HistoricalAccuracyMan

Alright, so I'm currently in the year 1893 and I've got Krupp I armor unlocked. When I go to refit my ships from their Harvey and Nickel-Steel armor to the "lighter" Krupp I armor, it works halfway correctly. The price goes up, but so does the ship's weight...remarkably so. It makes the ships so heavy that if I try to switch to Krupp I armor, the only way to keep the ship is to either downsize the guns, cut speed or cut armor thickness (neither of which is particularly desirable). However, if I create a new ship or replicate that exact same ship (not using the copy feature, because the problem gets copied right along with the ship), the armor weight situation is fixed and the Krupp I armor weight makes the ship lighter. Why is that? Is this a bug, or is it something else that I'm not aware of? Next, either Austria-Hungary has been designated the "angry man" of my campaign, or I have a ghost fleet that sneaks out of port and harasses them frequently, because I have been in a near endless state of war with them since my campaign started. Playing as the French, all my ships are sitting in port, I'm at peace with everyone and then...-5.8 relations with A-H. Don't know why, I don't have a ship near their coast, let alone at sea nor do they have any ships near any of my ports. This persists for several turns. Finally, I have enough and just say, "Fine...you guys can have the Mediterranean," and move all my ships to the ports in Western France (i.e. the Atlantic Ocean). Next turn...-3.2 relations with A-H. This continues to persist until war breaks out and I am forced to send my entire fleet into the Western/Eastern Med to counter their task force of 11 BB, 28 CA, 12 CL and 3TB (basically HALF of their navy in 1894. The number of ships likely doesn't have an impact here since they were all at port until that turn, but the ungodly amount of ships is an entirely separate issue). At every turn, every random event, every ship movement...I had tried to improve my relations with A-H, but to no avail. They had no fleets near my ports, I didn't have any fleets near their ports, absolutely 0 power projection in BOTH regions of the Mediterranean, and yet...my relations did nothing but degrade to the point that it was more economical to go to war than just sit there continuously paying A-H to prevent war when my relationship with them would just get worse the next turn anyways. Not sure if it's because I decimated Germany in the war before (they had good relations with each other), or if it's because I had 0 power projection, or if it's literally just a bug/anything else. TL;DR Krupp Armor works backwards when refitting older ships and my wars with A-H thus far can best be described by "I really don't know what the hell I did to make you this mad, but screw it...we'll fight you." Really don't know why either of these are happening, but I wish A-H would realize that I'm not provoking them.

While I like this idea as a supplement/alternative to controlling fleet size with (seemingly) ever-increasing maintenance costs, I would have to ask the question about port capacity. With the British for example, you have the giant ports of Scapa Flow, Rosyth and Portsmouth that are capable of holding a small fleet in each of them. But then look at the smaller ports of Gibraltar, Valetta and Belfast: they can't hold near as much. So if this serviceable capacity "tech tree"/research branch (or something similar) is implemented...would certain ports be restricted to a certain maximum size (i.e. would Gibraltar only be able to advance to something like Dunnage/Tethering I), or would it be more of a "if I have enough money, play my cards right and research new tech like a mad lad...I can have 12 ports the size of Scapa Flow" approach? I might just be misunderstanding something or not making a connection, but I feel like port capacity and serviceable capacity would have to be connected some how.

Judging by where your funnel is located, I would say that the largest factor to your weight offset is where your engine and machinery spaces are located. I can't really see the small red rectangle that indicates "the engines and machinery are here" in your picture, so I can't say for sure, but I would suggest moving your funnel towards the rear of the ship or swapping the one big funnel for two smaller funnels so it shifts your engine rooms backwards. The way it works in game right now, the engine rooms are centered under your funnels. If you have one funnel, your engine rooms are placed directly under it. If you have two or more funnels, the engine rooms are centered between the furthest forward and furthest rearward funnel. Past that, I do agree that some hulls are very hard/nearly impossible to balance...but sometimes it just takes some patience and creativeness to get a ship "decently" balanced.

To start things off, how is the result of a battle decided when you end the battle in the middle of the action (i.e. before the "end battle" button pops up) or when you hit auto-resolve? What factors does it take into account? Gun/torpedo size? Displacement? Speed? Armor Values? Modules/components on your ships? The alignment of the stars and the phase of the moon? Purely RNG? I had to end a battle a few days ago in the middle of the action (life happens, I had an unexpected event come up) and I would argue I was winning: enemy CLs were either sunk, heavily damaged or out of ammo, one BC sunk and two DDs sunk compared to one of my CLs sunk and a CA moderately damaged. I end the battle and the screen that pops up immediately afterwards says it's a draw/undecided...but then once it gets to the world map and pops up the list of ships for each side, it says that I lost and I suddenly have more ships sunk than I did when the battle ended, but so does the enemy. So...what exactly is the deal here? One screen says it was a stalemate, one screen says I lost and I've got more ships sunk than should be, according to where the battle left off. I'd appreciate some answers. Next, peace treaties and the end of wars. Playing as the Brits, I force a war with the Germans to end in 6 months. I get the pop up during a loading screen (after a battle) that Germany wants peace, so I happily accept. Well, when it gets back to the world map, it throws me right into the next "unskippable" encounter, and then when I end the turn...war continues between British Empire and German Empire. Did I miss something? They were asking for peace, but since it asked for peace before an "unskippable" encounter...now that offer no longer stands or it fell through and the war drags on for another four months? I feel like the option for peace should either come at the end of your turn, or after all "unskippable" encounters have been resolved. Now, lets talk about gun and torpedo launcher rotation speed. I check the stats of the various weapons and such in the designer: gun rotation speed--8.95 degrees/sec, ship turning rate--4.3 degrees/sec. Ok, so my guns rotate twice as fast as my ship turns, which means even if I have my DD go hard over, my guns should still stay on target. Go to war, and my DDs or CLs go hard over to avoid torpedoes...Tokyo Drift Music starts playing. My guns and torpedoes, literally, LOCK UP and don't move at all as my ship kinda drifts around it's turn (it's still a smooth turn, but the stern of the ship is kicked out to the side) and they don't start rotating again until my ship is on a straight ahead course or the turn goes from hard over to a more gentle, wide and sweeping curve. Why on Earth does this happen? It's frustrating to be in a close-range DD brawl only to lose it because the enemy DD hit that "magical radius" where their weapons can rotate first, and I end up eating 12 torpedoes from a torpedo sled or take a full broadside of 4" and 5" shells that leave my DD dead in the water just waiting for the inevitable torpedoes that didn't turn around in time. If my guns can rotate faster than my ship turns, why aren't they? Or perhaps the better question: why are only DDs and CLs plagued by locking turrets and launchers because they have a tight turn radius? Finally, whenever you gain an enemy ship as reparations, why is their tech not transferred to your navy, if their tech is better? For example, if my navy only has 15" Mk 1 guns but an enemy ship I gain as a war prize has 15" Mk 2 guns, why is the better technology not immediately unlocked and available to use? As it stands right now, unless that enemy AI design is just phenomenal, the only thing I do with a captured ship is scrap it for the cash because even if it has better tech, it does nothing to benefit me because it only works on that specific ship...so I'd rather just take the money to funnel into my own research. IDK if anyone else has experienced similar things or has had any similar thoughts, but I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed some of these things. I hope to get some answers...so I guess, here's hoping somebody who knows the answers responds.

