Search the Community

Not sure if this has been suggested before, but : When starting a campaign, the setup and initial fleet autodesign should start immediately. This would shorten the wait for the campaign to start, especially if it could work in the background as i design my own initial fleet. Maybe spawning campaign setup as a separate thread. Create some kind of incentive to keep your active gun sizes as few as possible. This to simulate the benefits of standardization and to reduce the amount of weird gun diameters that appear in campaign. Especially with smaller guns. Make gun stats linear from the base model towards the gun they are scaling towards of the same mark. eg 4.1" MK1 has the stats (4" mk1 + 10% of delta Stats 4"mk1/Stats 5" mk1). This to avoid any weirdness.

Now that the first beta version of 1.09 is out I decided to take a look at the game again after mostly ignoring it for a couple of months. Although the game becomes ever more feature rich I believe that some aspects of it are still very shallow and one of the most shallow features imo is task force creation, their purpose and management. IMO the biggest question that would be great for the designers to answer: what is the objective/purpose of task forces in UAD? Currently, task forces are nothing more than a group/assembly of ships that have (in most cases) departed from a single naval base and sent to a sea region on the map. There, these "task forces" sit around and generate missions within that sea region. These auto-generated missions can be somewhat scewed by the way the task force is comprised and the abilities/features of the ships within the task force. For example, a task force with fast ships that support a long range have a benefit of triggering more favourable missions. Furthermore, with the introduction of the recon system, having high value recon ships (e.g. fast, small/stealthy ships) also impacts the ability of a task force to trigger more favourable engagements. Also, task forces can be given a mission, which is currently (1.09) limited to: sea control, protect and invade and according to the in-game help feature a control zone which prevents hostile ships from passing through unchallenged. The task forces will be supplied from your naval bases with ammo and fuel in an abstracted manner by the game so that it removes micromanagement. To me this approach that UAD feels very conflicted/confusing. I can fully understand their design choice from simplifying game design, but task forces are (as of now) a mix of the IRL patrol groups, fleets and task forces. I feel that the current UAD task forces should allow for much more detail in its organisation and objective. To my knowledge the devs are moving towards a more point based system in which the number and type of ships comprising the task force, will be impacted by your techology/research. More advanced tech will give you more points, hence allow you to create more complex/larger task forces. I would not be suprised if admirals (as in game characters) were to lead these formations at some point when implemented. It would be helpful if we were able to also choose a formation for the task force (even a list of preset ones would already be great) so that this helps us and the AI in organising the ships during battle. I hope that my rambling makes sense, please feel free to discuss.

before I start with my suggestion credit to the individual who commented on the roadmap requesting the ability to change caliber by a tenth of an inch for the ship designer because I feel like that could be and should be implemented and it caused me to think of this suggestion. Something akin to a mix of the torpedo system and armor thickness could work where you choose your model of gun amount of barrels single, double, triple or quad and then in a menu akin to the armor system where you would have a min and max value for your prospective mounts with said values affecting weight, size, reload time, cost, accuracy similar to the torpedo models allowing for some gun mountings on hardpoints that were previously not allowed or that looked uncanny. Now I realize this would turn into a spreadsheet looking nightmare and the issue of having the same gun mount but of differing caliber would be a pain however I feel like it could be circumvented by having the menu pop of when you click that mount or hover over a mini menu would pop up for that mount and the any mount mirroring it in the case of guns offset from the centerline. If anyone has addon suggestions please do mention them or anything related to this

