SpardaSon21

Is this weight as in selection weighing or the actual physical weight of the component once mounted?

What do you mean? Its perfectly optimized for the AI's typical strategy of bravely running away like Sir Robin.

Which is exactly what people tend to see in-game, over-armed glass cannons with cramped crew quarters. On the one hand I don't mind some randomness in design because nobody wants to see identical or near-identical ships, but the complete lack of any selectiveness frequently leads to designs that match the requirements but are effectively useless in combat.

@NathanKell So, let me get this right. The designer is literally just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks? There's not a single bit of actual intelligent design to it? And that of course doesn't take into account the bugs in it. It sounds like its up to modders to make sure everything is tagged properly and you to fix the bugs in the designer code. How much of this have you submitted to the devs via either bug reports or suggestions?

Ah, gotcha. Well, if you've worked on KSP mods that certainly explains why you're so dogged and determined here. Don't forget to look at the weight calcs on parts, too. From my best guess parts are coded via Boolean to have either an increasing or a decreasing effect on pitch and roll, calculated based on their relative weight percentages, but with no regard for actual weight placement. So a ship that has 6" of uniform armor across citadel, bow, and stern will have pitch and roll increase as you shorten the citadel down, but as you increase the citadel the pitch and roll will decrease, even if you move the ship's main guns towards the extreme ends of the ship to do so.

I barely understood what you said but it sounds like you've completely rewritten a massive chunk of the ship designer. Which is incredibly impressive, and surprising to see. Are you a naval designer when you aren't writing code?

Gotcha, gotcha. Also, gave this a download and I think you forgot to actually compile into a .dll. The 2.0 update zip you link to just has a bunch of .cs files in it, and one each of a .csproj and a .sln, but no .dll's.

Its a surprisingly neat game for still being Early Access. I'd love that. The way the devs set them up was mostly arbitrary to have a clear delineation for gameplay reasons when in reality... things only went their separate ways as a result of tech advancements, AP shells becoming more and more specialized and better steel making thin walls practical.

That's part of the upgrade from APCBC I to APCBC II: trading filler size and damage for penetration. Errr... maybe just get rid of it for now, then? Also noticed a bug: Stereoscopic Rangefinder V has +90% tower cost same as Stereoscopic III, with Stereoscopic IV being +110%. And is the cost difference between stereoscopic and coincidence supposed to be so high? Stereoscopics are almost double what coincidence ones are. Also, I poked around in params and noticed HE shells (as in the CP Base Fuse shell) gets 20% penetration relative to the Standard uncapped AP, which IMO is far too low. According to NavWeaps "Common Pointed" was a British term for SAP, and in the case of the USA Common shells were the primary shell for our WWI era destroyers and cruisers, with a dedicated AP shell not even issued. That is for the 4"/50, and as you can see its from 1942, so presumably they were basing it against modern armors. This is what the 6"/53 got for SP Common and Common, and again in 1942, so modern armor was probably taken into account, and again no dedicated AP shell issued. Given this, as well as the image in your post where the Common Pointed shell is about twice the filler size of the AP shell but still with a pointed tip for penetration purposes, I'd propose changing that ratio from 0.2 to somewhere around 0.5. I've done it before myself and Common becomes a major threat to ships with limited armor, which as you can see from above is exactly what it was supposed to be.

I'll be happy with just the gun and ship balance changes. Mildly surprised you've needed to put so much work into them, though. Did the devs really screw things up that badly with them?

Damn, that sucks to hear. Its a major issue in the 1890 start where you can't blockade either nation until you take those via naval invasion. And since they're classed as home provinces you can't take them via peace deal, either.

If you can do that, can you finally fix the longstanding issue where the Chinese colonies France and Germany have are classed as home territories and not colonial ones?

Are... you sure about that? Only wood I'm seeing is scaffolding for the construction workers. The base fuses used for 16"/50 HC rounds had a delay of 0.01 seconds at most, so even at the muzzle with its 2,690 feet per second velocity you're looking at 26.9 feet of travel before detonation. Fletchers were 39.5 feet at their widest. Even when you factor in the time for the impact shockwave to travel to the rear of the shell and trigger the fuse the chances of an overpen with HC and a properly set base fuse are extremely small against destroyers at anything resembling combat range. You'd pretty much need to hit the much narrower bow to have a chance of overpenning. If you're using a nose fuse, the shell is going to detonate almost immediately after impact, even against thin plate, at which point a destroyer is screwed no matter where it gets hit. For comparison, the base fuses used for AP shells were 0.035 seconds, or 87.5 feet at the barrel and at 20km/21,800 yards 60 feet, or probably enough to detonate inside of a Cleveland class and its 66 foot beam if it hits the armor belt and gets fused as a result, especially when you realize its coming in at an angle. If the ship isn't flat on the chances of a successful internal detonation go up dramatically. I don't know how fuse times are handled by the game but they could use a serious examination by @o Barão.

I can't really disagree, although from a purely doctrinal perspective the Alaskas were intended as super-heavy cruisers as opposed to the long range raiding and sea control roles of a traditional BC. They also used a scaled-up CA hull as their base instead of something derived from a BB. We've always been weird with cruisers. Its something that dates back to the start of the USN back in the Napoleonic Era. Even (or perhaps especially) later on during the post-CW era we continued that trend with ships like USS Franklin, a steam frigate commissioned in 1867 that carried an 11" gun, 34 9" guns, and a pair of 100 pounders. USS Trenton that was laid down post-war as a patrol ship had 11 8" guns. And then in this game's time frame you have USS Olympia and some other protected cruisers with 8" guns, and then the incredibly well-armed Tennessee class of armored cruisers that entered service in 1906 and carried 2x2 10" guns as their primary armament. We even kept at that after the naval treaties when the Pensacolas were designated as CL's for several years after their commissioning despite their 8" guns on account of their thin armor. As far as the USN was concerned the designation fit since massive guns on a smaller ship was just how we liked to do things.

@o BarãoYou wanted to know about feedwater vs/ fuel and here's a sheet for a proposed US BB with both water and oil at 2/3: Feedwater appeared to be roughly 1/4 the weight of fuel oil, and stores for the crew just above the feedwater. Those are long tons, not metric tons, So that's 3,525.683 metric tons if all three are at full capacity, for an overall range of 14,816km, or 4.202km of range per ton of oil, water, and ship's stores. By comparison the steam engines, including electrical power supply, would have been at 3,962 metric tons for that top speed, or more than the range component.