>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<

[Pizzafighter]

Hey,

first of all I want to say, that I love the game and how it turned out yet. The campain is really nice, you can play it over and over and it is everytime different due to new enemy fleets and ships.

To be honest, I mostly play the german navy, so that's why I only will now mention some ideas for further aditions for the german hulls.
First of all I would love to see somethingh like the Königsberg-Class. The asymetrical placed turrents at the back are very unique and I would love to see a light cruiser like this on the seas. It also would include more realistic 150mm triple-guns for the germans, the current used triples are just the duals with a third gun mounted inbetween wich looks kind of weird.

 

A more classic Design was the succesor, the Leipzig-class. It has some differences in the superstructure and a classic centerlined layout of the guns:

 

Another point, I want to mention would be the adition of german destroyers. Especially the Class 1936 and 1936A Mob. Especially the 1936A Mob were some special snowflakes, instead of the classic 127/128mm guns wich are used by most destroyers in the navys of the world, the 1936A Mob used 150mm guns. The twin-turrent on the bow was different to the normal 150mm twin used for example as the secondaries at the bismarck, it was narrower and more like the 128mm twin turrent. On the back of the ship were three single 150mm guns, the same also used as secondaries on the Deutschland-class and Scharnhorst-class, so to see those really would be nice.

[Nagato]

It would be nice if we have superstructures for Konigsberg/Leipzig and also German destroyes (hulls as well), i dont like current German destroyer hulls at all.

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

I wish there was a way to increase/decrease length and maybe a superstructure designer. 

[Echo]

I have a suggestion to do with the custom battle designs, could we see the ability to save designs that can be used across different eras like designing a ship in 1928 and then using it along with ships from 1935 or something like that, also I would like to see the addition of being able to select multiple classes(so long as there is more than one ship of that type in the battle). I feel like these ideas would bring a little bit more fun into custom battles.
Let me know if these might be too complex to add or if they might not work very well

[kjg000]

Please enable rollover function for weapons in the "Overview - Armament" section and consider removing the "Ship Details - Weapons" section. It seems redundant to have both and would result in a cleaner interface.

Also please consider creating a rollover for the "Engine Efficiency:" listing on the main design screen showing "Engine Power" and "Funnel Capacity".

Finally, many popups obscure the ship under design or relevant data, i.e. obscuring engine efficiency when selecting a funnel speed using the slider. Can these popups be made smaller, movable or translucent?

Edited June 11, 2022 by kjg000

[kjg000]

On 5/15/2022 at 6:41 AM, Pizzafighter said:

Hey,

first of all I want to say, that I love the game and how it turned out yet. The campain is really nice, you can play it over and over and it is everytime different due to new enemy fleets and ships.

To be honest, I mostly play the german navy, so that's why I only will now mention some ideas for further aditions for the german hulls.
First of all I would love to see somethingh like the Königsberg-Class. The asymetrical placed turrents at the back are very unique and I would love to see a light cruiser like this on the seas. It also would include more realistic 150mm triple-guns for the germans, the current used triples are just the duals with a third gun mounted inbetween wich looks kind of weird.

 

A more classic Design was the succesor, the Leipzig-class. It has some differences in the superstructure and a classic centerlined layout of the guns:

 

Another point, I want to mention would be the adition of german destroyers. Especially the Class 1936 and 1936A Mob. Especially the 1936A Mob were some special snowflakes, instead of the classic 127/128mm guns wich are used by most destroyers in the navys of the world, the 1936A Mob used 150mm guns. The twin-turrent on the bow was different to the normal 150mm twin used for example as the secondaries at the bismarck, it was narrower and more like the 128mm twin turrent. On the back of the ship were three single 150mm guns, the same also used as secondaries on the Deutschland-class and Scharnhorst-class, so to see those really would be nice.

As I understand it the Konigsberg type classes had poor seagoing performance in heavy seas and also when turning, so perhaps the only thing required would be an aft superstructure allowing an offset turret, the other being placed as a side mount with the attendant pitch and roll penalties.

[kjg000]

A "quick Trim" function, allowing unallocated tonnage to auto adjust pitch and roll would greatly reduce the tedium when trying to balance a ship.

[slightlytreasonous]

Dual casemates, they're pretty.

[kjg000]

Anyone else having problems with some near full tonnage designs appearing fine when saved but showing as overweight when you immediately go to build them? I.e. with a 7000t weight limit a 6999 ton ship design will save but cannot be built. Applies to all ship types.

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

Can we increase centreline guns to 8 instead of 6? I wanna make HMS Agincourt.

 

Additionally, I really think that there should be more dreadnought hulls... Dreadnought III and IV for Brits looks ugly af and they never really had that style of Dreadnought. If you look at Orion and the old KGVs, it's somewhat like the BCs.

