>>>Combat Feedback<<<

[imeoin01]

5 hours ago, G777GUN said:

Try build this for WIP Dreadnaught (its good against convoys too):



For some reason the text is red plz ignore that.

6 x 14 inch guns. and 4 x 8 inch guns

I cant remember what the stats where so I made a modern version and gave it the best of everything.
It was somthing like 12 inch belt and 6 inch face turrets for main guns.

Try to make the enemy chase you and get those cruisers away from the BB's.  BB's are priority targets to kill. Kill them and its bye bye the rest. Use superheavy shells and always AP.

Use best armour too as to make the big boy as weight saving as possible for more armour in places.

Hope it helps. Below image is finishing off cruisers in WIP Dreadnaughts after destroying both BB's and both CA's. I dont mind sharing designs.





 

I have tried your method.No matter what guns I have or what armor I give my ship, it still is no good because it takes ages to land a hit on a battleship and it will require many more til it sinks. What really makes this mission impossible is the time limit. Trying to sink 2 well armored pre dreadnought battleships and 4 fast cruisers in that time with big guns that have a small chance of hitting the target and useless secondary guns in that time limit makes this mission an unfair challenge. It seems to be more luck then skill.

[imeoin01]

3 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

This mission about firepower AND survivability. So my third and successful attempt was 20 knots,  4x3x13'' with heavy shells, no secondares. I don’t remember how thick the armor was, but it provided 100% protection from 10 inches and lower at almost all distances except pistol. At the end of the battle, the ship turned into ruins, so the money spent on additional bulkheads, advanced repairs and flood control tools were also useful. Damn, I would even take anti-torpedo protection, AI capital ships are usually hung with underwater torpedo tubes. As a result, I got something like this, but with a lot of armor.

I tried your advice. It still didn't work.

[rolandvan]

I would like to see the option for the player to take full control of one of his ships in the attack, like the elevation of the guns to have a hit on the enemy and then give the order to fire the selected guns after the right amount of time it would take for the type of gun to reload as well as torpedoes range spread and fire. it would give more of a personal involvement and satisfaction of outcomes for the player. thankyou.

[G777GUN]

2 hours ago, imeoin01 said:

I have tried your method.No matter what guns I have or what armor I give my ship, it still is no good because it takes ages to land a hit on a battleship and it will require many more til it sinks. What really makes this mission impossible is the time limit. Trying to sink 2 well armored pre dreadnought battleships and 4 fast cruisers in that time with big guns that have a small chance of hitting the target and useless secondary guns in that time limit makes this mission an unfair challenge. It seems to be more luck then skill.

It sounds like UA:D has a built in RNG for how many shots will land in a mission. I hope not. Because that DD's vs TB's is a nightmare for me.
Ths is probably what I have been experiencing too. Have you noticed that diffent times the mission starts differently?

RNG... for when skill is replaced by simple numbers. I hate that about most games. Naval guns are not actually that inaccurate, the only thing that makes them innaccurate is the fire control and the ships stability/weather.

It will be frustrating and It took a long time for me to 'master' it, you will figure it out soon in time. Also dont go too close to enemy BB's and give the ship a 19knot speed.

Just keep trying.

[Roughtor]

Hats of to Game Labs for another fantastic Ultimate title. Been a long time since StormPowered's Jutland to finally have a grognardy, yet accessible naval wargame on the market.

I've read through this thread and most issues I've noticed so far have been reported and are being addressed by the devs, so I will just reiterate the few I've noticed that stood out for me.

1. Need for separate secondary guns targeting control (a UI control for Target Closest, Target TB/DD, Target Same as Primary) 

1a. Add secondary gun control in later models for accuracy boost.

1b. Frequent point blank misses seem unrealistic, and I mean point blank range where it looks like storm troopers shooting.

2. Consider multiple target acquisition for a single ship (ie. Graf Spee splitting main gunnery targets at La Platte) - might add unnecessary complexity.

3. Adjust damage progression for early models - damage control seems to be too effective on simple designs - I understand Crew will have a big impact on this - eagerly waiting for that update. 

3a. Reduce firepower of crippled ships, ships listing and on fire should have very limited capacity to conduct effective fire and should be effectively out of action barring sporadic and low accuracy fire. I imagine Crew mechanics will heavily impact this - ships should routinely disengage based on morale/crew loss.

