I Scouting Group

So the game treated your twin turrets as "secondaries" even though they were of the same caliber as the main battery triples? I suppose it was theoretically possible for ships to split their main battery fire across targets if the turrets were under local control....and perhaps some ships' fire control systems could split main battery fire across multiple targets -- I don't know. I think it's safe to say local control is really only a last resort (because you're not going to hit much) and that splitting main battery fire at best makes you half as likely to hit two targets while each has the same chance to hit you. I think I've read that additional fire control systems are planned for future updates. Things like fire control computers, fire directors, and remote power control for the turrets are all things that I don't think are currently modeled, but rather only rangefinders. More broadly, there are advantages and disadvantages to having more turrets. Four turrets reduces the amount of firepower as a proportion of the total lost if one of the turrets is knocked out, and also creates more balanced firing arcs. Using fewer turrets with more barrels per turret saves weight, allowing armor, speed or both to be increased, or for cost to be lowered. I'm not sure that these tradeoffs fully come to life in this current build, but I'm sure things will get there.

I think you're right about this. I guess I'm saying that rather than have a system in which ships are arbitrarily divided into blocks, the placement of things, including the main belt, should be more fluid and dynamic and less LEGO-like. Otherwise, you're not really "designing" a ship, but rather assembling one.

I've also noticed this, but to not the same extent. My ship will be engaging a target and I'll notice that although the guns are showing as having been reloaded, the main battery is no longer firing. If I re-select the current target, the main guns will fire immediately. The secondary battery seems to be unaffected. Thus far, the problem seems situational and I've no idea what causes it. I'm confident, however, that it's not a product of the guns being set to "safe" because with the ridiculous amount of ammo available right now, there's no real reason to even attempt to conserve ammunition.

I've really been enjoying the game so far in the two or so weeks I've had the early access release and am very excited by what I've seen so far. I think that that's always an important preface to include because I'd never want feedback or suggestions to be disheartening or de-motivating. I think this issue with how all-or-nothing is currently modeled is one of several that exposes how the current system for managing armor does not yet capture the essence of the task at hand. Deciding how to armor a warship is a massively consequential decision that's inextricably linked to several other fundamental design decisions, the most relevant perhaps being the disposition of the main battery and the second most relevant being the length of the hull and the length:beam ratio, which of course has a major impact on speed/propulsion requirements. What's most missing now is a model of the length of the main belt, which should presumably run from the front edge of the foremost turret to the aft edge of the aft-most turret. Using fewer turrets with more guns per turret (3x3 vs. 4x2 or 2x4 -- that is two quads-- vs 4x2) -- or just using fewer turrets period -- should necessarily result in a shortening of the main belt. These savings can either be used to make the belt thicker, make the deck thicker, add armor elsewhere, save weight to increase speed or just to save cost outright. "Belt Extended" is also somewhat ambiguous. Some schemes of course have a main waterline belt and an "upper belt" of lower thickness, or a main belt that tapers as one goes higher. This concept -- i.e. how tall/narrow is the main belt -- is different of course from how long it is fore and aft. At minimum, firmly establishing the minimum length of the belt as a function of the disposition of the main battery (and relatedly making it so that one can't erect turrets forward and aft of the belt as doing so makes no sense) would help better capture the spirit of things. Ideally, there'd be an interface that gave us three buckets: main belt/upper belt with height and thickness for each, and "extended belt", which would represent bow and stern protection, if any.