Edited June 18, 2022 by PalaiologosTheGreat
More changes

[Tepid]

I noticed that the maximum length of guns using the new length slider appears to have been severely reduced. This is a great change and I am fully in favour of it. Previously it was difficult or even impossible to make historically accurate gun lengths as the starting point was far too long, even with -20%. I am very pleased by this new change. It still results in oddballs like how /50 battleship grade guns historically were on the long end of the spectrum, whilst in-game they require you to reduce your gun length by a significant amount. But at least it is now always possible to at least actually build them in a time-appropriate era as far as I could test. Some of them end up looking quite disproportionately stubby compared to their real-life counterparts. I doubt that the barrel length itself is the problem there and I think the turrets are just a bit too oversized once you get to -10% or more gun length. Perhaps full turret size needs to change even more relative to the gun length than it does currently?

However, I am writing because this overall great change appears to have caused some collateral damage. Secondary guns. This overall reduction in how long you can make your guns with that slider, has hit secondary guns really hard and it's now often impossible to make period-appropriate gun lengths for secondaries and for the main guns on cruisers and destroyers, especially in the 2"-8" range. Historically, guns at these calibers tended to be longer than contemporary guns of larger calibers. Take the Bismarck. You had /52 main guns, /55 6" secondaries and /65 4" AA guns. Right now it appears impossible in custom battles to get past /53 for 6" and /56 for 4" guns. Bismarck is an especially egregious example due to the long guns Germany favoured, but even a nation like Britain, that used relatively short guns historically, doesn't appear to have physical access to something as simple as the 4.7"/50. As their 4+" guns are limited to /47 as BB secondaries and /38(!) as DD main guns.

From a mechanical and historical perspective it doesn't make sense for smaller guns in this "cruiser and below" size range to be relatively shorter than capital ship guns. I suggest that the maximum length for a late 1930ies (~Mark 4/5?) gun in the 2"-8" range should be capable of reaching above 70 in its upper bounds. This would enable us to create more historically accurate guns and would be more in line with the engineering reality that it's easier to make a realtively long small gun than it is to make a relatively long big gun.

I realize that this could interfere with the ability to make short guns and of course it would be a shame if a 1930ies US design wouldn't be able to make either the 5"/38 or the 5"/54 (in custom battles, for a 1940 tech level, the US doesn't appear to have the ability to make 5" guns longer than /50. Insufficient for someone attempting to recreate the Montana class). I believe the solution to this problem is fairly simple. 2" guns (for some godforsaken reason) currently have a different slider from other guns, only going from -10 to +10% instead of the full 20%. This means that you can't emulate the variety of very long medium AA weapons in that size range, but it also means that it shouldn't be an issue to make the slider bigger. Perhaps the simplest way to solve these issues would be to make the gun length slider go from -30 to +30%, at least for guns in the 2" to 5" range. This could simulate the variety of both high velocity and low velocity guns that existed in this range.

 

tl;dr:
I love that you can now make historically accurate capital ship main gun lengths.
I'd love it if you could do the same for capital ship secondary guns and cruiser/destroyer main guns (up to and including 8"). Currently, they are too short.
In order to allow both high velocity and low velocity guns to coexist at the sizes where it makes sense historically and mechanically, consider giving smaller guns (up to and including 5") a +-30% slider instead of the 20%/10% sliders these guns use currently.

 

I am sorry if this topic has already been talked to death elsewhere and I just failed to notice because I don't frequent the forums much. Also very sorry if I am posting this in the wrong subsection of the forum.

[kjg000]

When placing components, such as guns and torpedoes, please place the mirrored component at the mirrored angle. Currently is is either omitted or placed at the standard angle.

[kjg000]

7 hours ago, Tepid said:

I noticed that the maximum length of guns using the new length slider appears to have been severely reduced. This is a great change and I am fully in favour of it. Previously it was difficult or even impossible to make historically accurate gun lengths as the starting point was far too long, even with -20%. I am very pleased by this new change. It still results in oddballs like how /50 battleship grade guns historically were on the long end of the spectrum, whilst in-game they require you to reduce your gun length by a significant amount. But at least it is now always possible to at least actually build them in a time-appropriate era as far as I could test. Some of them end up looking quite disproportionately stubby compared to their real-life counterparts. I doubt that the barrel length itself is the problem there and I think the turrets are just a bit too oversized once you get to -10% or more gun length. Perhaps full turret size needs to change even more relative to the gun length than it does currently?