Hi smoll forumites! I have created this thread for the sole purpose for allowing peeps to showcase any designs for ships NOT related to UA:D directly (so as in no ships made in UA:D) but ship designs that you may have created from various eras (for example from 1650-2020). These can be in the form of 3d models, line drawings, shipbucket style ships, hand drawings etc. They don't have to be real designs, but based off various warships that did and didn't exist or never made it (yes you can use wows and warthunder as points of reference if you want to). Also this thread doubles as a little chat area, we have the forum bar on wurld of danks so makes sense to have something similar here! Ill post an example of a ship i made earlier. Loyal Class Battleship Full load: 22,500 Normal load: 19,500 Primary Armament: 345mm 2x2 13.5inch. Secondary Armament: 178mm 6x2 7inch. (Both sides). 152mm 24x1 6inch casemates. (Both sides) Tetritary Armament: 40mm Hotchkiss Naval Enhanced 14x1 1.5inch. (Both sides). 35mm Maxim-Vickers Autocannon Naval 8x1 1.35inch. Engine Power: 23,500 IHP, 22 Vertical Boilers, 2 Vertical Triple-Expansion Engines, 2 Screws. Armour: Belt: 335mm's. Upper Deck: 223mm's. Deck Extended: 50mm's. Barbettes Main guns: 335mm's. Main Gun armour front: 350mm's. Main gun top armour: 85mm's. Secondary gun turret armour: 203mm's. Belt extended: 105mm's. Upper Belt: 203mm's. Conning tower: 335mm's. Bulkheads: 229mm's. Range: 20-22,000 km or 12427-13670 (Depending on Speed, consumables, condition and route). Complement: 800 Peacetime or 925 Wartime. And images below. Remember the ships don't have to be exact to real life standards and you can mix it up a bit. Also please be noice to each other, makes it easier to apply constructive critism and helps with a happier atmosphere (Which is needed with how things are going in the world and all). Enjoy! 'w'/

So now its here, update 9, with its 19" and 20" guns, its Quad turrets, and its new French hulls. But this has led to something, HUGE battleships, sometimes called Super Battleships, and I just wanted to create this to document some designs. What works well and what doesn't? What are the best designs to rule the world? how do you create the Maximum battleship? (Also the Maximum Battleships are another name for the Tillman Designs, and those are just kind of a demonstration of why politicians shouldn't be allowed to design ships)

Hi there, I'm here to talk about submarines. I know that the submarines will not be player controlled from earlier statements from the developers in the campaign, and I'm not here to argue against that, I think its a good way to keep the focus on surface guns fleets. However I do have a few questions regarding the topic, as submarnes are a massive part of naval warfare from WW1 onwards. 1) Will we be able to design the submarines ourselves in the shipbuilder? I know theres not really much one can add to a submarine externally as most of it is hull, but things like torpedo tubes, sails, etc should be available for tweaking, heck maybe cruiser grade guns if your feeling French. This would allow us to set up the subs to follow a doctrine we intend to deploy (long range, large spread fleet subs, to small coastal defense subs). 2) Will we be able to dictate their positioning in the campaign and what laws they follow, (cruiser warfare to unrestricted submarine warfare)? 3) Will we be able to place anti-submarine weapon systems on our escorts manually, or will that be automated to a particular set of hulls? Please do vote on the polls! Cheers.

So i read a bit about they way that your ship classes work and what are they composed of. I have question however. Will there be any possibility of designing or playing with predesigned auxiliary vessels like minelayers and support cruisers? Also will we be able to give roles of those vessels to our ships. For example could i create destroyer-cargo transport hybrid (like destroyer usage during WW2 Pacific by Japan) or give cruiser/destroyer ability to put minefield (something like what orp Gryf was) I assume that tender ships both as a repair ship and as a support seaplane tenders are very hard to implement not to mention make them designable - and therefore will not be the case, am i correct? I also asume that we will be able to create cruiser that has some asw capabilities?

Placement: Nodes v Centerline. I've found that the use of nodes to dictate where certain parts of the ship's structure should attach to the ship (superstructure, funnels, barbettes etc) is one of the most restrictive systems when it comes to giving a player the freedom to design their ship. Even now with the addition of Nelson-like points for the normal Yamato hull I find it hard to squeeze in a few turrets. The use of a centerline snapping point with some restriction on the ends will give the player more options when it comes to barbette and superstructure placement allowing for more crafty designs. Barbettes Barbettes can also be given a revamp. My idea is having them separated into two categories; Main Barbettes and Secondary Barbettes. These barbettes will be able to fit any turret in the given gun categories, morphing to fit the size of the given gun mount. Secondary barbettes should also be able to mounted on the ship's sides if possible allowing for more extensive secondary mounts. Plus the limits on barbettes should be removed so that one can freely replicate designs like the New York-class. An Argument for Modularity I have read previous posts regarding the topic of modular ship hulls and difficulties with the AI and some players new to the naval scene, but it can be implemented alongside the default hull presets as an "advanced option". The hull presets can be a the main method of building ships in the game but modularity can be a sort of option hidden away in the settings menu or the like. if this does get implemented, there are a few key features I'd like to see in it; Separation of sections into fore, midships and aft. Various options for flush-decked ships and low quarter-decked ships, as well as an option for a "deck of casemates" for flush-decked ships An overall width control and separate length controls for the three ship sections or a length control for only the midships section. Other Suggestions Though they aren't numerous, I found a lot of good ideas at disc's thread; Though here are a few; Separate turret models and gun quality: Turret models should be grouped according to their specific nations whilst gun quality should be a drop-down menu in the main gun category. Thus a Mark-5 British gun is a different model from a Mark-5 German gun. (I'll add more in the coming days)

