Search the Community

G'day folks. Yet more suggestions for yet better gameplay. Enjoy, and let the good times roll. * Duplex rangefinders should be available; options for whether main guns also have rangefinders to minimise the loss of accuracy when main rangefinder(s) are hit. Number and sizes of rangefinders should have rudimentary options- none, one, few, moderate, many, maximum options. Rangefinders could also be a placeable structure, assuming implementation of the structures system indicated earlier, instead of abstracted options, with each rangefinder being individually modeled and it's effect on accuracy individually tracked. Also would be nice to include rangefinder blind spots. * All turrets should be individually searching for targets when set to aggressive fire-mode; including main and secondary turrets, so we can get all our guns blazing when surrounded, as I prefer to be. * Battleship ambush defence should not include merchant ships. If it does, that's a very unfair convoy defence, as even a maxed-out battleship ain't killing that many light ships before they drop torpedoes and ruin your defenceless and ignorant transports. * Save tabs- at the top of the saved designs window, an extra button to switch into your universal saves would be appreciated. This would preserve function and cleanliness of current saves window but permit persistent saving of designs. I'd also like filter controls to filter by type, weight, modernity, etcetera as I plan on creating large libraries of designs. Now, this final part might be controversial, but I would like this tab to allow me to construct other nation's ships, assuming none of their components would be unavailable to me from a technology perspective. Again: if I want to build ships that look the same as my enemy's that's my prerogative as the ultimate fleet admiral. Some nations just get plain screwed with their available designs... * Near miss damage: large-calibre HE should cause some shrapnel/splash damage, and AP that falls short on trajectory to hit the hull below the waterline should be modeled. * We should be able to click the "some guns have poor sectors of fire" warning and be brought to the offending turret and have it blink for us a couple of times. This is so we can actually know what turret is causing the issue. * The new turrets with little gunnery nests on them are quite nice. Now can I please have an option to not use them, so I can use the old generic ones so they'll fit with barbettes? Better yet, a simple option to remove the nest so I can properly put a superfiring turret over it would be ideal. * Please set all armour preset values to balanced figures so I don't spend ten minutes getting the weight balance perfect only to find that the ship has 500% more aft deck armour than fore deck armour, requiring a complete redesign *after* I think I'm nearly done. * In the Fleet tab, the tooltip keeps getting in the way of what statistics you're trying to look at. Redesigning it so that information is displayed in a dedicated window to the side would be ideal. * In the shipyard for ship design, there's a large dead space where the keyboard move buttons and the mouse movements are all ignored. Please increase the bounding box in which these functions work. Suggest making all space that isn't a button or sidebar accept these inputs. On the sidebars up/down buttons should scroll the sidebar we're mouse-overing. * Speaking of the shipyard, it would save me a lot of effort if the engine efficiency and pitch/roll values all displayed the same tooltip as the sidebar provides. Please. * Aim high and aim low settings would be appreciated so we can exploit poor superstructure armour or aim to hole the targeted ship. * When about to initiate a battle, the window that opens causes the countries, warscore and fleet dispositions tab to fade into inscrutability. Respectfully, don't do that. There's no reason for it and in the current build there may be several consecutive battles scheduled for me by the AI between which I cannot check this tab. In fact, stop making those tabs impossible to close; I may want to order new ships or adjust my spending as a result of the battle I just finished and there's no mechanical reason to stop me. * Convoy escort missions are just not acceptable in current build if you want your game enjoyed or sold. It is literally impossible to protect your convoy from long-range torpedoes, even if your whole force is immediately sent out to meet the attackers, along any relative bearing, the AIs super-torpedo ships are going to fire on your escort force with the rapidity of a machinegun and as you evade you'll inevitably attract salvos that can go on to hit your convoy ships. The crux of the matter is detection range and initial force placement. RADAR is supposed to detect things in plenty of time to respond to it, and even if not (or not available)you're going to have a far more satisfying game if these battles are remotely under your control to win- maybe lengthening the distance between the starting would help, as might reducing the range of torpedoes to nearer their indicated maximum range, or PUTTING THOSE CONVOYS UNDER PLAYER CONTROL and ADDING AUDIO AND VISUAL CUES THAT A SHIP IS ON COURSE TO TAKE A TORPEDO, that latter two being highlighted as they alone will fix this issue without making every convoy defence mission a drudgery of waiting to make contact. Also, if the convoy ships are going to be under AI control, whether we set them to it or you force us to use that alone, then they should follow Mr. Piccolo's advice and DODGE! 