RAMJB

Range circles should not be available for non-ID'd ships. Damage reports are perfectly fine however. When something hits you it's not hard at all to estimate the kind of shell that has hit you.

6'' was on the top of what was reasonable for a uniform secondary battery. I'm not surprised their traverse isn't fast, as it wasn't either in designs of the era. Even the british 5.25'' DP mount on the KGVs was shown to be underwhelming in traverse and elevation (especially for AA roles). I wouldn't expect a secondary to traverse very fast just because of being a secondary. Actually kinda the opposite, in most of the designs of the era the secondaries had to make do without any real power traverse, unlike the main guns (they were trained by manual force very similar to how you'd traverse a field artillery piece with rotating handles to make the mount turn and elevate). Which obviously adds to the problem. Of course there were some cases of warships with powered turrets too, but those were in very late eras only, and in the global scope of things, very few. I know there were some ships that loaded guns heavier than 6'' (Lord Nelson class for instance), but those were cases of a mixed main battery - those intermediate caliber guns weren't though of as part of their "secondary" battery.

yup, but what I was pointing out is that Long Lances had enough range not only to stay out of secondary range. damned things could be launched from 40km. That's beyond MAIN battery range for a BB As for their explosiveness go, I already made mention of it in another thread where someone was talking about massing torpedo launchers on a warship... not only LLs went off, all torpedoes were vulnerable to that. You had very big warheads in the middle of the deck, for crying out loud. Long Lances were even more dangerous on top of that because of the pure oxygen they used. Talk about a highly flammable material...

LOL. I see what you did there. Yeah, they are valid complaints. Not sure about the secondary turret training speed though, that's something I haven't really measured, nor I think it can be done right now because I think their train speed is linked to the main battery (again, both batteries firing always together is something that the game needs to adress). I think #4 is also related to that.

There's a good list of reasons why a sudden short encounter can happen. Sunrise for one. Sailing into a fog bank that suddenly clears up. For other. But that's not the point. See, the range setting doesn't decide how the AI reacts, fights , or chooses to act. The range setting decides at which range the battle starts. Not how the AI behaves. You're asking for the player to have the power to cut off the AI's decision making. And just because you want to see enemies blowing up for free. Which I guess is cool and stuff, but for that purpose why having an AI at all?. Just let the ship sit there looking and not even fighting while you sink it. What's the point of this "feature" you ask for, other than giving you a free go at blowing up stuff that has no option to fight back because it's either completely outmatched, or is so damaged it just can't keep on fighting?. Why do you insist on developers to waste time and effort in this "feature" to be coded and implemented, when there are so many other, sensible and quite frankly far more important things to be done to develop this game towards it's completion? There are many kind of games. Some are fast action paced arcade games where dakka-dakka for the sake of dakka-dakka is the whole point. Others are not. Simulations, for one. Or strategy games which intend to portray the real importance of real decisions in a given environment, be it in battle or out of it. A game doesn't have to be completely unrealistic just because "it's not real". In fact simulations pretty much are defined by them being grounded in "what was real" in whatever they simulate. Otherwise they stops being a simulation and turn into something else. And UA:D is intended to be that - a simulation, both strategic and tactical, about what mattered in the age of the Big Gun Dreadnoughts. Not to be "Lemmings" but with big guns.

Hm not sure about that. The british 18'' MK.VII torpedo (Standard at the beginning of WW1 in most british destroyers) had a range of 7000 yards on the "slow" setting... The new 21'' ones that were progressively coming online since 1914 had a top range or around 10.000 yards on slow settings too, still within range of secondary batteries of the time. Maximum range however is not exactly as the "effective" range. We have the circunstancial proof of Jutland where destroyer flotilla torpedo attacks were ordered and all involved the DDs closing in as much as they could. More or less to give a proper idea of what the long lance entailed: A "classic" WWII torpedo, the german G7A had a top range of 14km at 30 knots on it's longest ranged setting. A Japanese long lance could reach 40km at 38knots. Or 32km at 42 knots. Or 20km at 50 knots. They just were in a whole different dimension.

