Stormnet

A small, more explicit warning/alarm signal. Right now, if Im zooming to see another section of my fleet, I might miss the enemy ship/torpedo alarm and you know what that may cause. And the sign (a slightly transparent yellow warning triangle) also isnt that constrasting compared to the scenery and blends in a little. So, make it a much brighter and flashier yellow, and have sorta of an objective arrow (like many top view games do for markers outside the screen) so I can quickly react, especially to torpedo attacks.

I mean, you said it was low quality, thats why I removed it.

No. I didnt mean to offend you. I didnt want to argue with your opinion and look like a fool if you were joking. Its not about being historical (trust me, I literally build the most unhistoricall ships, like a multicalliber monitor-like 1940 super BB). Its just that a closer look reveals quite a few unecessary design choices that do nothing more than increase tonnage, like the aforementioned big rear barbette. But it also has a very tall barbette in the front (those are only used to fire over superfiring turrets) and there are a few secs whose positioning noticebly limit the firing arc of the main gun. Its not in the WTF type of ships, maybe something a new player would build if they were told to build a BB, but any relatively experient player would not commit these mistakes.

Are you joking or talking serious? I cant see that through text.

Im getting way too bored of waiting for the saving ability soo... FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! KILL EACHOTHER!! KILL EACHOTHER!!

Im sure the AI is actively trying to give the middle finger to the devs and bypass their restrictions. "Can't have funnel in front of tower? Fine, I'll put tall turret instead." The next thing the AI will do is fill a casemate with cannon assets straight from UA:AS, and pick a Peel P50 engine as propeller.

Its back up again bois. Go get some screenshots ASAP. (Just make sure they are from new versions)

Hum... Rather interesting to see. If there was just a capable dataminer to investigate that specific submenu and see what other options were... But if it is a oxygen or something for subs... Why was it left in the armaments tab?

This is one long thread I see...

I mean, the disengage and retreat options can ease or dificult your missions depending on the situation. If you have the upper hand and have sunk half of the enemy fleet while keeping your ships in good condition, then it would be harder in the long run for you to have the enemy run away, as their ships would live to fight another day. While if they stand and fight, they just go to the bottom of the ocean. And vice-versa if you are the one losing it, as if they run off, you just won the day despite being outnumbered. Otherwise, you are the one that needs to run away if they stay, because, you dont want your ships down at the sea right? There isn't really a dificulty constant in the retreat stuff that dificults or eases the game always. Maybe a variable acoording to the situation?

I mean, at least have smoke, or some small blast wave. 38 cm HE should do SOMETHING on the outside of a ship.

Welcome to UAD. Shit like that happens all the time. Make a fleet formation and time how long the loopy ships take to organize. Spoiler alert, not quick enought before the enemy arrives. Its gotten better thought, and I doubt devs are gonna leave it this way. My go to solution is quality over quantity. Make one big ship. It partially solves this problem until the devs patch this.

I agree with this one. Lots of inspiration can be taken from the large quatity of pics, reports, and Wikipedia articles on specific ships. They could also vary depending on what sunk them. (Their speeds should vary too. A flooded ship doesnt sink as fast as an exploded one.) 1- Tip Sink Caused by flooding. The forward or rear ends of the ship are the last to go down (stock sink) Most comon in small ships. 2- Fat Boi Sink Caused by flooding. Comon in large ships. Ammo storage may explode (yamato style) Also, HMS Barham has the best smoke screen tactic ever. 3- Hoody Sink Rather self-explanatory really. Hit in ammo storage can trigger massive explosion on ammo storage launches ships up a little, splits it, and quickly sinks. (At 1:23) 4- Split and Sink A variant of the Hood sink. Happens on small ships. Torpedos or large shells split light cruisers/large destroyers in half. Also, can we get propper explosions? Like, fireballs? Right now there isnt a cool fireball moment in the game. Torpedos are water splashes, shells either detonate inside or just "plonk" outside, and flashfires look more like igniting gas leaks than actual ammo explosions.

I, unaware of this post, made one only related to calliber and scaling. Compared to yours, its criminal that yours only got 50% more likes than mine.

Pretty awesome take imo. Its criminal for him to have only 50% more likes than me. Forget my post. Shiki's post is much better in this regard.

I think I have to concede this to you. Im running out of arguments to support my idea. The reason I thought this was a good idea, was that one of my main anoyances with the game was with how ships look so similar. Many factions have the same style, design, and look no diferent besides the flag from others. Also proportions are frequently weird and cannons have completely diferent widths and thickness despite being same calliber. I had thought the barrel lenght could be solved with a slider that would change tonnage, accuracy, and other stats. I thought that adding and fixing and rescaling all this stuff manually would take a long time for the devs to do and thus cut back on needed content, so having the computer generate this stuff while being accurate on dimentions would be a great idea that would cut down time. Im starting to think I was just too stuborn to admit my idea is flawed.

The reason Im suggesting this system isnt for the custom callibers alone. Also, as I said, this isnt urgent, and could perfectly come down the line with the designer overhaul. 1 Having the game correctly generating and scalling current models could ease a lot the team work, (as they now would only have to program the base models/features allowing them) and allow them to redirect human resources to other crutial fixes. Once achieved, coming up with new callibers becomes rather easy. 2 This would help fix/reduce the disproportion issues plaging the turrets and cannons, where a 500 mm cannon of one faction only apears 2/3 the size of a cannon belonging to another faction. The computer could be teached to generate correct or at least aproximate models. 3 As said above historical callibers could be.more easly introduced. While the majority of people want this game to simply role play naval designer, there are quite some players that want to build ships historically accurate that perform very similar to those that existed and whose specs are exacly as those on paper. As you can see in this list, there are plenty of historical callibers, especially french and german, that are unachievable with the current inch increases. Now, imagine how much work of the devs it would take to implement these callibers by hand, making sure their dimensions are right, and how much cloged the menu would become with the current turrets plus the new ones. 4 A small effect of this system is that it could give an idea of variety to ships. Even if in paper, these guns would perform very similar, the idea of something like a 36,6cm cannon on a ship and a 37,0 cm cannon on another, could make the players feel their ships are more unique. Almost like a very small yet personal touch. I know its yout opinion, and thats fine. But I still think something like this could contribute to the game in the long run.

