[A review and new system for gun turrets/barbettes plus other ideas]

5 hours ago, disc said:

To be ultra-pedantic, plenty of Royal Navy ships with octuple 40mm pom-poms or sextuple 40mm Bofors. One may also consider the rotatable versions of the Hedgehog anti-submarine mortar, and technically many torpedo launchers are guns, too. These would be called mounts, not turrets, but that's sort of quibbling too.

In a more grounded sense, no, there were no naval vessels that I know of with more than four big guns in one turret.

 

Curiously, though it is often said that a heavy weight far forward or far aft on a ship contributes to pitch, this is not actually true, according to DK Brown, the famous ship constructor. This was a common misconception through the predreadnought era, til some better science proved otherwise.

It does, however, contribute to hull stress, which can be severe. That's not in the game, though, so I think this is an appropriate abstraction.

 

I don't think we should limit the players from building idiotic designs with 3x6 super-super-firing turrets. Just give them appropriate negative modifiers, and the "problem" will solve itself. It's not like these were strict physical impossibilities, they just required too extreme of trade-offs for big guns. They would be fun to build and play around with in a video game.

On the other hand, I think the auto-generated enemies should have restrictions. The computer is pretty stupid.

Yeah I was thinking over another concept about stresses and top weight etc tom devote a topic too, to make the player really feel that they are engineering the ship itself.  

[A review and new system for gun turrets/barbettes plus other ideas]

4 hours ago, akd said:

Actually built? No.  Sketched after too much vino? Yes.

https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/ferrettis-10381-in-quintuples-battleship-design/

Oh my... 

Yeah maybe they should not implement turrets above 4 guns at all XD

 

[A review and new system for gun turrets/barbettes plus other ideas]

Also quick question to anyone who might know, have there been any cases of a ship being actually built with turrets that have more than 4 guns in them (no matter the caliber)? Just wondering if I may need to expand the table for barbettes.

[A review and new system for gun turrets/barbettes plus other ideas]

8 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Let me preface that I think all your ideas are really good. The barbette/superstructure/turret placement mechanics have been argued a lot of times in the forum, it's clear the system is not flexible enough (not by far), and the devs are on it. I'm sure we'll see changes on it in the future and your suggestions could very well be some of those changes, as all of them are solid, well argumented, historically accurate and well explained.

This part I quoted, but I'm referencing to your suggestion to "stack the barbettes" in the poll, however.

But referring to the quote itself, there were no cases of over-the-deck barbettes on the wing turrets of any main battery of any warship of the era that I can recall (you can me correct me on this one, but I'm almost 100% sure of it). There were cases of some battleship side-mounted secondaries raised to quite high levels, though, so that'd be perfectly fine. I think the 203mm cutoff you put is a very generous one. I know the Lexingtons had it but those were CVs and we don't have them in the game (and probably won't for a very long time to come). So...I'm...not sure about that one. I'd put the cut-off at a lower end, maybe 6'' guns.
Otherwise I can see the AI going absolute balls-wild with turreted side 8'' secondaries that make no sense and would be massively immersion-breaking in the campaign. Which is a serious concern, at least from my standpoint.


But back to what I wanted to say about the super-mounting of barbettes. Super-superfiring weapons weren't common, and those that existed were of small caliber (I consider anything up to 6'' caliber "small caliber"). They had the potential to add a ton of topweight and unstability. So unless our ships are modelled with the inherent trait of being able to just roll over on moved seas because we built them with far too much topweight - main battery guns on super-superfiring positions should not be a thing in this game ;).

I of course know about the Atlantas, and about some battleships and cruisers mounting secondary turrets in super-superfiring positions. The Yamatos had a triple 6'' mounted just behind the A and B turret, for instance. And there are more instances of secondaries mounted like that, as in the clevelands or baltimores. So it was a thing and should be here aswell.
But that's it- stacking barbettes should be restricted to strictly secondary caliber guns. Again with a top cutoff of 6'' caliber for them. 

Other than that, all your ideas are really good and I'm sure in some form or another, we'll end up with very similar mechanics for the designer in the future :).

Thanks for commenting!

Yeah that makes sense for the side barbettes to have a lower limit, as AI would probably take advantage of that. Ill also make it clear that you cannot double stack side mounted barbettes. The only case I could see that happening is really late game with duel 100mm AA guns as seen on the Jean Bart when she was commissioned the in 1950s (currently outside of this games time frame).  

As for stacking the centerline barrettes, triple 6 inch size is a fairly historical limit (as seen on the Yamato) so therefore i'll make that clear in the OP.

