Wakelessrex

lol, im amazed it didnt roll over XD

In addition Nick made it seem we wont get a more zoomed in view of ships so no 'bridge view' to really do a good Bino system. Warthunder where in simulator mode you are stuck in the bridge view comes to mind as a good examppe that would make for good 'bino' mode.

Hell yea, immersion levels skyrocket! The battlestation midway example is great. I LOVED watching the sailors during sea travel at down time. Very realistic.

It would be nice to have this added detail for the designer. More depth, more realism.

I like the free camera as it is now, though the option to zoom in a little more on ships and a bit further out would be nice, I don't think it gives too much advantage. That said it would be a good game option for sure.

Ran into this beauty today. Very interesting ship XD

Again that isn't exactly true, Steel alloys depending on what it is can be lighter than other steel alloys in in this case Iron but I cant think of anything close to 40% lighter no, it would be a much subtler difference. Though that would make a significant impact if your armour takes up thousands and thousands of pounds of weight. AHHHH I hadn't thought of spalling damage that makes sense. Though if that is what it is trying to simulate I would think it would be better to do a small amount of crew damage rather than say the 10dmg to structure that most rounds seem to cause. We don't have crew in yet but I hope this turns out to be the case then.

The 12" gun in that example should not be causing the smaller calibers to not be placed then? If it can be saved as a working design that way, currently it does not let you. This will be fixed in updates to come? That is very disheartening to hear, they are a distinct part of many ships that sailed. If you decide to upgrade this past release that would be amazing, I don't think that's very likely though if its a lot of work yea? Can I offer at least the suggestion that some hulls have that built in to the model such as the Queen Elizabeth hull (They spent more years active with them then without) and possibly some other hulls that were built with them or refitted to have them. @Christian I might recommend again you just agree to disagree with him dude, he obviously is just arguing to win and that will get out of hand fast. This is about feedback to the developers not arguments between people. I think more people want less restriction than more. So just let it be.

No actually youre wrong. Youre not going to find ANY Steel Alloy that is 18 g/cm that is the density of pure tungsten or close to which does not make good armour for various reasons. To clarify the original post is discussing Armour which has always been Steel alloys, he did not mention Tungsten alloys which is a completely different thing and not relevant to the discussion on armour plates. T1 tool steel is a common Steel Alloy and includes tungsten it is denser than most steels but only somewhat so. Nowhere near as dense as pure tungsten or tungsten alloys though. which again having nothing to do with armour or steel alloys. Heres a lost of common steel alloys and their densities. https://www.amesweb.info/Materials/Density_of_Steel.aspx

I am studying to be a Welding Engineer right now and have an avid interest in metallurgy. Ive mever heard of this Nathan persons website but a brisk skim through the first section does seem to conclude he at least knows what hes talking about metalurgically. Without reading further this looks really interesting, thanks for sharing that :) I would like to point out though that your statement about steels being the same density isnt exactly true. Steels can ramge a bit in density depending on the chemical composition, adding vanadium or other things can increase that. Many tool steels are slightly more dense which would matter more at the weights we are calculating. Thats me really condesing a complex subject but just wanted to clarify that. I like where you are coming from with this armour rehash but your modifiers are slightly confusing to me. For instance am I to believe Krupp 4 is adding 80% cost I assume? you should make the modifiers more clear please. In addition im not entirely sure that the armour is working the way you may imagine. For instance I played the modern warship mission and tried to give the yamato a set of impervious armour. She had an 18" belt 20' turrets and similiar armour scheme and krupp 4 I was still getting 'partial pens' from 10 and 12" guns. Im just saying im not 100% sure how the system acts right now, though I agree completely that Armour should be as realistic as possible.

@Christian Not to mention he didn't even acknowledge my follow up pics, which would completely negate his reasoning anyway. I see that barreling out of control into just agrueing though, so perhaps just agree to disagree. I think most people are in the camp to have more freedom, especially of placement in the designer. I don't understand his reasoning to want more restriction for what I consider bad justification but he is more than welcome to his opinion and im sure it will give the game design team something to mull over as we are supposed to be providing feedback for them on this.

Yes I agree, though I would go one step further in saying I think most of the restrictions on gun placement should be done away with as you mentioned in your last post. I think for instance you should be able to place a 3 or 4 4" guns in the section I made a pic of earlier but that it should also probably affect its arc of fire (as well as all the other additional factors). There you have more options with consequences which is what imo makes a fun designer.