Yeah, I also thought about how gun stats in real life dont scale up proportinally. But then I remenbered, since these exotic calliber guns will never be half inch bigger/smaller than current cannons, I dont think they will perform drastically diferent from the origimals, at least not enought for the diferences to be unproportional enought to make a noticeable diference. To really think about a scaling system, a few graphics with the current callibers and some of their basic stats and how they scale up like range, reload, shell size, weight (single barrel) side armor pen (3 diferent ranges), per each "common" calliber would be nice Im not going to be on my computer for the next week, so I cant really search that properly.

Thanks for your arguments. I didnt think about that. So its not as easy, but still possible.

Yeah the calliber slider aint urgent at all. But it could create sorta of an ilusion of variety. While a 120mm and a 126mm can be pretty much identical spec wise, having a ship with diferent guns, even if by the milimiters, can create an idea of variety and make each ship more unique. Besides, some people just want unusual historical callibers, even if identical spec wise, just so they can recreate historical ships. While it isnt urgent, this can fix a lot of problems and (virtually) add some extra content to the game.

I mean, its not top priority. Buthaving the compute generate and scale some models would reduce the work the devs need to create new models, could fix manny of the proportion problems, and add veriety to the game. Just my opinion thought, and i apreciate your opinion on this.

This armor like slider (can be slided up or down or the values typed) is to fix the proportion issues found in current turrets, ease the devs work, and diversify ship designing. Also, this also lays the foundations for a turret designing feature. If the game gains the ability to independantly scale up turrets and cannons models without having them look unproportional, then swapping cannons and turret models is no longer that far away. Even thought I said having low calliber turrets acting as supporters for high calliber in the atandard parts was weird, having them in customized designs isnt. What if i get a double Hood like turret, add the 1940s british cannon and scale it up to 20inch? It might look funny, but this woulf massively increase the variety of ships, without the devs having to make every single model. Sure, this will require quite some coding and testing to make sure designs are proportional and there arent any bugs, but killing 3-4 birds with one system seems like a bargain to me. Also, dont blindly give all credit to me. While I came up with the details, it was the idea of @Aphelionmarauder

So, to go short, there are, besides many others, 2 problems with the current gun system: 1 Barrel and turret proportions are frequently inconsistent and unrealistic 2 It only allows for most common callibers. Uncommon callibers like 12,6 inch are not available. But as I chatted with @Aphelionmarauder on his UAD server LEND he suggested an idea. What about a slider (or armor options like thing) that allows for custom gun calliber? The system would work like this (also the foundations for a gun designer) Instead of using preset models, the game would automatically generate same design but diferently sized (yet visually proportional in lenght, inner width, and others) cannon barrels (just properly and proportinally scaling, widening and stretching a preset model will do, as long as the result is proportionally the same [if cannon has 150mm, then it should look 1,5x wider than a 100 mm, and 2xthinner than a 300mm]). The measuring scale would be consistent for ALL factions. No more brittish quad 508 mm cannon being smaller than german tripple 508. When the cannons got too big for a specific design, eg you cant just scale up a 20 cm barrel to get a 50 cm, use other presets for scaling. Turrets would work a little diferent, but also on thresholds. Guns bettwen a certain threshold (half inch bigger and half inch smaller than current callibers) would just slightly scale the barrel as said above and the turret would remain the exact same size and design. However, overshooting or undershooting that scale would slightly scale up or down that same turret. Guns with 123 mm and 122mm dont need a full new turret for them. Now, spec wise, im no naval expert (there are people here that know naval combat better than i know 1+1 = 2), but for tonnage and range requirements you could maybe use averages of pre-established models to have create the specs of these ships. Egg If 12inch has 1000 mm pen at 3 km, and 13 inch 1500, then 12,5 inch should have a pen of 1250 mm. Same could apply to tonnage, range, and other parameters. The devs dont need to craft every single cannon size and calliber known to man. All they need to do is the presets and overall tables and give the right tools to the computer to create the finicky details in visual and technical aspects. Also, here is a interesting table of parameters (unknown how accurate it is) that compares diferent guns and armors. Check it out. http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.php This post was written in a phone, so I might have not been very clear about this. If you have doubts or constructive criticism feel free to tell me in the comments.

Yeah... But this is an actual dreadnought that we cant build due to said limitations. This isnt just for the fantasy ships, its for actual designs. Anyways, we already have tonnage constraights. Several big gun turrets on small hulls would result in a poorly armored, slow vessel, besides being less advanced. Hull size and shape also limits where and how many turrets we can place. Also, we already have monster BBs (that are still limited by tonnage requirements). What if i want to make a normal BB with lots and lots of small 9 inch guns? What determines how powerfull our ships can be are the hulls. While balancing tonnage on components is important, you cant stick a 20" on a heavy cruiser. So we already have constraights, no need to limit our freedom of choice with simple numbers.

Many of the comon limitations of the designer could have been solved with a simple value edit. Is it that hard to allow us to place as many turrets as we want?