I agree completely. If one of your ships surrenders, but is still afloat, you should be able to recover the ship if you win (or at least have a chance to recover it). If you wind up losing the battle...ok, fine, whatever, have the ship be considered lost whether you want to write it off as the ship was scuttled or the enemy captured it/sank it after the battle. If one of your ships surrenders but you win the battle: you should (at the very least) have the chance/option to recover or scuttle the ship in question. If one of your ships surrenders but you lose the battle: ship is lost (scuttled, captured, sank later on...idk)

In response to your question about a funnel hit counting as a penetration, I believe it is because of funnels being counted under the superstructure when it comes to armoring. So for an example, if you put 1 inch of armor on your superstructure and the enemy's guns have a penetration value around 1 inch on their HE shells, it is very possible that your funnel had just enough armor and the shell had just enough pen to cause a full penetration and deal full damage.

I would ask which one is more nonsensical: the lead ship falling back to the rear of the division after taking damage allowing the other ships to continue on, or the whole division slowing down and potentially arriving too late to the battle/being taken out of the battle on the account of a single ship and costing you the battle? If there is a battle going on, wouldn't you want to get as many ships to the combat area ASAP? The enemy won't wait for all of your ships to show up, and I don't think any captain in history has told everyone under his command, "Sorry fellas, nobody can go faster than my ship because I'm the lead ship. Now, I know there's an important battle raging and our friends are counting on us because we make up the majority of the forces in this area, but they're just gonna have to wait." The ships that can continue on would continue to carry on, and the damaged ships would follow along behind or try to repair and then catch up.

While I understand the sentiment and thought process behind getting rid of cruiser "classes," I ultimately think that for the sake of gameplay nothing should change...apart from adding more hulls, gun and tower models, etc. Because when it comes down to it, you will basically have two groups of players: the history buffs and your average joe. For the history buffs, they'll know about how cruisers were/weren't grouped and what constitutes a "heavy" or "light" cruiser and build whatever they want. Your average joe on the other hand, will likely just see two separate classes of ships: one that is smaller, faster and carries smaller guns while the other one is bigger, usually slower and carries bigger guns...and they'll build whatever they want. Both approaches are fine and I don't think it would do much in the way of productivity or making this game "better" per se. But I also want to bring up another case of "what ship class do I belong to?" starring everyone's favorite gun buckets from the US Navy: the Atlanta class. They were built as destroyer/flotilla leaders, given destroyer size guns AND torpedoes, but were the size and speed of "light cruisers" and eventually found their place in the "anti-aircraft cruiser" role. So...what do you classify the Atlantas as? Giant Destroyers, Destroyer/Flotilla leaders, light cruisers, AA cruisers or something else entirely? A ship's designed purpose as well as the design philosophies/doctrines of the nations that designed them can play a large role in what a ship is "classified" as.

