Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

On 2/9/2021 at 2:56 PM, Faolind said:

I want you to take a moment and look at the hundreds of variables already present in the designer, from torpedo propulsion to armor scheme and type, engine, efficiency of ventilation, weight of shell, load of shell, propulsion of shell, hull bottom, torpedo belt, bulkhead type and number, range, fuel type, gun number, placement, and turret design, armor of individual elements...

And you go ahead and tell me whether an increase in complexity is going to make the game sell more. Because in the end, the game has to sell. Not just to you and your friends- it has to sell enough to pay these people the wages they need to earn to feed themselves and their families. Any work they put into it has to be justified firstly against this reality.

Is the work required to redesign the build system from scratch worth it in terms of sales numbers versus time and money spent? Probably not.

It may be worth it to tweak the UI of the builder, or to add more assets to it, or to tweak the system as-is.

I don't know what you mean by "People like me," but I'm an indie game designer myself. It's why I'm thinking about it in these terms. Honestly, its like you want the business to fail, acting this way. This isn't Creative Assembly or CDPR. They don't have the resources to start over on something if they screwed up. They also didn't screw up- The game needs to be able to be played by a wide audience. This isn't a one man low budget programming build like RTW. It's a full game and it needs to sell like one. The number of people not already on this forum that would buy the game this forum keeps proposing is slim.

Lastly- a snap together model kit is exactly what was advertised in the early videos, and there are other people on this forum complaining this isn't snap-together enough for them. It wasn't advertised like say, Robot Arena 2, with the intricate placing of internal parts. That was never an option.

Let us be honest.  This game isn’t selling to anyone but the hardcore naval fans to begin with.  That is your audience.

The designer doesn’t need to be more complicated by a great degree but when you play a campaign it needs to be grounded in reality.  The outputs aren’t grounded in reality at this point.

I have supported several of this companies games.  I paid for this one too.  I defended most of their choices to balance UG Civil War so I think they are smart people.  But if you are going to sell me a UK vs Germany 1900-1918 era campaign which it sounds like they will the designer can’t be spitting out 33 knot battlecruisers in 1912.

And many of the tweaks asked for aren’t going to necessitate scrapping the whole thing.  It’s about getting their interactions correct.  A huge percentage of the designer is just percentage modifiers after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 341
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I know that what a lot of what I’m about to say has been said before, but I feel suggestion reports often work on a principle of ‘accuracy by volume’ I will preface this by saying that the compe

I'll second this piece of feedback right here. I was really hoping to being able to put together the hull myself, including superstructure and all that.

I never said it was a good idea 😉   If I'm honest, nail + head. I want to mess around! It's really no skin off the dev's back to free up many of the current constrictions to improve the pl

Posted Images

Royal Navy Churchill Type Heavy Cruiser Design A

Hope we get something like this in the near future the tower is shorter than the KGV tower so makes it look more sleek and also quad guns below 330mm's would be nice too.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

two sugestions

first a point about fore/ aft inbanance.

as we cant move around the internals as real designers could.
then we could instead create a "acceptable  inbanance" flr each hull.
This is the inbanance of armour and weponry that can be handled with moving things around inside the ship
and it is only when that number is maxed out that the "real inbanance starts.

you cound even apply some small penalties in cost/weight  for the internal inbalance (representing more complex piping ect) 

second a point about barbettes.   cant we incorperate the whole system in the guns placement.  so after you have selected gyn and number of barrels, you then can select the apropriate barbette (diferent heights ect)
this way you get all the weight/cost   info in  one place.  and you can place the turret and barbette as a unit and move it as a unit.   it also allows for different possible barbettes for diferent guns as part of techtree  in the campaign.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Concerning the complexity of the system:

The ideal product is one where the base version is simple enough to sell sufficient copies to cover future support and updates, that can also be modified to be more complex by more dedicated naval history buffs later on. 


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Bug, not sure if this has been reported already but...

Underwater torpedo tubes sets off "Some guns have poor sector of fire" warning...


Platform:     Custom Battles.
Hull:             Modern Light Cruiser. - actually I think it's bugged for most late era hulls.
Nation:         British.
Tech Year:   1940.
Replicable:   After turrets installed (even just one), add underwater torpedo tubes, will bugout then.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

British CL Hulls.

For Custom Battles database ‘Semi-Armored Cruiser I' hull, its availability timeline dates seems out of place, it’s a higher tech item than 'Light Cruiser II' but is available before it and is unavailable sooner...

Light Cruiser I                       1890--------------------1908
Light Cruiser II                                       1893----------------1919
Semi- Armored Cruiser I             1892----------------1908
Semi- Armored Cruiser II                               1902-----------1919
Semi- Armored Cruiser III                                      1903------1919
Modern Light Cruiser                                                                        1920---1940

Compared to DDs timeline…

British DD Hulls.

Torpedo Boat                       1890-------------1908
Torpedo Boat Destroyer              1898--------1908
Destroyer I                                            1899---1908
Destroyer II                                                                 1909---1912
Destroyer III                                                                                    1913--------------------1940
Destroyer IV                                                                                          1918----------------1940
Modern Destroyer(Light)                                                                             1920-----------1940
Modern Destroyer (Standard)                                                                             1921-------1940
Modern Destroyer(Leader)                                                                                        1922---1940


Maybe some hulls availability should overlap each other...
'Destroyer I'  overlaps 'Destroyer II', make available to 1912? (for example).
'Destroyer II'  overlaps 'Destroyer III', make available to 1915?
'Semi- Armored Cruiser III'  overlaps 'Modern Light Cruiser', make available to 1925?

And there's a big gap between 'Semi- Armored Cruiser III', 1903, and 'Modern Light Cruiser', 1920, no new hulls in this time period. Are there some in development for at least the 1910 decade or else if some exists can they be made available e.g. 'Experimental Cruiser' hull.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Custom Battles data...

