coalminer

they really dont care at this point. those threads created for "feedback"? its just going to run along for 50 over pages and get ignored just like how everyone has been for the past couple of years. Everything is unexplained modifiers and "stealth hullz wit 90% damagez reductionz" cause we can. what are the basis for those reductions? it sure as hell isnt GA or armour layouts because the player cant control any of those. If the really wanted feedback, start answering questions and suggestions given over the many many pages in the past not lead us all on another merry go round. in all possibility those threads are created to bait the new players flooding over from steam.

the price has already been dropped significantly compared to the original "early early access" price here. one would wonder if this would be a quick cash grab and leave it as a half baked game out there. the fact that they cant even get us early backers enough keys has me wondering, *tin foil hat on mode*, they dont want the veterans to bombard the page with negative reviews and ratings to put off potential customers who buy into the "realism" plastered all over on a bare bones barely working game. there is no road map, no dev plans no nothing and the timelines has been missed so many times, a 12month EA right now means as much as all the other dev posts (barely any) to acknowledge issues and inform the community of whats going on. at this point, as with the game being such a major disappointment, im hoping the game would flop badly in hopes that it would disappoint me once again and instead we get a fully functioning fantastic naval sim game.

I mean you've seen the number of life boats on there right? clearly this is a lifeboat tender and not a cruiser!

its reminiscent of Armored Warfare where a game with a great dev team backing it ran into issues with the publishers (or whoever was running the show) and ended up giving up because the publishers simply wanted a clone of the existing tank games in market as it was the most likely to make returns on investment. Now it exists simply as a payforskins and random premium vehicles game mirroring other arcadey shooter games. Not saying that this is whats happening or will happen but it does smell vaguely similar with the whole investment by another company things that happened to game labs.

Putting all the personal drama aside, unfortunately as much as we want to support the game even the main selling point of the game falls flat on its premise. the designer as it is is pretty much useless except for building a variant of the original historical ship the hull was based on otherwise it would be unoptimised (just look at how the AI tries to slap things all over). For the most part late war hulls only allows ABY triple mounts because of how the game forces you down and early game being variants of AY guns and hoping that the devs gives the nation of your choosing better "stats and resistance" because apparently thats how armour and GA works.

unfortunately i echo the sentiments of this post and many others who have simply moved on. not so peeved about the lack of progress on the development (COVID and all) but the complete ignoring of community comments, feedback and any sort of constructive discussion is outright ignored. the so called "realism" advertised is a load of bull because almost nothing makes sense. putting that aside because people inevitably would come and yell "but realism isnt fun!" the whole brushing off of feedback and each patch things just keeps getting worse makes this seem like the most logical option right now. A patchwork of random patches and balances addressing things in piecemeal is only going to result in a patchwork game with barely functioning mechanics where the "patched meta" will always be preferred. Without a good foundation whats the difference between playing this and world of thunder magical battleships and the myriad of clones out there because super BBs and magical technology is all this is about. Gas turbines, STEALTHY BATTLECRUISERS????? and magical AI knowing when you are out of ammo/torpedoes? kthxbye. Are we getting railguns and H44 hulls next? maybe throw in pykrete and unobtanium armour next perhaps.

Just wanna drop by and say cheers for keeping up with the bug hunting over the past few months despite the (by now rather standard) silence from the devs. I hope they've atleast seen this.

Lets just leave it at this.

Yamato's bulbous bow was extensively tested in towing tanks and she was built before the end of WW2, advanced hydrodynamics was a well known subject and further improved upon by the availability of advanced CFD. The Iowa classes were also completed before the end of WW2. Why bring up the Vasa and Mary Rose where actual first hand documentation is scarce for wooden sail boats when the Turbinia was built, tested and improved upon by well known methods in 1890s? on the 2nd, the term "fair winds and following seas" has probably been around for a long time (since the age of sail at the very least) which meant the effects of sailing into head seas was atleast known to affect vessels. Without basic buoyancy there is no advanced hydrodynamics, they are interlinked concepts. And what I'm saying is the designer is a poor representation of how ship design is done with the limitations as is. Balance (weight distribution) and a number of items are abstracted very poorly (and has been demonstrated in numerous other threads).

Perhaps you can point what where specifically it provides the centre point of gravity on this image? All i see are armaments and armour layouts which also does not include any weight numbers or stability calculations and machinery spaces. This image on wiki is credited to Janes which as far as I am aware would not have access to such (back then) state of the art engineering drawings. Since we are citing wiki, looking at the preceeding Formidable class which the Mikasa is based off on, these numbers are provided (Freeboard was 23 ft (7.0 m) forward, 16 ft 9 in (5.11 m) amidships, and 18 ft (5.5 m) aft.) considering that the Formidable class did not have (or had minimal sheer) in the deck from pictures and drawings, this provides that the designers or atleast the sailors knew that ships ought to be trimmed aft to provide optimal sailing conditions, sure they could have been ballasted, but knowing that the hull had X volume and displacement, any engineer of the day would not dedicate such weight to ballast. Why add weight for balance when it could be built from the start for the aft trim or atleast even keel. They might not have advanced CFD software but they sure werent going in blind like idiots either. I am not going to do a full literature review for you but heres an article from 1880 on Naval Architecture and the basics of ship stability, sure the illustration in the article is calculating for transverse stability but the formulas for longitudinal stability are more or less the same. https://ia800708.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/22/items/crossref-pre-1909-scholarly-works/10.1016%2F0016-0032%2880%2990459-7.zip&file=10.1016%2F0016-0032%2880%2990617-1.pdf The Royal Institute of Naval Architects was founded in 1860s and the theories were demonstrated by William Froude through testing in physical facilities, were they sitting around on their rear ends twiddling their thumbs? Maybe, but the Dreadnought did not capsize immediately upon launch, perhaps they were pretty good at guesswork. Take it however you want it, I am giving credit to those who pioneered the field of engineering and naval architecture.