1) More Nation Specific Models/ship parts I could go on and ramble about this, but the fact that the US, British, French and German navies are all locked to a Light Cruiser build that consists of "modern tower I-IV", "modern secondary tower I-IV" and the same funnels where the only difference is the hull shape, displacement and cosmetics of the guns from 1920 onwards whereas Spain, Italy and Russia all have at least two (and Japan has 5) where one of which is a like a mix of a CL and DD (judging by tower shape and size) says enough about the lack of cruiser towers and hulls available in-game. Also, let's discuss how some nations have mix-matched parts. I get that Spain and Austria-Hungary weren't major players after WWI and I'm also not ignorant of the fact that some nations had ships built by other nations (like the first of the Kongo class was built for Japan by the UK)...but come on. The 1935 CL "Modernized Cruiser" for Spain has Japanese Towers and Torpedo launchers along with British and American main guns. That just seems a little to mix-n-match for me. If this is supposed to be a "historically based" and not "historically accurate" game I can look past some smaller/minor nations (like Spain, Austria-Hungary or Russia) having ships that look like they were, for lack of a better term, "kit-bashed" together. But for the Major Players (i.e. Britain, Germany, France, US and Japan) where they have such a high number of unique designs for ships and guns...I feel like there should at least be a representation of all those historical, was-actually-built and actually-saw-service ship classes. Even at the bare minimum, using the US Navy's cruisers as an example, you could probably make 1 new main gun model and at the most 3 or maybe 4 new tower designs, square off the rear of a CL hull and us players could instantly have a believable Brooklyn AND Cleveland class. Taking that one step further, if you were to upsize that exact same squared-off rear CL hull and make maybe two new towers...us players could have a Wichita/Baltimore class CA, rather than a downsized Iowa. There are so many iconic ships that are so close to being in-game, that should be there, but aren't either due to lack of tower or gun options: Myoko/Takao, Furutaka, Isuzu, Brooklyn, Cleveland, Atlanta, Wichita/Baltimore, Northampton/Pensacola/New Orleans, County Class, Town Class, Leander, Konigsberg, Leipzig just to name the ones I can immediately think of and that's not even starting to count DDs, CAs, BCs, and BBs. I realize that my main issue with this is probably because I'm a history buff at heart, but if you already have historical ships in game (Iowa, Bismarck, Yamato, Prinz Eugen, Deutschland, Richelieu, Vittorio Veneto just to name a few) with their respective superstructure and gun models, what is stopping you from adding more (outside of small team size, campaign being the priority, etc)? Some of the issues stated above are also thanks to a lack of superstructure options and freedom of gun placement. First example that springs to mind is the Atlanta class with their triple super-firing turret arrangement...the only way you could make that work is with a very specific superstructure/tower for both front and rear. 2) Ship Individualization/Retrofitting I assume that retrofitting will come with the full release, but it is so frustrating right now to build a BB in the campaign only to find out that three months later rangefinders are now a thing...but I've got to build a completely brand new ship class if I want to put them on. As far as "individualization" goes...I'm talking about being able to name each ship that you build and maybe something like a Hull Number/Pennant Number/Hull Markings. Again...I assume that all of this will come with the full release, but I would like to be able to name each ship I build rather than have the names auto-generated. Maybe give us a toggleable option to either name each ship, or have the names auto-generated. 3) Task Forces/Divisions Perfect example of why we need them: just yesterday in my current campaign I have a convoy mission "1 CL vs 1 CA, 2 CL and 8 TR." I know for a fact that I had at least 4 CLs capable of reaching the area where the battle took place, so why is a lone CL operating just outside of the port of Belfast? Another example: a lone Battleship is ambushed in the open ocean by 4 of my TBs and 2 of my CLs. Not only is a BB or CL, or any class of ship, operating all by it's lonesome unrealistic...it's incredibly absurd (look at what happened to USS Indianapolis). And honestly...it shouldn't be that hard to implement a better system. Just go to the fleet tab in campaign, click something that says "add/create task force/division," choose which ships you want to be in said task force/division, give it a name, click done. Then, you can select that task force and either have it be "in being" or in "sea control," or maybe add some more "orders" like "prioritize convoys" or "search and destroy." Did one of your ships get damaged or is now outdated? Either edit the task force to replace that ship with a new one so you don't lose any time, or just wait out the repair/refit. Want to transfer a bunch of ships without having to select every single one? Just select move ships, then select that task force. Plain, simple, easy. If anyone, including the devs, have any questions...I'd be happy to provide a more in-depth explanation. 4) Clarification of Transports in Campaign As I lose transports, I notice the percentage goes down...does that mean I can now only transport that much of my GDP, or is that the strength remaining of my transport fleet? I raise the slider to try and have my transports carry more. What does that tiny percentage in parenthesis mean next to the main blue percentage? Can I build more transports to replace the ones I lost? Is that already happening and I just don't know it? I feel like there are still some things that need to be made clearer or more evident for everyone. 5) Ship Designer Suggestions I feel as though the snap points should be (almost) completely done away with. So long as the superstructure is mounted along the center line of the ship and isn't too far forward or aft (discounting deigns like the Nelson or Izumo) then they should be able to be placed anywhere. Same thing with the guns. The only places I feel like snap points are actually helpful is when you go to place guns in/on the superstructure or in those "gun tubs" like on the US Modern Battleships at the front and rear of the ship or for the cutouts on the Bismarck superstructure where you can fit 6-inch guns.

