>>>"Alpha-1 v.60+" General Feedback<<< [LATEST UPDATE: v61, 10/10/2019]

[Holyhappiness]

I started playing yesterday and have absolutely loved it so far. While I have only begun playing the Naval Academy and still have much to learn, I do have a couple questions in regards to future features.

1) Is there any plan to add sailors to the deck of the ships? I realize this is purely aesthetic but am curious as I love the look and feel it would add an additional point of immersion.

2) In regards to the first point, will a ship's manpower ever be integrated into damage control? For example, if a good chunk of the crew is incapacitated, would that lead to slower damage control or perhaps outright surrender/abandon ship?

3) Will there be a more comprehensive damage control window so we can prioritized what is focused? 

4) I love the scarring so far but is there any plan to add specific marks, destruction, or damage for each round as it hits?

5) Is there any planned feature for direct control of a ship's guns? Perhaps it's a little arcade'y but seems like it would be a great feature.

6) Will aircraft, aircraft carriers, and/or AA be introduced in any form? I ask because aircraft really began to show its usefulness towards the mid to late 30s. Additionally would be excellent to have catapult launched scouts from cruisers and battleships.

Again, I absolutely love this game so far and already feels leaps and bounds more polished than many already released games. Keep up the great work!

Edited October 7, 2019 by Holyhappiness

[Finwenolofinwe]

Quote

1) Is there any plan to add sailors to the deck of the ships? I realize this is purely aesthetic but am curious as I love the look and feel it would add an additional point of immersion.

Actually on all but the smallest ships there wouldn't be anyone on deck during combat, simply because the shock of their own guns firing could be rather hazardous and even misses could generate quite some splinters. the only places where you would see people in the open on anything larger than a light cruiser would be open spotting positions on some early masts and the odd secondary and  AA-gun without an enclosed gunshield (although often the lighter secondary's and AA crews would take shelter deep in the ship when they were not needed in combat, which in later periods (due to extended effecive ranges on main guns) was actually most of the time

[Tousansons]

Hi there,

Some observations having played a few hours, mostly about combat stuff. Lots of "buts" and I hope, in a readable engrish.

- Ship armor is kind of busted. In most of the later scenarios it's easy to design any kind of dreadnought wich is practically immune to large caliber gun penetration on the belt or deck as long as you stay at a respectable range. On the other hand, armor scheme of light cruisers or battlecruiser doesn't allow this. While kind of realistic, this just means that (Like in Rule the waves, already cited in some topics) these type of ships are nearly useless if they are not used in some very specific cases. Armored cruiser/Heavy cruiser can tank shells to some extent (I have seen an IA design to be surprisingly resilient) but as of now it's always better to mount the biggest gun possible with the best belt/deck turret and extended armor (with all compartiment, double/triple bottom, barbettes and citadel armor, too). This doesn't mean you have created an invincible death machine, as I will explain in my second point.

- AP ammos are... not that good. With gunnery duels happening at ranges further than 20km in the modern battleship scenario, AP shells are just an unreliable waste of reload (not even 20% of penetration chances) Continuing with the exemple of this specific scenario, I designed a monstrosity with twelve 18 inch guns divided in four triple turrets, with an armor scheme able to withstand its own shells at range, yadayada you know the thing. The ultimate aircraft carrier magnet. It was all alone against the enemy fleet, and after the first two salvoes it only fired HE at the opposing side. The amount of penetrating hit with HE was off the chart even against the larger ships, it was only one test with the 18 inches and I don't know if it was the opposing ship armor design lacking in some way but the damage at range was consistent. 
On another test, the pre-dreadnoughts battle against two dreadnoughts was a similar experience: after designing a bunch (eight to be precise) of floating gun platforms with okay-ish armor design, my battle plan was to stay at the most efficient range and just rain some HE at the two approaching ships. Needless to say It did not go well for them. Even with relatively low caliber guns (ten inches) once again these kind of ammunitions is enough to wreck anything, regardless of the range. The IA understands this as well and uses mostly this type of ammunitions when engaging targets. This is probably reacting to my tendancy to create heavily armored warships. Battles break down to raging barbecues parties where teams try to cook the opponents ships faster than his is grilled down. 
Now let's speak of calibers.

