draconins

I think reload is not exclusive to IJN or USN either, some Soviet destroyers also carry reload (eg Leningrad with 8 tubes with one extra for each, though some book may say it has no reload, but there are other classes which has a few reload). What is most unique of IJN is they have dedicated reloading mechanism (which increase reload speed) , protection and the number of extra (if they have reload). If realistic number to be carried, instead simply preventing reload, torpedo extra component should be available as a separate "rendered" component instead of simple increase of weight, can be as auxiliary component which need to be put close to torpedoes (it can use logic used for barbette which needs to be placed on specified slot aft or in front of bridges), preferably resized according to torpedo size. part of IJN superstructure which has mounting point specific to it (some actually better armored than tube itself) separate "rack"/container (with increased reload time as manual reload takes long time). Putting this as rendered component would limit the unrealistic count of torp. As torpedo reload size and weight will affect the ship (though some center of mass mechanism balancing may need to be adjusted). Personally, the more important to this is actually, making torpedo tubes different for each size, similar to gun. Larger torps will have bigger mount or can use torpedo turret like in IJN, right now only tube count is used for size. Even this relatively simple mechanism would limit number of torp to some extent. From what I dig, Otoris has no reload. DE Matsu and DE Tachibana also has no reload as mainly used for escort. In addition to the classes you already mentioned, most 53cm/21 incher (the older destroyers) has no reload except Nokaze (subclass of Minekaze ) has 2 reloads for at least Namikaze and Numakaze. Though by WW2 most of them are mostly used as fast transport.

In the game , battleship and battlecruiser, protection and firepower (including rate of fire). I am willing to reduce size for tech less than 3 (so I get better rate of fire and accuracy, increasing firepower). In other ship classes generally firepower and speed.

I would test this on weekend, however I rarely changing from tight to loose or vice versa. And I can see this happen without changing tight to loose, and often this is on a "detached" ship, does not always to be in formation.

I think barbette should auto form, after selecting higher turret and the size would depend on how many gun per turret. Also I don't think UI wise there is a need to separate between side and centerline gun, they should be just automatically adjusted like the secondaries , if they can be mirrored and mirror is selected. If needed the turret can be snapped to "centerline guides/hardpoint". Mechanism already exists in secondaries. Ideally in mirror mode should also show "preview" of the gun placement of the other side.

I tried testing these in the scenario and just restart battle once I know who is the focus fire target, I think I now know the situation but that is only replicated three times in my case over like 50 ish restart (though I did not complete the mission) however that needs me to purposely build a smaller ship and restart until making sure battle started in behind transport , and even then it did not happen all the time. However it is basically replicated, screen shot below with 2 different situation, all CLs, in different occasion. Yes this situation is problematic as basically rule out the CL use in this situation. If I use BB, this never happen. Attached is screenshot illustrating situation which is common to me , they focus fire to me, even behind transport. Alternative to that is basically restart battle if you find situation unfavorable.

Yes it is that mission. However that is interesting, I never have the enemy ca actually targeting transport directly if actually I am in range of their gun. My early move is always moving toward the enemy CA (north) and they would almost focus fire at me once they can see me.

This is why I suggested very thick armor. They will always land one or two shot before you can land anything. If you have thick enough armors you can just mostly shrug them off and just mostly doing close combat (around 5 kms, do beware of 2 CA torps). I attached my build here, see the armor on the right. I have krupp IV instead of your Krupp II because I chose bonus "optimize survivability". As you can see my armor thickness is 10-15inch belt with +108%quality, this bring it approximately to effective 20.8- 31.2 inch belt On transport attacking enemies, I tried with my usual design (battleship with surface visibility 7395m) multiple times today , while I can see many lucky hit on long range on my ship, it always focus fire on me. The armored cruiser hull can be used here and I tried a few automatic designs. While I never win with those cruisers, the 3 CAs always focus fire on my ship(s) once they detects me. I had like 5 semi armored cruisers with visibility 3850m, and they still focus fire on my closest ship. I only played since alpha 74, while I do agree that some missions are very difficult, it does not mean you can't complete it, I currently completed 45 from 47 of training, most mission I have difficulties with are the one with controlling many destroyers, mainly due to control bugs. Some mission I had difficulties with tight time limit, but many are doable, though alpha v75 seems to relax some of the timing for those ( I completed many on Alpha 74, so those were too late). The mission I had not completed are the last two missions and both of them are the one with massive control bugs potential with so many destroyers to control, and if bugs happen, that can ruin hours of gameplay. I had a few of those in "Torpedo Banzai", but I finally completed it few days ago, and the last two missions still on my to do. I do think most of these missions are not exactly training, they are difficult enough for its own gameplay and require significant understanding of mechanics for many of the missions. Some bonus is questionable for some mission, some hull in some mission I simply can't see how anyone can win with those. Nonetheless I think sink the raiders is the one where you can learn how useful armor is.