'Coz trust me, we're begging them to. I reiterate: all ships under AI control should be using AI dodge-hacks, a term which will be replaced with AI evasion when it becomes more accurate than the former. * Related to the former: please stop letting the AI build super-torpedo ships with literally a hundred or more torpedoes on them each, ESPECIALLY in historical build mode. No-one actually did that. Just we armchair admiral wondered about doing it. Even the Japanese didn't go that far with their most outrageous designs... * Make AI dodge-hacks less noticeable. It's immersion-breaking. Reduce all values that they exceed the limits imposed on a player ship by at least 50% of the difference, preferably 100%. This is a priority concern. * Fleet tags in campaign are way too big to function right, both for ports and ships. Interface is messy and unwieldy; I don't feel very in control of my ships... * Fleet tags could use the silhouette from the designer's plan to show us the heaviest ship in a given force, thus communicating considerably more information than they do now. It would also be comparatively simple to do, too. * I'ma repeat myself: light ship spotting mechanics are not sufficient. Being fired at by ghosts also isn't sufficient. Most other games mitigate this by having the ship that fires balloon out it's detection range by up to 50%, but my primary desire is to get RADAR and SONAR mounts to exist and have more realistic ranges regardless of what they're mounted to, except a slight range buff *for free* by being mounted higher- say, on a BB mast. This bonus should not be *that* high, as it isn't in reality. No more than 100%. Again free from a weight perspective- same RADAR module, same weight- but it should be a roll concern as in reality. After all, that weight is very high up on the superstructure and that's how you get roll. * The dispersion of guns in the current patch is so poor as to be offensive to the Youtubers playing the game (though admittedly, I never really paid it much heed, understanding how the math behind this system works and that the displayed rounds are merely a visual representation of that math). Anyhow, relatively easy fix: reduce the maximum dispersion of the shells being animated by say 30-50%, especially at short ranges, just to improve the aesthetic, if not affect the performance which seems adequate for this stage of development. Nice work making the fall of shot from the same turret look realistic, though; even War Thunder couldn't pull that off. * Please have speed stat display to two decimal places, as it already actually accepts inputs down that far and adjusts the ship's weight and stats accordingly but doesn't actually show the difference (except by the altered stats). * I think we need a mini-map. I am having severe trouble tracking all the ships involved in larger encounters... * Would like an "assist ship" order; for when a ship is critically damaged. Allow us to send another vessel to rescue survivors (adding them back to the trained crew pool after battle) and attempt to stabilize the ship in trouble, at the risk of potentially losing the rescue craft. This will add a new dynamic for damaged capital ships and give us an organic objective mid-battle; we may find ourselves trying to fend off attacks while we complete a rescue or salvage operation. Dedicated salvage ships also appreciated as a long-term stretch goal. * Flagships suffer a -15% accuracy malus due to being out of range of the flagship. Hilarious, but better removed. Okay then, as ever feel free to cite both liked and disliked ideas to allow the devs to better understand our wants. Happy hunting, Admirals. o7

Right now the game suffers from a problem of ships lacking visual variety. Personally I think more unique models are needed, even if it means getting creative and making stuff that never existed. Right now most factions (the semi-major ones like austria-hungary, russia, japan and italy) (in the same time era) have no visual diferences between same spec ships besides the flag. The turrets are the same, the hulls are the same etc. I understand why you recycled the british quad turret for almost all other factions, the others never made one (if they did, to find them you need more that a simple 1 minute google search). But in my opinion, in those cases, you should get creative and design new unique turrets (based of existing triple/double designs) that were never deployed/designed. I know most of this game's models are historically accurate, but when history doesn't give you stuff to work with, maybe you need to invent it your own. I'd like to see more unique turrets (same specs but diferent looks) for diferent factions. I my opinion, there should be 3 (main) turrets designs per each faction (per time era) that