>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<

[DougToss]

I would need a naval expect to weigh in, but I think calibre restrictions should be increased for casemates to maybe 10" or 11". 
This would maybe be within the edge of usefulness on semi-dreadnoughts and as fantastical and impractical as they may be, seem to have certainly been possible. 

Thoughts? 

[WelshZeCorgi]

Ship Design ui is a bit clunky. Would be helpful if you could just swap out parts Front tower 2 to front tower 3 or vice versa with the scroll wheel for example, without having to delete the part, navigate the menu, pick the other tower, and re-place the part on the ship. Saves time. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by WelshZeCorgi

[Whomst'd've]

I made a topic on my main issues regarding the ship designer (turret diameters and barbettes) here:

 

[Chris Hale]

Loving the game so far.

One minor suggestion:

At the end of ship-building, i am usually trying to fine tune weight offset. If we could adjust armor for specific turrets, that would really help. Just a few tons in the right spot would make a big difference, and a little extra armor is always nice too.

Thanks, chris.

[Skeksis]

maybe some of these…

210mm guns for KM cruisers.

Flanked Speed, shown in ship stats (or when hovering over ‘max speed’).

Engine Efficiency Redundancy, instead of just stopping at 100%, could we see the extra designed, redundancy e.g. 110% (or when hovering over ‘engine efficiency’).

Signature Detection Range, when hovering over ‘target signature’ could we see the detection range 'calculated' as/in km.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Skeksis

[Steeltrap]

On 1/23/2020 at 4:28 AM, Skeksis said:

maybe some of these…

Signature Detection Range, when hovering over ‘target signature’ could we see the detection range 'calculated' as/in km.

While the final figure does show up, it's just that it's in the first set of detailed numbers instead of appearing as part of the popup for the 'target signature' several sections further down. Agree it would be nice if we could see that final figure included in the popup as that would eliminate a step for us i.e. having to scroll up to see the result of any changes.

[wasabi cat]

i think the DD hull right now need to be improve including the bridge,we have gun in 1940 but not the bridge and hull.and also can we have the japanese DDs'bridge and hull in the future？

[roachbeef]

The "Tall III" funnel has a visual bug when placed on the secondary tower for Battlecruiser III hull in the "Hurry Up" Mission

[Molotnikov'sk]

I might not be the first one to mention quadruple barreled guns, but I was thinking for calibers in the 11-15"/280-380mm ranges could get quadruple turrets so we could emulate King George V or Richelieu, or scheme up a really drunk Bismarck with 16 280mm guns, now that the Bismarck has its own hull.

So what are your thoughts on the subject?

[Fr05ty]

Loving the designer so far, maybe a few upgrades for it?

1. A slider for gun size and length, so instead of having to explicitly design the guns, you can have guns of any size and the designer automatically calculates the shell mass and muzzle velocity for that combination.
2. Some more hull designs. Would be great to be able to do modern super cruisers (Ansaldo's design for Russia, Design 1047 for the Dutch Navy, Soviet Project 66, Japanese B65 TypeA Super Cruiser, Alaska class, etc.) which came in vogue in the late 30s/early 40s as the naval treaties gave way to cruiser killers.
3. Airplane catapults & anti-air weaponry.

And as many have said before, the ability to move things like barbettes and the towers from being placeable in only certain places would be very much appreciated.

[WolfpackBoi]

I would like to see

1.  Quadruple turrets for calibers 13-inch to 17-inch
2. 19 & 20-inch guns (single and twin turrets only, are the same size as the 18-inch turrets)
3.  The big one: Aircraft Carriers: Unable to mount main guns unless using a Hybrid CV hull, You select the aircraft carried and the number of each type according to a maximum number of aircraft set by the Max displacement of your carrier
4. AA guns (because CV)
5. Country specific hulls, guns, and everything

Edited February 8, 2020 by WolfpackBoi

[Agathos]

Just updated to latest alpha.

New turret designs are mostly horrible. Sadly so far i seem not to be able to get back the got old turret design used for most of my older builds.

As i am mostly a player by asthetics, any gameplay currently on hold.

