Cpt.Hissy

it's Gamey Gunbarge, unique class that exists only in videogames 'cause in real life physics exist.

French in that time aren't famous for good turret designs though... Or ships..

Win10? It does that [Shift]+[Win]+[S] and see the magic unfold. Or [win]+[G] for different kind of magic.

@Hardlec could you show your raiders please? Now trying this battle multiple times, I notice that my raiders are almost the same every time.

Trying it more I don't know how is this a cruiser, looks like gunbarge to me. But again, all 8" guns. Many bulkheads, 30 knots speed, basically no armor. Some torpedoes and secondaries. Normal cruiser, just stupid lot of guns. * correction. These were two classes as turned out. One had less bulkheads but 9" centerline guns, other more bulkheads but all 8" guns, otherwise very close.

If we'll dig a bit deeper, there is possibility to have exact same gun in different types of mounts with some of them having central firing control and others not, or ones working better than others. But that's not turret sizes or number of barrels, that's specifically different types of mount. Reload speed also may differ between turrets, accuracy (dispersion of shot) may and probably should. But firing solution has no reasons to be separated.

All offsets can be accounted for in fire control system, as all guns are static in relation to other parts of the system. There should be no such thing as separate fire control for separate turrets. That's all.

Pure luck i say! or simply because it is made out of Hood parts and you can't make it being a normal ship and not looking like Hood?

Except not really? Secondary turrets do everything mains can do, without this split. Looks more like artifact of early prototype from when they for some reason needed to be separated.

As it stands now, each part could simply have some predetermined "signature" value attached to it, an entire ship is just sum of it's parts

Good point, except this "displacement (a reasonable proxy for silhouette)" - maybe not necessary, heavier ship can be visually smaller.

^^^ he's probably right, unfortunately. On that nonsense is here to stay. None of the nonsense had any attention yet, except torpedoes (which aren't a nonsence but just arcadish thing) . Although current implementation is optimal way to do AI "sight" for games so it would be there anyway, and it's easily possible to adjust existing mechanic to work more "realistically" by just changing a bunch of multipliers here and there. Let's hope. Couple relevant thoughts, just some half-educated guessing with no proofs though. Correct me if i'm wrong, i wanna learn. -Range where you can

Mechanic is necessary, but it should be "balanced" differently, more dependent on your crew abilities, spotting equipment (and radar later on) and weather conditions and much MUCH less dependent on just "better tower" or ship class. They do it utterly wrong now. Aalso needs better visual representation for "forg of war" or it'll always feel that ships pop in out of nowhere, even if the ranges will be proper.

Most processes interact not with the mesh, but with let's call it entity(think different engines etc. may use different names), to which mesh is just one of many linked but independent data sets, colliders being another. For most cases, all that's needed for some function is entity coordinates in space or some other separately added data, and it's shape doesn't matter. Doing anything with 3d models almost doesn't matter for game's functionality. for the rest part, you even don't see what i'm talking about.. but it doesn't matter much as neither of us are in dev team or can influence it. le

Welp, i admit, went too far. Sorry. Midnight talks are ba idea, need sleep.