For the most part, I'd say that I'm mostly pleased with how this first rendition of the campaign turned out, and I'm excited to see where the game goes from here. I understand that the campaign is very limited right now with only the basic necessities in place for it to function, but here is my feedback after two times of going through, most of, the German 1890 campaign (I haven't had the time to sit down and actually finish the campaign yet). Auto-resolve: I do appreciate it for those almost insignificant "One of our <insert ship type here> has intercepted an enemy <insert ship type here>" battles, but for the battles larger than a 1v1 or a 2v2 it seems like it is very RNG dependent with no clear criteria when it comes to win, lose or draw. For instance, I've had 2 CLs and 4 TBs raid a convoy of 8 TRs with 1 CL and 3 TBs for escort. I hit auto-resolve, and then we get the confusing results. Despite me sinking 7 TRs and their CL, which was slightly bigger and better armed than my CL, and lightly damaging 2 of their TBs, it still basically came out as a victory for them as one of my CLs had moderate damage, the other one had light damage, and 1 of my TBs had light damage. So...I guess the question here is, how are the results for auto-resolved battles calculated? Is it by tonnage of ships involved? Is it by speed and armament? Or does it take everything into consideration (armor, crew level, speed, armament, etc)? I realize we can go down a rabbit hole with this, but I'd just like to know a little more about how and why the results are calculated the way they are Victory Points: It kinda threw me for a loop when I saw how many VPs some things give you, and how much is given to the enemy. I raid an enemy convoy and sink all the transports, nothing else, and come out unscathed...I get maybe 21 VPs while the enemy gets awarded 9 or something because "well...at least we didn't lose the 3 TBs we had escorting them." Then, I go raid another convoy and I sink the lone CA that is escorting them, no transports, and nearly lose one of my TBs in the process. But the second that CA sank, the screen faded out, then popped up with the results screen: I have won the battle and have been awarded 54 VPs where the enemy either gains 0 or maybe gets like 2 because all the transports got away. To me, that seems kind of backwards. I get that sinking an enemy CA is no small ordeal, but when you're fighting against the British and they will just replace that sunk CA with two or three new ones in a handful of turns...is it really that significant that they are down one heavy cruiser? I think that sinking an entire convoy of transports would be more detrimental, but to that same point, you can build more transports in less time than you can a heavy cruiser...so maybe I'm missing that aspect of it. I don't know whether Victory Points need addressed or not, but how much you get awarded for doing certain things seems kinda backwards to me. Naval Prestige and Population Unrest: Now, I don't know if it was because I did the majority of my battles (on my fist run of the campaign) using auto-resolve and therefore not scoring any major victories, or if it was just because while I wasn't losing VPs, the British were just gaining them at a much faster rate than I was...but it seemed like my Naval Prestige and Population Unrest was climbing pretty quickly. I also don't know if this is because I didn't have a lot of ships to fight with and wasn't building many new ones, or because I would routinely lose 3 to 5 transports in the North Sea before I finally realized that I had 3/4 of my fleet set to "In Being" and therefore not being available for long range combat. I don't know if anyone else has noticed this or thought about it...but I'd guess it's probably due to me not realizing that I'm moron. Now, here are some suggestions I have Task Forces/Squadrons/Divisions: To me, this seems like such an easy way to keep your fleet organized as far as what port they are stationed at, which ships are where, and what their orders are. How I envision it is that once ships are built or at whatever port/dockyard you wish (basically just like how you choose which dockyard to build a new ship at in the current campaign, and once the "move ships" feature is implemented that will be utilized as well to move ships where you want them) you can then create a Task Force/Squadron of however many ships you want, comprised of whatever ships you want (probably along the process of Select Port/Fleet Tab>New Task Force>Add Ships>Save Task Force). Do you want a Raider Squadron consisting of a BC and 6 CLs, or do you want to station a Battleship Division at a certain port? Why not both (so long as your dockyard can accommodate that much tonnage)? Then, once you have your Task Force/Division named and created, you can give them orders which would basically be just like we have now--In Being, Sea Control and a new "Escort" order that would basically assign said Task Force to convoy escort duty. You could view these Task Forces under the "Fleet" tab or by clicking on a specific port. Naturally, you could edit these Task Forces as well. This just seems a little more intuitive than setting ships to "sea control" and then you've got no idea what ship's you're gonna wind up with when you see a mission pop up until you finally click on a mission only to see that your 1 BB and 2 CLs are staring down 2 BBs, 2 CAs and 4 CLs. It would at least allow you to tailor your Task Forces for certain engagements. Map Icons for Ships/Task Forces: It would be nice to see where exactly my ships are patrolling or where exactly I lost those 8 transports rather than just a message saying "8 transports lost in area North Sea." I realize that since this game goes on a month-to-month basis and not a day-to-day, or even week-to-week, basis it might be counter intuitive to do this since if you are operating close to port you might only be at sea for a month or two. But, it only makes sense that enemies keep tabs on each other, so giving players a rough location on the world map of where the enemy is vs where your ships are might be helpful...idk. (If anyone has played Cold Waters, try to think along the lines of that map, just maybe a little more simplified and not animated since that game is played in real-time) Ship Building: I know that the ability to retrofit/refit ships has been discussed and will likely show up with the full game, but what about being able to name every individual ship? If you can already do this, I guess I missed it and would like to know how. If you can't do this, why not just have a toggleable option to either auto-generate names, or create your own names, similar to how you can either toggle historic/random AI behavior and pre-generated ships. I could've missed this, but if I didn't, it would be a nice feature to have. Like I said at the beginning of this mountain of text, I'm overall pleased with this first rendition of the campaign. It runs pretty smooth, I haven't encountered any bugs (unless the "Move Ships" button is actually supposed to be working), and while I may not be the best strategist or tactician it's still mostly enjoyable (I myself am most interested in the 1920s era of this game, but I understand that everything has it's beginning). What I suggested above are merely ideas to add some depth/immersion into the game, and maybe simplify some things, or at least make them a little easier (i.e. fleet organization). Great work dev team!

To play the campaign, or to study for finals week? Decisions, decisions....better get my priorities straight huh fellas? lol

Yeah. I'm gonna be honest...the only real reason I still come back and visit UA:D is because I paid for it and I occasionally have a banger of an idea for a custom battle that I actually wind up enjoying. My biggest complaint about this game (outside of the very limited feedback/info/communication from the devs) is the fact that with nearly every patch that they have released for a while now, the hulls added (if there are any added in the first place) are all mainly battleship or "experimental" hulls regardless of the era in which they're added. Now, I'm not complaining about the older hulls as I actually quite enjoy custom battles from 1890 to the 1920s in this game, but I mean come on devs...there are SO MANY other hulls, superstructures and gun models you could add OUTSIDE of battleships. I could sit here and type out a decent list, but the major group of cruisers that comes to mind is, quite literally: basically all US Navy cruisers. The Brooklyn class formed the basis for the Cleveland and Wichita class, with the Baltimore class being a direct upgrade to the Wichita class (all the previous ship classes have superstructures with a similar look/feel to them, same with their gun turrets). The Northampton, Pensacola and New Orleans class cruisers are also in the same situation: they all basically look the same. You can't tell me that modeling (at the most basic) one hull, one gun and maybe three or four new tower designs, scaling them to size for either a CL or CA, and then adding them to the game is like asking the impossible. I realize that I seem to always jump to the US Navy as an example, but just stop and think about all the other ship designs outside of battleships that every other nation had during the span of their navy during the time periods represented in-game. I remember the last big updates that I really got excited for were the ones where they released the multitude of nation-specific gun models (so you weren't building a ship from nation X with gun turrets from nations Y and Z) and the quadruple barrel turrets since I could then try to build the North Carolina class with the 12x14 inch main battery she was designed to have. I'm excited for the "campaign" as well, but I'll admit that my expectations aren't all too high. TL;DR I once had high hopes and high interest for this game, now it's just mediocre hopes and mediocre interest (at best) and the only reasons I haven't moved on is because I still sort of believe in this game's potential and the fact that I payed to have early access. There is so much that the devs could (and probably should) be doing to keep our interest and hopes up. Battleships are cool and all, but have you heard of these things called battlecruisers, heavy/light cruisers and destroyers? They're just like battleships, only smaller, faster and INCREDIBLY DIVERSE/UNIQUE and the best part...every nation has them, not just some of them, and no two are exactly alike!