The true reasoning?. Because nobody else knew those torpedoes had that reach. The expected big battlefleet encounter of the "decisive battle" doctrine the Japanese patterned their navy around established gunnery faceoffs at long ranges. Ranges at which the enemy (I.E. the americans) would not engage in preventive evasives from those long distances, thus increasing the odds of achieving solid hits with them. Long Lance capabilities were top secret information in the Japanese navy. Nobody out of those in the business of operating them knew their true ranges and speeds - and certainly other navies knew nothing about it, sometimes not even after being subjected to their effects. Torpedo charges were problematic because if the enemy saw a DD line maneouvering for a torpedo firing position, they'd know what's up and they'd answer accordingly (engaging in preventive maneouvers and changes of course to throw off the chances of any incoming torpedo to hit). By launching from extreme ranges, the japanese expected a very high hit rate. Even above of whatever odds they'd had at shorter ranges, as the enemy wouldn't try to avoid what they didn't suspect was coming. The rationale behind the Long Lance wasn't to avoid getting scared by defensive fire. I mean, who were the ones doing banzai charges and kamikaze attacks during WW2?. Out of any navy of the time, the least you would expect to be affected by the fact that they were focus fired were...the japanese. Now I'm making an historical remark here to answer that question you asked. I know it was rethorical but it's based on wrong grounds. the Long Lance had the range it had for tactical reasons, not to prevent destroyers being subjected to fire. Because that part they really never didn't care about. Now, the rest of the navies of course did care about that, and of course crews would be heavily supressed when subjected to heavy fire. That part is currently not in the game yet. Does it need to be modelled?. Yes it does. Do I expect it to be modelled?. Yes I do. Supression due to being subjected to enemy fire was a very real effect, and it didn't concern only destroyers. Cruisers and battleships also suffered from it, to the point that in battle if one ship was "clear" of enemy gunfire their gunnery performance was, statistically, proven to be much superior than others that were not (was clearly seen in several stages of the Battle of Jutland, for instance). It was an important factor in naval warfare, and as an immersive simulator I expect UA:D to eventually model them in too

You do not need to. The AI only runs away if A-) his ship is grossly outmatched (you design a massive battleship and the enemy is a poor lone 35k tonner. Hey, would you stay and fight if you were in their boots?). B-) the ship has been so heavily damaged that it's combat efficiency has gone to hell (accuracy receives a pretty sharp penalty with structural and/or flooding damage) and the AI feels it's best option is to try to run away. The A-) version can be tricky if you don't get lucky with some long range hits that impair the enemy's speed. Because then if he's faster he'll flee. If he's not faster (and you don't need 40 knots to be faster than most ships), then it's a matter of slowly reducing ranges and peppering him with shells until something critical goes (engine, some flooding that critically slows him down, that kind of thing). Then it's just a case of finishing it off. The B-) version is just a gimme. Structural damage reduces the top speed of the damaged ship. If he is turning tails and running away, chances are he's already hurt enough to have dropped his top speed. Same deal, chase and kill with the added benefit that the enemy probably will already be hurting enough as to not need any furthering slowing down. If anyway the enemy proves uncatchable - too bad. Your ship is too slow. Get used to give them more speed in the designer. But no, you don't need 40 knots to do that. And if you need 40 knots that means the enemy has invested in a specially designed ship to be exceedingly quick and run away from opposition it can't fight. He has compromised other things in his ship (weapons, armor, displacement) to achieve that speed while you have not. Why should you receive a "free card" to force him to fight at any costs?. Both scenarios can feel inconvenient but both are immersive and realistic. That the AI knows when it's time to get the heck out of dogde is a good sign of a competent one.

If the maneouver is faster than the ability of the turrets to traverse and keep tracking the target, yes they won't move until they can. Much less fire. I guess they should still be turning as the ship changes course, even while they can't track the target and fire, it'd make it faster to restart firing once the course is stabilized. It's a pain in the ass and probably could be somewhat less inconvenient, but it's perfectly normal than when being thrown around in evasives, the guns of a ship have trouble keeping track of the enemy and if those maneouvers are harsh enough, they are prevented from firing alltogether until their traverse rate can match the lateral displacement of the target..

It's not a case of having penalties or not....it's a case that putting batteship guns that high could even risk the warship doing a Wasa the second ANYTHING (wind, seas, battle damage, flooding, whatever) compromises it's stability. Topweight is just not a case of penalties, it's a case of something that if you overdo your "Penalty" is seeing your ship going turtle just because. And I'm betting here that if in the game anything like that happens to someone's very expensive ship with lots of turrets, they are going to complain. A lot. So nah, I'd rather not have that option at all for guns that big and heavy, than "Penalize" it with the reasonable consequence to so much topweight in a given ship