Its not very generous its inconsistent. Heres and example of what you can do which if we just decided to only take what Niomedes considers to be acceptable doesn't seem to fit. Though you can do it currently in game. Now heres two more examples of what you cant do in game that both do not interfere with the arc at all and especially in the second case aren't really in danger of killing the crew. Even though I don't consider that A good argument, the guns can be unmanned until they are needed, they most certainly would be able to be used in broadsides for instance and more likely to defend the large ship against small craft the large guns would have trouble hitting. Finally @Niomedes the justification that we should not be able to have more freedom in armament placement in a designer is because you believe that it is a stupid idea is pretty poor. IMO or "It's rather that anyone with even a crude grasp on naval warfare would tell you that this is a stupid Idea" I mean that are lots of historical examples that with hindsight we can say that, doesn't mean they didn't exist or should be discounted. Especially in a designer that should offer freedom in experimentation. I think wing turrets are a "stupid idea" but I recognize that is my opinion and that they are historical and moreover they should be allowed in the designer. Moreover there is LOTS of "stupid" things you can do in the designer now, would you totally disallow these? Such as making a dreadnought with 0" of armour everywhere except for a 4" belt. Anyway these suggestions were for the Design team, Nick. Not really for the peanut gallery to decide hopefully he appreciates the feedback.

In that particular case the objective might be for instance to have a heavier broadside. Or there could be other scenarios, placement of guns should not be solely left to what you think is not a "stupid" idea. Not to mention this is already allowed in game in other configurations. As a for instance the first image you quoted would only have affected the 12" turret directly to stern in arc, if even that much no more than that 6" further down. Here we can see an AI ship with two side turrets, you may call this "stupid" but I don't think it should not be allowed. The designer I should hope is meant to allow players freedom to create what they want with the tools they are given. Sure within some bounds if you like but obscuring slightly firing arcs is hardly unreasonable for a ships weapon designs, lots of that in historical precedent to the extent those 4" guns would have obscured that 12" turret. Especially that first image.

And I assume those torpedo's are markedly advanced compared to pre dreadnought and dreadnought era torps? suggesting an even higher dud rate?

I think most of the major concerns have been discussed and it also seems that Nick has directly addressed or will address most of them. Let me go over some of the less mentioned ones I think are important and add a few quality of life suggestions. Torpedo's during this period from my understanding were very much a gamble as to there ability to detonate. I don't know if its true (I have not researched this topic extensively, though it makes sense to me) that the vast majority of pre ww2 torpedo's were duds. If that's true would it not warrant at least a chance mechanic of having a dud in a given output. This next suggestion may be me just being ignorant but I couldn't find a way to manually adjust individual ships fire type within a division. Say the lead ship as HE and the second ship as AP. It seems to adjust the entire division. I possible it would be kool to have this ability. Zoom, I personally would love the ability to zoom in further on ships. Currently I cant zoom in that far even on a BB let alone a DD and I do LOVE the ship models so much the ability to zoom in further on them would be greatly appreciated. Finally I like that I can manually adjust the rudder on my ships using the UI but it often using the layout lacks precision, is it possible to have the ability to keybind the rudder controls for fine tuning?

