>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<

[Captain Meow]

I'd like some logic/balance implied to auto-design & enemy's ships. So many times I see ships with oversized turrets placed in spots meant for lighter guns. Also if there are mounting points it shouldn't mean there must be something put in there that in result may end up like 3 turrets on 1890s cruiser's forecastle, placed so tightly that they can't even fully turn.

Clicking an auto-build of own ship always ends up with unbalanced impractical design with weight offset & random numbers in armor thickness. If that's to encourage a player to try his own designing skills instead, then it works!

[Captain Meow]

Um.. what?

[shtraib]

On 12/27/2021 at 1:00 AM, Captain Meow said:

Some issue regarding placing secondary guns...

Trying to recreate Russian pre-dreadnought battleship Tsesarevich. It said she had 2x305mm & 6x152mm guns, however placing 2 152mm turrets at front's both sides is impossible since it's affected by already placed 305 turret (and the other way round, when I can place 152 turrets at front's sides but not the 305 one at forecastle). This is very odd, because I did an exactly similar design for French 1890s battleship using same hull, same main/secondary guns. Looks like have to go with 127mm turrets at front's side then which makes aft overweight.

Also it's have six twin 152mm turrets, but in game possible made only single barrels turrets

[robsr3v3ng3]

So I recently got UA Dreadnoughts. Really impressed with what I've seen (although it needs some work still for sure) and actually showed it to some colleagues as an example of wargaming in the naval setting.

 

I have a couple of thoughts regarding the UI. Give comparisons! When selecting things like barbette 1, 2, or 3, or coal, semi-oil, oil, show a comparison side by side between the currently selected and currently highlighted on. This makes it easy to see what you gain and lose by changing to a different option.

 

An option for different ammo types for different guns would also be nice to have. Eg you may want your main guns with their large ammo stores and focus on killing capital ships to have ammo and propellants focused on range, accuracy, penetration, and safety, whilst smaller guns are focussed on causing fires, higher rates of fire, shorter range.

 

In a similar vein (but not in the ship designer) when mousing over a lot of options, especially in the fleet menu in the campaign, the popup info box is incredibly jarring and often gets in the way. I'd recommend either making it appear further away from the cursor, or in a fixed place on the screen out of the way.

 

[The PC Collector]

Some inaccuracies that I have noticed and that should be addressed:

- Pre dreadnought hulls don't allow for casemate secondary guns bigger than 6", despite most late pre dreadnoughts mounting larger guns (up to 7.5")in casemates.

- Armoured cruiser hulls don't allow main caliber casemate guns, despite being classes that had them.

- Same for light cruisers: Despite most protected cruisers and even some early modern light cruisers mounting main guns in casemates (The USS Charleston and USS Omaha come to mind as examples) not a single hull allows such configuration. That specially makes semi armoured hulss barely useable, as the can barely fit any main guns at all.

Also, a request: Is there any chance of ever seeing a hull which allows to replicate the Pelayo?
 

[akd]

16 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

Also, a request: Is there any chance of ever seeing a hull which allows to replicate the Pelayo?

Since she was based on a French ironclad design, one of them might serve as a reasonable substitute, although I don’t think we can replicate the idiocy of placing a funnel in front of the bridge.  However, what is needed even more than a hull is a set of “Mark 0” guns to replicate this older generation of armament (lighter for the caliber, but generally in barbettes rather than gunhouses and with extremely slow reload).

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSpain_126-35_m1884.php

Edited January 20, 2022 by akd

[The PC Collector]

41 minutes ago, akd said:

Since she was based on a French ironclad design, they might serve as a reasonable substitute, although I don’t think we can replicate the idiocy of placing a funnel in front of the bridge.  However, what is needed even more than a hull is a set of “Mark 0” guns to replicate this older generation of armament (lighter for the caliber, but generally in barbettes rather than gunhouses and with extremely slow reload).

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSpain_126-35_m1884.php

Actually, tell that to the french. Spain only issued the specifications, and they were the ones who actually designed the ship. And, for what I've seen, that kind of funnel placement was surprisingly common in late Ironclads. A different thing is that the game doesn't allows it.