Agreed. For me both usually go together at least in multiplayer games. I'm tremendously competitive. As those who follow my channel since I uploaded a video for the first time know. But more to the point, what's "winning" in the context of a singleplayer game where you're put on specific scenarios (which have no lasting consequences at all) against an AI?. Just outright beating an AI opponent in a canned scenario?. Or learning how the game works (which is also something important given the status of the game as in development), learning the lessons on how to improve our designs and tactics, etc?. A big part of learning is not winning. It's as important to learn what works well as to know what does NOT work well. AS such of course I try to win scenarios. Sometimes. Other times I just go in to goof around, design some ship trying some really unorthodox thing, throw it into the battle and see how it works. Or how it doesn't work at all. And why. Given that I know quite a bit about naval history the "why" part is what matters to me - part of what we do as players of a game in alpha stage is to put it to the test. If my design doesn't work for the reasons I expect it to fail, that means the game is doing some things right, for instance. But if I brought something that just is insane and still works, then it should be reported for the devs to look at it. Had I never tried it (focusing on "winning only") I'd never found it to begin with, right?. that's me. But others who don't know that much about ships of the era, their design, what went into make them flexible and balanced, how are they going to learn if they don't relax a bit, stop trying to win because "Tryhard" and instead try multiple different things to see how they work (and if they work well at all?). the end result wil be that you'll end up winning anyway (as you try, you learn)...and ALSO will get you ready for the campaign, when stakes are really high, unlike in a scenario that will be over in an hour or less. Don't you think that's "fun"? because I do. With a designer like this game has (with the limitations it still has) the room to play around, goof with lots of different ideas, try different approaches, just EXPERIMENT, is unlimited. But you won't get too much of that if your only goal when you hit "Launch" is to "win the scenario". Here you'll have to forgive me. I've never cared for "achievements" or "labels" in gaming. What I care about is about my own personal apreciation of how well I'm doing based on my own parameters. To that goal, getting an achievement or not...honestly I don't care and even when I've tried, I've never understood why people put so much stock on getting achievements (or not getting them at all ;)). Not saying you shouldn't care about it. If you do, that's great. Just that I can't understand why anyone does. No criticism at all, I just don't understand it. Anyway, yes of course missions CAN be won. And eventually I also like to win them. But no, when hitting "launch", "beating the scenario" it's not my main focus. It's something nice if I get it done, of course, but I can't care the less if after the timer runs out the game tells me "you lost the scenario"...even if I kept my units alive, clearly dominated the encounter and let the enemy no chance at all to prevail. For me my particular evaluations matters far more than those "winning standards". Do I care about them?. Yes, but not as much as I care about other things: trying different tactics, different designs, different approaches to beat the same scenario. To that end If I might add so, I've played, plenty of times, scenarios that I have played repeatedly already, and which I have already "won". And I don't do it to "win" it again, but to try different stuff - proof that no, I really don't care about winning it or not. When the campaign is out I'll obviously try to "win" it. Scenarios?. no, I really don't care about them. They're here to try and test lots of different stuff. Learning too. Winning is a side-effect, if you hit the right combination of factors, you'll win sooner or later. In the meantime for me the enjoyement is out of the experimentation I do with the scenarios. Not out of meeting a set criteria of "goals" the scenario might have. See, one of my most replayed scenarios is one that I didn't beat until I had played it, duno, maybe half a dozen times. The one of a predreadnought where you're given two small ships as screening force, and you go against a bigger predreandought and light forces. That scenario was tough to "win", as the correlation of forces favors the AI so much - I didn't care at all. I tried lots of different designs and even classes (in that one you can go for an armored cruiser or a predreadnought. I tried them both), Tried different pre-scenario "bonus". Tried designs that I knew wouldn't get the scenario goal completed from the get go, but I didn't care, I just wanted to see how they performed in battle. Ultimately I ended up "winning it". But not because I was trying hard to. It just happened. And it is still the scenario I have played the most, and have enjoyed the most (the predreadnought era is one I really am interested in and not many games have given a chance to play out in a 3D simulation like this game does).. The difference is the focus. "winning a scenario". What does that mean?. Means what a designer decided was winning. Well, maybe I don't share those standards of what "winning" means. If I'm met in battle when I'm at a severe inferiority, my goal is not "keeping XXX ship alive while killing Y ammount of enemies". My goal is keeping my ship alive, period, and then be smart about it given the design I have made. If by the end of the timer I've accomplished that, I'm more than satisfized enough. And then go on and try some other scenario, or try that one again with a completely different design approach. That's what "fun" means for me. Dunno for others, but while yes, there are VERY challenging scenarios in the game, I've never felt frustrated because I wasn't "winning" one of them in particular (or several). I'd say my approach works for the best, but hey, your standards are yours, i'm just trying to suggest you to focus on a different approach towards the game's scenarios. The problem is that *You* won't start wars in the campaign. Maybe your input is what causes one - but you're the chief of the fleet. not the chief of state nor prime minister of your nation. It's highly likely that you'll be pulled into wars that you don't want, you don't wish, and you want to stay out from, yet you're pulled into them anyway. That without mention the times that you're NOT starting a war...but one is started upon you instead ;). RTW players can tell you a lot about that XD.