[Shiki]

Some quality of life improvements to the Ship Designer to consider for the next Alpha:
- Restriction of turret models by nation, rather than by technology year. This way, we don't have little pull-your-hair-out frustrating moments when your British battleship has German twin 38-cm turrets, or when your German battleship has Japanese 15.5-cm guns and American 4-in mounts for a secondary battery.

- Addition of either a slider or some other method of changing the calibre of artillery, for both primary and secondary armament. Many navies didn't use precise translations to inches - examples include the British having 113-mm, 120-mm, and 133-mm guns, while France and Germany used 380-mm guns as opposed to 381-mm: surprisingly, the small differences in calibre did make a difference, sometimes a significant one. This could potentially be difficult to implement, but perhaps adding a feature similar to where you can save your ship designs could work - adding a calibre to either a primary or secondary bar and then tweaking it. Sorry if that doesn't make sense, it's difficult for me to explain.

- Addition of some kind of slider for modifying the length in calibres of artillery, with a default set at 45 calibres. A longer calibre, in real life and in the game, should equate to:
1. A higher muzzle velocity.

2. A longer range.

3. Increased performance against belt armour, due to the shallow impact angle of shells.

4. Decreased performance against deck armour, again due to the shallow impact angle of shells.

5. Increased maintenance costs due to more rapid barrel wear (an important consideration for the future campaign).

6. A large increase in the weight of the turret, as the barrels themselves weigh more and so does the machinery required to move them.

Maximum calibre length would be set to 70, minimum to 30: this represents both ends of the spectrum, from the 12in/30 guns of the 1880s to the long-barrel /65-cal artillery of the 1940s, while also giving some room for improvement. Guns of a large calibre (330mm/13in and up) should incur a very large weight penalty above 50 calibres, to make the improvement of characteristics a serious consideration.

- Addition of a slider or some other method for limiting the elevation of artillery. The tradeoffs are simple: the positive is a turret that weighs less, the negative that the maximum range has been decreased. This can allow you to create a Littorio-style scenario where the long calibre of your guns can offset the limited elevation, giving you comparable range to a contemporary warship which might have a higher elevation but a lower muzzle velocity.

- Potentially allowing for, once the selection of shell weight has been selected ("Light", "Normal", "Heavy", or "Super Heavy") the option will be given to, by means of slider or enterable figure, fine-tune the shell weight so we can reach historical weights, with a default value of what we currently possess. I would really like to see the system change dramatically and figure in little details like sectional density, bursting charge weight, and even the hardness of the AP cap- but I can accept that most people aren't as into the fine details of artillery as I am.

- Addition of 20-in/51-cm guns, in all variants, so that we can make our original A-150 design (which called for nine such guns, rather than the finalized six-gun variant).

- An increase in the hardpoints for the Yamato hull's main tower towards the rear, possibly by two - as it stands, the placement of the main tower makes it difficult to accommodate two forward turrets. The result is often very cramped and bow-heavy.

The wishlist for the future of the designer:
- More heavy cruiser hulls. Well, specifically, Takao's hull, with options for three different tower types - I (representing Chōkai), II (representing Maya), and III (for Takao & Atago). As the hulls were functionally identical in terms of their parameters, you could up all of these and replace Tower I with that of the Myōkō class as-built and II with their reconstructed bridge. The hull for Maya would preclude the addition of a No.3 turret (limiting it to eight guns, as it did historically) but all others would allow for a barbette capable of accepting 203-mm guns and ten guns total.

- A modern light cruiser hull, based on either the American Brooklyn-class light cruisers (this could also be used for American heavy cruisers, as both Wichita and the Baltimores shared this hullform) or the Town-class light cruisers of the Royal Navy.

- A hull based on the battleship Littorio, with a Cape Matapan-style style scenario where your battleship must engage an enemy cruiser force that is pursuing your own cruisers. Additionally, Littorio is one of the most beautiful warships ever built - it would be a shame not to add her. Her hull is also well-suited for upsizing to a super battleship for Italy as there were the UP.41 and UP.45 projects (the original idea, armed with nine 406-mm guns).

There are other things I would give as suggestions or feedback, but I think the major things have been said enough times that I don't need to revisit them. This was just my take on it.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Shiki

[Nihildominus]

Unsure if this has already been spoken of, so forgive me if this is already on the table.