And no, the french Ironclad hulls aren't suitable substitutes, as they don't allow the 11" main guns in the wings.

The Mk. 0 guns area good idea, tho.

Edited January 20, 2022 by The PC Collector

[akd]

1 hour ago, The PC Collector said:

Actually, tell that to the french. Spain only issued the specifications, and they were the ones who actually designed the ship. And, for what I've seen, that kind of funnel placement was surprisingly common in late Ironclads. A different thing is that the game doesn't allows it.

That's not how it works.  You don't end up with a surprise on delivery (well, except those "hidden" surprises like grossly overweight, belt under water, etc.).  Spain issued the specifications and obviously approved the designed plan.  Likely they had their reasons for the central bridge (I'd guess it economized on armor protection for the conning tower), but it was certainly an anomaly for a barbette ship of her era (maybe you are thinking of older ironclads that still considered the quarterdeck the command position?).  The Marceau she was based on had the bridge / CT up front.

Edited January 20, 2022 by akd

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, akd said:

That's not how it works.  You don't end up with a surprise on delivery (well, except those "hidden" surprises like grossly overweight, belt under water, etc.).  Spain issued the specifications and obviously approved the designed plan.  Likely they had their reasons for the central bridge (I'd guess it economized on armor protection for the conning tower), but it was certainly an anomaly for a barbette ship of her era (maybe you are thinking of older ironclads that still considered the quarterdeck the command position?).  The Marceau she was based on had the bridge / CT up front.

Given the overall disposition of the ship, I'd more likely say that the design were chosen due to weight balance reasons, as the ship overall is surprisingly symmetric for her time.

[akd]

Maybe you weren't supposed to be able to tell which direction she was sailing? 😜

Edited January 20, 2022 by akd

[The PC Collector]

I won't be surprised if that were the case. You'd be surprised of all the weird experimantal things we did in the 1880s and 1890s. XD

[The PC Collector]

Okay. I've seen that there are indeed pre dreadnought hulls which allows 7-8" guns. Yet, neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary have acess to them.

[crp1985]

I'm wondering if the developers would consider designing more Towers, or down scaling some of the towers in the game already. Especially, the modern towers  they are way too big. I just tried to replicate the Scharnhorst class for Germany in game and am not able to do so. 

[slightlytreasonous]

It's obvious a lot of towers are intended to fit together, but they don't always, even with CTRL placement.  Please allow a little bit of overlap so they can properly fit.

Also, to connect to the above-.

Supporting modding of hulls and towers, should be added absolutely as soon as possible, and emphasis on that.

  The devs have probably heard it all a thousand times, so I won't restate it.  But yeah, I need an excuse to spam "add modding" without risking a ban, and I'll use this as it.  (full modding eventually too please

for now though, especially with the big update coming adding to ship design, I think it's one of the best possible thing you can do.  I understand you can't  do everything at once, but for now, if atleast modded parts is possible, it should be done, and soon.  

[Hale]

A coupe suggestions/questions:

1. Is it possible to stack barbettes?    I was trying to have 3 super firing guns (deck, +1 elevation, +2 elevation) and couldn't get it to work.   I also tried to find a barbette that was '2' high but didn't find a single one that would do that.   If we could stack barbettes or get taller ones that would allow these designs.  I realize there is a stability price to pay the higher you go.
2. Make the default (travel) position of the main guns configurable, fore or aft.  This way you could back two turrets up to each other (or closer then the gun barrels will allow) one pointing fore the other aft.  This will impact its the angles of fire but could allow more guns in less space. 

[Captain Meow]

Building South Carolina BB... WHY can't I place 51/76mm deck guns on positions made for them WHYYYYYYYYYYY????

Edited February 19, 2022 by Captain Meow

[Candle_86]

On 2/19/2022 at 11:21 AM, Captain Meow said:

Building South Carolina BB... WHY can't I place 51/76mm deck guns on positions made for them WHYYYYYYYYYYY????