Same experience here. Of course there are battles where I've got more lucky than others, but on average a DD that's not bigger than 2k tons won't take a 6'' hit lightly. Like, at all. Can it happen that a 6'' hits a DD and he doesn't even notice it?. It can happen, if it hits in a place where it's not really damaging important stuff. But shove a 6'' on the mid hull of a DD and watch half his machinery go offline instantly (usually with a good deal of flooding and fires to match). In general what to expect out of secondaries: 4'' is highly underwhelming. Just too light of a shell. And so was historically, the RN was forced to pretty much create a new class, the Iron Dukes, which only "Upgrade" from the previous one was just to fit 6'' secondaries to replace the previous 4'', as by 1910 it was clear that 4'' wouldn't do enough against destroyers . It's highly significant, because at that era destroyers displaced less than 1k tons on average. So if you're hitting a 1500 tonner with 4'' guns, don't expect miracles. They weren't considered powerful enough against ships even half that size. 5'' are also on the weak side. Again, something confirmed by historical data. 5'' shell size was restricted by the need to keep it light enough to be handled by the crews (all shell handling was manual in those guns) without exhausting them too soon, while achieving high rates of fire. The only nation that placed bets on them as secondary caliber was the US. Everyone else was sporting 6'' guns in their capital ships. From the UK to Austro-hungary, which is telling. Then again the american 5'' batteries were able to output a sheer volume of shells out that no 6'' of the era came close to match (once more, well portrayed in game- 6'' guns fire a notably heavier shell than 5'' guns, but their reload takes a steep nosedive in the 5'' to 6'' caliber transition, compared with the drop in RoF from 4'' to 5''). So it was a case of trading one advantage (rate of fire) for another (damage per hit). again and at any rate, from my experience, reasonably sized DDs just don't eat 6'' very well. Now if we're talking the 3000 ton displacement monsters that can be built in 1940 in the designer...well 3000t is more than what some light cruisers displaced in WW1. They can take quite a number of them and still chug along. But that's more because of the big size of the target making them MUCH more resistant to hits, than any actual lack of damaging ability on part of the secondary gun.

If I took one thing out of GameLabs out of my experience with Naval Action, which combat model I loved to bits, they're really committed towards delivering an immersive combat system. Doesn't necessarily translate into "realistic" at every level (naval action combat was much faster than whan real life maneouvers and combats ever were, for instance...but the tactics to use were all realistic), but means that what mattered in real life, also matters in the game. Taking that as a baseline, and even more after I was told that the main dev of this game is the same guy that made the Darthmods for Total War, I'm extremely hopeful the factors I stated will make it into the game sooner or later. I'm reluctant to say "confident". It's already been too many years of developers letting me down in too many games to feel confident even from the ones I trust....but yeah, let's say that I'm very hopeful and leave it at that :D.

Ah ok, yeah for secondaries that'd work. Kinda sorta. Those high turrets in the Yamatos did no good for their topweight ;). But weren't dangerous either. There's also the precedent of the Atlanta class with the super-superfiring arrangement (that wasn't trouble free, Atlantas were VERY problematic because of topweight issues too, but again, it was not as dangerous as to make it impractical). So yeah, for those cases, sure. Just not for main battery guns on capital ships. That was pretty much a no-no.