would be then scalled up or down acoordingly to caliber (1 small (up to 300mm), 1 medium (up to 400mm) and 1 big (the biggest), this is just an example) (in the 1940s). Though in these examples they will be suggesions for battleships. Examples: I've seen a bunch of WWII italian battleships, and aparently they were fond of placing the turret counterweights (scopes? I never know...) at the same height as the turret center and give the thing a rounded top (almost like a old semi-bald man's head and hair). Russian/soviet ones are a little distinct, but you could make the medium ones the shape of a hexagon (from the top) with a high rear end (like the Knyaz Suvorov, Gangut and Pyotr Velikiy), and the big ones similar to the Sovetsky Soyuz and the Kremlin ones (whose top and side shape is a little tricky to describe). (And yes, those pictures are from WoWs, don't cry about that as some people in this forum do with any design or idea from this game simply because of its origin). For the austro-hungarian the shape of the S.M.S Viribus Unitis turrets with the pointy spots between the barrels looks nice. Also I found this long yet rather informative page with some self-drawn designs. I'd check it out. They also talk about never built battleships. There are quite a few ideas to be taken from here. Japanese ones... well, for the big ones (up to 500 mm) you could simply use the yamato turret. For the mid ones (up to 400 mm) maybe use the turrets from the Kongō-class battlecruisers? These are just examples, they might not be aplied to certain eras (as they were build in diferent time periods) and weren't quad turrets (you'll have to, from these designs, to invent quad ones yourself). This isn't really related to the topic, but I think it would be interesting to share these interesting facts and rumours I found during my research: I did find some interesting rumors about a QUINTUPLE (5 cannons) turret design for a "G-Series" of battleships, aparently designed by a General (Edgardo) Ferrati. Though I can't find sturdy evidence or other references, as so it remains mostly speculation, however I think its just a funny interesting thing to discuss. https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/6875-the-ferrati-quintuple-turret-battleship/ https://stefsap.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/general-ferratis-1915-battleship-g-series-designs/ I also discovered that the french Dunkerque and Richelieu class of battleships, known for their quad turrets, have a interesting feature. The space between the 2 pairs of guns, is due to the turret being split into 2 sections by a armored bulkhead, so if the turret gets penetrated by a shot (but it doesnt suffer catastrophic damage) the other side might be able to continue to operate. In theory, that makes it, instead of a quad turret, 2 twin turrets stitched together. Richelieu being assembled: So this is the result of a small 4 hour google search. I apreciate constructive criticism. Thanks for reading this. EDIT: Devs should decide wheter every faction will have "turret" equality spec-wise (same array of components) or if they will diversify. Im saying this as some factions like the french already have arsenals like small quad turrets others dont. If the devs give each faction historical armaments, then the quads of many other factions gotta go. If they go the equality path, many factions will require new designs that didnt exist historically, like a german quad turret.

It happens with my 1910 British campaign. all other 2"-6" scondaries are fine(they are using the same turrent model for multi-barrel setup)

Notes: If Anyone has any suggestions please reply to this topic, I'm interested to see what weapons the community will dig up that I couldn't find If anyone wants me to go into more detail about anything i happily will. General: -Have multiple styles of guns for each calibre, possibly with different stats like turret rotations and price and visuals. -For nations like Germany and Britain who switch their turret style above 16 inch guns enlarge the 16 inch gun models to serve as 17 and 18 inch turrets - Allow us to use destroyer guns as secondary guns on larger ships such as battleships. -Allow placement of secondary gun barbers everywhere on the ship America: Britain: Japan: Germany: France: Russia: Italy: Spain: Austro-Hungarian Empire: ps. This is my first forum post ever

Hi there. I've been playing the game recently and have been enjoying it thoroughly, as I am a naval history nut, this is extremely interesting for me. I love the idea of building your own ships and taking the best ideas forward that have already been proven in real life. The combat I also enjoy, and is only bound to get better. However I have a couple problems with the shipbuilder that does strictly prohibit design choices and ideas. The main ones being anchor points for superstructures and barbettes and the turret/barbette diameter. First I will start with superstructure anchor points. I know this has been covered before by many others but I will just quickly reiterate it again, the superstructure problem can be simply fixed by increasing the amount of anchor points along the length of the