Use R or T to rotate and see what happens

[Captain Meow]

3 hours ago, Candle_86 said:

Use R or T to rotate and see what happens

Nothing helped for this certain case. Same as not possible to place the aft tower at the very end like the real ship had.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Captain Meow

[Admiral Schiffburg]

ok one bug I've been annoyed by for the passed 3 patches now is the advanced tower with funnel IV (secondary tower) which is used on the German super battleship II wont let me mount the largest funnel in it despite looking large enough for it I'm hoping this will be fixed soon cause having to use smaller funnels in it looks weird when behind the larger funnel in the main tower.

[slightlytreasonous]

A bit more from me; on this topic.  Point being, for really all the things in this post constraining the player to historical designs/characteristics, takes a hammer to the knee of replayability.   My understanding is the devs want the player to be able to "carve out" their own story without historical boundaries, (based off the old Q&A statements) but, if im being honest, I dont think the game does that well, which is why im making this post.  This is going from minor changes to enormous overhauls/addittions.

 

1. Removing or adding built in guntubs (where it applies, mainly a US BB thing, maybe even make it a barbette?)

2.  Changing turret gunhouses.  This is probably the most important thing I can think of that wouldnt be a massive change.

3. Quads should be available for all nations, in all calibers.   

4. Make weaponry classing a player responsibility, and for the sake of destroyers, maybe kick the minimum caliber to 1 inch.  Side by side with this, remove the "X weapons required"

5.  Make weaponry limitations fluid.  If I have 9" main guns on my BB, I should be able to place a lot more then 20 inchers.  Or, remove them entirely-

6.  If theres space for it, I want to be able to put it there.  What im saying is the only hard block placement limitations should be made by me. and the way I designed my ship.  Off centerline funnels, a barbette farm, etc.  Obviously there should be some soft blocks to keep something within reason, but not purely stopping you.

7. Minor hull customizations- changing the prow to a ram or clipper bow, a transom stern like the Vanguard, etc. Nameplates, maybe.   Number of propellors and rudders, etc.

8.  Jumping off the deepend, major hull customization.

-Say every ship has deck levels and you can slice it down in a number of places- like a stepped down deck on the aft on the italian BB, or the semi armored cruiser- or you want to take the German DD with all its elevated hull places and do that to a BB for some reason.   Where you step it down, you can do a bit of customization to add the barbette  jutout. BBs or hangar doors.  Narrowed hull sections like on the dreadnoughts, etc.   

Inserting torpedo blisters, casemates, etc.  A designer overhaul, basically, but without completely wiping the entire system.

9. Individual level ship customization, a completely unneccessary thing, yes, but it just kinda takes me out of it a bit when every ship is a exact duplicate to the atom.  And it would help the player feel more connected to their ships. 

Tying in with this, a "doctrine" could be established so all ships in the fleet/of a class have some sort of standard customization.  For example, where and what flags are flown- (imagine being able to insert a fleet "battle ensign" flag from your files, for example.  And navies had different flag locations depending on the circumstances aswell, for example.)  You could go miles down with this, and I dont want to make an essay out of 1 suggestion.

10.  I think the superstructure system should be overhauled- but it would be extremely hard to get a full sandbox system thats also easy to use.  I would recommend adding "superstructure modules", that dont count as towers, which you can use to extend a superstructure- like a long version of a US or Japanese superstructure.

 As well, minor customizations to these somehow too- For example, topping a tripod with the huge almost building like block you see on the standard battleships- or just a simple crows nest.  Director locations, etc.

11.  Tech overhaul.  Loosely related to this all, but I would make it random, and allow more player interaction.  If I have for example, the same 5" gun everywhere, that should lead to a higher chance of nuances being recognized and it being improved/ a higher quality, if a ship is damaged in some way, ways to prevent that damage in the future should have a chance of being found.  

A tech tree by its definition is extremely railroady, a random system like RTW (with a bit more player interaction, though) would go a long way.

 

12.  Modding? 

 

I know this is asking for a lot, especially with current events- I dont intend to pass these off as demands for additions- (well, atleast most of them :), these are my solutions to shift back into the less historically railroady thing I think the devs are after.  Hey, if the devs are gonna make me feel heard, Im gonna keep talking.  I love this game, a lot. I hope the devs are well, and I wish them luck on all they choose to do.

