madham82

That I don't agree with at all as the game was pitched to be "realistic" and doing so would conflict with many areas that are geared towards realism. This is my opinion though, and I know not everyone will agree with me. Change is needed, what and how to change are open to debate.

No the Dev team will be sending steam keys to everyone who purchased a copy eligible for play testing (if there are even two versions like when I bought now). So you will have to redeem the key on Steam, then download. I do not imagine they will migrate existing saves or anything. It may be possible to do it manually, assuming the steam release does not majorly change the code.

Oh I agree, I just didn't see Nick mention saving in battle in any of those threads about the subject. I just think they planned for campaign saves to work only outside of battle. We definitely need saving during a battle added at some point.

Agreed, the devs have promised the ability to save designs will come after the campaign release. That will go a long way to helping, but saving a battle hasn't been specifically mentioned yet.

Steam keys will be given to anyone who buys the game now if that is what you are asking.

Think the issue is how target signature is being calculated and the towers themselves are balanced. That seems to be the takeaway here. i.e. how does a ship with better spotting have a lower signature than one with less spotting range.

Great work breaking this down. I agree with all your suggestions. It seems the real improvements needed are with how Target Signature is calculated, and we need some kind of logic to prevent/penalize blind-fire. This last part will balance the scales against ships (particularly DDs) who are able to snipe with impunity, even though they can't actually "see" their targets.

Look at any radar set from the time (which often were not mounted on the highest point), it will not be visible until you can make out details like secondary armaments. So bad example, but I get what you are trying to say.

Great points, see the modern Italian BBs in WW2. They had excellent range finding equipment, but terrible quality problems with the guns/ammo.

Well unless the guns are different calibers or number of barrels, they will be in the same group. So that doesn't work for most setups, but that's a separate issue. This I know is on the list to look into, so no worries. Back to the original issue, why would a ship lose target lock from 1 turret being unable to fire due to interference? We aren't talking about it taking longer to gain a lock with 1 (which is reasonable). The ship had lock, maneuvered in a way to mask one of the turrets, but now you have lost target lock. Just doesn't make sense since that has nothing to do with what the actual target is doing. If the target is sailing on the same course and speed, then there's no change in the firing solution so to speak. The firing ship itself knows how it changed course/speed, so that wouldn't really impact it either. My guess is you are trying to simulate an increasing error probability because you have fewer guns firing on the target. In that case I would suggest Target Lock have a decay period where the longer you are firing with a single turret, the less the accuracy will be from that point on. Or maybe just it some time value that if the masked turret is not returned to firing, target lock is dropped. Just to confirm Nick, does Target Lock drop if not all turrets are able to fire, or do you need at least 2 turrets firing to keep lock?

Maybe it is just me, but that doesn't seem to match with real world. There are two directors (aside from local range finders on each turret). They can each provide sufficient ranging and engage separate targets reliably. In fact the ship in that post (Deutschland class) at the Battle of the River Plate was engaging separate targets reliably with each turret. The main disadvantage is fewer barrels on target of course, but it doesn't mean the unobstructed turret should have any loss of target lock. I get your explanation of why it happens, but there needs to be a better way to implement. You should suffer no accuracy loss just because one of the turrets is masked (once it has been locked to begin with). If anything it should just take longer to get target lock with a single turret.

Would need some screens of your full build to validate nothing wrong.

You aren't the only one. See the discussion in a recent thread.

Yep, we just need to know what "Crew" implementation is going to be like, but I like the ideas.

I always imagined it to be tied to control of the ship via the flagship for each division (i.e. outside of range from the flagship = AI control). I think the real answer is it is not used yet.

Yep definitely an issue I have noticed.

Yep agreed.

While I agree considerations will always be a factor into it being "worth" a refit, you are making too general of an assumption. For one, refits adding new equipment like Radar, sonar, changing torpedoes, and most obviously torpedo and armor protection all occurred. Dock size could definitely be a limiting factor (i.e. can't refit a ship with more tonnage than you can build new). Think that is what you are referring to here. This is where something will need updating with the designer or maybe just our philosophy with designs. One way might be to increase the available displacement of a design over what will be used at launch. This would allow that extra weight mentioned to be feasible for a refit. Of course that comes with drawbacks as well. Bottom line, think we need input from Nick as to how it might work or if it is even planned.

Yep, could be selecting TDS level triggers a hull model change to reflect bulges. The towers should be fine since they aren't locked to hulls, and so you could use whichever ones you have access to.

Think we need to split Refits into two categories: 1. The actual ability to refits ships post launch (campaign only). 2. Refitted hulls (i.e. outdated hulls that have some values improved over their originals that can be used at later time periods). This one is for Custom/Naval Academy specifically. These hulls shouldn't be available in the campaign since no one would "build" a refit hull. Another thing to consider is currently Torpedo Protection is not "limited" or prevented on hulls designed before such protection existed. This was the major factor behind modernization refits of older hulls. So we really need Torpedo Protection levels locked to research and hulls are either limited or prevented from using it unless they were refitted.

If the shell is the size of the turret, there probably isn't going to be a turret or a ship left! I agree with the point you are trying to make though.

Agreed, I think at the very least seeing a penalty in the left "accuracy breakdown" screen (can't remember what it is called) could work. I would prefer something like the targeting line be a different color than red.

I didn't miss your point. I said I understood it in my first reply, but I don't agree it is a real problem. At the same time, wouldn't it be just as easier to create a thread listing these associations out? Much easier than trying to convince the Devs to create a toggle, or even go back and rename historical ones. What about the towers and funnels? You need them renamed too if your are going to recreate. Personally those two seem to be a bigger issue finding the correct one than finding the right hull. If someone can't easily identify the hull shape that is correct for X ship at the correct year, then would they even care to begin with? I mean with the host of issues everyone is already complaining about in this thread, there are much bigger issues to bring up.

That's besides the point since not everyone wants to recreate historical ships. Are the guns named after the name of the ship or their diameter and mark number? So you wouldn't say I want Iowa guns, you would say 16" Mk5, etc... What are you going to do about hulls for the Chinese and Spanish that never existed for example? Going back to Fuso as the example, she was built as a dreadnaught, then modernized. So yes the hull is a modernized dreadnaught. Changing the "II" to the year might make sense, except in the campaign when you might research way before 1930. So again you can't focus on the idea of recreating historical ships but consider that these hulls will be research items as well. Honestly this is where the community can fill the need by cataloging the hulls and the real ships they can be used on to recreate. Sounds like a good one for you buddy!

I see your point, but then remember the game is supposed to be ahistorical at the same time. So naming it Fuso "means" something to us because we know what the real ship is, but in the actual game where you can change history...maybe you call it Fuji/Nagato/etc...