Try to raise thickness of your armor like 10-15 inch belt armor with 100%+ Armor quality, with optimize survivability. I think in my case, most of my initial mistakes were trying to get battleship which is too fast for most of WWI and prior ships. You want to melee with old battleship not long range as gun in this period is not very accurate. Try to get like 20-25 kt speed for this mission.

In my humble opinion, making it realistic and ship design issues should be lower priority than making gameplay work at current point. They are issues but it does not stop play. I am still unsatified with current ship designer but it does not stop me to play. Even nonrealistic ship design can still be fun with good enough gameplay. Gameplay issues mainly about control, for example torpedo not firing without clear reason, multiple formation control, ship turn in circle, ship evasion, ship ramming mechanics, sudden falling back of line logic. This kind of issues can make a lot of frustration in already mostly working games. Some of the points Nick already addressed earlier.

As you found, I found this battle is difficult but manageable compared piloting tons of destroyers missions. This is how I won the fight recently. The armor configuration is designed to protect against 16 inch and can sustain a few torps but if enemy BB uses 16 inch it is often still partial pen, your chance is better if you fight 14incher BB. Speed just enough to keep up (the enemy BB is very fast 29kn+). Balanced boiler is used as two of tall funnel II is about 50% efficiency instead of forced (70ish). Heavy shell and tube powder is used to increase pen as the enemy BB is heavily armored. This sacrifice towers to very thick armor (modern tower I and rear tower VII). Acoustic is useless as tech not high enough to detect the torps far enough, so they are not used. However instead this is designed to simply shrug off a few torps. You do not need barbette in this armor thickness. Note, in screenshot below for armor configuration see right side I simply ignored the CA, go to northwest to west, and focus fire on BB and try to keep lead against the BB while trying to maintain about 5-10km. The enemy fleet would going southwest if you move west. Most of time the BB often too fast moving for the CAs to keep up. The allies DDs ? just sacrifice them to absorb enemy torps by either screening or following your BC, their torps are useless, and even if all hit they would not sink the BB. If you do this, it would be very hard for CA to torp you as you are ahead of them and make it difficult angle, except during initial turning west, as if they use oxygen they may hit you, hence you may want DD to be sacrificed to absorb this or make CAs busy. If you are lucky lead CA would be gun only and this would help as torps will have difficult angle to torp. I had one time they are torping me, they friendly fire leading CA. Still watch out, but torp on this angle are pretty easy to avoid, and hitting a few torps would not matter much, this mainly happen when the BB slowed down. To adjust for slight decrease, initially do not reduce your speed, but increase and decrease range a little bit (the path would look like zigzag), as you often want to maintain lead. This path is mostly straight hence accuracy is pretty high. I have tried this tactic for few times just to test and it does works most of time except on unlucky hit to engine/rudder, or when the16 incher BB lucky fire hit me on deck damaging something on plunging fire from long range. Your tower also may get damaged but as I tried to keep straight and close, the accuracy penalty is not that big. Further this is tiny tower, chance of damaging tower is much lower. I had tried to kite enemy by going to west side before at long range multiple attempts, while kiting works (and make far enough to have BB join the fight), but I simply emptied my ammo. while the enemy BB simply had half structure at best. This tactic also may work if you have ammo detonation luck on long range. When using this tactic, make sure the deck is very thick and simply reduce belt armor. While trying this, I found allied BB is useless as it is often very underarmored and undergunned, It can beat the CAs but not going toe to toe with enemy BB. I tried similar tactic to Husarius, though I can't make it work, if I tried to attack CA, they will just smoke and almost not hitting or damaging any or at best the closest CA run to back. Hope that helps.