What about removing barbettes and instead letting players adjust a guns height individually with a cost of X in weight per inch (or another unit of measurement) with an auto made barbette?  Could even have the Value of X be relative to the gun size. Allowing only max heights relative to hull placement, disallowing a triple high far bow mount for example yet allowing for a double or triple mount near center-lines on the hull/bridge.

[Shaftoe]

I am pretty sure many other people suggested what I am going to say before me, but I am gonna say it anyway - to demonstrate my support for such much needed feature.

Allow us to design several ship classes in Ship Designer, not just one. I think for a game such as UA:D it's a very important, literally foundational feature. It is directly tied into ... well, everything. So I hope we would see it sooner than later. 

[arkhangelsk]

On 2/12/2020 at 11:57 PM, Shiki said:

Some quality of life improvements to the Ship Designer to consider for the next Alpha:
- Restriction of turret models by nation, rather than by technology year. This way, we don't have little pull-your-hair-out frustrating moments when your British battleship has German twin 38-cm turrets, or when your German battleship has Japanese 15.5-cm guns and American 4-in mounts for a secondary battery.

- Addition of either a slider or some other method of changing the calibre of artillery, for both primary and secondary armament. Many navies didn't use precise translations to inches - examples include the British having 113-mm, 120-mm, and 133-mm guns, while France and Germany used 380-mm guns as opposed to 381-mm: surprisingly, the small differences in calibre did make a difference, sometimes a significant one. This could potentially be difficult to implement, but perhaps adding a feature similar to where you can save your ship designs could work - adding a calibre to either a primary or secondary bar and then tweaking it. Sorry if that doesn't make sense, it's difficult for me to explain.

The other points I don't predict on begrudging if they are put in and work right, but I must point out these two are a significant philosophical choice. What is more important - making historical ships or being able to decide your own way in the campaign. If you limit countries to "historical guns" (even making them the exact caliber to the millimeter), you are limiting them to take the same path as in history which is much less flexible and free.

[Shiki]

On 2/17/2020 at 9:44 PM, arkhangelsk said:

The other points I don't predict on begrudging if they are put in and work right, but I must point out these two are a significant philosophical choice. What is more important - making historical ships or being able to decide your own way in the campaign. If you limit countries to "historical guns" (even making them the exact caliber to the millimeter), you are limiting them to take the same path as in history which is much less flexible and free.

I do have to point out some counterpoints - namely, the fact that what we have is even more limiting. No nation used the exact same guns, like what we have right now, and the European powers and Japan didn't use nice divisors of inches in their metric calculations for artillery. If anything, this makes it more free by allowing you to create more beautiful ships - parts which look like they actually go together since we currently don't get to create the hull, instead of Frankenstein's monster - while also providing maximum flexibility since you can change gun calibres. If you want to be free, that's great! My proposal says nothing against that. With it, you could even go full French weird calibres and go 138.6-mm (even if you have a 140-mm gun) or 164.7-mm (even if you have a 160-mm gun). It opens up limitless possibilities, just one of which is historical accuracy.

[Cptbarney]

On 2/22/2020 at 5:42 PM, Shiki said:

I do have to point out some counterpoints - namely, the fact that what we have is even more limiting. No nation used the exact same guns, like what we have right now, and the European powers and Japan didn't use nice divisors of inches in their metric calculations for artillery. If anything, this makes it more free by allowing you to create more beautiful ships - parts which look like they actually go together since we currently don't get to create the hull, instead of Frankenstein's monster - while also providing maximum flexibility since you can change gun calibres. If you want to be free, that's great! My proposal says nothing against that. With it, you could even go full French weird calibres and go 138.6-mm (even if you have a 140-mm gun) or 164.7-mm (even if you have a 160-mm gun). It opens up limitless possibilities, just one of which is historical accuracy.