- Guns calibers of two to eight (arguably nine) seem inefficient. This is probably due to the nature of most of the naval academy encounters, but I found myself willing to ditch some guns for more torpedoes on destroyers, or to take something bigger than cruisers for a mission even at the risk of being severely outnumbered. AP ammo once again have a tendency to bounce, even against lightly armored target and this time HE shells deal really light damages in most occasions. The worst offender comes from the secondary guns. Their accuracy is dreadful and if you add the low damage output, you're starting to wonder if they were ever worth taking in the first place (their constant firing looks pretty good, on the other hand). In the modern battleship scenario, my salvoes of more than nine six inch in triple turret was barely enough to damage the engine of an approaching destroyer.
Their chances to start fires is pretty good (that is if they hit something) but I'm not sure of the efficiency of said fires as of now.

- Torpedoes and torpedo boats/destroyers are underwhelming in a number of ways. These as already been written here, but torpedo damage are too low, wether it's due to their stats (while taking the biggest size available, mind you) or the ship armor, I do not really know. The few scenarios where destroyers/torpedo boats are available to
the player are not that well balanced, the opposing forces have always something that outguns (obviously) and still "can" outmaneuver your nimble ships. I found very hard to design a destroyer that can reach decent speed, carry enough torpedoes AND can be built in decent numbers to overrun the enemy. In all cases, this is done by ditching all but one two inch gun, low ammo count, light shells and sometimes even less torpedoes. On a final note, the standard and fast torpedoes types are easily detected and avoided, because once again the opposing ship design can turn on a dim. Electric torpedoes fare better, with the already mentioned low damage.
 

[Nick Thomadis]

On 10/6/2019 at 4:50 PM, lethrington said:

"Maru" was very often used as a suffix on Japanese mercantile class ships, such as transports and convoys.  The word essentially means 'circle' and it was used on civilian ships for a kind of 'bon voyage' sentiment.  The word was attached to a mercantile ships named effectively to ensure it would have a 'round trip' and make it back in one piece.  

Thank you for the clarification. It is going to make the auto-name scheme more complex if we do this + very long names do not fit well in UI.

 

On 10/6/2019 at 7:27 PM, wulfgang said:

I'd like to be able to mount smaller guns to the upper platforms of the front and rear tower there is space for them just you cant place them on the towers.

Triple mounted main guns in various caliper sizes only fire two shells rather than three? only happens sometimes I have noticed.

would be nice to have more realistic sinking animations as ive seen ships listing heavly then sit bolt up right when they do sink although im sure thats more an alpha thing than anything.

Towers have fixed gun positions. Some of those towers, if they have large enough space, allow the placement of extra small guns. You can try it out, by holding CTRL button. Fully free placement would be illogical, as technically snapping guns wherever everyone pleases would not be possible in real naval engineering.

Triple guns fire dual salvos only while they ladder aim. When they acquire their targets, all their barrels fire.

Sinking animation is not finalized. We will improve further later.

[Nick Thomadis]

15 hours ago, Holyhappiness said:

1) Is there any plan to add sailors to the deck of the ships? I realize this is purely aesthetic but am curious as I love the look and feel it would add an additional point of immersion.

We were thinking about it, it would be a very nice addition, but since we have so many other more important things to develop, we cannot put to our plans at the moment.

15 hours ago, Holyhappiness said:

2) In regards to the first point, will a ship's manpower ever be integrated into damage control? For example, if a good chunk of the crew is incapacitated, would that lead to slower damage control or perhaps outright surrender/abandon ship?

Yes. We will implement detailed crew mechanics ASAP and this is going to be one of the crew features.