 

[A review and new system for gun turrets/barbettes plus other ideas]

3 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

I suspect there are two things separating our perspectives. First, while I do like realism, I don't place a lot of weight in reproducing a historical ship exactly, and I suspect most players will too once the novelty goes off. You create the perfect HMS Hood or HMS Vanguard replica and send it into battle. The enemy's "Super Battleship" or "Modern Battleship" smashes it to pieces with its 18 inch guns. After that, you'll probably think much more about what gives you an edge in the game than perfect replicas that you won't even spend a lot of time admiring anyway, because most of the time you are zoomed out trying to manage the fight. Having realistic overall capabilities and results is much more important.

One example is a certain player who demanded a specialized light cruiser hull so he can recreate HMS Arethusa (another wanted USS Atlanta) with 8 6-inch and 16 5-inch guns respectively. All I can think of from here are unintended consequences like 24-gun (3x8) ships. And I think the current destroyers that already allow 12 5-inch guns is quite enough to represent that part of the bracket.

The second thing is that I don't buy the whole "It's for the AI" argument. The complexities of making a campaign ship notwithstanding, creating a good ship for Custom Battle is something the AI should be good at and wouldn't need fixed spots. In the above example, it should be able to easily wargame out the dreadful effects of 18 11-inch guns because it knows all the formulae it will use and reject that option. Because the range is given, it should be able to easily wargame out what would give it the best overall damage potential and then what combination of speed and armor can best neuter my damage potential (isn't it obvious the only two real bulkhead variants are Many and Maximum?). I can't help but think they are letting us win with the current builds, rather than the best the AI could really manage.

I think those limits are for us players. In above example, I actually briefly tried the Ctrl trick the first time but for one reason or another I couldn't get a green. The mounting points do still discourage you from the three turret, and because the tower can't be moved freely with the Ctrl trick at least I can't put cram a fourth in there. At least the possibility should be further investigated before just saying "I want complete freedom to build my Arethusa" or my imaginary design.

Further is the problem of equality and challenge. People seem to really mind when the AI gets advantages, but when it is their advantage, they don't. Besides, if setting some limits reduces our advantage and makes it more challenging, that's also a factor to consider.

Maybe an option is a "historic mode" you can click. When that setting is on, the placement becomes free, BUT you are restricted from using ahistorical equipment. For example, if you click on it when you are the UK, you get free placement, but 17 and 18 inches become singles only (no G3 replicas, sorry), 16 inches become triple only, 15 inches are twins only, you can only use 6-inch triples on CA, not CL, and so on and so on. Since the game already blocks equipment from selection based on year and other factors, hopefully this won't be a hard program module.

Oh no I dont intend to make replicas, I intend to make unique designs that hopefully take the best from that time period and put it all into an effective platform. But I also want it to be very mush set in a realistic manner. There shouldn't be a god tier weapon, it should follow like real life, with advantages and disadvantages, trying to find the best combination. But you should not be restricted by these anchor points where the hull can clearly support them. It should be almost like your sorting out the engineering behind the ship yourself, load up the front of the ship to much, you risk snapping the keel. Put too much weight up hight, your not gonna like storms. Everything should be counterbalanced, not just restricted yo a point where it can never be a problem. 

I actually fully agree with you on the AI argument there, thank you for pointing that out. 

[Will support aircraft be added into the game?]

2 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Thanks. I suspect it won't matter given people are unlikely to revisit and change their votes, but appreciate you taking the time to do it.

There already was a CV thread. I suspect adding it here is going to confuse things.

General rule of polling? Work out what you want to know and from whom, limit the scope, ask clear and unambiguous rather than potentially misleading questions.

Cheers

fair enough ill remove the CV question, leave that for my CV thread

 

[Planning of next updates]

I would perfer this to be implemented soon:

 

[Will support aircraft be added into the game?]

I have tweaked the polls as suggested

[A review and new system for gun turrets/barbettes plus other ideas]

4 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

You know, the more I poke around this game, the more I find the devs might have had something in mind for using limited mounting points. Consider this picture:

Note how thanks to the limited mounting points, I am stopped from the atrocity of concentrating 3 11-inch turret on the bow of a relatively small, 17000 ton hull, even with the tower at the rearmost point. If I had been permitted to use anywhere on the line, that red turret would have just fit and I could easily make a ship with five 11 inch gun turrets on a mere 17000 ton displacement hull.