The practical limit is more on power per shaft than on total power available. We currently don't shaft the ship. At some point we may (or may not, not sure about what the devs have in mind about this) have to do so, specifying the number of shafts we want in a given design. Then things can get more detailed. As for "we can't practically cram more than 70000hp on a single shaft even today", that's not strictly true. What's a problem is to cram all that power in a single shaft efficiently. That is, not wasting power because of loss of propeller efficiency. But there's no problem (other than the size of the machinery required) if you want to put a lot more power on a single shaft. You'll be wasting a big portion of it but hey, you CAN do it. As for practical instances of it, the H-44 design for instance contemplated a mixed diesel-turbine machinery on 3 shafts for a total of around 270.000hp. That's already 80.000shp in a 1944-45 design. That's a paper design, but there were others that were not. The final design of the soviet Project 82 (Stalingrad battlecruiser) called for 280.000shp on 4 shafts (70.000 per) already in 1950 and several design proposals considered during the design process called for as much as 85.000shp in the late 40s. And Project 82, while cancelled on the shipyard, was actually being built to the mentioned specifications. I'm unsure as how to handle the problem. We don't even know how the game handles it. For all we know that battlecruiser you designed might have had 6 propellers (again, some instances of LOTS of those in several historical designs, built or planned ). I'm not saying that is the case, I'm just saying we just don't know how the game does it and how it simulates the ship's shafting. First we need to know how the game handles it and then we can put forwards proposals to keep things credible. At any rate, yeah, right now things are a teeny wheeny bit ridiculous on that end ;).

ohhh....come on...there are just SO many instances of that kind of thing happening in real history as to be a valid reason why the AI shouldn't too ;).

Why not?. Machinery doesn't weigh a lot. only 20 knots and 25000 hp don't need a lot of space or weight. Armor is middling at best, so not especially weighed down in that department. Secondary battery is more akin to a 1909 warship than a 1917 one (4'' guns don't weigh that much compared with 6'' ones, nor do their shells). Compartimentalization is poor (only few bulkheads). Consider this, the Japanese Fuso class (laid down 1912, completed 1915) had 6 turrets with 12 guns total, MUCH higher speed, 6'' secondary battery and more armor. It displaced 29500 tons standard when completed. I don't see how a ship designed 5 years later, with a much lesser speed, weaker secondaries, and less total armor can't put 15 guns in 5 turrets at around 26500 tons. We don't know it's range either. The only thing that's really oversized on that warship is the main battery, but given the paltry stats elsewhere, I can't see how this wasn't buildable IRL. Now was it a good idea?. Heck no. That screams "glass cannon" louder than HMS Agincourt while being even slower. But buildable?. Perfectly fine in my book. Armor was 10.7'' in belt, turret face, conning tower. 1.5'' in deck, turret top, deck extended, belt extended. All I had to base my armor on was the minimum and maximum thicknesses in your screenshots so I went with the maximum for the areas that require max protection and the minimum for the rest. Probably the ship in the screenshot has more armor: I came 2000tons underweight, so probably the ship's ends are better armored than 1.5''. Would make sense. Armor was Krupp II (based on the armor bonus percentage in the screenshot). In-game hit chances come on a per-gun basis in the right low screen. On the left screen (Where the calculations are shown) on the bottom you'll see both the per gun hit chance and the total hit chances of a salvo (chance of hit of "n" guns - "n" being the number of guns firing at a given time).

That last one is not a fluke. It's perfectly buildable for the player. 20 knots top speed is not a lot of speed, it's armor is middling at best, and while the main battery is a monstrosity, secondary is very much on the light side. I tried to replicate that thing myself using the same tower structures, weapons, top speed, and an estimation of the armor (max 10.7 both in turret faces, belt and CT, minimum on deck, deck tower, extended belt, extended deck), with a very reasonable selection of components, on a 26200 ton hull, and came up 2k tons underweight. Probably the AI has somewhat better components and/or extra armor in between the min and the max. At any rate it's a perfectly valid design the player can also build. Oh and he's hitting more because he has 15 guns. Lower individual per hit basis but more guns at play can very well translate into a higher global chance to hit. It's one of the advantages of lots of guns in a single ship (and one of the disadvantages of ships with very few guns. Historically the lower practical limit for a main gun battery to have effective gunnery was considered to be 6 guns.)

1- IIRC the battlecruiser tower can't fit the 5'' gun. But the BB one (Iowa's) can. Maybe I'm wrong though, but I tinkered with that superstructure a bit a couple days ago and IIRC it could take 5'' turrets no problem. The BC hull should be able to take them too, however (I think the hull is modelled after an Alaska, and Alaska did mount those...) 2- Plenty of people agree. I'm sure at some point we'll see a lot more freedom in that. 3- yes on the free from snap points. Not so much about the "stack". Super-super firing (two deck high over weather deck) turrets firing from that high was exceedingly dangerous. Turrets tended to be tremendously heavy (yamato's turrets weighed 2500 tons, roughly the same as a full sized destroyers). Placing them so high would increase the height of the ship's CoG so much as to make it dangerously unstable. BBs were rather top heavy (especially by the very late WWII era), and that just with one or two superfiring turrets. Anything beyond that would compromise the ship itself. It's no wonder it's not allowed (And personally I think it should be kept that way). 4- absolutely yes. Not only secondaries, torpedo targetting should also be independant from whatever the main (and secondary) batteries are firing at. 5- with advanced enough tech, without question yes (FCS for secondary batteries didn't happen until the very late 30s, and even then not in all nations) 6- oh hell yes. Especially those with the "oxygen propulsion" option. It's not widely talked about but those "wonder weapons" going off because of enemy gunfire was the reason at least two japanese cruisers went off in battle.