Also I think enemies torp launch already do not calculate their own friendlies. I have screenshot where there is knife fight in Prove your might scenario. There are torps launched at me which even was side by side (and even ramming) to the BB there and this screenshot showed how the torps from their cruisers even actually will hit the BB (though the BB does not seems to be affected at all), the BB is actually trying to escape me after I rammed him, I was now a bit far as the control forced me out of ramming..... And this happened several time to me already.. I also hate in ramming what ever command I instructed they tried to turn it out, this made me lose this battle. And I never able to do launch torps in knife fight when en masse like this.... Do note that AI basically made right decision here, it is just very crippling that AI on my side can not make same decision.

Not sure if it is ever suggested yet. If dev does not want to add button for manual torpedo launch, can Dev remove friendly ships from calculation for considering torpedo launches in aggressive mode? Alternatively add a new "panic" mode. Basically I would say we would need a mode where friendly fire is not considered, because it is part of the "plan" as in real world. Or at least, limit this calculation to say to only very short range in this mode (say 5Km or less). Sometime you do want to bait fleet and that will have small fast ship in range (but actually will be out of range by the time torpedo near. Or when you tried tried to do inverted wedge formation with long range torpedoes, where initially some of friendly ships which would be temporarily in path. Or in other case of bait, when we expect already that we will need to sacrifice a few ship. Where you charge into with other division then pull out before torp arrives.

What I use is a little bit more realistic version of Naval Ops Commander game from Koei, with more frustrating fleet control. The reason I bought this game is basically because I want games like Naval Ops both the commander and the Warship gunner.

Sorry for late response, as I basically busy. So far unable to find consistent way, however most of happening to me is mostly for very long game, very rare of my quick games so far have this problem. Based my own experience as developer , I am assuming it is some floating point which can accumulate/overflow without being noticeable and cause terrible things, my assumption this will accumulate for each command being issued. However that is my 2 cents only. I have tried that one and using hotkey (the alt rightclick) without success. I already noticed this, basically after attach/detach I often need to reissue "new" command to that fleet, but this is separate to those. I agree, formation is terrible here, the thing is you can't just separate all ships individually. But yes my workaround so far simply build less ships as possible, as other than this bug, there are tons of fleet command issue related, such as but not limited to: the leader change mechanic, anti collision mechanic, fleet arrangement, torpedo not launching even when there is no allies on track, in range, aggressive and basically straight cruise. One of my memorable one, I think in "Cruiser needed" in the successful try I do with sinking battleship, I basically loses 12 light cruisers before I finally win with 2% structure on my battleship due to terrible handling of formation and luckily this bug does not appear. And that is after frustration of so many losses. In this game so far what I enjoyed is actually using a super battleship and just set any escort to follow, and in the end basically that was I did in the aforementioned mission, because controlling a formation is often futile exercise, and the longer the game, the tendency for this bug to appear is very high. My problem though, in naval academy the time is often very short for a single ship to handle everything. By this time already happen to me multiple times and yes this is very annoying. I found AI on and RTB order are basically useless. And as above most often this is for long game.

Thanks, so far I am unable to consistently reproduce this.

Hi all, my first post here, wondering anyone experiencing issues when controlling many ships, where some ship continuously turning circle, even in detached mode and there is no damage to the rudder. It is usually most obvious in destroyer and torpedo boat and the only thing kind of "fix" turning circle is controlling rudder slider, however that is temporary only, once you use right click over sea or alt right click, the ship would be back to turning circle around. This has been happening several times already and while is not always happening, when happening, it is usually at the critical action, making controlling fleet very frustrating, to the point I would try to create only single ship most of the time. The UI itself actually show "planned" path, but ship is not responding at all. In non destroyer it is usually less obvious but the symptom would be it would not be responding to command unless using rudder slider.