15 hours ago, Holyhappiness said:

3) Will there be a more comprehensive damage control window so we can prioritized what is focused? 

We do not plan it currently, but can be under consideration after the first crew mechanics are introduced.

15 hours ago, Holyhappiness said:

4) I love the scarring so far but is there any plan to add specific marks, destruction, or damage for each round as it hits?

It might deteriorate performance too much, so at the moment we are not thinking about it.

15 hours ago, Holyhappiness said:

5) Is there any planned feature for direct control of a ship's guns? Perhaps it's a little arcade'y but seems like it would be a great feature.

No, we do not plan to offer that feature.

15 hours ago, Holyhappiness said:

6) Will aircraft, aircraft carriers, and/or AA be introduced in any form? I ask because aircraft really began to show its usefulness towards the mid to late 30s. Additionally would be excellent to have catapult launched scouts from cruisers and battleships.

We are considering to simulate aircraft carries as abstract function in the campaign. It is too early to promise something.

7 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

- Ship armor is kind of busted. In most of the later scenarios it's easy to design any kind of dreadnought wich is practically immune to large caliber gun penetration on the belt or deck as long as you stay at a respectable range. On the other hand, armor scheme of light cruisers or battlecruiser doesn't allow this. While kind of realistic, this just means that (Like in Rule the waves, already cited in some topics) these type of ships are nearly useless if they are not used in some very specific cases. Armored cruiser/Heavy cruiser can tank shells to some extent (I have seen an IA design to be surprisingly resilient) but as of now it's always better to mount the biggest gun possible with the best belt/deck turret and extended armor (with all compartiment, double/triple bottom, barbettes and citadel armor, too). This doesn't mean you have created an invincible death machine, as I will explain in my second point.

 

7 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

- AP ammos are... not that good. With gunnery duels happening at ranges further than 20km in the modern battleship scenario, AP shells are just an unreliable waste of reload (not even 20% of penetration chances) Continuing with the exemple of this specific scenario, I designed a monstrosity with twelve 18 inch guns divided in four triple turrets, with an armor scheme able to withstand its own shells at range, yadayada you know the thing. The ultimate aircraft carrier magnet. It was all alone against the enemy fleet, and after the first two salvoes it only fired HE at the opposing side. The amount of penetrating hit with HE was off the chart even against the larger ships, it was only one test with the 18 inches and I don't know if it was the opposing ship armor design lacking in some way but the damage at range was consistent. 
On another test, the pre-dreadnoughts battle against two dreadnoughts was a similar experience: after designing a bunch (eight to be precise) of floating gun platforms with okay-ish armor design, my battle plan was to stay at the most efficient range and just rain some HE at the two approaching ships. Needless to say It did not go well for them. Even with relatively low caliber guns (ten inches) once again these kind of ammunitions is enough to wreck anything, regardless of the range. The IA understands this as well and uses mostly this type of ammunitions when engaging targets. This is probably reacting to my tendancy to create heavily armored warships. Battles break down to raging barbecues parties where teams try to cook the opponents ships faster than his is grilled down. 
Now let's speak of calibers.

Penetration will be optimized in next patches. Our goal is to simulate realistic tactics and ship resiliency. Already, what you described is something that happened in real combat situations, as long as fleets maintained a long distance between them. We are going to improve further by eliminating any reported inconsistencies.

8 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

- Guns calibers of two to eight (arguably nine) seem inefficient. This is probably due to the nature of most of the naval academy encounters, but I found myself willing to ditch some guns for more torpedoes on destroyers, or to take something bigger than cruisers for a mission even at the risk of being severely outnumbered. AP ammo once again have a tendency to bounce, even against lightly armored target and this time HE shells deal really light damages in most occasions. The worst offender comes from the secondary guns. Their accuracy is dreadful and if you add the low damage output, you're starting to wonder if they were ever worth taking in the first place (their constant firing looks pretty good, on the other hand). In the modern battleship scenario, my salvoes of more than nine six inch in triple turret was barely enough to damage the engine of an approaching destroyer.
Their chances to start fires is pretty good (that is if they hit something) but I'm not sure of the efficiency of said fires as of now.