3b. I would prefer fight till disabled, sins # of ships, rather that fight to sink all mechanic which becomes tedious and ahistorical even in an Academy setting.

3c Guns seem to be rarely put out of action

4. Damage control prioritization (Great Naval Battles did that well without adding to much complexity, AI auto select, but ability to override selections)

5. Engaged ships should have drop off in accuracy/effect on Crew - (previously quoted example about Derfflinger's high accuracy at Jutland while being unengaged by direct fire)

6. Noticed some seemingly gun heavy AI designs bristling with guns like it's Final Fantasy - might consider adding Crew compartments or mandatory AA (even if not working) to ensure the late designs don't end up with 24 centerline guns (maybe it was a dream, not sure anymore ;).

 

Fantastic game, can't wait for the campaign.

[G777GUN]

It should be a priotity to have shells dont phase out of existence after hitting water.


I get it that Its early alpha. Just hope its not another World Of warships just with a shipbuilder. So far that looks to be the case.

[Otter Admiral]

17 hours ago, G777GUN said:

Is that the Battleship vs Torpedo Boat mission?

Yes. It is.

[G777GUN]

2 hours ago, Otter Admiral said:

Yes. It is.

Well I am jumping for joy because the mission I have been stuck I managed to complete Destroyers vs Torpedo Boats. So now I can finnally let my brain rest.

You know what I did?

I set the ship's to AI control! 

I only lost 1 Destroyer out of the 4... turns out that when an enemy torpedo is fired the Ai see's it the moment its visible and trys its best to take action.  And I mean its best!

Try it with Ai. Give you ship the biggest casemate guns and smallest main guns. Rest is just speed. 1.5 inch armour cos your only fighting TB's.

[G777GUN]

Kind of devastated now. It was the Ai that won. BUT NOT ME.

Edited October 18, 2019 by G777GUN

[Otter Admiral]

On 10/17/2019 at 8:47 PM, G777GUN said:

Well I am jumping for joy because the mission I have been stuck I managed to complete Destroyers vs Torpedo Boats. So now I can finnally let my brain rest.

You know what I did?

I set the ship's to AI control! 

I only lost 1 Destroyer out of the 4... turns out that when an enemy torpedo is fired the Ai see's it the moment its visible and trys its best to take action.  And I mean its best!

Try it with Ai. Give you ship the biggest casemate guns and smallest main guns. Rest is just speed. 1.5 inch armour cos your only fighting TB's.

LOL! Kudos, I'm glad you can relax a bit now. I know the feeling.

I finally managed to win the engagement but, I used the opposite approach(I hadn't read your reply yet.).

IIRC, I used the smallest caliber, single barrel main gun emplacements, for quicker reload times, and skipped ANY other small caliber/or casement guns, and that saved me weight/money for speed and protection. It does limit your ammo a bit...having more space. ???

In the end though, it may  have just boiled down to a lot of luck.

The AI does do a remarkable job most of the time, although I seem to remember it trying to run me strait into a torpedo barrage. I have been reluctant to use the AI's help since. *Also, your meme about letting the AI do the job, is another reason I try to avoid using it.

My biggest concern at the moment is; the most protected parts of my ship, seem to be exactly where I take the most damage. For example: If I increase the armor on my conning tower, it it usually the first thing to go. 

Not to mention the burning, barely floating, wrecks, that are still pounding me with 18" shells, with the accuracy of a WWII Russian sniper.

I'm guessing that a lot is still being developed. I've yet to see any point to using AP shells.

Also, its no good  having a BB/Dreadnought with guns that can and SHOULD be using plunging fire to destroy targets at (really)long range, when the scenario starts you less than 5 miles apart.(???) Visual range,(from the main deck) - that is the horizon, is 15 MILES on a clear day. Stacks and/or smoke can be seen slightly farther. At night, small lights, such as from a drag off a cigarette, can tell you there is a ship OVER the horizon, sometimes MILES over the horizon.

I really, really, hope that this game goes all the way through the age of big ships, minus any aircraft carriers. Dreadnoughts were cool, but most of their designs were terribly flawed, from the start, because they were usually out-classed, or completely obsolete, by the time they were combat ready.

 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Otter Admiral

[Mhtsos]

5 hours ago, Otter Admiral said:

LOL! Kudos, I'm glad you can relax a bit now. I know the feeling.