Heavy Cruiser II available date is out of place compared with its successor Heavy Cruiser III....  

British CA hulls.

Armored Cruiser I             1890---1893    
Armored Cruiser III                                1894---------1908    
Armored Cruiser IV                                        1897---------1919    
Armored Cruiser V                                                 1900----1919
Heavy Cruiser I                                                                            1920------------1940
Heavy Cruiser II                                                                                          1936---1940
Heavy Cruiser III                                                                                 1925--------1940 


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see transverse bulkheads added to the ship designer. Without it you can build a ship with massive amounts of deck armor, no belt armor and simply nose in against the enemy and there isn't anything they can do about it once you close the range and eliminate plunging fire. 


Thank you for your consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Detection Terminology

In designer tool we have two sections both named 'Detection' and each have an item displaying 'Surface Visibility' but each value is different...

ktAK9Z5.pngWhich one is correct?


PS, update, I’ve since got a handle on this (if I have got it correct?) and now know that…

1) The terminology is very confusing e.g. Visible and Visibility are synonym the same but are actually referring to two different elements in-game i.e. Visible Range to be spotted and Surface Visibility to spot something.

2) But Visible Range isn’t used in game because to be spotted is actually based on the unit location and not on any range. This could/should be removed altogether - to clear confusion.   

3) And it would be helpful if we have "Total Surface Visibility" range on display.




Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Would like to see Hull Options for historically accurate ship classes as well. Such as for the British a KGV class with the set tonnage, same with Iowa class, etc. you can get close now but its not the same and yes a save feature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Now I know this idea is not realistic nor historically accurate but I thought the idea of side platforms on larger warships would be really cool and it would help side mounted main guns have better angles when aiming. I got this idea because I remember a mobile game where big gun platforms would be installed after doing what the game calls "remodeling" now im not talking about ripping off that game but if we could add gun platforms on the sides of our larger ships for side mounted main guns it would be very interesting to see how that plays out. Let me know what you guy's thoughts are on the idea. I dont expect this idea to be added but its an interesting idea nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The new predreadnought battleship hull does not allow you to place large turrets (greater than 12") on the fore position due to overlap with the primary tower model. Tested with Germany; I think it may vary based on exact turret model.


And generally it is impossible to balance predreadnoughts fore-aft. Is this intentional (to reduce accuracy in that era)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies if this is in wrong topic...

I tried to design Japanese battlecruiser in custom battles in 1929 - I found there is a bug/issue with Modern Secondary Tower IV where the place for funnel is too small to accommodate available funnels (Super Funnel small and Super Funnel large). Could you please either make other funnels available or make at least small Super Funnel fit the Mondern Secondary Tower IV? Thank you and keep up with the greaat job!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

As of right now the only main tower for American modern and super battleships is the same tower design on the Iowa in real life in 3 different variants. I'm not criticizing but it would add some historical accuracy if we also had the Montana main tower for when we make huge battleships with 4 centerline turrets. if you guys don't know what I mean, when yall look at World of Warships you will notice Iowa and Montana have slightly different superstructures.image.thumb.png.a20d5b6a08087b1c448385ea0523de58.png 


as yall can see the towers in front of the first funnel have slightly different shapes while everything else looks nearly the same. now again im not asking for historical accuracy but it would be nice to have another American main tower with a different shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure its likely been mentioned somewhere in here however going through every single post to look for it is a little tedious ANYWAYS the thing I'd like to see intermediate calibers however I'll list through the current ranges you have atm 2-20 inch guns also in the time selections you provide 1890-1945 (both primary and secondaries,mainly secondaries really) aside from the standard 1 inch increments (except the 15" i mentioned for Italy 381mm,doesn't really matter though just 1mm XD) there are the following:

2.2" (57mm quite common with various nations)

2.6" (66mm old Austro-Hungarian and France)

2.8" (70mm only ever used by Spain though from about 1879 to the 1900s)

3.5" (88-90mm,88s exclusive to Germany except 1 Swedish Bofors AA weapon,90mm were widely used by numerous nations)

3.9" (100mm Widely used)

4.1" (105mm,again mainly exclusive to Germany and again Sweden had one as well)

4.4" (113mm exclusive to British lol)

4.7" (120mm gun,widely used)

5.1" (130mm mainly used by Russia and France)

5.2" (133mm,optional really i don't necessarily care about it but im listing anyways,exclusively British)

5.4" (138mm exclusive to France i believe)

5.5" (140mm,mainly Japan)

5.87" (150mm mainly Germany)

6.1" (155mm France and Japan)

7.1" (180mm Spain early on and Russia)

7.50" (190.5mm mainly British)

7.6" (194mm exclusive to France)

7.9" (200mm used by spain from about 1880 to 1910s)

8.3" (210mm,exclusive to Germany)

9.2" (234mm exclusively British)

9.4" (240mm mainly Germany and a French one as well)

10.8" (274mm exclusive to France)

11.1" (283mm mostly used by Germany)

13.5" (343mm older British guns)

15.0" (381mm mainly Italy)

16.25" (412.8mm 1890s British) 

And that's all i have,i probably missed some though however there are numerous less than 2 inches but those along with the 2.2" really were used mainly for AA,i hope you guys at least give this a consideration on a side note while ive seen mention of a caliber size sliding adjuster this would be really cool to create your own caliber there's quite a bit of science/numerous calculations amongst other things to find out their ballistics,velocities,penetration,range explosive composition used and shell quality AND probably even more variables so this would very complicated so its not the best of ideas however i hope you give consideration to intermediate calibers,would definitely be cool :D ty for the amazing game keep up the great work!


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...