I for one am actually kinda happy that the "preliminary campaign" will be centered on Britain and Germany, not too many games about Naval Combat focus or mention those two navies since the Pacific War is much better known/more famous. Either way...I'm very happy and excited to at least try out the campaign and see how it plays!

How about we all take a breath and calm down alright? There's been a lot of information and feedback brought up here, and it's clear that we all have different thoughts and opinions. And ya know what....that's just fine. @jimh has brought up a lot of good points/observation/feedback from his time and experience playing this game and how his observations and suggestions were obviously influenced by his time in the service. I may not have understood a lot of the "technical jargan" he was using, but I'm not a Navy Man...I'm an engineering student in college who is also a history buff. Just because I don't know what he is saying/trying to convey doesn't discredit or make invalid what he has to say and it sure doesn't mean he's fishing for a "thank you." Furthermore, if he and others (such as @DougToss) have real world experience and/or sources they have cited...I would argue that their arguments/ideas would be some of the best ideas to listen to and consider. How this thread has went off track from the original post and wound up turning into arguments over the "ideal battleship," how realistic this game should/shouldn't be, and secondary armaments is still beyond me. But here's the thing about all those points are HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE. There is no "end-all-be-all" for an "ideal battleship." I might define the "ideal battleship" as being able to take on a range of threats from enemy BBs down to CLs while somebody else might define their "ideal battleship" as being able to utterly crush enemy BBs with huge main guns from long range while relying on other ships for protection from smaller ships: it all depends on doctrine and tactics when it comes to your playstyle or how you choose to utilize your ships when you play the game. Can you see where this is going? You can't define "ideal" because everyone's ideas about what a ship should/shouldn't be able to do is going to differ. (The previously mentioned "textbook battleship" is equally absurd imo as I have never seen a copy of "Warship Design for Dummies" at my local bookshop.) You don't need to be an amazing naval architect to build a decent ship in UA:D. Take me for example...I'm a college student who really only knows about the USS Enterprise (CV-6) and USS North Carolina (BB-55) because my great grandfather served on the Enterprise (I'm obviously going to be interested in the ship my family member served on) and the fact that I'm just genuinely interested in battleships and naval history: I have just as much fun trying to build a "good" ship as I do building an Iowa Class lookalike that has nothing but 3" guns...which would be considered probably one of the worst ships irl. As for how realistic this game should be, that again is highly subjective. Some people wanted it to be a tactical sim, others want it to just be historically accurate as far as the models are concerned...and both of those viewpoints are fine (I'm personally somewhere in the middle of those two: I'm not going to be counting rivets, but I also want a little more than just accurate visuals). But there is a difference between realism and realistic. The former implies that it tries to mimic the real world as close as possible while the latter implies that it has a basis in reality, but is not a tactical sim. Yes, using the word "realistic" or "realism," whichever it was, something like 13 times in the game's description could be described as a bit obsessive and I can see why it could lead to folks thinking that UA:D would be very realistic...but just because you use the same word multiple times, that doesn't mean that the end product is going to be well represented by that word (I also don't think they've marketed this game as a super realistic/tac sim game either...but I could be wrong). The secondary armaments issue is just tiring at this point (I basically share the same sentiments as DougToss): if you want secondary guns add them, if you don't want secondary guns then don't add them...plain and simple as that. TL;DR jimh and DougToss probably have some of the most valuable feedback in this thread...they obviously know their shit. The other points that have been brought up thus far can best be summed up by this: build the ships you want, the way you want them and then use the ships you build how you see fit...you don't need to be a master naval architect or master tactician to design and use battleships in a computer game.

Something I've personally thought about is linking officers with ship divisions or fleets (but not quite like the divisions we have in battles). For example, let's say you form a task force/division in the campaign that comprises 1 battleship, 2 heavy cruisers, 4 light cruisers and 5 destroyers (this is of course assuming we will be able to do that). 1 overall commander and 1 XO for the entire task force/division (operates from the flagship, which would be designated by the player or automatically default to the largest ship) 1 commander and 1 XO for all cruisers (operates from a player designated cruiser or the largest cruiser) 1 commander and 1 XO for all destroyers (operates from a player designated destroyer or the largest destroyer) Now, if something happens to one of said officers during combat: If the commander dies: all ships under his command suffer a small morale debuff and the XO steps up to assume command (so if the overall commander dies, the entire division/task force suffers a small morale debuff whereas if only the cruiser commander dies, only the cruisers would receive a small morale debuff) If the commander AND the XO dies: all ships under their command will receive an additional morale debuff (so again, if the overall commander and XO die, the whole fleet gets the debuff to whereas if it was just the destroyer commander and XO, only the destroyers would receive the debuff) These of course, would have compounding effects (i.e. the debuffs don't multiply, they just add together): The overall commander's death would result in the largest debuff, followed by the overall XO, followed by the specific ship type commander, followed by the specific ship type XO Since there will be some sort of reputation system in-game that will effect your standing with the navy, the naval budget, etc...this could also be a good opportunity to tie in a "promotional system" and individual reputations for a given commander/officer (so as to say, as an officer climbs the ranks from...let's just say Lieutenant to Admiral...they can gain ranks, and gain/lose reputation depending on battle performance). For example, a veteran commander with a good reputation will provide a larger morale boost while alive, but cause a larger morale debuff if killed in action...or who knows, maybe the crew will be inspired to avenge their commander's death and not suffer a morale debuff but instead gain a small morale boost since now their veins are running red-hot with adrenaline and determination...a bit of a sorta-kinda-RNG thing there, but hey, it is a possibility I guess. A veteran commander with a bad reputation might provide the same morale boost as a veteran with good rep, but might not cause as big of a morale debuff since they weren't well liked. To keep things simple, they could just use a rendition of the same system they have now when it comes to reputation and skill level of officers/commanders: Reputation: Terrible, Bad, Neutral, Good, Excellent Skill: Green, Trained, Experienced, Seasoned, Veteran (Should go without saying that as rep and skill go up, so does the morale boost and the chance of the crew to enter an "avenge his death" state if an officer was to die) Of course, there are many other factors that could play into or effect all of what I've suggested here. Such as how much experience a commander has commanding a certain ship type and how moving them from one ship type to another could decrease their effectiveness or if a high-ranking officer or other prominent figure (president, prime minister, king/queen, something like the Sullivan Brothers on USS Juneau) dies and you name a ship/ship class after them would that ship/crew grant a morale boost for all ships it sails with or something of the sorts? This is all a bunch of speculation and ideas that are bouncing around in my head, but I'd like to hear your guy's feedback/thoughts/opinions on all of this. I personally think that this approach kinda sticks with the loose historical basis of the game (in that while each ship irl would have it's own captain and officers, in the grand scheme of things, every taskforce/division had it's own head honcho that everyone else answered to) while not being to complex or simple.