I suppose it is to make those three fixed barbettes look less conspicuous, but it's not clear you are being charged for the extra weight. What's clear is that the space is being put to good use. It is said that counting everything a triple should be worth about 2.5 single guns. In this game, a quick check suggests it is closer to about 1.8-1.9. So either we are seeing particularly ergonomic single turrets or particularly cramped triple turrets.

If we are going to modify the barbettes, we might as well get rid of them entirely, and just give the option to "extend" the turrets for superfiring. That way, we won't have to fool around with tables (besides, what about Scharnhorst's 3 11-inch to 2 15-inch?)

It'll be less fun when some player turns your intended 8 mounting points for 5-inch doubles into 8-mounting points for 8-inch triples

But I would like an armor viewer. If it is not too much trouble, that is.

I think players should be able to play around with these relatively weird/nuts ideas, but they should be restricted just like in real life, so if you had gone with that set up, something like your hull strength would be dropped considerably. Along with other factors like that. 

Yes extending the barbettes automatically would be ideal, I just figured this solution would be easier to implement due to not having to make a programme to auto detect and create barbettes. However I may be wrong.

Scharnhorst's 3 11-inch turrets are a very interesting case, they were actually built extremely wide and spacious, more than was necessary for tiple 11s. Done with the possibly to refit at a later date. For more information on this I suggest looking at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD6pgMf1TTM

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

Current limited nodes are more likely to a ‘Auto-Build’ programming issue rather than a player interface issue which is already control by costs, weights, offsets and tech level. The same for side mounted barbettes, there auto-resolved ability probably hasn’t been developed yet.

 

Have you seen some of the game "atrocity" of inserting tiny calibres in between mains! and to mention, dotting small calibres all over modern hulls, in this case beauty is in the eye of the beholder…designer. As @akd said, there's no interference with C turret so you can move B back alittle. 

 

I feel the auto build problem could be solved by restricting what the auto builder can do with the system we have not, but have the builder set up differently like it has been suggested here just for players?

[Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts Beautiful Screenshots and Videos]

double post please ignore

 

[Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts Beautiful Screenshots and Videos]

My new Austro-Hungarian battlecruiser SMS Kaiserin, pretty much a fast battleship with 13 inch belt and turret, decks upto 5+ inches, does 30 knots and has 4 twin 12 inch guns. 

(Too bad there a limit to the amount of photos to be able to post)

 

 

[Will support aircraft be added into the game?]

On 1/15/2020 at 5:16 PM, Steeltrap said:

As a general comment on polls, I have worked on them (internal/staff and external/customer directed) for major corporations in the past and I can attest writing good ones is not as simple as it seems.

One thing, for example, is you ALWAYS ought to provide a "don't know/undecided/want more info" option. Faced with a blunt yes or no, most people will vote 'yes' if the topic is something they think they might want, even if they do so simply to avoid being seen as saying they don't want it and influencing the devs to rule it out.

If I reveal the results on this, we have 33 votes with 87.88% (29) choosing "yeah". That's no surprise whatsoever, in part due to what I said above. To be blunt, the more a poll delivers a massively one-sided result the less valuable it is; commonly due to the topic or potential flaws in its design, or both.

The problem I have with polls like this is they are generally inadequate in their specifics.

What, for example, is meant by "support aircraft"? Does that include the "fire and forget" fighters mounted on ships in convoys, especially the Arctic ones, designed to intercept scouts like the Fw Condor either to drive them off or hopefully shoot them down? 

I'm not at all having a go at you for putting up the poll, it's just I find it mildly frustrating that people say "yes" without having enough relevant info to make an informed choice.

Let's face it, most of us are ALWAYS happy to have more features and toys, lol, so I'm not saying I'm any different from everyone else. 😁

If we ARE going to make polls like this, we owe it to each other AND the devs to flesh out what we mean BEFORE we ask the questions.

I'd suggest saying "we want another bunch of things that require development work but we've no specifics so you work it out" is not very helpful, lol.

 

This was pretty much exactly the point I was making over and over in the "should CVs be included" thread. If you implement them accurately, they alter the nature of naval warfare irrevocably.

Bear in mind, too, that whatever ends up on a CV starts off as land based. Not especially relevant in the Pacific, but anywhere you're operating within land based range it is. That's a large zone around Europe including the Med.

I have no particular issue with scout planes. My own preference is they add to the ability to spot things at the strategic map level but have NO role in combat. I know spotting planes were used quite a bit with shore bombardments, but I don't recall them being common or significant in the ship v ship gunnery combat that occurred in WW2, and the 40s are the "end game".

