1MajorKoenig

A lot of this was going through my mind as well. I have seen projects go south - big projects. Regardless there are two - in my opinion huge - factors to keep in mind in this case though: 1) the game has great potential. It fills a niche a lot of players would like to see filled. 2) 2020 is a complete write off for the game. I joined a year ago and within this time literally ZERO substantial happened. Going off the trailer of the ship designer it gives us an idea what they had in mind but apparently they did not manage to get it to work. Now combine it with replacing the main developer and zero progress - one can only suspect that the team isn’t entirely satisfied with the progress either. Yes at some point the budget is gone. So what do you do? Either: a) release the game in a dire state, have it dead on arrival and let it die in piece. “Don’t throw good money after the bad money” b) you come the the conclusion that the project didn’t go to plan but has the potential to still win. You formalize a change which outlines what needs to be done to save the project and what it will cost. You release the game later and at higher costs but you could still win if you do the right things I have no Idea how the devs see the state of the project but I am still hoping that they go for b) And btw I also struggle to play the game as is and I do so much less than I would like to. But that is because it is simply not in a state it offers what is needed. The proposal I made outlines basically the way I would envision such a designer but realistically I would go for the following priorities to improve the current version to something “functional” as you say (which in my view it is not as of today - it is a prototype in my view): 1) split up the main tower in at least bridge and mast 2) add different bow and stern forms to select for the hull 3) make the placement (hard points) more flexible These would be an absolute MUST in my view and would already greatly improve the designer although the others would also be important. But one could at least include substantial improvements to have something to work with for now

Valid question. @Nick Thomadis - are you able and allowed to give us your view on the ship designer and what you plan to achieve or even what direction you have in mind?

Agree that the designer is the central selling point. Without it the decades old “Jutland” is probably not worse. At least it has reasonable mechanics and a very good campaign. Making your own ships though will bring this game into a different league! Yes I think I also remember that devs wanted to improve the designer. It would be fantastic if they’d let us know what their current view on possible scope is! I mean - certainly the list of improvements can be brought into priority sequence

I see your point but completely disagree. The current designer is very very basic - more a rapid prototype. Each suggestion here is “just” an extension or improvement of the existing logic - and none of it is really complicated. Your suggestions on modelling ships has nothing to do with the game. But such a game needs a solid design fun to not be to shallow. And that we will get a campaign is out of question. Essentially the ship designer together with the campaign is the heart of the game. These two define the game and will decide on its success

Thanks I added this point. Can’t be super hard to do actually but agree that it can look somewhat stupid to have a huge barbette with a tiny turret on it currently

You are correct that machinery space doesn’t exist today — and so doesn’t hull design or any other of the suggested improvements. I hope though that you are wrong about your opening statement that the current designer is what the game will get once it is ready. Because quite frankly that would not be enough by any means My impression is more that the current version is a simplistic first quick and dirty version to get the show going but it is far far from being in a final state?

😞 Damn I misread you then. Although a deck is admittedly much simpler than a superstructure which is currently an combination of decks, bridge, conning tower, masts, etc. A deck is just that - a deck. What if you make a couple of basic forms and a simple mechanism to scale it in length?

I changed slightly the funnel part. I think ideally every section of machinery gets their own funnels. If two machinery spaces are directly side by side one trunknes funnel would be ok. Basically like that 😁 Updated the opening post — agree On that part I would prefer a simplistic volume thing. I would like to see more detail but I don’t think it’s needed. However being able to decide on the overall layout would still be desirable, also if you think to building strange designs like a Nelson and such. At the end there is a balance to be found between effort to program all that, ease of use for the player and freedom to create great ships. I would therefore stick to the simple space boxes as on the sketches in yellow. One could say one box goes up to a certain HP output or so. Once your ship needs more the program adds a second machinery box. For a Dreadnought I would prefer to see something between two to three spaces depending on the ship. Btw: thanks for typing this very detailed response!