Secondary guns are not intended to sink ships but rather cripple them or cause fires. Destroyers and light ships should be harmed more by secondary guns, but you should not count on them vs battleships. 

8 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

- Torpedoes and torpedo boats/destroyers are underwhelming in a number of ways. These as already been written here, but torpedo damage are too low, wether it's due to their stats (while taking the biggest size available, mind you) or the ship armor, I do not really know. The few scenarios where destroyers/torpedo boats are available to
the player are not that well balanced, the opposing forces have always something that outguns (obviously) and still "can" outmaneuver your nimble ships. I found very hard to design a destroyer that can reach decent speed, carry enough torpedoes AND can be built in decent numbers to overrun the enemy. In all cases, this is done by ditching all but one two inch gun, low ammo count, light shells and sometimes even less torpedoes. On a final note, the standard and fast torpedoes types are easily detected and avoided, because once again the opposing ship design can turn on a dim. Electric torpedoes fare better, with the already mentioned low damage.

Is going to be balanced/fixed in the upcoming hotfix patch.

[TheCrazyScot]

Hello. Just wanted to start by saying I'm really enjoying what I'm seeing in the alpha so far.

I was wondering if we will be able to design our starting fleet in the campaign, or if it will be preset for each nation?

Also what scale will the campaign be in relation to fleet sizes? I'm assuming we won't see 1:1 fleet sizes for major powers.

Will each nation's economy be balanced realistically, or will they be balanced more closely with each other?

Lastly, will we be able to engage in active diplomacy with other powers during the campaign?

Edited October 8, 2019 by TheCrazyScot
other questions

[MD456]

8 minutes ago, TheCrazyScot said:

Hello. Just wanted to start by saying I'm really enjoying what I'm seeing in the alpha so far.

I was wondering if we will be able to design our starting fleet in the campaign, or if it will be preset for each nation?

Also what scale will the campaign be in relation to fleet sizes? I'm assuming we won't see 1:1 fleet sizes for major powers.

This was something I was going to ask as well in my batch of feedback today, how will the starting fleets in campaigns be? Will we be taking over the nations navy with the ships it had completed up to that point? Will we have to design the starting fleet ourselves or have the option to instead? Or will it just be randomly generated instead with no input? (personally, I can only speak for myself though, I hope for the very 1st of these 3 choices, but I think the 2nd one is probably most likely)

 

Also, please let us manually name our ships at least in the campaign, this is something others have mentioned and I share this wish.

[Celtic]

Really enjoying this so far, and will need to play more before I can come to any concrete statements.

noting however your intention to not have a "sandbox" outside of the campaign seems a little shortsighted however, especially right now while people are trying to test out how to blow up boats the best. A simple "Quick mission builder" where you can design a ship, and select an enemy(s) to be generated would be ideal for this - or for people who don't want to settle in for a campaign or want to test configurations easily without potentially tanking a campaign. 

[Skeksis]

8 hours ago, Celtic said:

noting however your intention to not have a "sandbox" outside of the campaign seems a little shortsighted however, especially right now while people are trying to test out how to blow up boats the best. A simple "Quick mission builder" where you can design a ship, and select an enemy(s) to be generated would be ideal for this - or for people who don't want to settle in for a campaign or want to test configurations easily without potentially tanking a campaign. 

You talking about a “custom battle editor” that sets up both sides, I bet dev’s already have some sort of editor for testing and games of this genre usually have one on release, it should be just a matter of time before they make it available.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Skeksis

[Niomedes]

The game is already really great, no doubts about it. But I really think that this entry in particular could really use a multiplayer skirmish or even campaign mode. This would get even more people interested in it, no doubt about it.