However, I am writing because this overall great change appears to have caused some collateral damage. Secondary guns. This overall reduction in how long you can make your guns with that slider, has hit secondary guns really hard and it's now often impossible to make period-appropriate gun lengths for secondaries and for the main guns on cruisers and destroyers, especially in the 2"-8" range. Historically, guns at these calibers tended to be longer than contemporary guns of larger calibers. Take the Bismarck. You had /52 main guns, /55 6" secondaries and /65 4" AA guns. Right now it appears impossible in custom battles to get past /53 for 6" and /56 for 4" guns. Bismarck is an especially egregious example due to the long guns Germany favoured, but even a nation like Britain, that used relatively short guns historically, doesn't appear to have physical access to something as simple as the 4.7"/50. As their 4+" guns are limited to /47 as BB secondaries and /38(!) as DD main guns.

From a mechanical and historical perspective it doesn't make sense for smaller guns in this "cruiser and below" size range to be relatively shorter than capital ship guns. I suggest that the maximum length for a late 1930ies (~Mark 4/5?) gun in the 2"-8" range should be capable of reaching above 70 in its upper bounds. This would enable us to create more historically accurate guns and would be more in line with the engineering reality that it's easier to make a realtively long small gun than it is to make a relatively long big gun.

I realize that this could interfere with the ability to make short guns and of course it would be a shame if a 1930ies US design wouldn't be able to make either the 5"/38 or the 5"/54 (in custom battles, for a 1940 tech level, the US doesn't appear to have the ability to make 5" guns longer than /50. Insufficient for someone attempting to recreate the Montana class). I believe the solution to this problem is fairly simple. 2" guns (for some godforsaken reason) currently have a different slider from other guns, only going from -10 to +10% instead of the full 20%. This means that you can't emulate the variety of very long medium AA weapons in that size range, but it also means that it shouldn't be an issue to make the slider bigger. Perhaps the simplest way to solve these issues would be to make the gun length slider go from -30 to +30%, at least for guns in the 2" to 5" range. This could simulate the variety of both high velocity and low velocity guns that existed in this range.

 

tl;dr:
I love that you can now make historically accurate capital ship main gun lengths.
I'd love it if you could do the same for capital ship secondary guns and cruiser/destroyer main guns (up to and including 8"). Currently, they are too short.
In order to allow both high velocity and low velocity guns to coexist at the sizes where it makes sense historically and mechanically, consider giving smaller guns (up to and including 5") a +-30% slider instead of the 20%/10% sliders these guns use currently.

 

I am sorry if this topic has already been talked to death elsewhere and I just failed to notice because I don't frequent the forums much. Also very sorry if I am posting this in the wrong subsection of the forum.

I'd accept +/- 30%(or even 40%) for all guns provided the penalties scaled exponentially.

[nncknm]

tl;dr: Please dont make hulls, turrets, towers obsolete after reaching new technology levels.

Maybe it's not the most historical thing, but why cant i build an older dreadnought hull with modern towers? I wanted to built an german BB/BC with casemade guns in 1930+ but all hulls for that are gone
Or why is that good looking BB tower not on that BB hull (national).
This would be easy to implement.

For the guns: You designed so many nice models but as an example the brits have in 1940 mostly the same gun style. I often use lower mk guns because they have a different style than my other ships. An option to choose the gun model (maybe with different stats?) would be so great!

Edited June 20, 2022 by nncknm

[1MajorKoenig]

Please make parts for the German Interbellum Tubular Masts! 

 

And please we need German Battlecruisers 😉

A large Ersatz Yorck Funnel, these Derfflinger and Mackensen Style bridges, etc 

[IshPR7777]

Also, make Helgoland Class Battleship hull type for Germany, there's other WW1-era German Battleships still out there!

[kjg000]

On 6/21/2022 at 3:02 AM, nncknm said:

tl;dr: Please dont make hulls, turrets, towers obsolete after reaching new technology levels.

Maybe it's not the most historical thing, but why cant i build an older dreadnought hull with modern towers? I wanted to built an german BB/BC with casemade guns in 1930+ but all hulls for that are gone
Or why is that good looking BB tower not on that BB hull (national).
This would be easy to implement.

For the guns: You designed so many nice models but as an example the brits have in 1940 mostly the same gun style. I often use lower mk guns because they have a different style than my other ships. An option to choose the gun model (maybe with different stats?) would be so great!

I suspect, but really who knows, that the older hulls and such are discontinued as a way to reduce the size of the selection menus and to stop them from becoming a big mess at the bottom of the dockyard screen. Of course they could possibly achieve the same thing by having an "Obsolete Equipment" menu available through a new button.

[1MajorKoenig]

On 5/21/2022 at 12:35 PM, Nagato said:

It would be nice if we have superstructures for Konigsberg/Leipzig and also German destroyes (hulls as well), i dont like current German destroyer hulls at all.

 

On 5/28/2022 at 8:46 PM, PalaiologosTheGreat said:

I wish there was a way to increase/decrease length and maybe a superstructure designer. 