I decided to bite the bullet and buy into the alpha despite my bad cash situation because naval warfare games, and especially with emphasis on realism are my jam and this game has so much potential. I would like to agree with and suggest changes on a number of the designer features, I have taken quite a few in game shots to clarify the issues and I think others are having as well as some suggestions I have. The placement restrictions on Towers, Guns, funnels and Barbettes are pretty steep. It would be appreciated to make them much more lax, currently trying to get the most out of a hull with the tower hardpoints can be difficult (such as Yamato on full displacement and a few others) Barbettes similarly are very weirdly restricted in some cases, again the Yamato at full displacement comes to mind but quite a few ships have this issue. Photos to illustrate. Here we can see that I cannot place a barbette close to my rear superstructure only away from it, this would not allow for super firing turret arrangement and makes the barbette somewhat pointless. As well as being less fun. Here on the Yamato (full displacement) ive marked in red where there are no hardpoints and thus cannot have placed Towers or barbettes. This heavily restricts the turret configuration of this max displacement Yamato build. here we have one of the BC hulls which is fairly restrictive in my mind. The two tower sections don't have much room to be placed on the hull. In addition there seems to be only some areas where funnels can be placed even if there is more than enough room with another hardpoint added, as in this picture. if there were another hardpoint for the funnel, or better yet many more than I would not have run into a design issue that I should not have. Here is another problem area the tower placement on this hull is very restrictive which then has an effect on what kind of turret you can put on the back of the superstructure. In this case there is plenty of actual room to move the back tower up the hull in order to accommodate the turret and have a larger back tower, but the hardpoints wont allow for it. This is just an image to illustrate how restrictive the system can be in certain instance. IMO. the superstructure of the front tower can only be placed on these four hardpoints but it attaches to the front of the structure, thus the most forward position and the most rear (where it is currently) does not include a great variation. This is an interesting one because im unsure if this is supposed to have this functionality. This rear tower structure cannot be placed on the furthest back hardpoint because of the overhang presumably. I do not think that with the proper structure supports that would be an issue at all. and it even looks rather good I think and makes a new interesting design. Moreover the interesting bit is that this piece of equipment is the only in the designer ive seen yet that actually has supports built into the model. They are sections that if placed forward on the hull would be under the deck but are visible in this photo as structural foundations. I have two photos now to illustrate that I think that weapon placement is very restrictive and weirdly so, I get that you want to keep some restriction for your own ideal of realism or so the AI can better handle the designer but I think this could be tweaked greatly even within a conservative model. I showcase here that I cannot put even one 4" gun in the space here on the deck that I have when realistically I think I should be able to place at least 4 in there if the player should so choose. I felt like Collating images of the issues I found, and I thinks others have in game to better give you an idea of what we are talking about. That said I would also like to offer some suggestions specifically for the designer and ask a few questions as well. I think it would be very cool and especially appreciated to have more towers types, a greater variety and a greater selection for each hull. One of the largest factors in differentiating large warships is there above deck superstructure and its various appendages, it can really make or break the aesthetic of the ship as well as its functionality and I think we could use a little more variety there (I know you've said 80+ hulls and that likely means many more towers to come but even if that is the case I would love a greater selection per ship) As a for instance I personally LOOOVE the Japanese pagoda style superstructures, I know they are late period but I would really love if they are accessible to many hull types not just the historical classes that had them. After all the Kongo class was british made and she has one of the most beautiful superstructures around. I assume that in campaign we will have access to more than just a small selection of our own nations hull types for this suggestion. In addition I would like to suggest the ability to either add pieces to the superstructure or new tower types with added sections. As a for instance many of the towers in game already have built in hardpoints for casemates and turrets, which is awesome. More of that and perhaps the ability to add sections like that to our hulls. This would be especially useful for fitting more small caliber guns onto a ship with space oddities like the BC examples Ive shown. Here is an example of the middle portion of the Dreadnought hull type, it is a superstructure with hardpoints for both casemates and funnels. (I am talking about the middle section there) It would be awesome to be able to place this on other ship hull types or other variations of superstructure like this. In addition to this I do have another concern I have a love of torpedo bulges, I find them to be sexy and functional. However I have yet to see any in game, and more concerning upgrading it in the menu doesn't seem to actually give any girth to these ships. I really hope the final version of the game includes actual Torpedo bulges? Not all torpedo bulges were visible from the waterline but most were I believe and some very much so. For instance the first refit of the HMS Warspite. Please tell me I will either be able to add this to hulls in game or there will be a hull for this class? Or for an earlier example the HMS Glatton, where its physical Torpedo bulge is very present. Finally as it pertains to what ships and ship parts are going to be in game. Will the final release of the game have both the hull types and ship parts to make my two favorite ships In their late war configurations. The HMS Warspite (Queen Elizabeth Class) and the Kongo Class Battle Cruiser?

Really enjoying your mod!! As a fellow modder I appreciate the effort that has been put it. You guys are killin it. As usual, vanilla is uplayable now XD As Napoleonics is my fave, and I here thats up next for Darth I hope you take that on as well :)

Thats excellent news admin! Additions to the conversation. -what would the effect be of marines on the ships? Would the slow musket fire of the top deck slowly whittle down crew on an enemy nearby vessel? And if so would it be ineffective at some point? IE everyone is dead in the top deck of a 1st rate so no one left to shot not under cover. -would the effect just be visual for immersion. Models of marines at various places on the ship with simple lookout animations, until enemy gets close and they then proceed into firing animation? -will crew be seprate from marines? Will there be any sort of distingushing difference between the two in game? This would be kool! one could overload their crew with marines for a sort of boarding specialist vessel at the cost of manuevering/firing penalties perhaps? -another feature id like to see is deployable longboats, large ships, especially SOL had longboats that they would often deploy for various tasks etc. Like to see these in game mainly for immersion. And Danforth! You lucky dog with the brown bess! XD might hazard to say however that firing at a range and in the din of combat are two different things entirely. Not to mention human psyche being what it is, well documented that human musket fire was for the most part ineffectual/for show. But definately depends on the crew/situation!

I feel confident that this feature will come with time. We may not get very large crew models displayed or accurate 800+ for 1st rates (never been done before) but im sure at some point later on the crews will start to get bigger and have more flavour. Of course a good word from the devs on this never hurt anything! I am looking forward to see what they do!

Good Read Norn! you bring up some interesting point's about crew and game mechanics. Don't know if it's been talked about but a "specialist crew" system would be great especially for Surgeons! as they were very crucial to morale/ship. which is another thing, Morale! I would love for that to be implemented in the game somehow! Interesting bit of history and I especially love the bits about comparison of cost/wealth. If you know of anymore or the source to which you got those please do share I take it from this read you intend to be a pirate then? XD

I originally thought this was weird too, as most games want at least an email, but your fine. They use the email connected to your Paypal account

I am also have this problem today?