[Skeksis]

17 minutes ago, Niomedes said:

The game is already really great, no doubts about it. But I really think that this entry in particular could really use a multiplayer skirmish or even campaign mode. This would get even more people interested in it, no doubt about it.

Don’t forget that the game is at alpha stage, which is usually testing development, not any campaigns or content, that will all come later.

[FjordBjorn]

Enjoying the Alpha so far and looking forward to more features as it progresses.

A question or suggestion about campaign play. Will there be an order of battle editor to group ships into squadrons, flotillas, task forces and fleets?

It is one of the things I have always found frustrating in naval simulation is the poor control of OOB that most have. I would like to send pre organized forces to a station to hold it rather than individual ships and have them form adhoc.

Also to be able to group like designs in groups for tasks rather than the generator choosing vessels.

will there be tasking such as patrol, convoy raiding NGS(naval gunfire support), etc.?

Thanks

[Jaegerson]

I'd just like to say I love your this game, and i'm very impressed with the alpha so far. I'm aware that many of of the topics on this post have been brought up before. Can'y wait for the full release!!! 

1. It'd be nice to have a compass with degrees that'll allow a player to set the heading of a ship or division. I think this will help for more precise fleet movements, rather than guess clicking when moving two divisions or more.

2. Designating which guns fire on certain targets, also allowing ships to fire guns on both sides. an example of this would I would often found my larger ships engaged on one side in a long range gunnery duel, while a enemy destroyer would work it's way onto the opposite side. My dreadnought would make no attempt to fire the secondary battery while the destroyer deployed it's armament of torpedoes. Designating which caliber of gun fires on certain targets would be a useful feature.

3. remove mounts for towers and barbettes to allow for more design options. Examples of this would be the HMS Nelson with the super structure in the rear of the ship, as well as the USS Wyoming that had multiple barbettes on the aft section of the ship.

4. Faster main battery reload. The SMS Bayern super dreadnought could reload its main battery in 25 seconds, even the mighty Yamato could load its battery within 30 seconds. 

5. More torpedo damage. There's a lot of instances in naval history where all it only took 2-3 torpedoes to send dreadnoughts to the bottom. 

6. I hope quadruple guns become available in the later game. The french became fond of placing them on their ships in the 30's

7. Ships fighting at full operational capacity with very low structural integrity. I ran into instances like this (especially with dreadnoughts) either my ship had below 10% structure or the enemy had below 10% and both were still able to operate as if brand new.

8.Extended date to add aircraft carriers, adding catapult aircraft would be great for late game

9. Adding different types of armor schemes. Such as turtleback for the citadel or the U.S. all or nothing armor design

10. Add more armor thickness variables like the side of the turret or belt thickness below the waterline

11. Sandbox mode that will allow a player to build two apposing fleets

12. it'd be nice to have different sections of hull the players could piece together in ship design to make some really unique and endless ship choices

 

 

 

 

 

[GeneralVikus]

I've really enjoyed the game so far, although I was only able to play for one session - the second time I tried to load it up, I couldn't get it to start by any means. Oh well - that sort of thing is only to be expected, so I'll try a clean install, and file a bug report if that doesn't work. 

My one suggestion so far is that you add an option to toggle tracers. I, for one, believe they're an excellent gameplay tool; in RTW, I resorted to meticulously copying ship's logs into spreadsheets in order to determine the probability of belt and deck hits for various guns at various ranges, and in this game all of that information is presented to me visually. However, I think it would be nice to have the option to turn them off for a more cinematic experience, since that cinematic experience was, for me, this game's biggest selling point, and the one that makes it really stand out from the crowd. 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Regarding the campaign: Strategic control of the seas rather than tactical mastery is what I anticipate enjoying about this game. Like a TW campaign, I only fought the crucial battles and autoresolved the rest.  But I spent hours crafting the kingdom from which those armies marched. 

At one point, we had access to the embryonic campaign, and I played it as much as anyone. 