I finally managed to win the engagement but, I used the opposite approach(I hadn't read your reply yet.).

IIRC, I used the smallest caliber, single barrel main gun emplacements, for quicker reload times, and skipped ANY other small caliber/or casement guns, and that saved me weight/money for speed and protection. It does limit your ammo a bit...having more space. ???

In the end though, it may  have just boiled down to a lot of luck.

The AI does do a remarkable job most of the time, although I seem to remember it trying to run me strait into a torpedo barrage. I have been reluctant to use the AI's help since. *Also, your meme about letting the AI do the job, is another reason I try to avoid using it.

My biggest concern at the moment is; the most protected parts of my ship, seem to be exactly where I take the most damage. For example: If I increase the armor on my conning tower, it it usually the first thing to go. 

Not to mention the burning, barely floating, wrecks, that are still pounding me with 18" shells, with the accuracy of a WWII Russian sniper.

I'm guessing that a lot is still being developed. I've yet to see any point to using AP shells.

Also, its no good  having a BB/Dreadnought with guns that can and SHOULD be using plunging fire to destroy targets at (really)long range, when the scenario starts you less than 5 miles apart.(???) Visual range,(from the main deck) - that is the horizon, is 15 MILES on a clear day. Stacks and/or smoke can be seen slightly farther. At night, lights, such as cigarette smoke, can tell you there is a ship OVER the horizon, sometimes MILES over the horizon.

I really, really, hope that this game goes all the way through the age of big ships, minus any aircraft carriers. Dreadnoughts were cool, but most of their designs were terribly flawed, from the start, because they were usually out-classed, or completely obsolete, by the time they were combat ready.

 

One of the biggest gripes in the game so far. The AI seems to ignore the minus to accuracy (or just recieves far less?) when recieving damage. Had to play twice "defend the convoy" because the BC just kept snipping with 45+% accuracy when it was <10% HP, ablaze with destroyed towers.

Not to mention that it had 13", 8", 7",6" and 4" guns in double/triple turrets config without any discrenible loss of accuracy. 

|

I hope that this issue will be high in the backlog for fixing.

[Pedroig]

@Otter Admiral  Couple of considerations:

1.  Base visibility to horizon is 22,000 meters on a clear calm day.  Pre-Radar/Pre-Spot planes most sightings happened within 15,000 meters (and I'm using meters/yards interchangeably here), Pre-dreadnaught era, most engagements happened 2500-5000 meters, by WWI it was 5000-15,000 meters, by WWII spotting was happening 150+ NAUTICAL MILES away, with ship to ship engagements beginning 30,000+ meters apart, very few exceptions of any ships breaking the 7000 meter range (most of them TB's).

2.  Plunging fire is a pretty hefty debated topic, current "consensus" believes that for fun elevations under 35 degrees, it is non-existent, the trajectory is too flat to get plunging fire without significant help from the seas.  The other problem with plunging fire is that the round does not have enough velocity to penetrate unless it achieves a near 60 degree ascent/descent, there would not be enough velocity for the charge to go off upon/following impact. Most AP heads required a min of 600 m/s velocity to function, at 35 degrees a round MIGHT be able to hit 600 m/s but will most likely fall in the 300-500 m/s range.

3.  It would be nice to have an "observer mode".  On the surface perception would have one believe the AI is "cheating" and getting more hits.  In reality, if you put your ships on AI control and simply observe their stats, they perform about the same as the enemy AI.  Both of them are insanely stupid and want to close to knife fighting range reagardless of how the are setup for optimal...

[TAKTCOM]

What do you think  about "citadel protection"? This seems to be a different armor scheme, but in fact they all do the same thing - reduce the chance to stay dead in the water and explode from detonation of the ammunition but at the same time increase the overall resistance, price and weight of the ship.

Although in reality all armor schemes, from a protected cruiser to “all or nothing”, pursued one idea - how to protect the ship better, using as little armor as possible. Which seems to be the opposite of how it works in the game.

For example if you use the philosophy of the "all or nothing" scheme, removing the armor of the extended deck and belt,  AI fast destroys unarmored elements , ship loses structure points,  constantly burns,  compartments are flooded.  Thus, it turns out that the main advantage of "all or nothing" will be manifested for ... fast light cruiser ??? And the battleship makes better use of the weight that the citadel’s defense would take away in the raw weight of the armor.