Yeah, even though the unrealistic displacement values don't bother me too much as I'm more of somebody who goes for the aesthetics and looks of a ship over irl values of weight, length, beam etc....it is kind of ridiculous that I have to raise a dreadnought IV hull to 60.000 tons just so the hull will be long enough to fit the middle turret on a USS Texas build.

That's kind of a "yes and no" question. If you are only curious about the USS Arizona specifically, there are cage masts available that can get you pretty close to her "as built" appearance, but as far as the refitted Arizona with the overhauled masts/superstructure...not really. There might be a few secondary towers that vaguely match, but there isn't really a main tower option that matches decently. If you are asking about all US Navy dreadnought designs, the only ones that I've been able to get "close enough" to where you at least don't have to guess which ship it is, is either the WWI configurations of US Battleships or the New York Class as there is actually a set of towers that matches the New York class fairly well. There are still plenty of masts/towers that are missing from the game if talking from a historical accuracy stance, but this issue isn't just limited to the US Navy. So basically, if you are wanting to recreate the Arizona, you can get a fairly convincing WWI era model going but once you try and build the "modernized" Arizona...you run into some problems.

Hmmm...let's analyze this shall we? -Supposedly from a nation that isn't Germany -Says pure-blooded Germans are basically the master race -Repeatedly spews the same junk about "GeRmaN eVerYthINg iS tHe AbSolUte BesT!" Anyone else besides me drawing some comparisons to a certain world-famous disgraced artist with a funny moustache? I know trying to say literally anything that DOESN'T glorify Germany in some way shape or form is pointless whenever you're around, but that doesn't mean that I enjoy a "fabricated history" (as you have previously said) or "wish I was part of the Superior People" just because I disagree with you about Germany being the "technologically superior" nation in a specific time era/time period. Being a fanboy/fangirl of German Anything is fine, having a different "world view" is fine, saying what you think/what you want is just fine....but just going on a pro-German rant that is chocked full of stuff that is either insignificant to the topic at hand (i.e. the ship designer in a computer game) or has no reliable data or actual logic to back it up (how does one quantify the "sexiness" of a language?) isn't the way to get people to listen to you, let alone care about anything you just said nor is repeatedly saying the same stuff time and time again (it's got a certain..."person who cried wolf" effect ya know?). If all you are out to do now is waste people's time or try to get a response...then I guess I have to commend you on a job well done since you got people, myself included, to waste their time posting a response to you. I still can't tell you why I'm typing this, but apparently I can't just sit idly by while somebody accuses me, a happy and healthy American, of wanting to be a German or wanting all Germans to be killed off (which couldn't be farther from the truth, and is seriously sick and demented if that's what you seriously believe...may God have mercy on your soul).If you want to go around and believe that Germany is superior to literally everyone and everything (which I can't comprehend, seeing as how you are supposedly from Croatia...but hey, you do you chief)or believe that those of us who disagree with you are "just jealous of Germany", then go ahead and do it because nobody is stopping you. But nobody is stopping us from thinking you're a fool or calling you out on stuff. You can call us what you want, believe what you want, say what you want and do what you want...but it's now PAINFULLY obvious that you have nothing further to offer to any of these threads, except for maybe the Historical and Maritime Discussions one, in the way of helpful or meaningful feedback for the devs...but then again, who am I to tell you to stop? You wouldn't listen to anyone but yourself anyways. TL;DR Nothing we say/do is gonna change anything and the internet is ultimately a place where you can say anything you want, regardless of whether or not it makes sense, holds any truth or is even vaguely relevant to the topic being discussed. Call me what you will, say what you will, and believe what you will...but I am very happy and content wearing my Uncle Sam Top hat in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, where I believe and trust in cold-hard facts with irrefutable proof to back them up regardless of whether or not I am the most technologically advanced person or part of the master race.

I'd like to see some different camo/liveries for my ships. The main ones I'd like to see are some of the USN WWII camos, like the ones that made ships the same dark blue from bow to stern, or the camo that was various shades of blue, white and gray along with some of the Royal Navy camos (particularly the schemes used on HMS Nelson and Rodney). I'd also enjoy the gold/white scheme of the early USN, but mainly because that paint scheme looks sharp as hell on those old boats. I wouldn't want to see camos as a paid DLC necessarily, but I think if they aren't included in the main game then the Steam Workshop would be a viable option.

