monbvol

I have also noticed that above waterline torpedoes have trouble when mounted on armored cruisers, especially if using a centerline position. It is most likely because these ships normally cannot mount above waterline torpedoes. Hopefully we'll have some options to do this next patch as numerous armored/heavy cruisers of the treaty period had above waterline torpedo mounts.

Thanks for the update. And at least for me I won't complain if it takes a bit longer as I'd rather have something quality than something quick.

Perhaps as an alternative that I know wouldn't be too hard, make a keybinding to toggle as desired. Because right now you can set the measure as you like from the menu then if you want the other measure use the option menu but that is a bit of an undesirable option to be fair. Only mention it because it is a short term work around we can use for now. But make it a key press and even if it isn't showing both at the same time it switches over more readily. That would seem a reasonable compromise to me without creating new issues for display/text boxes and other possible layout/programming considerations.

Only problem I've had so far is the text size is far too small to read at higher resolutions for my aging eyes. Won't surprise me if there is already a setting to fix that which I have thus far overlooked.

I am having a hard time waiting for this patch but I would rather the devs take their time and give us a quality game. The thing I want to try out the most will be seeing what I can do for replicating the various Treaty Cruisers since that should be more doable next patch.

Which is why I think an armor viewer would be nice but isn't critical at this stage. It is certainly more important we do have ways of actually testing the mechanics, which does mean control over variables would be good.

I will agree with the idea it would be nice even if it was for the player's ships only to know where is armored and to what degree that such a feature is still a would be nice versus must have feature. It would be an interesting feature to possibly eventually add to the campaign that your intelligence agents steal the official blueprints/build information for enemy ships or even their gun tests but again that is something that can wait. Scope creep is something that does need to be kept in check too, especially so with as small as a development team is involved in this game as there is.

I would second the motion that we need a clearer idea of what the intended mechanics are to be. To build on that I would highly recommend priority be giving to developing what is essentially a firing range mission/mode. Ideally this would allow us to test various gun parameters against statically generated targets instead of randomly generated targets. Environment variables being statically ideal would be good too. If we could also be given the ability to determine the number and design the targets ourselves, including the ability to have multiple individual designs in the same mission/mode that would be good too. As an example: set up four DDs as targets, one with no armor, one with 0.5"(12.7mm) armor everywhere, one with 1"(25.4mm), and one with 1.5"(38.1mm) Obviously that is just an example of one possible setup for targets and there should be other possible setups, especially for testing of larger guns. Not sure what would be the easiest way to implement control over the variables of citadel and armor types but those would be important too. Perhaps a way to repeat the ships at certain ranges so we can see the effects of range too. Ultimately the idea would be to reduce/control as many variables as possible so we could give clearer feedback on the guns/shells vs armor model.

I actually suspect it has more to do with the crtl+alt+shift+a option of "Use future config" as I've only ever used "Unlock all parts" before getting this issue. "Unlock all parts" appears in the menu as long as you are outside the Ship Designer while "Ship give all techs" only appears inside. They do have different functions. Just mentioning it as it may be an important distinction for chasing down the bugs. Either way deleting the settings.xml file does indeed seem to remedy this.