1MajorKoenig
-
Posts
280 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by 1MajorKoenig
-
-
3 hours ago, madham82 said:
Therein lies the central problem many have commented on, lack of communication. They seem to not want to tell us what "will not" change and just leave it with a vague statement of "we are looking into it". I'm not saying they should tell us everything. However, if the community keeps asking for X, and it is simply not possible or the direction they want to take...say so. That way people won't spend loads of time writing/debating threads like this, only to never see any of it come into being.
I for one would love to hear them ask more closed ended questions about fix/changes instead of "what is needs to be improved, what is broke, what new ship hull to add, etc..."
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?
-
10
-
-
2 hours ago, madham82 said:
Uh no. Right now there are so many things completely non-historic or unrealistic, the designer is the key lynch pin of the game. That is what makes this game different from any other out there including RTW.
The devs have acknowledged improvements to the designer are planned. The question is how much are they willing or can do to improve it.
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
-
7
-
-
19 minutes ago, Faolind said:
This is not a realistic request if you ever want the campaign mode.
and I want the campaign mode.The Campaign is what will make this game playable and fun, not a designer overhaul.
Think on this- any change to the designer means a change to the AI design programming, UI design, Modeling, game stats and balance, and subsequently Combat AI.
It isn't feasible. The Designer is what everything else is built of of.
If you want to design realistic ships of your own absolute design, I might suggest a 3D modelling program and perhaps an engineering degree.
Its unrealistic to expect an indie game dev to produce these tools for you, and indeed if they did, it might take an extra year, and would come with its own compromises.
When dealing with an indie company, everything is some sort of compromise.
I'd like my Campaign please.
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
-
4
-
-
6 hours ago, SonicB said:
This x100000. There is no need for ugly, often oversized separate barbettes which don't match the turrets or even fit the deck width - British Dreadnought I, looking at you. Just making a raised barbette an option when placing a turret is an elegant solution from a more civilised age.
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
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:
Great idea. Ge is too far in development to make it happen tho. Imo we just need to settle for what we have now and just ask for guns and barbettes beeing more flexible in thier placement.
And btw I said in some post that machinery space does not exist currently in the game, and proof for that is that you can place guns before you place anything else and thry can run the entire lenght of the ship, so putting amidship barbette is all the more reasonable since it elevates the gun so it does not cut into the engines. My 2 cents here, your idea is great for UAD 2 if the 1st one isna success.
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?
-
53 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
Ouch, that was exactly not the point ,i said predefined models would most likely NOT suffice. For same reasons why current superstructures and built-in-hull casemates don't.
😞
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?
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:
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.
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.
11 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:M5 Funnels. - Always go onto the main deck and can be intersected with casemate and forecastle (so to not be limited in position by those), but cannot be intersected with towers, masts, guns etc.
Basically like that 😁
11 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:M1. Casemate deck. - Predefined models could more or less work,
Updated the opening post — agree
11 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:can be done simplified - Auto place machinery as a block in the middle, then allow placement of guns/magazines everywhere, but if some of them go over machinery - account for this by increasing machinery size by some value depending on gun size.
For "realism" it should somehow differentiate fore and aft guns from midships guns, with only latter able to go over machinery. It is technically possible to fit machinery parts everywhere around and past the guns, but it was never actually done for good reasons, so probably shouldn't be allowed.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
-
3
-
2
-
-
Damn — prepared two nice sketches but can’t upload them — anyone knows how to fix that (apparently not enough space available)?
-
1
-
-
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 deckAs @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!
-
41
-
6
-
-
16 minutes ago, Cdodders said:
more in depth superstructure designing .....
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).
-
1 hour ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
Looks german
She’s a fictionally modernized BADEN battleship - or at least she is supposed to be that..
-
1
-
-
-
18 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
Ideally, a block under the funnel is to be "boilers" and should not intersect with another boilers (in this case, shift the foremost one forward until it fits, but corresponding funnel must stay within it's limits), and smaller block right behind that should be "engines" and it CAN intersect with whatever, this would mean engines are somehow arranged around the thing they intersect with as this was done in real ships.
If later in the campaign a ship gets refitted with new engines, engine compartment size is now static and is a base on which your new possible engine power is calculated, accounting for current tech. If you go for less power than possible, you save weight and can assign that weight towards more range (fuel), but engine size stays. Would be perfect to be able to discard part of engine spaces or even entire compartment together with a funnel, and increase something else like crew amount instead.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
-
1
-
1
-
7 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
I can't get it, how one can want campaign already when the core mechanics are half placeholder, half nonexistent at all. How it would even work?
also to clarify, i don't doubt they will ever fix the editor... yet.. I doubt it will be already done with next patch.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
-
3
-
-
49 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
H o p e f u l l y, a promise to actually fix the editor, but i doubt any actual changes in this field as for now.
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)
-
1
-
-
Happy new year
-
5
-
1
-
-
Woohoo - new patch!!
Gogogo 🙂
Will take a look later
-
On 12/25/2020 at 1:25 AM, SonicB said:
That's what frustrates me. The ship designer is literally a core function of the game, as well as its main selling point. It's sad to see it unnecessarily crippled with no promise of a fix, while minor things like reversing - which I've never felt I needed - are prioritised in patches.
It's why I've largely given up playing.3 hours ago, Ruan said:Last I heard they were going to increase number of points you can use to place modules but free placement isn't going to happen. The reason was those modules may interfere with machinery spaces (Please correct me if I'm wrong). I argue that if we could actually build our ships, instead of modifying them, it wouldn't be a problem. I suspect there is more going on, possibly with tech, than the Devs are willing to admit.
The project is walking on eggshells. Enthusiasts, History Nuts and sim nuts would be willing to open wallets without questions if they just focused on the simulation and ship design. However, with the direction it's heading now it'll just be another game left in the dust before it even officially launches.
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
-
10
-
-
2 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:
imo it may be a sign of landmasses in the future, if your predread or destroyer runs aground, its easier to go back the way you came than to force through who knows how much shallow seafloor.
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
PROPSAL: Ship Designer 2.0
in General Discussions
Posted
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