So we all want custom hulls eventually. I think that's a given. But id like to be able to personally set the inch or millimeter to a certain type as opposed to all the common types. This isnt too big a deal on the large main guns on battleships, but is more noticeable on smaller ships. For example German cruisers preferred 150mm guns, while Russians preferred 130mm. We have 152 and 127 mm currently but there is a difference especially if you're trying to make replicas. While on the subject of guns, I do want to see little things like AA or machine guns added. Even if no aircraft are added, they still see use against torpedo boats and small destroyers, and just make the boat look cool. As well as quad barreled guns, cause those where actually rather common leading up too WW2.

One of the things I'd love to see (especially on pre-Dreadnought era ships) would be bow ornaments. Let me say that I fully understand and appreciate if this will be a low priority, as it would have negligible impact on profile or any combat stats. If its free, then its just cool and aesthetic, or if it were to have a small cost, maybe it'd have some nifty (minor) bonus to fleet prestige in campaign, ala Great White Fleet. USS Connecticut USS Olympia SMS Kaiser Friedrich III ... and I ran out of space. I think bow ornaments would add a bit of national flavor to the game. Like I said, it'd be a neat little extra in the game, though I realize this may not be the highest priority. @Nick Thomadis

Already talked about in Discord, but this will be more permanent. The developers are doing a stellar job and I don't mean any disrespect, but the current technology system is pretty much the worst possible system that could have happened. Why has the dev team abandoned the tried-and-true technology tree and instead tried to reinvent the wheel (and made it square)? I suppose the RNG system was envisioned to add replayability, but it only adds frustration right now as you're given tech you don't want or can't equip anyways. Currently, mostall players go by without ever seeing most technologies. And even with the reroll system, the RNG can screw you over and leave you with technologies you do not have the weight to equip anyways. Players should be given agency in which tech they choose to buy and not be left to the tender mercies of RNG. If balance is an issue, they already have limited finances (for buying tech), shop inventory limits (for researchable weapons), and the weight limits (for ship upgrades). There is a very simple solution to this problem, one already found in another game: Hearts of Iron IV. In HOI4, the earlier you research a technology before the date of its historical discovery, the time it takes to research it grows exponentially. In addition, it uses the conventional tech tree so there are prerequisite technologies. Both prevent cheese strategies by researching certain technologies early on. Change research time to money required to buy, and you have a solution to the technology "bush" you have in this game. Have each tech be tiered to a turn number or date, and increase the cost of high-tier exponentially the earlier you are. You get your balance and a tech tree that doesn't have me replaying the intro mission for an hour so RNG can give me a better roll in technology. P.S. Speaking of upgrades, given that sails are destroyed pretty often, why are sails permanent upgrades? Maybe there should be an unequip cost instead to represent having to tear out the sails. And the weight limits are too strict for hull or sail to be worth it for most combat vessels.

So I haven't seen a popular thread about this so I wanted to make a statement for it. It think variety of looks and the ability to change how certain things look should be considered. Examples of what I mean, the 12 inch gun turret and 15 inch gun turret look very different from each other. But what if you like the way the 15 inch turret looks? Or how its armor facings are? Or cant afford to weight of the 15 inch battery? They should allow us to change and select the different looking things and whatnot for things like turret housings, torpedoe tubes and launchers, turrets, casemates, and even details on the hull. I think that would greatly help people make replicas or stylize their ships according to a particular country or idea. And they need to add a lot more variety of such things when the game is ready. I think it would help immensely with immersion and player free will.