Also allows your own take on things too, the british had unusual calibers 234mm being on of the more promenant example and russia had their 170-180mm too (kirov i think). We would need even greater flexiblity on overall designs so more modular pieces more hulls and even more hull types for each mission (and for the campaign itself but im hoping it won't restricted. only restricted based on tech avaliable researched by you or stolen).

i would like the ability to elongate the hulls or widen or shorten them as well same goes for the pieces on the ships so you can make somewhat bigger or smaller versions or swap out certain sections for another piece (so take yammys superstructure and swap out the main part for another ships etc).

even the ability to have funnels that come out from the side of the SS or the hull itself (werid but that is the game after all lol).

[GDFKTT]

Agree with the above post, adding a slider to control the width of the ship to some variable degree should allow a captain to make decisions about overcoming funding/tonnage restrictions or meeting technological minimums in armor or weaponry loadouts at the cost of seakeeping/increased roll (accuracy penalties + potential speed drops + maneuver penalties)

Edited March 12, 2020 by GDFKTT

[James Cornelius]

I had a brainstorm today and I suspect this has already been suggested but I'm too lazy to search for it!

 

Eventually it would be nice if there was a pre-built group of historical ship classes as well. Like most people, I want to be able to design my own but even if only from a reference standpoint it would be nice if you could, say, plug in "Pennsylvania Class" for the US and make adjustments from there or use historical classes as they were.

 

Keep up the good work!

[Frnknbry]

Two types of ships I would like to be able to make Are 1/The Agincourt 2/ A WW1 or WW2 Monitor like Abercrombie-class or Roberts-class

[Biggles16]

In regards to the plans for increasing the range of guns/turrets available. Could you use a slider based system where people can set the design specs. eg. 12" shell, 55" barrel length, 3 barrels per turret.

 

And then use a linear graph to guesstimate the stats based on known stats of real guns.

I'm a first year Comp Sci student and very interested in topics like this so I'd love to dicuss it more. 

[Strait Raider]

Currently the capabilities of the advanced Barbettes and particularly the Citadel technologies are overpowered/exploitable. Not so much because of their effects, but because their effects are flat % regardless of your armor levels.

With Barbettes IV, Citadel V, Semi-Oil, a good ammo choice, and whatever benefit bulkheads give you it is possible to reach what seems like 100% protection from ammo detonation (might just be so close to 100% that it has never happened). You can now remove all your deck armor for massive weight and cost savings without really compromising your survivability, as vertical shots don't seem to damage anything below the top layer of compartments regardless of their caliber. Maintain strong belt armor and turret armor and you will have a ship that basically can't be killed by gunfire, which has much more free tonnage and cost than its competitors to put into armaments or speed.

Basically... no armor is best armor (in many cases) because the enemy will hit a damage threshold where they have saturated the sections of your ship that they can hit and can't cause critical damage due to your protection techs. Nose-in or fleeing battleships seem impossible to kill and I think this (critical % protections) plus the lack of penetration from plunging fire are the causes.

[Mutsu]

Biggest thing that should be changed currently is barbettes, allow them to placed in more spaces and please allow the 406s to be put on the smaller barbettes, there is no reason they need to be on those massive Yamato size ones.

[Strait Raider]

Destroyers need loving too!

A few things for the to-do list...

- The destroyer hulls are in sore need of an update, the ones in-game look very outdated even for WW1 ships. The Destroyer III and IV (and probably II) should be handsome ships with raked bows, longer forecastles, and ideally some nationally distinct variants - the large-forcastled British DDs, no-forecastled American DDs, short-forecastled German DDs, and high-bow pacific DDs of Japan.
- To go along with this, they need small barbette options to allow the superfiring guns present on most WW2 destroyers, as well as larger modern bridges with mounting points for smaller-caliber secondary/AA armaments.
- Add WW2 "Destroyer Leader" hull of 3,500 to 4,500 tonnes to allow large destroyer leaders like the Mogador, Tashkent, and Akitzuki classes as well as fantasy designs. 
- Add modern "Escort Destroyer" hull of 1000-1500 tonnes displacement, but having modern layout and improved characteristics - would also allow for creation of the 1940s German "torpedo boats" Type 24 to Type 39.
- Add option for 6" gun turrets to destroyers (single gun turrets only), 5.5 double and 5.9 inch single turrets were used in WW2, and it gives an interesting choice of single 6" turret vs double 5" turret.

Destroyers fought far more battles than any other ship class and deserve the attention!