Lord Kelvin was around before the pre-dreads and the major calculations (basics of buoyancy) not to mention sailing and ship design experience was already very mature by then (iterative design improvements is well ingrained in the naval architecture design cycle). Saying that naval architects didnt know how to trim vessels back then is kind of very farfetched. This assumption also seems to completely ignore machinery weight which is a sizable amount and typically located further aft. This aside, it only further highlights the glaring need for more improved designer otherwise everyone's designs are going to be same without the ability to balance machinery spaces and weights within the vessel.

Hulls are going to be imbalanced anyway with the fixed approach taken with certain nations having inherent advantages simply based on available hulls, I'm going to assume its going to be more number and % tweaking in the future to "balance" the nations because thats how technology, naval design and warfare worked(/s). The fixed towers would likely also be a similar issue. It seems to lean towards new = best, big = better when it comes to towers, components (smoke stacks). +++++ On the 10% increase, this has also been demonstrated in the past that random numbers are pulled out for "balance purposes". A baseline of what these numbers were based on is not given nor any justifications (e.g. random historic paper so that the community could atleast comment or feedback on the proposed changes) on why such changes. There are numerous sources on the internet on characteristics of naval armour used, couldnt one of these be cited or extrapolated to provide the baseline reference number? Disclosing the numbers would also make it easier for the community to help tweak and refine the armour resistance down the line. Although at this point we may just as well be beating a dead horse.

Like many of the more active community users who gave alot of useful feedback, I have also more or less given up on this. The arbitrary resistance % given to hulls is just as far from reality as possible. Damage resistance should purely come from internal arrangements (which doesnt exist), armouring scheme (which doesnt exist) and a few other abstract ideas that barely resemble real world physics (bulkheads, citadel, floatation %). The example being a 20" armoured DD hull will always be more shell resistant than a 500k tonne BB hull with 0 armour. All the response we got from the devs is either they cannot (or refuse to) talk about it or simply silence (assuming its even read and taken into consideration or this should be rephrased as outright ignored). The above example on gun mounts far at the bow mounting centreline affecting roll more than mounts placed at CG but at the beams and high mounted weight not affecting roll is just another example of modifiers and random % numbers thrown all over the place. The basic KBGMt would show that anything with more lever(at the beams) would affect roll more even if it was midship (at the LCG). If anything the bow mounted guns should affect pitch not roll.

This game has some technical portions to it but most of it is not realistic or outright fantasy. a completely flat sided square steel box with 0" armour plating installed is not anywhere less resistant to a ship shaped hull form with also 0" armour plating installed. Stating in patch notes that "special hull resistance characteristics making it especially durable even against battleships." makes 0 sense because arguably, a destroyer hull with 20" armour mounted would be more resistant to gun fire than a 500K displacement BB with 0 armour. Modifiers and barely comprehensive damage models are not the way to go if a "realistic" game is to be made. It simply ends up as bigger = better as its just slapping on more and more big guns with enough armour to resist it. Nothing else is important, not interior layout, not GA for crew comfort and damage control or even TDS/bulges because its just install Y get 0.5 damage modifiers against Z damage type, need I mention the need for go-fast (30knots+ 1910s BBs)? Sure there is min/maxing for roll/pitch motions (which again is arguable as realistic, a ship with lower roll periods may make a stable gunnery platform, but such a ship is likely to be very wet along with the sciences that goes behind naval architecture), but what is likely is ending up with the same ABX 3 mounts design because the fixed components and towers, the lack of internal structures, barbette mechanics, ammo placement, the main 3 sections counting as "citadel", etc. makes this the only viable way to play. edit: throwing on the campaign at this point is likely going to draw in another fresh wave of players who may end up with the same conclusion and further alienating those who are already here due to: i. The mechanics are not fleshed out and are place holders; and ii. The mechanics are not fleshed out and are here to stay. If the mechanics are not finalised, the campaign wouldnt work as the ships would not be the final products representing themselves in the campaign, but with an overly simplified battle mechanic then its likely going to end with auto resolving every battle as every AI will churn out the same ship all the time.

custom battle with unlocked mode is probably as close to sandbox for now but it still restricts gun technology and superstructure to the underlying hull type. although i suppose one big issue with mixing parts is further clipping and turrets not fitting to the integrated barbettes and thus restricting builds.