As much as I have enjoyed learning about sonar/hydrophone systems and how they've advanced, how they work, etc...I think the central idea/question of this thread has been kinda lost a little bit, but I'll try and answer everything in the above original post/question to the best of my ability. Yes, it seems ridiculous that from ranges of 10 km or further an enemy ship can almost instantaneously detect your torpedoes and evade them. Why is that? I honestly don't know. But when you look at all the changes the AI has gone through with patches and hotfixes, the AI has gone through "weird" or "troublesome" stages: nearly everything from regularly making insane/wacky designs, prioritizing speed above all else, being able to dodge torpedoes effortlessly and a handful of other "flaws." (I'm not saying this as an excuse, I'm just saying that it will eventually be fixed or ironed out in due time) Yes it's frustrating, but nobody knows exactly why. When it comes to smoke screens and the associated penalties, the biggest ones are the "shooting through smoke" and the "target inside smoke" obviously. As far as torpedo spotting goes when in smoke, I would assume that only the visual detection of torpedoes would be effected as a sonar/hydrophone doesn't care that there is smoke obstructing line of sight, and therefore you would be relying only on your sonar/hydrophones to detect the incoming torpedoes (which makes sense, as a smokescreen's purpose is to obstruct or block line of sight)...IF there is a "debuff" to visual torpedo spotting inside a smoke screen in the first place. I don't know whether or not a smoke screen negatively effects visual detection of torpedoes as in all the custom battles I've set up, the tech levels of each nation are either so low that torpedoes don't have the range to hit a smoked up target or the sonar/hydrophone that I or the enemy have mounted detect the torpedoes at range and the intended target can maneuver to avoid. I guess I could set up a few tests to see for my self, if I really wanted to. As far as your "penalties suffered by the AI due to two smokes" query is concerned, there is the "shooting through smoke" and "target inside smoke" penalties...but I, again, have zero clue about torpedo spotting inside smoke and what, if any, penalties are associated with it. Now, torpedo spotting while outside of a smokescreen is directly influenced by any sonar/hydrophone upgrades you have mounted and the "torpedo spotting" stats of the towers you mount on your ship (once weather and time of day effects get added, I'd assume that rough seas, storms and nighttime would make torpedo spotting harder...visually speaking anyways). With the introduction of the new crew mechanics, I would also assume that how experienced your crew is might also slightly effect how far out you can spot torpedoes. As far as how far away each torpedo type can be detected at, I really don't know either. Each torpedo type (standard, fast, electric and oxygen) all just have a different stealth/detectability percentage, but not much else, as I'm sure you already know. I personally think it would be helpful if each torpedo type had a base detection range/stat (as in range from intended target) and then your ship tower's torpedo spotting stats and any hydro/sonar upgrades you had increase the detection range of that torpedo by a certain percent of the base detection range/stat of said torpedo. (Idk if that sounds too much like WoWs style torpedo spotting, but it would be better than just seeing "these electric torpedoes have a -85% detection bonus") Most of this is just speculation or trying to make an educated guess/assumption based on what we know and what would make sense. In the end, I can see why the devs made sonar/hydrophones the way they did: if they go too realistic with it, then yes--the sonar/hydrophones on your ship would be useless depending on speed, vibration of your ship, weather and sea conditions, etc and there would be little/no reason to use it unless you were building convoy escort ships so they could listen for submarines or incoming torpedoes (but subs aren't even in the game, so....). But on the other hand, they can't go too "cut and dry" or "either/or" if you will: with technology level being a big part of ship design and what tech you have available, it makes sense that as time marches on...you get access to better, but heavier and more expensive, systems to use as opposed to just "option 2 is more effective/high tech while option 1 is cheaper and more lightweight." Ultimately, as I've said before, this is a game that is historically based and not historically accurate (excluding hull, tower and gun models). Will there be stuff that doesn't make sense in a real life context or that seem down right absurd? Absolutely. But sometimes those things make sense from a gameplay standpoint like this sonar/hydrophones issue. If they went ahead and made the sonar/hydro super realistic thus rendering those systems all but useless in high speed, open ocean, ship-to-ship combat (as is the main focus of this game)...why would they have added sonar/hydro in the first place? TL;DR: In response to the original question...I don't know, I wish I knew and your guess/inferences are as good as anyone's. We can sit here and speculate/guess/debate using logic, research notes/sources, prior and firsthand knowledge all we want for as long as we want, but until somebody runs some tests or we get a full explanation from somebody who does know exactly how all this works in game and why it works that way...we just have to live with it.