I'm a 20-year-old who has been fascinated with maritime history for over a decade. I love this game! Nevertheless, here are some suggestions to make the game more realistic. Suggestions for Endymion: Redesign her rigging and sails: Lead the tack of the innermost jib(Foretopmast staysail) to the Bowsprit cap (not to where the spritsail yard is). Lead the tack of the middle jib(jib) to the end of the jibboom( not to the cap of the bowsprit), and the head of the sail to the foretopmast crosstrees (not the topgallant) and make this the largest of the jibs. Add flying-jib-boom and extend the outermost jib(flying jib) to the end of the flying-jibboom(not to the end of the jib-boom), the head of the sail should lead to the top of the topgallant masts(not the end of the poles for royals) delete the spritsail topsail and spritsail topsail yard add a single (as on Trincomalee) or double (as on USS Consitution) dolphin striker. (Different ships carried different styles, but every frigate carried one Add a middle staysail (peak leading to the main topmast crosstree, knock to the middle of the foretopmast, and tack at the foretop platform) Delete the lowest staysail between the fore and mainmast, this sail would only be carried in a hurricane, in normal conditions it would interfere with the working of the riggning in the waste rendering the ship unmaneuverable in battle. Lead the peak of the highest staysail between the masts to the main topgallant (not to the top of the pole). Add a knock to the mizzen staysail(lowest staysail between the Mizzen and Main) Recreate the sizes of the sails and spars to fit those listed of HMS Endymion. Here are the parts of the sails listed above: Here is Endymion in the game: As compared to the rig of a 36-gun frigate built around 1795 (given the billet head instead of a figurehead, this was only used few ships for a short period between 1795-1797). Note the middle staysail lowered between the fore and main mast. Some sails that a ship of 1795 omitted on the model: Royals would be set on long poles above the topgallant sails(highest sails on the model) in light weather and the all the mizzen staysails and the main topgallant staysail are left out too. The lead of the martingale-stays suggest that the spritsail was rarely used and is indeed omitted on the model. Hence by 1797 Endymion would have rarely carried a spritsail. The spritsail topsail was obsolete and no longer rigged by 1795 and is omitted on the model. Notice the long dolphin striker similar to that of HMS Trincomalee. Here are the spar dimensions of the Endymion from 1808. Note all measurements of the length of the spars are in yards and inches separated by a hyphen. While the diameters are in inches Masts: Main: L 32-0, D 30+1/4 topmast: L 19-6, D 17+1/4 Topgallant: L 9-21, D 9+5/8 Pole (extension of the topgallant mast to carry royal sails): L 5 D 9+5/8 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates) Fore: L 29-13, D 27+1/4 topmast: L 17-0, D 17+1/4 Topgallant: L 8-18, D 8+1/4 Pole: L 4-24, D 8+1/8 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates) Mizzen: L 23-2, D 20 topmast: L 14-3, D 11+3/4 Topgallant: L 7-6, D 7+1/4 Pole: L 4-24, D 9+5/8 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates) Bowsprit: L 19-19 D28. Jibboom: L 14-0, D 12 Flying jibboom: dimensions not listed, despite not being an official fitting, every frigate from about 1795 carried one. Yards: Main: L 28-26, D 19+7/8 topsail: L 20-24, D 12+7/4 Topgallant: L 13-8, D 8 royal: L 9, D 5 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates) Fore: L 28-26 D 19+7/8 topsail: L 18-20, D 11+5/8 Topgallant: L 11-11, D 7+1/8 royal: L 8, D 4+1/2 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates) Mizzen (Crossjack): L 28-26, D 19+7/8 topsail: L 18-20, D 11+5/8 Topgallant: L 11-11, D 7+1/8 royal: L 7, D 4 (dimensions not officially listed, but I reconstructed them from the spar plan of the modified Endymion class frigates) Spritsail: L 18-20, D 11+5/8 (same as foretop) Spritsail topsail: L 11-11, D 7+1/8 (This yard was obsolete never put up and should be omitted as it but instead carried as a spare for the topgallant yard, In fact, it was used so rarely that is was abolished issuing it by 1815) Dolphin striker: (Although not part of the official listings on spar dimensions, by 1795 Frigates had extended the flying jib with a flying jib boom that required a long dolphin striker with martingale-stays provide the downward force to prevent flying jibboom from braking, the very same martingale stays prevented ships from using the spritsail topsail as it was obsolete). Endymion might have had a double Dolphin striker like the USS Constitution and HMS Acasta (A British frigate of similar size to Endymion also built in 1797) Boom(spanker): L 20-24, D 11+5/8 Gaff(spanker): L 13-6 D 11+1/2 Note: Measurements of lower masts are from the mast-step not the