I started once more to go through the academy missions and find them mostly nice and entertaining for a short while. One great feature is the “safe design” function to go back and optimize your designs. However: in all my recent missions the AI built exclusively “Maximum Bulkheads” ships which make for rather long session of chewing on the enemies. Don’t get me wrong - these minimum bulkheads thingies were not great either. I think the bulkhead slider in general would need to be looked at though

Thanks - i deleted some old pictures on other threads... Let's ping some dudes to see what they do: @Nick Thomadis / @Cptbarney / @Marshall99 / @BobRoss0902 / @Cpt.Hissy / @SonicB / @DerRichtigeArzt / @IronKaputt / @CapnAvont1015 / @Fishyfish / @Skeksis / @Aceituna And of course anyone I forgot ... sorry

Damn — prepared two nice sketches but can’t upload them — anyone knows how to fix that (apparently not enough space available)?

Hi all! After leaving my feedback regarding the Ship Designer - in my opinion the most interesting and unique selling proposition of the game - in multiple threads I decided to write up a summary of what I would like to see. The whole thing is aiming to improve flexibility and create more interesting (and less repetitive 😞 ) Designs! As a Start I would expand on what we can do on the Hull! These steps are marked as H1 to H11: H1. Hull Selection Fewer hulls needed as the hull itself becomes part of the design process. Example: tumblehome, pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, fast battleship. Each hull comes with a tonnage restriction (eg. something like 20.000 - 50.000 t for dreadnoughts, 30.000 - 100.000 t for fast BBs, etc.). H2. Tonnage Slider As today but instead of simply lengthening the hull it would make the hull bigger in the whole (lenght, beam and draft) -> scale in all dimensions instead of just lengthening H3. Lenght-to-Beam Slider Change the hull form within the tonnage. Has impact on seakeeping, speed, turning, accelaration, stability, etc. H4. Freeboard Slider (UPDATED) Has an influence on stability, buoyoncy and target size (hit propbability of the enemy). Alternatively a simple high / medium / low option as proposed by @Cpt.Hissy . For me it is important that this is represented in 3d meaning a „low“ freeboard ship would sit deep in the water. H5. Speed Slider Desired top speed as today. Determines needed power output. H6. Selection Bow-Section The bow has influence on seakeeping, speed, stability, etc. and is visually represented in the 3d model. - Ram pronounced - dreadnought bow - straight bow - slight positive - pronounced positive / clipper bow H7. Selection Stern-Section The stern has influence on seakeeping, speed, stability, etc. and is visually represented in the 3d model. - cruiser - round - transom H8. Selection Flush deck or step? (UPDATED) Possibility to add: - Forecastle - step - or flush deck As @Cpt.Hissy mentioned, maybe there are better ways to achieve that. But in general iT would be good to shape generally the form, and decide if you want a step in the deck, a forecastle or just a flush deck. H9. Selection Propulsion As today (triple expansion, turbines, diesel, etc.). H10. Place machinery Spaces Machinery space volume required based on all above criteria is calculated and represented as a couple of slices of the hull which can be moved fore / aft to be placed within the ship. These could be split up or placed next to each other, eg. in the center. Machinery spaces will not allow centreline primary guns over them. I would suggest to allow "side" primary gun turrets over machinery space though. Funnels can only be placed over machinery spaces. There should be a couple of seperate sections of these to be placed, eg. three. Machinery Space Section marked yellow (red means no placement of primary guns at the very ends of the ship). H11. The osther selection boxes could mostly remain as they are in my opinion. However - I don't like the "Bulkheads" Slider at all! It is simply a matter of "the-more-the-merrier" thing. I would replace it with some selection box potentially like the one for double bottom. General remark to the Armor: I am one of the few who don't mind the armnor settings through thickness on certain parst. However there is currently an issue how the program determines "main belt" - it is the center three sections of the ship regardless of what's inside. I would propose a dynamic "main belt" calculation based on the first main gun or main gun barbette and the last one and including all the machinery spaces. Once the hull is defined we can come to the modules which are currently added in the center section in the lower part of the designer. To give the player the possibility to create much more diverse designs the current modules are split up into more granular categories - named M1 to M7: M1. Casemate Deck (UPDATED) Possibility to add an additional deck below the actual superstructure. As mentioned by @Cpt.Hissy a few predefined models would most likely suffice here. It would be great though if the length of the deck could be changed to create longer or shorter ones and if Barbettes could „snap“ into the very ends of the deck (same for the step in the deck btw). M2. Bridge Module Lower half of the current "main tower" module. This module includes basic fire control, damage control, spotting, etc. values M3. Mast Module On top of the bridge we would put a mast which provides different bonuses to the bridge base values - Spotting top (mostly spotting bonusses) - Tripod Mast (spotting and long range accuracy) - Pole mast (spotting and long range accuracy) - plus some more modern masts, such as the thick Bismarck mast, the Dunkerque mast, etc. as stylish elements (spotting and long range accuracy) M4. Rear Tower Module Mostly like today but it must be easier to combine them with other modules, eg. smaller modules M5. Funnel Module (UPDATED) We certainly need more funnely, bigger funnels and so on! But most importantly I want to place funnels ANYWHERE over the machinery spaces and on the superstructure and casemate deck over machinery spaces. And we need these thick trunked funnels and such 🙂 Edit: after thinking about it again and reading the comments I think every machinery section should have their own funnels. So the program should allow for placing funnels anywhere over the machinery spaces. Funnels should „cut“ through casemate decks and bridge structures if possible — with some exceptions like the coming tower part. M6. Main Guns and Barbettes With all of the above it become easy: you can place main guns and mnain gun barbettes ANYWHERE on the ship - safe bow and stern and machinery spaces for centerline armament. I would propose to allow side mounted main guns over machinery spaces to simulate that they sit to the side of the engines, boilers and such. Plus: make it so barbettes are represented in the correct size in the 3d model which should be relatively simple to do as the program knows the turret ring size - as proposed by @SonicB M7. Secondary guns and Barbettes Secondary Guns should be able to be places ANYWHERE safe the very bow and stern section. It would be awesome if placing such guns could "CUT" into the casemate deck if placed there. No idea how difficult that would be to do. AI Designs: we discussed multiple times that the AI needs support to avoid these "Clown Car" Designs - well for them just put a couple of hardpoints and presets in the background - but leave the players the freedom! Thanks all for reading and hope you like it!