Edited March 3, 2022 by slightlytreasonous

[slightlytreasonous]

GUNS (Im American, can't help it)

Firstly, people frequently ask for more in-between calibres for historical accuracy.  

Instead of just more calibres, you can input a size of gun you want, down to the MM. You can also specify the priorities- reload, accuracy, perhaps even barrel length.

Based off that, it pops out a gun that you can then use aboard your ships.  Time to develop and how good it is depends on your tech, and similarities to previous weapons.

Over time, that gun specifically will automatically improve, and better or alternative versions will appear, especially based on how often it's used in battle and deployed aboard ships.  

 

This would allow guns to be more different among nations without historical constraints, allow the player to carve out their own path, bla bla bla. 

 

The visual side I'm suggesting-

The obvious one, changing gun houses.

Secondly, the wings on turrets, where applicable (Yamato, Bismarck, etc.). Not completely sure what they're for, honestly.  

Thirdly, the guns elevating Independently.  Once again, not sure what it's called, but I noticed that all barrels in this game can elevate on their own, which isn't accurate.  Being able to choose between independent/all at once, would be a fun historical nuance to throw in. Could add mechanics behind it. (But, I'll be honest, way cooler as it is.)

 gun bags.  I'm assuming they werent included for the sake of ease, but it would be nice.

And, barrel placement+barbette.  2 options, close & far, for how the guns are spread in the turrets. (i.e, US DD guns would be close, whereas british would be far).  Finally, having the option for the barbette to jut out from the gun housing, or not.

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by slightlytreasonous
additions

[Somhairle]

3 minutes ago, slightlytreasonous said:

Secondly, the wings on turrets, where applicable (Yamato, Bismarck, etc.). Not completely sure what they're for, honestly.  

Thirdly, the guns elevating Independently.  Once again, not sure what it's called, but I noticed that all barrels in this game can elevate on their own, which isn't accurate.  Being able to choose between independent/all at once, would be a fun historical nuance to throw in. Could add mechanics behind it. (But, I'll be honest, way cooler as it is.)

 

the last part, is gun bags.  I'm assuming they werent included for the sake of ease, but it would be nice.

The 'wings' on turrets are the range finders.

Some guns did elevate individually, some did not. Depends on the type of slide/cradle the turret uses. Older turrets usually used a single cradle, all guns move together. Over time, individual cradles (and independent elevation) became a thing. For US BB caliber guns, it was between New Mexico and Tennessee classes IIRC.

[Ghost129]

Let me start by saying that I really enjoy playing this game.

I have seen that many people suggest this but stacking barbettes would be nice. So we can make designs like the Atlanta Class cruisers. Also, allowing placement of engines/boilers and maybe drive shafts would make the "Ship Designer" more customized. It would also be nice to be able to design historical ships. I have noticed that most IRL designs can not be done in the game such as the Atlanta, Fletcher, and Allen M. Sumner classes to name a few. Putting duel gun 5" Gun turrets on a destroyer is not possible in game, let alone placing two turrets in front of the front tower on a destroyer. The displacement of this ships also can not be replicated along with speed and amount of guns without either running out of money or going way over the displacement and that is without the add weight of AA guns and other smaller caliber guns.

Like I said before, I really enjoy this game and think with these improvements that it could be a great game that can compete with War Thunder, World of Warships, War on the Sea, and Warship Gunner 1&2.

[jkl]

 

AH, 1890.

Those details interfere installation of turrets larger than 8".

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by jkl

[Hakuryuu]

Ever since I discovered this game through YouTube I have been loving it a lot, as a naval enthusiast this game is nothing short of genie, bring all short of my fantasies vessels come to life.

Everything have been nice so far, but I do wonder if the developer planned to add custom gun calibre (not the bore diameter, the length of the barrel) in the future. As increase gun diameter increase their weight, it is a nice trade off until you go up to 16 inches, pass that point and the trade isn't worth it anymore. So calibre customisation would be nice, increase muzzle velocity to increase the penetration without increasing bore diameter (example would be Vittorio 15 inches in world war 2). As a fun side effect, combining with the shell/propellant mechanics already in game, we could create a pseudo railgun of sort with small bore (9 inches and below). Though not very recommend if barrel life in a thing in campaign.