It's somehow ... weird. Correct me if I misunderstood something.

[Nick Thomadis]

On 10/15/2019 at 10:56 AM, Tycondero said:

So, if you now specify going from normal to improved armor, this effectively halves the weight and cost. 

In other words could the setting be do that the inches specified are always effective armor thickness levels?

That would be highly impractical, as the design system - realistically- must calculate armor weight to evaluate the overall weights of the ship.
Over the years, the armor was not that much increased in thickness but its strength was immensely improved due to technology advancements. This is what we currently reflect in game with the armor quality.

[Otter Admiral]

3 hours ago, Pedroig said:

@Otter Admiral  Couple of considerations:

1.  Base visibility to horizon is 22,000 meters on a clear calm day.  Pre-Radar/Pre-Spot planes most sightings happened within 15,000 meters (and I'm using meters/yards interchangeably here), Pre-dreadnaught era, most engagements happened 2500-5000 meters, by WWI it was 5000-15,000 meters, by WWII spotting was happening 150+ NAUTICAL MILES away, with ship to ship engagements beginning 30,000+ meters apart, very few exceptions of any ships breaking the 7000 meter range (most of them TB's).

2.  Plunging fire is a pretty hefty debated topic, current "consensus" believes that for fun elevations under 35 degrees, it is non-existent, the trajectory is too flat to get plunging fire without significant help from the seas.  The other problem with plunging fire is that the round does not have enough velocity to penetrate unless it achieves a near 60 degree ascent/descent, there would not be enough velocity for the charge to go off upon/following impact. Most AP heads required a min of 600 m/s velocity to function, at 35 degrees a round MIGHT be able to hit 600 m/s but will most likely fall in the 300-500 m/s range.

3.  It would be nice to have an "observer mode".  On the surface perception would have one believe the AI is "cheating" and getting more hits.  In reality, if you put your ships on AI control and simply observe their stats, they perform about the same as the enemy AI.  Both of them are insanely stupid and want to close to knife fighting range reagardless of how the are setup for optimal...

Fair point(s). I keep forgetting that we are dealing with WWI or earlier tech at the moment.

Loving this game.

My comments are mostly so the developers can get more info on how we players are experiencing the game, in all its alpha glory.

[Entropy Avatar]

36 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:

It's somehow ... weird. Correct me if I misunderstood something.

It feels weird to me as well. In RTW, selecting "all or nothing" doesn't cost you anything. As far as I know, it limits the effect of flooding and damage to the unprotected sections. So you could do some damage to the unprotected sections, but not really stop the ship that way.

I feel like the designers want the citadel options to be "balanced" in some sense, when in reality the later options were simply better because they reflect people better understanding how to make robust ships.

[Entropy Avatar]

10 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

That would be highly impractical, as the design system - realistically- must calculate armor weight to evaluate the overall weights of the ship.
Over the years, the armor was not that much increased in thickness but its strength was immensely improved due to technology advancements. This is what we currently reflect in game with the armor quality.

What does the weight reduction in higher-tech armours represent?

[Nick Thomadis]

On 10/17/2019 at 4:08 PM, G777GUN said:

It sounds like UA:D has a built in RNG for how many shots will land in a mission. I hope not. Because that DD's vs TB's is a nightmare for me.
Ths is probably what I have been experiencing too. Have you noticed that diffent times the mission starts differently?

We definitively have not spent development resources to make something like this   What is randomized in missions is weather, enemy ship designs, initial distances.

From then on, what we call RNG can resemble also reality, because in reality, you are never certain where exactly a shell will land. There are too many natural variables involved to have absolute certainty for that.

On 10/17/2019 at 8:00 PM, Roughtor said:

Hats of to Game Labs for another fantastic Ultimate title. Been a long time since StormPowered's Jutland to finally have a grognardy, yet accessible naval wargame on the market.

I've read through this thread and most issues I've noticed so far have been reported and are being addressed by the devs, so I will just reiterate the few I've noticed that stood out for me.

1. Need for separate secondary guns targeting control (a UI control for Target Closest, Target TB/DD, Target Same as Primary) 

1a. Add secondary gun control in later models for accuracy boost.

1b. Frequent point blank misses seem unrealistic, and I mean point blank range where it looks like storm troopers shooting.