That one I really want as well. In general I feel that the ship designer could be beyond awesome if could be enhanced (quite a bit though).

She’s a fictionally modernized BADEN battleship - or at least she is supposed to be that..

I would actually go the other way round: your set engine power output and type could determine the needed volume which needs to be placed within the hull - maybe as simple as a segment. Splitting that segment should be possible though. These segments would determine where you can place funnels and you shouldn’t be able to place primary guns

best would be to have a customizeable hull though displacement as now NEW: beam to lenght ratio NEW: draft? NEW: set bow and stern type - both visually and with different properties gameplay wise NEW: flush deck or multiple decks NEW: machinery spaces

That’s simple: currently I have little reason to play. I may play a custom battle from time to time but that’s pretty repetitive. Plus with the current severe limitations of the designer the ships turn out pretty similar as well. Academy missions are ok for a tutorial but not much more for me. Therefore I hope that the campaign will bring a reason to play, build, Refit, etc

Yes that would be also my wish! Although I am really curious to get a flavour of the campaign as well. However somehow I have the feeling the campaign will take more time

Howdy, I am currently once more really hyped about the game (or better about its potential). I don’t play necessarily much but I am eager to see it’s further development! So.... What are we going to see in Alpha 11? - ship designer overhaul? (??) - campaign? Btw. Re-watched the old trailer yesterday and it is glorious. Exchanging entire hull (!!!) sections! Can’t wait to see the ship designer being redone! (Hype)

Happy new year

Woohoo - new patch!! Gogogo 🙂 Will take a look later

It doesn’t sound like super difficult to fix honestly. If they would allow placement of machinery which could simply be represented as a volume based on the calculated speed -> power output + chosen machinery type the rest would logically follow. Funnels could be placed anywhere on the set machinery spaces, barbettes could placed anywhere outside the machinery spaces (and not directly on the bow and stern where space is too limited). Heck it the AI doesn’t get it to deal with such simply mechanics the devs can implement some hard points in the background just for the AI to use but let the player do what they need to do! That the one big part, the second being the superstructure parts - they are currently much too repetitive! By breaking them up in smaller modules we could create a little variety: bridge, main mast, etc

As far as I know no landmass planned for now. Hope they won’t copy Tonks on Water / Warsheeps

While I am not sure why we need reverse to begin with any sorts of updates are highly welcome! Thx