Cheers

p.s. I didn't vote because an "undecided/need more info" option wasn't available.

Oh thank you for letting me know about this i'll tweak this right away chur for that! 

Also fyi for people who are interested, made a topic regarding turrets and barbettes here:

 

[>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<]

I made a topic on my main issues regarding the ship designer (turret diameters and barbettes) here:

 

[A review and new system for gun turrets/barbettes plus other ideas]

Hi there.

I've been playing the game recently and have been enjoying it thoroughly, as I am a naval history nut, this is extremely interesting for me. I love the idea of building your own ships and taking the best ideas forward that have already been proven in real life. The combat I also enjoy, and is only bound to get better. 

However I have a couple problems with the shipbuilder that does strictly prohibit design choices and ideas. The main ones being anchor points for superstructures and barbettes and the turret/barbette diameter.  First I will start with superstructure anchor points. I know this has been covered before by many others but I will just quickly reiterate it again, the superstructure problem can be simply fixed by increasing the amount of anchor points along the length of the hull, where the hull can reasonably sustain it, like a line up the centre between two cut off points. This will enable players to play around with designs from Nelson and G3 class to the Nurnberg cruiser layout. For example: 

Barbette position would act a little different, kind of...

First off barbettes will be split into two categories, centreline and side mounted. Just like the gun turrets. The centreline barbettes will have essentially an increased amount of anchor points like in the picture above, but the points will extend all the way to where gun turrets are limited to. These barbettes when, holding down the left ctrl button, should also be able to do what gun turrets can do and be fine tuned in their place meant along the centre of the ship. 

Side mounted barbettes will be able to be placed like side mounted gun turrets, however their max diameter will only be able to hold upto 6 Inch sized gun turrets (as pointed out by @RAMJB any larger gun diameter the AI may overly take advantage of). 

 

Now onto the next problem regarding barbettes. Diameter size relative to gun caliber and number. 

 

See what I mean? These gun turrets are all equipped with the same 14 inch weapon. However they all have the same barbette diameter, which is unrealistic and annoying for ship building. The point of choosing a smaller number of guns in a turret is to reduce barbette diameter to help save weight, and to also keep the ships center of gravity lower down (increasing stability). This can be seen on the King George V class, and the conte di cavour class:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another problem is the limited size options for barbettes, just being three, which leads to designs like this: 

Both turrets are equipped with 15 inch guns. However for a 15 inch gun to be superfiring at the moment, the only barbette that can take that is the largest option, which is directly derived from yamato's triple 18 turrets, therefore being way bigger than needed for a twin 15 inch turret, (barbettes were designed to only be as big as they needed to be and nothing more, as seen in the real pictures).  

Therefore I suggest barbette size should be based on not only the caliber of guns but also the number of guns in a turret. The ratio can be worked out by looking into historical conversion plans. The north carolina class battleship was actually originally planned to be equipped with 3 quadruple 14 inch gun turrets due to the second london naval treaty of 1935. However they were upgunned to triple 16 inch turrets after Japan didn't sign the treaty. The same is said for Japanese heavy cruisers of the mogami class, going from triple 6 inch turrets to twin 8 inch turrets. Therefore we can assume roughly that for an increase in gun size for every 2 inches leads to one less gun in the turret for the same barbette size, eg:

 

This will mean players can have appropriately size barbettes for the equivalent gun size and number of guns in each turret. 

Also the ability to stack centerline barbettes upto triple 6 Inch gun turret size would also be allowed, so ships like the USS Atlanta and the secondaries on Yamato can be created. This stacking ability has a limit of 6 Inch weapons, as although the barbette can fit dual 8 inch guns, it (from my knowledge) has never been done historically, so therefore will not be allowed. Another thing to note is that you cannot stack side mounted barbettes, this is only a feature of lighter centerline barbettes. 

Final main thing to cover would be the ability to see the barbette armour in the ship builder (and overall armor of the ship). As well as the ability to determine the barbette armour itself both above and behind the main armour belt. It would look similar to the damage model we see in combat:

    

Another idea that popped up while making WW1 style ships was trying to make it easier to replicate the echelon layout. When a side mounted large caliber turret is placed, individually (without the auto mirror option), a line of anchor points would appear on the other side of the ship at the exact same distance as the turret from the center of the ship but mirrored, plus there would be two highlighted options, one being the exact mirror and the second being a reflection from the center of mass. This should have no lateral instability (assuming you are placing the same gun turret), eg:   

This suggestion also uses left ctrl to finetune the position of the turret, but you are locked into moving your turret only lengthways up and down the ship to make sure you keep the stability. If you want to widen your echelon layout, you have to move the original turret and replace the second one. 