Each major nation is represented and has a political/diplomatic element, a resource/production element, a research/design element, amongst other  details.

You design new ships. The dockyards produce them using the national resources and financial resources available to that country to both create and sustain an ocean navy. 

The world map is very sharp looking. All major nations / seas / areas you would expect to find are represented. 

Production and technology factor into ship design and production. Upon christening, the ships join the designated fleet with a green level of experience. Basic training over time can bring that to regular level, but elite levels of training can only be accomplished under enemy fire.

Your fleets do as you tell them. These fleets protect your shores, or raid the distant shores of far away lands. Commerce raiding, shell a port, many fun ways to keep your enemy busy in many places. 

What I have not seen is a naval training program, a ship captain promotion system, an admiral creation system, and many other possible enhancements; but I hear rumors. 

Command and control needs to be tweaked, and will be. When small groups can easily be  controlled, we can move to task groups, task forces, and full Jutland size fleet operations that sometimes look like two barbarian hordes running at each other across the open prairie.  

It should be a very fun ride. 

 

[Tycondero]

16 hours ago, TheCrazyScot said:

Hello. Just wanted to start by saying I'm really enjoying what I'm seeing in the alpha so far.

I was wondering if we will be able to design our starting fleet in the campaign, or if it will be preset for each nation?

Also what scale will the campaign be in relation to fleet sizes? I'm assuming we won't see 1:1 fleet sizes for major powers.

Will each nation's economy be balanced realistically, or will they be balanced more closely with each other?

Lastly, will we be able to engage in active diplomacy with other powers during the campaign?

I hope that we will get two versions for the campaign. One with total starting equality and one that starts historical accurate with correct differences in initial start technologies, economical power and build capabilities.

It would also be great if we can order ships to be build at friendly foreign shipyards, like in RTW.

[Tycondero]

4 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Regarding the campaign: 

The campaign and strategic control of the seas rather than tactical mastery is what I anticipate enjoying about this game. Like a TW campaign, I only fought the crucial battles and autoresolved the rest. 

Not sure if you can answer this, but was the autoresolve producing plausible results?

Also, does the AI fight the AI? This is one of the things RTW was lacking and IMO that hurt the game.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

27 minutes ago, Tycondero said:

Not sure if you can answer this, but was the autoresolve producing plausible results?

Also, does the AI fight the AI? This is one of the things RTW was lacking and IMO that hurt the game.

Autoresolve was kind of hit or miss, more of a placeholder until they turn their full attention back to that aspect of the game. The campaign has a basic form, but it is far from polished.

It was an intriguing glimpse at what is coming next. 

If I am guessing how Nick will procede, he is going to get the basic mechanics working first and then move up the chain of difficulty while constantly shuffling to keep everything balanced. 

While he was designing The Civil War, I watched him put an AI on the field that was a pushover. It became so ferocious at one point the humans didn't stand a chance, and that evolved into the incredibly fun and well-balanced game we know today. He is exceptional at trying things, listening to feedback, and tweaking what needs to be tweaked. 

What I like best is he believes in the word 'game' as something that should be fun and as historically accurate as possible without sacrificing enjoyability or play balance to secondary technical concerns. If its not fun, no one cares. Period. 

Give him some time, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. I can't wait. 

[Edward Vernon]

Been playing about 24 hours now and so far I like what I see. Sent a couple of bug reports on game crashes in battles. I am still considering feedback in the broader sense, but there are three things that have struck me right away.

• Formations. so far you have line astern and line abreast. You might consider adding echelons to these options.
• Altering the course of the guide (lead ship) in line astern works as one might expect that all subsequent ships (more or less) follow in the wake of the lead ship. There definitely ought to be the option to have all ships in a formation turn simultaneously. This was often used for manouevering into battle and in battle, allowing for all broadside to be brought to bear on the enemy simultaneously.
• Divisions seem to, on occasion, wander off and do their own thing, particularly when the lead ship of the division has to drop out of formation owing to damage.

