troop transport or two. Maybe even as commerce raiders in costal waters or in the Med.

I have enjoyed playing around with this patch a lot. Most ships which existed IRL can be recreated, although sometimes not with their original nation (the Yubari hull makes for a good Arethusa). One thing which I've noticed is that the AI tends to spam secondary and tertiary batteries, even on destoyers. I also see way too few 5 inch guns on them, because the AI decides that triple 4" are better. And 8x3 3" for some reason. The other thing I noticed (again) is that all torpedo launchers are grouped together when it comes to reloads. So there is no benefit in having them on each side as you cannot fire and then turn to fire the other side. Occasionally, launchers misfire (only one torpedo is launched from a x3 or x4), sometimes entire groups get off one torpedo and then cycle.

I think that they have a plan in a drawer somewhere, even if only to have a rough estimate of how much work would be required. It would probably be too vague to put things in motion without further thought, but I am convinced that they have at least an outline of what they want with carriers and what kind of work needs to be done.

The only two parts which are currently not in game is the one barbette/belt torpedo tube thing appearing and the dreadnought style wing turrets being added. Everything else is just a size change as it currently happens when you adjust displacement and can be recreated in the game as it is by said displacement slider or by switching hull types.

Guys, I feel like one thing you're forgetting while comparing gun accuracy in-game is that various hulls have different stats. A BB is generally more stable, that's why the same gun is more effective on a BB than on a CA. And the tower usually offers better base accuracy as well. Because the game includes those factors in the tooltip AFAIK. Whether or not those stats are accurate is a different question, but this whole debate overlooked the reasons why guy accuracy is different IN-game.

We would only need one Hull to replicate most designs pretty accurately. A Fletcher/Type 1934/Minsk can be turned into most A/B/P/X/Y and A/B/X/Y ships, from the G class to a Benson.

Spotter planes or even primitive fighters were used early on in naval warfare, no one is denying that. But their implementation will be tricky because you need to program AA as well, scaling planes and introduce guns below 2 inches. They will be added eventually (the secondary gun icon while building a DD already shows an AA gun), but I don't think that spotting planes HAVE to be added before the campaign (that's what this thread is about after all).

I think that you're forgetting about the fact that most nations did not have triple turrets in those calibres, and even the British one (found aboard some battle cruisers after WWI) was not a good system because the traverse was too slow. I'm not sure if that will eventually be reflected in this game, but it remains likely. On top of that, they required more crew (not implemented yet) and were more expensive, both initially and to maintain. Displacement/weight is the other limiting factor. Not to mention that this much top weight would make the ship very unstable and therefore reduce accuracy and the benefit of the additional barrels (they already are less accurate by default AND take longer to reload). The amount of shells on target might not change significantly, despite the additional dakka. And the width of turrets has been criticised a lot, especially for smaller calibres. The double looks fine, the single mounts are quite roomy and the crew wouldn't fit in the triple one, or would be very uncomfortable (reducing effectiveness).

I agree in so far that it's not a question whether we'll get enough hulls eventually. I just think that even two or three should be added before the campaign in order to allow us to build more competitive, somewhat realistical light ships in the late game. Here's what I'd consider crucial: - All centerline cruiser, can accommodate 4-8 guns in single mounts. This should cover everything from the C Class to the Kuma and cover the time between 1914 and 1930. - Light CL, capable of supporting A-B-X-Y turrets so that you can recreate everything from an Arethusa up to a Nürnberg or a Condottieri. A lot cheaper than just using an existing CA hull. Ideal for convoy escorts and oversea duties. - Heavy CL, can even be a copy of the CA hull we have. For the Brooklyn, Mogami or even Worcester. - A-B-P-X-Y DD, for everything from the G Class to the Minsk, Fletcher or Type 1934. Basically the standard DD for the interwar period. - A new superstructure for the last DD hull to accommodate superfiring forward turrets. That one should take the least amount of work.