hull, where the hull can reasonably sustain it, like a line up the centre between two cut off points. This will enable players to play around with designs from Nelson and G3 class to the Nurnberg cruiser layout. For example: Barbette position would act a little different, kind of... First off barbettes will be split into two categories, centreline and side mounted. Just like the gun turrets. The centreline barbettes will have essentially an increased amount of anchor points like in the picture above, but the points will extend all the way to where gun turrets are limited to. These barbettes when, holding down the left ctrl button, should also be able to do what gun turrets can do and be fine tuned in their place meant along the centre of the ship. Side mounted barbettes will be able to be placed like side mounted gun turrets, however their max diameter will only be able to hold upto 6 Inch sized gun turrets (as pointed out by @RAMJB any larger gun diameter the AI may overly take advantage of). Now onto the next problem regarding barbettes. Diameter size relative to gun caliber and number. See what I mean? These gun turrets are all equipped with the same 14 inch weapon. However they all have the same barbette diameter, which is unrealistic and annoying for ship building. The point of choosing a smaller number of guns in a turret is to reduce barbette diameter to help save weight, and to also keep the ships center of gravity lower down (increasing stability). This can be seen on the King George V class, and the conte di cavour class: Another problem is the limited size options for barbettes, just being three, which leads to designs like this: Both turrets are equipped with 15 inch guns. However for a 15 inch gun to be superfiring at the moment, the only barbette that can take that is the largest option, which is directly derived from yamato's triple 18 turrets, therefore being way bigger than needed for a twin 15 inch turret, (barbettes were designed to only be as big as they needed to be and nothing more, as seen in the real pictures). Therefore I suggest barbette size should be based on not only the caliber of guns but also the number of guns in a turret. The ratio can be worked out by looking into historical conversion plans. The north carolina class battleship was actually originally planned to be equipped with 3 quadruple 14 inch gun turrets due to the second london naval treaty of 1935. However they were upgunned to triple 16 inch turrets after Japan didn't sign the treaty. The same is said for Japanese heavy cruisers of the mogami class, going from triple 6 inch turrets to twin 8 inch turrets. Therefore we can assume roughly that for an increase in gun size for every 2 inches leads to one less gun in the turret for the same barbette size, eg: This will mean players can have appropriately size barbettes for the equivalent gun size and number of guns in each turret. Also the ability to stack centerline barbettes upto triple 6 Inch gun turret size would also be allowed, so ships like the USS Atlanta and the secondaries on Yamato can be created. This stacking ability has a limit of 6 Inch weapons, as although the barbette can fit dual 8 inch guns, it (from my knowledge) has never been done historically, so therefore will not be allowed. Another thing to note is that you cannot stack side mounted barbettes, this is only a feature of lighter centerline barbettes. Final main thing to cover would be the ability to see the barbette armour in the ship builder (and overall armor of the ship). As well as the ability to determine the barbette armour itself both above and behind the main armour belt. It would look similar to the damage model we see in combat: Another idea that popped up while making WW1 style ships was trying to make it easier to replicate the echelon layout. When a side mounted large caliber turret is placed, individually (without the auto mirror option), a line of anchor points would appear on the other side of the ship at the exact same distance as the turret from the center of the ship but mirrored, plus there would be two highlighted options, one being the exact mirror and the second being a reflection from the center of mass. This should have no lateral instability (assuming you are placing the same gun turret), eg: This suggestion also uses left ctrl to finetune the position of the turret, but you are locked into moving your turret only lengthways up and down the ship to make sure you keep the stability. If you want to widen your echelon layout, you have to move the original turret and replace the second one. I hope you have enjoyed reading my proposal and vote on the polls. Cheers.

If this doesn't make sense allow me: the Scharnhorst class had 3x11in gun turrets. These were planned to be replaced with the 2x15in gun turrets which would be used on Bismark and Tirpitz. Same turret ring size. Try doing this ingame. Yeah... why this is a necesary alteration should be self explanatory. So turrets should go Barbette ring>gun caliber>barrel number. Too many barrels in too small a turret? Accuracy and RoF penalties. Length of the guns should also be taken into consideration, not just the bore diameter.