Well having a 28000 ton enemy moving at 32 knots with 14x13'' guns and proper armor should not be possible in 1917. Heck, I'm not sure it'd be possible with all the late techs and that displacement... I wish he had a screenshot. Just like this it's impossible to say.

Never seen anything like that. Maybe a fluke with the designer?. 32 knots in such a big ship with that limited displacement and weapons (and specially if armor was as thick as you mention) it should not be possible. certainly not in 1917. Did you take a screenshot of the offender?. Would help quite a lot in finding out what the heck went wrong, and how the AI managed to do that.

I think the focus you're taking to this missions is from a very competitive perspective. With the idea that those scenarios are there for you to "beat them". You "Must" "beat" them in order to "complete" the game. I don't think that's the case. I think the scenarios are excellent tools to teach people unfamiliar with naval tactics the compromises, alternatives, and different aspects that go into building a well rounded ship - and then to put them in battles so you learn what tactics work and which ones do not. What works better, what doesn't work. Scenarios in fact are pretty much experiment labs for you to try different stuff, see what fits better for what role and what doesn't. I've gone into several of them with just the intention to design things that I know aren't really suited to the task, to test them (and myself) in situations those designs are really aren't suited to work well in. And those times it's been a ton of fun "losing", seeing that yes, things that should not work in given situations, indeed do not work ;). Some scenarios will be a lot more challenging than others. Because they put you in very difficult situations to begin with. This teaches you both how to design effective ships, and how to use them in battle to beat superior odds. Don't measure your success by reaching the bar the game tells you it's the "win" condition. Those "win conditions" do not exist in the campaign. Spectacular naval victories were achieved without a single ship going under - which will happen in the campaign too when it comes. Yet all the scenarios demand you to sink a sizeable ammount of enemies, if not all of them. Qualify success or failure according to your own performance in battle and the way your designs worked. Did you do a good job?. Yes? then, for instance, if my battleship hasn't sunk after being jumped by four torpedoboats (a massively dangerous situation for any predreadnought), and the timer runs out before I sink them all, I've won. As simple as that. Keep in mind those "scenarios" aren't the game. The game will be the campaign. The scenarios are the tutorials of sorts. You don't even need to beat a scenario to "beat the game"...you "beat" the game by learning what works well for what different thing that can later happen in the campaign. From that end I've found no scenario "frustrating". Challenging ,yes (even keeping in mind that I'm very familiar with naval warfare and designs of the time), but even I got to learn a thing or two about how to make the most out of a given layout or choice in some of those scenarios.

I noticed on some designs, that when you put the fore structure touching with the aft structure, then select the fore structure to move it to another place, the aft structure stays attached and the lot move as an unit. In the most modern battleship hull, for instance, Iowa's superstructure, it does that. The problem is, of course, than you still have to place the damned thing on a freakin' anchor point XDDD. But that's a whole other thing (that I also hope to see changed in the future...let me place stuff where I want, not where the game wants me to! ;)) Anyway, what I mentioned about the superstructures merging and moving together, suggest some "entity attachment" work has been done already and that it's actually working in the designer. Extending the concept to things like barbettes would be almost the same as that "mating pieces together". All things said, is clear that this part of the designer is going to be extensively worked on, so I have little doubts the end result will be both a lot more dynamic and flexible than what we have now :).

I've...been saying that....like, for the whole thread? XDDDDD. Heck in this very page I said pretty much the same!. I even listed the reasons as a) to f) ;). Anyway nice to see that we finally seem to understand each other . I have much higher hopes and expectatives out of the developer team, though. The points I've brought across are not in the "nice to have" bucket. They're pretty "must haves" if the game wants to live up to what they say they want it to be, and as such I expect them to be brought in at one point or another before the game is released. We'll see with time, anyway :).

You know what I mean