Yes we certainly need a bit more stuff on the superstructure side of things!

Especially these designs from the interwar with the tube masts are not really buildable right now 

Configurable would be amazing though!! Eg. Select the bridge and mast separately…
 

@Nick Thomadis - maybe…? 🙂

[Tréville]

Afaik. some time ago a mechanic was introduced that gave every hull a base speed value and going above that speed increased engine weight exponentially.

 

Is that speed value shown anywhere in the designer right now? Seems like really important information.

[kjg000]

On 7/7/2022 at 2:28 AM, Tréville said:

Afaik. some time ago a mechanic was introduced that gave every hull a base speed value and going above that speed increased engine weight exponentially.

 

Is that speed value shown anywhere in the designer right now? Seems like really important information.

I think it is related to the hull 'form' value. So researching technologies that improve this value change the point at which the weight jumps up. 

A 1900 hull limited to, say, 20kts might be able to do 25kts in 1910 if the hull form has been improved enough. 

[Pizzafighter]

On 6/22/2022 at 9:44 PM, 1MajorKoenig said:

Please make parts for the German Interbellum Tubular Masts! 

 

And please we need German Battlecruisers 😉

A large Ersatz Yorck Funnel, these Derfflinger and Mackensen Style bridges, etc 

Oh yes, and for the modern BC it could be the O-class hull. I know, they never were build, but I mean, the campain goes up to 1950, so why not H, O, P and M-classes in the future of the game? (same goes for every other nation as well, Super-Yamato and ibuki for japan, Montana for the USA and so on.)

On 6/8/2022 at 12:15 PM, kjg000 said:

A "quick Trim" function, allowing unallocated tonnage to auto adjust pitch and roll would greatly reduce the tedium when trying to balance a ship.

hmm, maybe this funcion could automatically move everythingh you build on the hull as far to the point, where it reaches the best balance as possible. If somethingh don't fit on this position, then it wouldn't move anythingh else further and you have to deal with the rest imbalance manually again. It would make the balance of the ship so much easier if you don't have to move everythingh, wich isn't directly attached to the main towers, individually.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Pizzafighter

[Pizzafighter]

Me again

But I think, it would be interesting, if we could get a modern torpedo boat like the Type 39 class of the Kriegsmarine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_39_torpedo_boat

[kjg000]

On 8/1/2022 at 8:50 AM, Pizzafighter said:

...

hmm, maybe this funcion could automatically move everythingh you build on the hull as far to the point, where it reaches the best balance as possible. If somethingh don't fit on this position, then it wouldn't move anythingh else further and you have to deal with the rest imbalance manually again. It would make the balance of the ship so much easier if you don't have to move everythingh, wich isn't directly attached to the main towers, individually.

Actually I was thinking of armor and , if that has maxed out, simple dead weight. Moving components may have unwanted effects such as limiting fire arcs.

As for moving everything, it would be nice to have a select and move-group function, either by individually selecting group members or a 'rectangle select'. It is very annoying when you try to move something, say a superstructure, which you then can't place because of attached components, such as casement guns, which have not moved with the parent structure yet also can't replace the structure because of those same elements.

[musicbox]

can we talk about the german hull "Dreadnought III" and it's "Advanced Foredeck Tower X" aka retardcastle?

whoever was in charge of modeling it forgot to turn off sticky-key after upscaling it before moving mouse to save the model.

And not just that, german "Dreadnought III" hull is obscenely overweight forward.

Edited November 12, 2022 by musicbox

[Galaksee]

On 6/20/2022 at 7:32 PM, nncknm said:

tl;dr: Please dont make hulls, turrets, towers obsolete after reaching new technology levels.

Maybe it's not the most historical thing, but why cant i build an older dreadnought hull with modern towers? I wanted to built an german BB/BC with casemade guns in 1930+ but all hulls for that are gone
Or why is that good looking BB tower not on that BB hull (national).
This would be easy to implement.

For the guns: You designed so many nice models but as an example the brits have in 1940 mostly the same gun style. I often use lower mk guns because they have a different style than my other ships. An option to choose the gun model (maybe with different stats?) would be so great!

Really a possible compromise that would be realistic and fantastic would be if you could choose what to refit, for example you want to refit to put better machinery or better secondaries but you have also a new main gun version but the new turret for main gun is bigger thus won't fit on the hull, if you had the choice to keep the older turret it would allow for a longer life for some ship design. Or you could have older versions of some guns or towers not design for the hull accessible via another panel with some penalty like weight penalty for the towers as you'd have to reinforce the structure under for example or some cost penalty to maintain the production line of older parts like turrets/cannons/explosives...

This could allow more refit/design possibility to share from 1.10 onwards

Edited December 15, 2022 by Galaksee