deck. Also the masts would overlap at the tops and topgallant crosstrees. These can be seen in the spars of the modified Endymion class frigates (They had spars of reduced dimensions and greater diameter beacuse the ships were made of softwood): External Appearance: Add a large full body all white painted figurehead and delete the two rails running down the side of the waist not shown in the sheer plan. Paint scheme as of 1797 (The only one that doesn't require also redesigning the forecastle barricade,) The inside of the barricades were not red as they are in the game. This fell out of fashion in the 1780s. By 1797 they were blackyellow ochre. It is extremely unlikely that the Endymion was ever painted as she is in the game! The broad yellow band that extends between the wales and the rail above the gunports should be narrowed and lowered to the rail that is the height of the middle of the gunports to follow what was most common in 1797 (it is what is shown in most paintings and on most models). Compare the Endymion in the game to the model and note which rail the yellow band reaches on the profile draught: The unlikely alternative to this paint scheme for HMS Endymion 1797 would be a thin yellow band below the gunports similar to how HMS Shannon (and USS Chesapeake though not British)was painted as of 1813 and HMS Terpsichore was as of 1796. Here are the Shannon vs Chesapeake and Terpsichore vs Mahonesa: Stern: Her current stern in the game has a single curve over the transom which was a French and Spanish feature during the 1700s and early 1800s. British frigates by 1797 distinctly had separate curves over the galleries that protruded outside the ships hull and round stern gunports on the quarterdeck. They even went to the extent of redesigning the sterns of the ships they captured such as HMS Amelia ex-Proserpine. Here are examples of the Narcissus class 1801 and the Pallas class 1793: Furthermore, all British frigates of the 1790s had 9 panes of glass in their stern windows unlike in the game where Endymion has six: Here is the example on a model of the Ex-french Pomone modified to resemble HMS Endymion circa 1815 (although the paint scheme of the model is similar to that of 1797): Endymion's stern in the game wrongly resembles a French design such as that of the Volontaire shown below with a single curve around the whole stern galleries. Ships Boats As launched, Endymion was fitted with an 18 ft clinker built cutter(a small clinker-built multipurpose workboat dubbed the jollyboat), a 32 ft barge (a long narrow carvel built fast rowing boat), a 28 ft Launch (a wide heavy-duty carvel-built boat that could be armed with a 12 pounder carronade), and two 24 ft cutters (medium sized clinker-built workboats). The jollyboat was stowed on stern davits and the rest of the boats stowed in the waist. Post-1797 modification options By 1800: Solid barricades were built around the forecastle deck as shown in the earlier picture of the model. These are clearly shown on the inboard profile of the ship and on the model(note the model doesn't have the same position of the gunports on the forecastle because the model was originally of Pomone which Endymion was based on but had slightly different arrangements: The plan is accurate) and it is possible that Endymion was actually launched with them Modifications as of 1805(at this time Endymion was armed with 18-pounders not 24s): By 1805, Quarter davits were added and the two 24ft cutters were carried abreast the mizzen mast as can be seen on HMS Victory. Additional paint scheme option. The Nelson chequer was the most likely paint scheme as of 1805. Note the yellow band is narrower and follows the gunports, not the external planking. Here is the Nelson chequer as painted on HMS Euryalus in 1805 which was under Nelson's command at Trafalgar (note the solid forecastle barricades): Modifications as of 1811(also as armed with 18-pounders): Paint scheme: An order from the Admiralty of 1811 replaced yellow paint with white paint, nevertheless some captains continued to paint their ships yellow. Here is a possibility of how Endymion was painted, note the inside of the bulwarks are green. As of 1815 after her great repair and as she appeared during her battle with USS President: Ships Boats: Many captain's include captain Hope of Endymion replaced the 18 ft jollyboat with a 24 ft fast rowing gig. In preparation for foreign service (as opposed to channel service) a 24 ft cutter was replaced by a 25 ft yawl (carvel-built equivalent). The 12-pounder carronade was carried by the Yawl instead of the Launch. Hull Modifications: The full-length figurehead was replaced by a bust and the quarterdeck barricade extended forward to accommodate an extra gunport, meanwhile an extra beam was added to the quarterdeck extending the deck forward as well. The breastworks were deleted, top-riders (large diagonal timbers on