I hope you have enjoyed reading my proposal and vote on the polls. 

Cheers. 

 

[Could not get game access details error]

Hi there.

I bought the game recently and have been playing it. However I tried logging in and it gives me the "Could not get game access details, please try again" every time I try to log in.

Cheers.

 

[>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<]

Will there be mod support? 

Just look at what good mods have done for kerbal space program, from players making extra parts, to changing it into a warfare game, to a full-on realistic spaceflight simulator.

Even if the only mod support allowed would be the ability to allow players to include their own home grown parts onto the game, would give an endless amount of possibilities on ship design.

 

[Will support aircraft be added into the game?]

21 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@Whomst'd've Battle are not lasting longer than plane endurance. We do not need to see seaplanes take off or land. My suggestion had the aim to make planes as easy to implement as possible for dev. I would find it perfectly acceptable if all of the plane stuff happen out of combat mode.

Even if the plane stuff was happening outside of combat mode, stopping the vessel to pick up the aircraft should be implemented, else lose the aircraft. I would imagine in a chasing scenario where the fleeing ship is faced with the problem of stopping the vessel to pick up their recon bonus and risk being caught, or losing that recon bonus and risk being jumped should be a problem that players have to face. And if the plane were to run out of fuel in combat mode, well that would make a very interesting problem for players to deal with (even if it would only happen in a relatively rear and drawn out engagement). Players may have to adopt real life tactics to deal with these problems. 

 

[Refits]

Refits regarding towers/superstructures should definitely be allowed in the complete campaign, as well as the refitting of boiler/engine rooms. That would enable players to pull off what was done to Renown, Warspite, Kongo, Pennsylvania etc. Taking what would be an obsolete vessel and bringing them back up to a competitive state. As for refits regarding main guns, you will notice all the ships mentioned did not have their main weapons changed, exactly for the reasons stated by @RAMJB. Refits regarding main weapons should be restricted to what was done on HMS Vanguard, where her old turrets were cut to give the ability to elevate the guns to 30°, modernized the power and operating systems of the turret and upgraded the rangefinders. The only exception to this would be boring out the main guns to increase the caliber of shell fired at the cost of accuracy and gun barrel life (as what was done to Italian battleship Giulio Cesare, where her original 305mm (12 inch) guns were bored out to 320mm (12.6 inch)), or what was done with the Mogami class cruiser.  

[Will support aircraft be added into the game?]

15 hours ago, gunnyfreak said:

like... would I like for them to be added... yes? Aircraft carriers were a big part of naval engagements in the second world war and I'd like for that to be simulated. That said though, This is a game primarily about dreadnoughts, and I'd not like too much attention to be dedicated into making a carrier command game here.

 

maybe aircrafts can be included, but only as off-map support -- if a CV is in the mission area, you can choose to have her launch flights into the mission as support (if you order them at the start, they'll be available. If you order them later, they'll take some time, potentially hours, to arrive) and command of aircraft would only be limited to simple things like choose target, choose attack/retreat, etc. Then, in campaign, there can be missions where CVs are hunted much like TR's, where they're more-or-less vulnerable units for gunships to protect. It won't be entirely realistic since launching aircrafts while enemy ships are something like 20km away is (probably) an entirely realistic prospect, but that might strike a good balance between "having aircrafts" and "keeping focus on battleships".

I do think CV's should if nothing else provide off-map support though, aircraft ranges should be far more than what in-game battles actually cover.

I was not really intending to talk about CVs in this topic, just support aircraft u would see carried by cruisers etc. CVs have been discussed in the topic I linked in my OP. 

10 hours ago, RedParadize said:

I have no idea what is their plan are on this topic. As far as I am aware of they never mentioned anything on the subject I would say its probably not planned. Given time and resource they have I would say yes and no, but mostly no. No as active combatant in combat. Yes in campaign and as a passive in combat. I have few suggestion on how it could be implemented at a limited cost:

Passive bonus in combat:
Have deck catapult that provide passive sight and aiming bonus in combat. We do not need to see the aircraft take off or fly. Trough having a plane fly in circle out of AA range could be quite cheap to do.

Campaign only Air combat:
Have carrier, air strike and air combat, but only on the campaign strategic map. When a Air strike hit a fleet, ship AA is taken into consideration. If a ship will get hit by a air strike it will start already damaged when battle start.