Apologies if this is repeating what others may have posted already, but i have not yet had chance to read the forums in their entirety.

[Niomedes]

11 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Don’t forget that the game is at alpha stage, which is usually testing development, not any campaigns or content, that will all come later.

 

Of course. I just really felt like mentioning that. It would be a shame if this game never got a Multiplayer. 
But to be more on topic: How about you give us the option to assign a target to each different gun calibre on our ships instead of only being able to assign a target to the entire ship, or at least giving us an option to prefer/automatically attack certain targets with any given gun calibre ? I'd rather have my 76's and 127's fire at the destroyer at 3 kilometres than at the Dreadnought at 6 my main artillery is currently firing at. Furthermore, guns which physically can't fire at any given target shouldn't attempt to do so. I.e, the casemate guns on the right side shouldn't even try to engage the dreadnought on my left, but instead focus on the Cruiser on the right side which they should have no trouble to fire upon.

Aside of that, I already read that having a lot of different calibres on the same ship makes your gun fire less precise. Having multiple ships engage the same target should have the same effect for much of the same reasons. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Niomedes

[ExGavalonnj1]

Aside from crashing every so often I have enjoyed the alpha on my first day. Some things I've noticed though:

1. The fixed positions for the bridge seem to force most of the firepower to the back of a ship.

2. Torpedo's flooding and damage chance vs armored ships is far too low. Could be balanced out by not having torp reloads as default. 

3. We should be able to see what an HE round can penetrate. 

4. The sliders need tuning. There should be speed restrictions for curtain classes. Ex: PreDreads should't be able to go over 20kts.  

Edited October 9, 2019 by ExGavalonnj1

[JANXOL]

One more thing to add to formations is that i have found ships in line ahead formation to stop dead in the water when you order a U-turn. They will wait for the first ship to complete the turn and move a bit before starting to move again and turning.  The better option would be to have the following ship continue on their course and initiate their turn at the point where the lead ship did so, in a snake-like fashion. And as mentioned before it would be good to have the option to order a simultaneous turn especially to avoid torpedoes.

[akd]

1 hour ago, ExGavalonnj1 said:

 

4. The sliders need tuning. There should be speed restrictions for curtain classes. Ex: PreDreads should't be able to go over 20kts.  

In the campaign this is more naturally limited by technological progression.  Some of the boost technology options in Academy unlock tech from beyond the pre-dreadnought era and allow you to apply it to these earlier hulls.

[Intrepid_Arty]

I bought this game today and thus, consider this just an early stage of feedback: 
I very much enjoyed this game, the ship designer is something which I've been looking for for a long time in terms of it's functionality, the historicity of parts is great and the combat system, while I'm still incompetent at it, is quite interesting. There are three things which I'd love to see. It should be noted that neither of these are necessary, but they are things I'd be quite interested in seeing. The first would be the introduction of some sort of sandbox mode where you don't have any sort of tech or money barriers but can just design your ship or ships as you see fit, and then create a battle with custom fleets on both sides. This would give people a chance to learn how to design ships well in a fairly risk-free environment. The other thing would be increased customization options for guns and turrets, like adding longer barrels or the possibility of increased elevation from the turrets. The last would be the possibility of choosing what country you're serving in in the Naval Academy missions. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Intrepid_Arty

[Niomedes]

2 hours ago, akd said:

In the campaign this is more naturally limited by technological progression.  Some of the boost technology options in Academy unlock tech from beyond the pre-dreadnought era and allow you to apply it to these earlier hulls.

Exactly. I'm also opposed to artificially limiting speed of certain classes. If someone decided to add a modern powerplant to an old dreadnought hull, it just would go faster. And I'd really like to have the option to equip a Pre dreadnought with a diesel engine and have it go around at 30 knots+ just for the memes alone. USS Constitution also isn't limited to like 12 knots anymore due to a modern powerplant.