This is mainly going to address the "two turret" system for gun aiming that is still in place. I feel like I've been a pretty big proponent of this, but here it goes: I am fully aware that for, basically, every warship ever designed with a gun turret...the number of guns were the same across each turret (like the Iowa with three triple turrets, the Bismarck with four twin turrets, the New York class with five twin turrets, etc) and the guns were the same size (both shell size and caliber). Now, from what I have seen, read and can deduce from a wide array of source material...the main factor in deciding whether or not a triple turret would fit is how wide the hull was or how much space is available below decks. Take the USS Pensacola for example: it had the two triple turrets placed in the superfiring position, with the two twin turrets on the main deck. Why? Because if they went the other way around with the twins firing over the tops of the triples, they would have to redesign the hull and widen it to accommodate the added size of the machinery required to operate the triple turrets where as if they put the triple turrets where they wound up putting them, the hull was already wide enough so they would fit without any hull altercations or redesigns though it lead to the Pensacolas being very top heavy and having excessive roll (this isn't a problem in UA:D, since so long as you have the displacement left over you can basically swap out a dual for a triple no problem). The USS Nevada, by comparison, was able to use the twin and triple turrets in the more "conventional" way of the twins firing over the triples which was an improvement over previous designs that had to use 5 turrets to carry the same 10-gun compliment, whereas the Nevada's could get away with 4 turrets. Now that the short history lesson is over, here's how it ties back into UA:D. It's no secret that the gun aiming system has it's flaws and can sometimes make certain designs unworkable or render some turrets useless due to a lack of accuracy in certain situations (just try building a USS Nevada/USS Pensacola style ship and tell me whether you like the gun accuracy/"effectiveness" at any firing angle other than broadside). It's because of the two-turret system that depends on at least two of the same turret (i.e. at least two guns of the same size and number of barrels) being able to bear against a target. Why the game treats single, twin, triple and quadruple turrets of the same gun size as different batteries with different targeting data I do not know--then again, I don't know much about developing a game either, maybe it's easier/simpler this way idk. For an example: you could build a USS Nevada style build with your twin turrets being 14" and your triples being 16" and the only difference you would get between 14" triples and 16" triples is the reload, range, weight of the turret and damage (if the guns even hit the target). Alternatively, you could build a ship that has a single, dual, triple and quadruple gun of the same caliber and the game would treat each one of those turrets as if they were all a different gun size. I've got a very hard time trying to picture somebody on the USS Nevada during WWII telling his captain, "The triples are blazing away sir, but the twin turrets are basically useless since only one of the twin turrets can bear against the target!" That defeats the whole purpose of a "unified" main battery: so long as the shell size and gun caliber (barrel length) are the same, it shouldn't matter whether or not you've got all dual turrets, all triple turrets or a mix of turrets with different numbers of guns in them. Reload times are almost guaranteed to be different since it takes less time to reload two guns than three, but that's not the issue here. Now, onto the second point: gun caliber, or maybe better known as barrel length. The Japanese Kawachi class of battleships carried a "unified" gun size of 12", but some guns were 50 caliber and others were 45 caliber (meaning their barrel lengths were 600" and 540", respectively) which also caused problems with rangefinding and accuracy of the main battery as longer guns give you higher muzzle velocity and increased range, thus leading to the 50 caliber guns having different performance than the 45 caliber ones. If your guns are the same size but different caliber, you'll have just as much luck trying to hit a target as a ship with multiple gun sizes but equal barrel length. And one last thing before I close: I'm fairly certain that in the game tips that pop up while you are looking at a loading screen, there is a tip about keeping your gun size the same to increase effectiveness and speed of ranging/aiming ant there is another tip/piece of info about the Kawachi class and their mixed gun length problem that led to them having issues rangefinding despite having the same gun size. If those are tips that are put into this game, by the creators, on the topic of "unified main batteries", shouldn't a unified main battery actually mean something? (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about those tips popping up on the loading screens) Now, I'm well aware that you could argue that playing around with shell weight, propellant amounts/materials could fix or "make better" the different gun caliber ordeal and one could also argue that if you don't want half of your main battery to be helplessly stuck in the ladder aiming process...just make each turret have the same number of guns. Well, the first argument doesn't really need to happen since we can't change barrel length in this game and the second one takes away from this game's "freedom of design" aspect that allows you to, for the most part, create what you want the way you want it. Not to mention, the second argument could be reversed and the question then becomes "if the guns are the same size and caliber, and fire the same ammo...why does every turret have to have the same number of guns per turret just to be accurate or effective?" I also haven't seen anything in the patch notes for a while on gun accuracy/this issue in general...so I don't think it's been addressed or taken care of. I realize that much of the dev team's focus has been on the campaign for a while, and while they seem to have been very receptive to feedback as of late, I feel as though this issue has been around for too long now. It's not enough to make me stop playing and supporting this game if this issue is never fixed...but it still bothers me. So I guess all there is left to ask is this: With game tips that persuade you to have a "unified main battery," gun stats that are basically identical when it comes to muzzle velocity, range, penetration, and damage between all four turret options (single, dual, triple and quad barreled) and the inability to change barrel length to effect the aforementioned stats, and no influence/limits from the ship designer in situations like the USS Pensacola's where just moving the larger turret back will allow it to fit.......when will a "unified main battery" finally mean something? I hope I'm not the only one who feels/thinks this way, and I hope this eventually makes it's way to the eyes of @Nick Thomadis and/or the other devs. I also hope nobody is dead from reading a wall of text as this was pretty lengthy.

@DougToss you are right and I completely agree with you: there has been a lot of good feedback and Nick Thomadis has seemed very receptive as of late. I too, would like to see a higher level of accuracy in the game...owing mostly to my history buff nature. What I was trying to get at is: in the game's current state, there isn't an overwhelming amount of "historical accuracy" outside of the hulls, superstructures and gun models. While I would love to see more and more historical accuracy, or as close as possible to reality without causing a balancing nightmare for the devs, I'm not going to be overly concerned with "getting it right according to what we know" or get extremely nit-picky about exact values or details until the game starts to get more to the point of being increasingly historically accurate.

While that may/may not be true (idk because I haven't read up on that subject at all nor do I have first hand knowledge of that matter), it's like I've said countless times before in my other posts...this game isn't supposed to be a "realism simulator" or "incredibly and historically accurate." It's more of a sandbox mixed with grand strategy (from what we can assume or guess about the campaign so far) that is historically based. Now while there are some things that are/were completely absurd--like some of the gun ranges and shell weights--the devs have fixed what they can so far. I brought up a similar issue with rangefinders a while back and how coincidence/stereoscopic rangefinders were used and what their strengths and weaknesses were...and the best answer I got was (I'm summarizing here): the choice between coincidence and stereoscopic rangefinders in this game is just a design choice you make to decide whether your guns aim faster or if they are more "accurate" at long range. My guess is that it's a similar situation with the hydro/sonar modules...it's just an option that you can put on your ship if you want, and as the years go on you unlock the better versions or new technologies. Ultimately...very few things, if anything at all, is historically accurate or works the way it would in the real world as far as game mechanics go. Just design what you want, the way you want it

And let's not forget about the "guns per turret system" or "two turret system" that is currently in place as far as aiming goes. That's why wing turrets or USS Nevada/USS Pensacola style builds don't really work "effectively" in this game. It treats every turret with a different number of guns as it's own individual battery: in the case of a USS Nevada type build it treats it as one battery of 2x3 and another battery of 2x2...despite being the same gun size, thus leading to the triples and doubles having different accuracy information.

I don't know if it would be worth mentioning or considering...but what about the Tone class heavy cruisers from Japan? I realize that they were designed to be scout cruisers with float plane catapults on the rear, which led to their 4 twin turrets being all on the front of the ship, but it's an interesting cruiser design no less.