That should be relatively easy to do. Then, maybe real air combat could be added in a DLC or expansion. I would find it acceptable.

This is more what I intended. Passive bonuses rather than active ones. 

I would imagine having aircraft handling facilities means you could launch spotter aircraft to increase overall spotting range and also increase the accuracy of main caliber weapons over extended ranges. Downsides to carrying spotter aircraft is having to stop the entire ship in order to retrieve the  aircraft. As well as only having a limited number of these aircraft, and therefore will be required to return to a base to replace aircraft. 

We also know that in the main campaign that submarines will be making an appearance as non-player controlled vessels (from what I last heard), which brings another use for spotter planes. They could spot and direct assets to deal with submarines, and maybe potentially deal with them on their own. That latter part was what HMS Warspite's swordfish floatplane managed to do, sinking the german U-boat U-64, becoming the first aircraft to sink a U-boat in the war. 

And it's not like these aircraft will be essential to winning battles, they are weather dependent, only provide passive bonuses, can be shot down, must return to land to replace, must stop the vessel to retrieve else the lose the plane and late game they become obsolete to advanced radar, sonar and fire control systems. Plus only larger ships can actually handle and operate these planes, the smallest being light cruisers of the Arethusa class and similar. 

[Will support aircraft be added into the game?]

Hi there. 

I have made a previous topic regarding whether aircraft carriers should be added late game. And polls generally reflected that they should be added, reading the topic also pointed out a recurring trend: "It's complicated". Which to be honest, it is. If you want to read the discussions then head over to that topic here:

However in this topic I'm not here to discuss Aircraft carriers themselves but rather more on the support roles that these planes could fill. Could planes be added as spotters for the battlefleet late game? Could they be used for reconnaissance in the main campaign?  

I would support the introduction of aircraft in a light supporting role not only for the benefits as historically provided in the appropriate time era, but also the respective  influence on shit design. Now Players will have to worry about shooting down these pesky aircraft, hence, will have to devote displacement and money to suitable AA protection. This can be achieved through the use of AA guns, as well as fire controls systems, range finding and radar systems etc. This will essentially lead to more historical ships, with players having to balance anti surface ability and anti air ability (but not to the extent as IRL). And hence a Iowa superstructure covered in anti surface weapons is no longer a great idea. This will also introduce the use of aircraft handling facilities in order to operate these spotter/reconnaissance planes, which themselves coming in all different shapes and sizes (From the setups seen on british capital ships like a refit Warspite, to japanese styles seen on the heavy cruiser Tone).      

Cheers.

[Will aircraft carriers be added to the game?]

Wow this topic really blew up!

I feel aircraft threats at the very least should be added to the game during the correct time period, because in war ship design, dealing with aircraft became a very important part of the process (just low at the Iowa class AA gun wise). Seeing a Yamato superstructure covered with anti-surface weapons just reminds me of the old French pre-dreadnoughts with their insane amount of variation in gun calibers.   

[Will aircraft carriers be added to the game?]

On 10/21/2019 at 9:26 AM, Diabolic_Wave said:

Abstract function sounds good to me tbh. After all- you don't really want to get your CV within range of enemy guns, since in a fleet engagement where neither side can run away effectively the CV is going to get caught and sunk. Better as an abstract fleet unit that maybe you design, but that doesn't do anything in combat per se. Then again, it could be fun to sink one after dealing with escorts, and smaller carriers were used pretty heavily in anti-submarine escort roles.

Although I would prefer to actually control aircraft carriers directly, I would not mind them being abstract, as that requires the player to build the ship with AA in mind as well, which will make the later ships considerably more realistic.  

[Will aircraft carriers be added to the game?]

Hi all!

I have been watching this game being played by a few youtubers and has sparked interest as I'm quite the naval enthusiast.

I tried looking for a Q&A topic on the forums and could not seem to find one. If there is one and I'm blind, please do share a link, else it could be a good thing to introduce to let players know where the game is to be heading and to answer any queries.

However as there is none that I cannot find I will just post my question here: Will Aircraft carriers be introduced into the game?

This is quite a big question regarding ship design in the latter stages. In the early stages where aircraft dont exist yet, all is fine. But later on where the 1930s plus period come around, the ships look quite off not having any anti-aircraft weapons on board as there is no need for them. Especially a Yamoto hull when the superstructure is loaded with anti-surface guns. Also on the topic of aircraft, will aircraft handling facilities be added so the larger hull types? And will aircraft themselves (if added) be chosen from select types or have a degree of customizable options to them? 

Cheers.