the side of the ship to give the hull strength, but actually proved to weaken the hull) deleted, and gangways significantly widened. The result was what is shown on this model mean to depict HMS Endymion: The extension of the quarterdeck by one beam and the bulwark can be faintly seen drawn in pencil on the inboard profile (note the prominent diagonal fastenings in this plan: top riders were removed in the great repair): Furthermore, the opening between the forecastle and quarterdeck was further reduced by adding light gratings over the beams in the waist to create a makeshift spar deck as shown(ignoring the rounded off edges of the opening) on this model of HMS Lacedaemonian 1812 (model shows the ship post 1815 ) Pa)int Scheme: It had been documented in writing (the naval chronical) and in paintings that by 1815, HMS Endymion was painted all black as shown in these paintings: Rigging, spars and sails: Skysails, skysail yards and skysail poles were extended above the Royals, otherwise, the rigging remained the same. Thomas Buttersworth paints Endymion with a single dolphin striker, but all paintings of British frigates with skysails show double dolphin strikers. It is difficult to tell whether she had one or two. Thomas Whitcombe painting of HMS Acasta (1797), one of the other three 40-gun frigates built in 1797 like Endymion, as she appeared in 1806 rigged with skysail poles and a double dolphin strike(note the other frigate in the background only has royal poles and has a single dolphin striker): A minor detail is that after 1811, the sails would no longer be bent to the yards themselves(attached below) but rather to a jackstay allowing the sails to cover up the front each yard they were fastened to. Armament : Note: This section is displayed copied from Wikipedia, although I am the one that wrote the Wikipedia section. I listed this armament by cross-checking records in Robert Gardiner's Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars, Theodore Roosevelt's The Naval War of 1812, Andrew Lambert's The Challenge, and William James' Naval Occurrences with the plans of Endymion and the listed modifications to her hull. It is noteworthy that the exact innovations that Captain Philip Broke of HMS Shannon used regarding artillery were adopted and used to great effect by HMS Endymion during her battle with USS President. Prof. Lambert describes the structural damage that USS President suffered which resulted from Endymion's gunfire: 5/15 starboard (where Endymion engaged) main-deck damaged to the point of being disabled and 10/15 main-deck gun crews hit despite the battle being fought with both ships in motion with a swell from the gales the night before. Multiple holes between wind and water (24-pounders could pierce through the American 44s sides unlike the 18-pounder shot that bounced off USS Constitution giving her the name "Old Ironsides"). Shot from Endymion was even found inside President's magazine (aft power room). 6ft of water was in President's hold by the time she was captured (although some could have been from the night before). Many historians fail to mention in detain the effect of Endymion's firepower or the extraordinary accuracy allowed by Broke's system. Perhaps it would be worth increasing Endymion's reload speed and accuracy to represent Broke's innovations that captain Hope adopted? (By 1815 these methods were also used on the frigates HMS Spartan, HMS Euryalus, HMS Tenedos, HMS Shannon and perhaps more) 1797: Upper deck: 26 × 24-pounder guns (11 kg); QD: 6 × 32-pounder (15kg) carronades + 8 × 9-pounder (4kg) long guns Fc: 2 × 32-pounder (15kg) carronades, + 4 × 9-pounder (4kg) guns From Nov 1803 to 17 May 1813: Upper deck: 26 × 18-pounders (8 kg); QD:14 × 32-pounder (15 kg) carronades Fc: 4 × 32-pounder (15kg) carronades, + 2 × 9-pounder (4kg) guns From 17 May 1813: Upper deck: 26 × 24-pounder guns QD:16 × 32-pounder (15 kg) carronades Fc: 1 × 18-pounder (8 kg) brass long gun + 4 × 32-pounder carronades Additional unofficial armament: Ships boat: 1 × 12-pounder (5kg) gunnade Fighting Tops: Swivel mounted smaller guns

Hello Dear Developers, Dear admin, please give us back the nice blinking free for all map spots Cheers Donjuan

Hi, I am very interested in the development of the shape of a ship hull between 1600-1800. I have been searching the internet but cant seem to find what i want. I will sum up some question and i hope someone can help me. Wouldnt it be interesting to discuss this topic? 1. How did the shape of the bow, hull and stern develop in this period? 2. What are the most common design for ships in that period? and not just for ship of the line or frigates but for all open water vessels. 3. What does i certain shape mean for the perfomance? What are the advantages and disadvantage of certain designs? I hope this will start a discussion, because i cant be the only one interested in this.