2. Consider multiple target acquisition for a single ship (ie. Graf Spee splitting main gunnery targets at La Platte) - might add unnecessary complexity.

3. Adjust damage progression for early models - damage control seems to be too effective on simple designs - I understand Crew will have a big impact on this - eagerly waiting for that update. 

3a. Reduce firepower of crippled ships, ships listing and on fire should have very limited capacity to conduct effective fire and should be effectively out of action barring sporadic and low accuracy fire. I imagine Crew mechanics will heavily impact this - ships should routinely disengage based on morale/crew loss.

3b. I would prefer fight till disabled, sins # of ships, rather that fight to sink all mechanic which becomes tedious and ahistorical even in an Academy setting.

3c Guns seem to be rarely put out of action

4. Damage control prioritization (Great Naval Battles did that well without adding to much complexity, AI auto select, but ability to override selections)

5. Engaged ships should have drop off in accuracy/effect on Crew - (previously quoted example about Derfflinger's high accuracy at Jutland while being unengaged by direct fire)

6. Noticed some seemingly gun heavy AI designs bristling with guns like it's Final Fantasy - might consider adding Crew compartments or mandatory AA (even if not working) to ensure the late designs don't end up with 24 centerline guns (maybe it was a dream, not sure anymore ;).

Multi-targeting per gun caliber group is scheduled for a next game update.

When crew is implemented, most things you mentioned shall be simulated accordingly.

Penetration and aiming improvements of next patch will result in better balance of damage (including destruction of guns) and Damage control difficulties, as for example, bigger damage means bigger fires, bigger flooding holes, more intense situations that will need containment.

5 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

What do you think  about "citadel protection"? This seems to be a different armor scheme, but in fact they all do the same thing - reduce the chance to stay dead in the water and explode from detonation of the ammunition but at the same time increase the overall resistance, price and weight of the ship.

Although in reality all armor schemes, from a protected cruiser to “all or nothing”, pursued one idea - how to protect the ship better, using as little armor as possible. Which seems to be the opposite of how it works in the game.

For example if you use the philosophy of the "all or nothing" scheme, removing the armor of the extended deck and belt,  AI fast destroys unarmored elements , ship loses structure points,  constantly burns,  compartments are flooded.  Thus, it turns out that the main advantage of "all or nothing" will be manifested for ... fast light cruiser ??? And the battleship makes better use of the weight that the citadel’s defense would take away in the raw weight of the armor.

It's somehow ... weird. Correct me if I misunderstood something.

Citadel is pending to receive more improvements by controlling its actual size on the ship. Current modifiers accurately affect the protection of internals (engines, magazines) and increase hull resilience against damage with the respected cost in weights and construction.

[G777GUN]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We definitively have not spent development resources to make something like this   What is randomized in missions is weather, enemy ship designs, initial distances.

From then on, what we call RNG can resemble also reality, because in reality, you are never certain where exactly a shell will land. There are too many natural variables involved to have absolute certainty for that.

I noticed that. Its very stressful having to fight in different enviroments all the time. Plz add a SAVE feature so I dont have to keep redesigning the ships everytime my game crashes.

Right. This RNG is flawed.
First of all I seen shots passing through ships which despite being not targeted does not the shots should pass right through like ghosts.
RNG makes accuracy laughable in some cases, I mangaed to test it by putting a deadnaught point blank in fron of a heavy cruiser. And the shells miss! How is like reality? I mean I know they should of punched right through. Pretty sure I seen the shell's land at the front of the bow somehow.

I get a lot of guns have different stats amd each one will have to be implemente.
The biggest factor of gun innacuracy is weather and crew. Not the gun istself.

The raid on my hometown in WW1 proved that 3 stationary guns had no effect on an armoured ships at ranges beyond 4km, they knew this because they could see where they are hitting. This is while there was poor visibility and smoke. The only thing that was protecting them was the camo. Now if you replace those people with the RNG it would probably miss all the shots just because RNG says so.

A ship in the harbour was hit twice beyond 4km range by a german ship . The bombardment lasted around 40 minutes where over 1100 shells were fired. Most of which are focused on the town.

Now if the germans had focused on the stationary guns I am sure they would have destroyed them in the first 5 minutes.  

