Shneemaster

Now that we have beam and draught sliders, can we have a separate length slider so we can control it independent from the displacement?

Remaining post-Washington Naval Treaty battleships we don't have yet: Nelson Vanguard Scharnhorst North Carolina South Dakota I think that's it. And these can all be approximated with other hulls and towers. Should probably focus on WW1 ships and cruisers now.

I've been waiting for something for something truly awful to post here, and here it is:Okay, where to start: - 6x 12" guns as the main battery for a 57,000 ton battleship. - Another example of horrible aft weight offset, complete with massive barbette - 4 different calibres of secondary guns -Chaotic mess of secondary turret placement - Deck torpedo tubes on a battleship - Weird funnel placement - Reduced ammo count, resulting in them running out of 12 shells before doing serious damage to my fleet At least they were well protected, with maximum bulkheads (side note: maximum bulkheads are way to powerful, the current "few" and "many" settings should be the minimum and maximum) and good armour, I emptied 5600 13" shells, and a good number of 8", into these things at close range and only sunk one of them.

Finally, some love for cruisers. I was getting tired of that one Italian superstructure being used for literally everything.

For bonus fun: try using the "Auto-Design" feature on the Spanish "Small Dreadnought" hull: (I promise the auto-design is responsible for all of these) I think it actually using the pre-dreadnought design logic. It sometimes put the larger turrets on the wings and the smaller ones on the ends. Similar to the above, notice that the wing turrets are 12" but the centerline turrets are 11". I'd hate to be in charge of fire control on this ship. I love the lonely 2" turret at the back there

This one's not terrible. They appear to have inverted the Nelson-class for the turret layout, which isn't good, but they're spaced out enough to have decent firing arcs regardless. The main reason I'm posting this one is that, as you can see in the top left, this is from the "There can only be one" mission, where, as you may know, the enemy is programed to run away when damaged and you have to chase them down. Knowing this, I designed my ship with a Richelieu-style 2x4 "All Forward" layout, so I had 8 16" guns pointed pointed at them during the chase, and they had... 2 8" and 4 6" guns pointed at me. It wasn't much of a contest. This looks like the AI had a ship it was happy with, but it needed a tad more displacement to work, so it upped the slider, and bam- the ship got longer and now it looks like this. (I'm pretty sure the AI chooses the displacement first and then puts the guns and things on, though) I can't wait for the length slider to be implemented. Many historical ship's lengths and displacement just don't match up in-game. A destroyer with one 5", one 4", one 3" and one 2" gun. And they're stacked to triple-superfire aft with only the 2" forward. A single of the smallest funnel available for a 41,600 ton, 25 knot ship. I didn't check it's exact modules, but going into custom battles the most I could do with this approximate tech level on a ship like this was 35.5% engine efficiency, and that's using Geared Turbines II, oil fuel and forced boilers. Also included: skinny barbettes, aft turrets not taking advantage of the stepped deck, and a secondary battery consisting of 1 (one) casemate mounted 4-inch gun per side.

The protected cruiser's representative in the Aft Weight Offset club Basically just a Nassau-Class Dreadnought, but on a pre-dreadnought hull.

We really need more cruiser towers that aren't just downscaled battleship ones. Anyway, here's some more clown cars Another member of the "Aft weight offset" club. Notice the -20.2% tower/stability accuracy modifier. The Battleship in the background had +25%, and my ships had +35%. Also included: Unnecessary barbette, weird funnel placement, and scatterbrained secondary calibers. One of the most bizarre turret layouts I've ever seen. No secondaries either. I actually checked and yes: You CAN fit three inline 14" turrets back there without horrible aft weight offset. The 14" inch turrets don't fit into that cutout, by the way. Not the worst thing ever, but not good. This hull is just a bit weird looking in general.

Yes! this thread is back! Here's a few I collected only today: Remember to have your forward turrets huddle together for warmth. The shipwrights appear to have held the blueprints upside-down when installing the turrets. A single 5-inch and a twin 2-inch are enough guns for a destroyer, right? "Sir, the 3x4 17-inch guns are two heavy! We can't fit them on!" "Remove the superstructure and make the funnel as small as possible, that'll save weight." With bonus bad secondary placement. This was another ship IN THE SAME BATTLE. I'm noticing a trend. This time, they also removed the secondary battery. Notice the damage to my ship in the bottom. I was so enthralled by these ships I failed to notice to incoming torpedoes.

Here's two more instances of the AI apparently forgetting that ships go forward:

It's because the game wants you to put something on the secondary barbettes on the side.

I do like that searchlights and other gubbins are placed on barbettes if you don't but a turret on them.

Does the in-game shell weight include the propellent?

Does the new British Modern Battleship 2 have a transom stern?

I like fighting at longer range (12+ km), and I honestly would quite like an option to decrease fire rate to improve accuracy, primarily so I don't run out of ammo as fast.