There's been some great discussion earlier in this thread about the seeming invulnerability of capital ships to shellfire, and after playing a little bit (I just purchased the early access version a few days ago), I'd agree that something being awry with the penetration and damage mechanics is my chief complaint. I'm very excited about the format and concepts of the game and think that there's a tremendous amount of potential here, and I don't mean to sound negative, critical, or unappreciative of all the hard work that has brought things to this point. I've gathered that in the previous build, ships were too easy to sink, which is clearly a problem. The solution, in my mind, is not to "re-balance" things but rather to try to accurately depict reality. The effect of shellfire on the superstructure or unarmored portions of a ship (typically bow and stern) during combat is an interesting and relevant topic but one I'd like to sidestep here as, generally speaking, topside damage is not going to cause a ship to sink unless fires burn out of control and cause a secondary explosion and bow/stern damage is also unlikely to lead to immediate (or relatively immediate) sinking in a well-compartmented warship. In my opinion, "appropriately resistant to damage" would mean that ships should be able to sustain a relatively large number of hits which do not penetrate the armored deck or main belt (or, in cases of ships with an internal armored deck behind the belt -- the "turtleback" -- both the belt and the sloped armored deck). Hits that do penetrate either the deck ("plunging" fire at range) or the main belt should have a much more marked effect on things, even if they are not immediately catastrophic. Last night, I attempted the "Defeat the Semi-Dreadnought" mission. My plan was to optimize main gun firepower and accuracy, design for enough speed to set the range of the engagement, and devote the remaining weight to armor. My plan was to basically find the "immunity zone" in which I was resistant to 229mm horizontal fire but could land hits with my 2x2 305mm guns. After seeing that the infrequent hits I was landing at 5000m or so were ineffective ( as was the return fire), I decided to close the range. This continued until both the enemy and I were approximately 100m from one another, each landing hits that, while penetrating, were causing small amounts of successive damage, but nothing all that remarkable. When the enemy got to around 50% structural integrity, they broke off the action and fled and a stern chase ensued until time expired. I would of course expect pre-dreadnought engagements to begin at a relatively close range (6000m?) and end at a relatively close range (2000m?) given the poor range finding and fire control of the era. Under no circumstance, however, would I expect two pre-dreadnoughts to close to within 100m and pummel each other with main battery gunfire. If we conservatively assume that even an early 1900's era naval rifle would only penetrate 2x caliber at such a short range, a 305mm gun should easily defeat the main belt of an opponent. Based on the icons being displayed, it looked like it did. The problem, rather, was that such penetrating hits cause "damage" in the low doubt digits 20, 30, 40 etc. I obviously don't know enough about the mechanics to know what exactly is causing this phenomenon, but even in a pre-dreadnought conflict, things shouldn't end with both sides more or less running out of ammunition at point blank range, unable to materially harm one another.

Of all the points raised here, I think that those about target selection have the greatest universal relevance. I've only had the early-access version of the game since last week and have only spent a handful of hours with it, but I noticed pretty much immediately that the AI (both player ships and the enemy) do tend to concentrate their fire on a single ship. In my opinion, this should not be the default practice for two important reasons: 1.) Many ships firing at the same target makes it difficult to evaluate fall-of-shot One of the (many) reasons for moving from pre-and-semi dreadnought designs with a mixed battery of heavy and "medium" caliber guns was that it is difficult to distinguish between the shell splashes of the two different sizes of guns and adjust for fall of shot accordingly. This same general phenomenon (i.e. not being able to tell which splashes came from which guns) could and did arise when multiple ships were firing the same or similarly-sized shells at the same target. The hail of fire that the Queen Elizabeth-class ships were briefly subjected to when they encountered the German line at Jutland is one example of this. Another prominent example was at the Battle of the Denmark Strait. The engagement began with both Bismarck and Prinz Eugen firing at Hood, but after a few minutes later, Bismarck's Chief Gunnery Officer Adalbert Schneider requested that Prinz Eugen be ordered to shift her fire to the other ship (the Prince of Wales). In an uneven engagement or a victorious battle in which one has achieved numerical superiority of like-sized ships, having two or more ships fire at a single target is of course unavoidable, but at that point, reduced accuracy through difficulty in spotting fall of shot and correcting the firing solution is made up for through numerical superiority. 2.) It is much easier for the enemy to shoot at you when you're note shooting at them. During the opening phase of Jutland (the "Run to the South") an error in British fire distribution led to SMS Derfflinger being left unmolested. A ship that's not being fired at can maintain a steady course, does not have to deal with the physical and psychological effects of hits and near-misses, and has the luxury of being able to pick its targets rather than being compelled to return fire at the most immediate threat. For these reasons, it makes the most sense for every heavy ship to engage its opposite number in line and only "double up" once enemy vessels sinking, retiring, or falling out of line necessitate doing so. I would argue, then, the the AI's default practice should be to distribute its fire evenly across similarly-sized targets with its primary batteries. If smaller targets (torpedo boats, destroyers, etc.) can be engaged with secondary batteries, it should target them. If none are present and heavy ships are in range of the secondary batteries, it should use them that way. Assuming that folks agree with these two general premises, I would propose the implementation of a penalty for multiple ships firing at the same target. Rather than an outright accuracy penalty, I would propose a penalty to the rate at which firing accuracy increases. In theory, multiple ships firing at a target should not affect initial accuracy, assuming that the the firing ship has a good sight picture to range one. Numerous splashes from multiple ships should, however, make adjusting shot more difficult, and therefore should make the rate at which accuracy improves (either through continued shooting or closing of range, or both) slower. Two ships firing at the same target should perhaps reduce the rate at which accuracy increases by 33%, with the penalty scaling rapidly as the number of ships increases such that if four or more ships are firing at the same target, they're all locked in to their "base accuracy" for that range and target signature until some of the ships cease fire.