The only big reason why ships missed their shots were because the ranges of fighting had changed and they were not used to it. But I gaurantee a Battleship would turn a torpedo boat into swiss cheese at a range of 500 meters. Not missing so bad like this:




Shouldnt have to use main guns to hit such a small target. Also why are they showing up like. 1.5% hit chance so close?
 




 

[Shaun]

2 minutes ago, G777GUN said:

I noticed that. Its very stressful having to fight in different enviroments all the time. Plz add a SAVE feature so I dont have to keep redesigning the ships everytime my game crashes.

Right. This RNG is flawed.
First of all I seen shots passing through ships which despite being not targeted does not the shots should pass right through like ghosts.
RNG makes accuracy laughable in some cases, I mangaed to test it by putting a deadnaught point blank in fron of a heavy cruiser. And the shells miss! How is like reality? I mean I know they should of punched right through. Pretty sure I seen the shell's land at the front of the bow somehow.

I get a lot of guns have different stats amd each one will have to be implemente.
The biggest factor of gun innacuracy is weather and crew. Not the gun istself.

The raid on my hometown in WW1 proved that 3 stationary guns had no effect on an armoured ships at ranges beyond 4km, they knew this because they could see where they are hitting. This is while there was poor visibility and smoke. The only thing that was protecting them was the camo. Now if you replace those people with the RNG it would probably miss all the shots just because RNG says so.

A ship in the harbour was hit twice beyond 4km range by a german ship . The bombardment lasted around 40 minutes where over 1100 shells were fired. Most of which are focused on the town.

Now if the germans had focused on the stationary guns I am sure they would have destroyed them in the first 5 minutes.  

The only big reason why ships missed their shots were because the ranges of fighting had changed and they were not used to it. But I gaurantee a Battleship would turn a torpedo boat into swiss cheese at a range of 500 meters. Not missing so bad like this:




Shouldnt have to use main guns to hit such a small target. Also why are they showing up like. 1.5% hit chance so close?
 

When your guns are still training on the target, there's a -75% decrease in accuracy. After your guns are trained, this penalty is removed. Other factors include both being small and fast.

[Pedroig]

To be fair, until guns got -15 degrees of elevations it didn't take much of a sea to make it hard to hit anything within a mile.  Think sailing ships, even at 50 yards had horrible hit rates due to pitch and roll.

As far as why they have low chance to hit, closer you get to fast ships the harder it is to keep up with tracking. 4 degrees a second traverse would be pretty quick, and a TB doing 32 knots at 500m is doing over twice that...

[Shaun]

4 minutes ago, Pedroig said:

To be fair, until guns got -15 degrees of elevations it didn't take much of a sea to make it hard to hit anything within a mile.  Think sailing ships, even at 50 yards had horrible hit rates due to pitch and roll.

As far as why they have low chance to hit, closer you get to fast ships the harder it is to keep up with tracking. 4 degrees a second traverse would be pretty quick, and a TB doing 32 knots at 500m is doing over twice that...

Torpedo boats to pre-dreadnoughts are like Fairey Swordfish to the Bismarck!

[Crazy_balls]

Just downloaded the game and played it for the first time last night. Most have already mentioned some improvements I would like to see, such as letting your secondaries target something different than your main guns. One thing I found out last night though, is that if your main batteries are of the same caliber, but different turret arrangement (ie. triple turret vs. double turret), they shoot as a different gun group. Since historically there are many examples of battle ships with a mixed set up like that such as the Giulio Cesare, King George, etc., are we at some point going to be allowed to have turret arrangements like that? Or is it because of the accuracy and reloading penalties associated with the triples that we won't be allowed to mix turrets?

[Shaun]

32 minutes ago, Crazy_balls said:

Just downloaded the game and played it for the first time last night. Most have already mentioned some improvements I would like to see, such as letting your secondaries target something different than your main guns. One thing I found out last night though, is that if your main batteries are of the same caliber, but different turret arrangement (ie. triple turret vs. double turret), they shoot as a different gun group. Since historically there are many examples of battle ships with a mixed set up like that such as the Giulio Cesare, King George, etc., are we at some point going to be allowed to have turret arrangements like that? Or is it because of the accuracy and reloading penalties associated with the triples that we won't be allowed to mix turrets?

Pretty much the last point. Turrets with less guns are faster to reload and have better accuracy.

[akd]

They should still fire as a single battery, however, as should side and centerline guns of same type.  Hopefully a solution can be found.