>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<

[Zak MacKay]

Bellow is the arcs of the gun on my destroyer which is getting a bad arc warning. I assume the warning is because its pointing forward and has a bad arc forward. But it has a very good arc when firing broadside and can fire somewhat forward. So when compared to most of my other guns it has a very good firing arc. I don't think this is a poor placement and just it looking too heavily at one place.

 

[puxflacet]

Hi there,

Just want to say that I love what I've seen so far from the game and it looks very promising!

 

But I would like to point out one issue, which I consider major imho. I noticed that some players already, and even AI itself, have a tendency to place main gun turrets very far apart. Usually they are placing one in the very back of the ship to give it best firing arcs.

However, there is a major problem with this and good reason why this was not done IRL (except for BCs). The main issue is that if you place turrets very far apart, you are lenghtening the whole citadel (since the magazines naturally have to be under the turrets) therefore the ship needs longer main belt to protect it, which translates into more weight and stronger machinery but also proning the ship to fatal blow. Therefore the tendency IRL was to rather cluster the turrets as close as possible even if that meant bad firing arcs.

Right now nothing seems to address this. You can adjust thickness of the belt, but nothig is telling you where exactly that belt starts and ends. And you can place the turrets pretty much wherever you want. I think game have to model the main belt + citadel and these have to be shown when player is placing the main turrets and UI has to clearly show that shifting position of that turret is also adjusting length of the belt+citadel and adjusting the weight of the ship accordingly.

(...and I think that showing placement of engine rooms also have close relation to this topic...although funnels right now do the job)

Edited October 11, 2019 by puxflacet

[Nick Thomadis]

On 10/10/2019 at 5:49 AM, Jatzi said:

Oh I've noticed something about ammo. On the design screen when you hover over a turret it'll say so many rounds per gun. Then in combat that number doesn't add up to the number of rounds you get. Is it actually number of rounds per turret rather than per gun? Cuz I saw like 200 rounds per gun and only had like 600 rounds when I had 9 guns. 200 per the three turrets makes sense but not per 9 guns. That being said 200 rounds per turret sounds really low so if that's the case maybe it should be upped?

The ammo is calculated per gun (not turret). It should sum up fine, but we will double check.

18 hours ago, halfmanhalfsquidman said:

2) Mor flex on rear tower placement too.  For example in the BC vs BB battle that BC hull design we are given ends up with a big dumb gap in the middle of the towers that is too small to fit a turret in as was done historically and I can't scootch the rear tower forward to fix weight imbalance issues. Give me the freedom to play out my naval architect fantasies!

Noting to check.

18 hours ago, halfmanhalfsquidman said:

3) I know it has been suggested we auto-build and then tweak, would it be possible to also have some histroical archetypes we could select and then adjust? IE give me a Yamato or Hood and let me edit those.

Yamato hull will receive further flexibility. Hood type hull is planned to be offered in next updates.

11 hours ago, Skoggatt said:

-Citadel: Right now Citadel is just a flat series of upgrades you can choose for any ship based on tech. Unlike armor composition though, it doesn't make sense that all your ships start with protected deck and work their way up through armored citadel and turtle back armor to all or nothing. Many of these configurations only apply to some types of ships. The protected deck scheme is what makes a protected cruiser a protected cruiser as opposed to an armored cruiser with a traditional belt. It would make more sense if these schemes were tied to the different hull choices. Protected deck for protected cruisers, armored belt for armored cruisers, battleships and later light cruisers. Add in turtleback or all or nothing armor on later versions of battleship or cruiser hulls as tech advances. I also don't like that all or nothing armor gives percent buffs and nerfs to different armor qualities and costs, when it should instead eliminate extended belt and deck armor while reducing penalties for damage to the bulkheads under those areas. 

Already planning to apply more related details to this system. Noting down your request.

11 hours ago, Skoggatt said:

-AI designs: I know the game is about designing ships that didn't actually exist, and that extends to the AI as well. However, I think there should be a bit more limitation on what the AI will consider. I've seen some dreadnought designs with 12", 8", 7", 6", 5", and 3" guns mounted all at once. Even for a pre-dreadnought that many calibers of guns of similar size is pretty unlikely, and it goes against what the dreadnought is about. Maybe there should be debuffs to accuracy at medium/long range when multiple guns of similar calibers are firing at the same target to discourage this type of design for both the player and the AI. Historically it was difficult to distinguish the shell splashes from such similar calibers of guns, which is one reason the dreadnought beat out the semi-dreadnought.

Pending feature for the next updates, but already, the multi-caliber guns are less effective in aiming that uniform batteries. We will emphasize further this effect.

[Nick Thomadis]

We will address this in next updates!

[Entropy Avatar]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We will address this in next updates!

Is the weight and cost for armour calculated geometrically, based on the surface area that needs to be covered?

[halfmanhalfsquidman]

Nick, thanks for paying such close attention to all the input from us in the peanut gallery.  I know you've got to feel like you've been told the same thing by a ton of people and that you've received far more input than you could possibly prioritize and implement. I just wanted to say thanks and I appreciate all the effort and engagement you've shown to incorporate feedback.

 

As for ship building, barbette placement seems a little unduly constricted. See screenshot. Once I had the funnels placed and stuff I wasn't able to do superfiring without the big silly gap on deck.

I'd also find it helpful if we knew how much funnel capacity we needed when selecting funnels. Right now I kinda have to guess and check based on my engine effeciency number. If this info is already available it might not be well displayed.

I'd also like to throw my name on the list of individuals requesting an ability to save/name ships. While I'm on the naming point, you obviously have some lists that the ship names come from by class.  Maybe it would be good to allow players to slect naming conventions by class (probably in campaign) i.e. when designing a class a US player could select Cities, States, Presidents, Battles, Classics (Enterprise, Bonhomme Richard, Constellation, etc) and then additional ships built in that class are given a name from that list.

Edited October 11, 2019 by halfmanhalfsquidman

[Wakelessrex]

I decided to bite the bullet and buy into the alpha despite my bad cash situation because naval warfare games, and especially with emphasis on realism are my jam and this game has so much potential. 
I would like to agree with and suggest changes on a number of the designer features, I have taken quite a few in game shots to clarify the issues and I think others are having as well as some suggestions I have.


The placement restrictions on Towers, Guns, funnels and Barbettes are pretty steep. It would be appreciated to make them much more lax, currently trying to get the most out of a hull with the tower hardpoints can be difficult (such as Yamato on full displacement and a few others) Barbettes similarly are very weirdly restricted in some cases, again the Yamato at full displacement comes to mind but quite a few ships have this issue. Photos to illustrate.

Here we can see that I cannot place a barbette close to my rear superstructure only away from it, this would not allow for super firing turret arrangement and makes the barbette somewhat pointless. As well as being less fun.


Here on the Yamato (full displacement) ive marked in red where there are no hardpoints and thus cannot have placed Towers or barbettes. This heavily restricts the turret configuration of this max displacement Yamato build.

here we have one of the BC hulls which is fairly restrictive in my mind. The two tower sections don't have much room to be placed on the hull. In addition there seems to be only some areas where funnels can be placed even if there is more than enough room with another hardpoint added, as in this picture. if there were another hardpoint for the funnel, or better yet many more than I would not have run into a design issue that I should not have.

Here is another problem area the tower placement on this hull is very restrictive which then has an effect on what kind of turret you can put on the back of the superstructure. In this case there is plenty of actual room to move the back tower up the hull in order to accommodate the turret and have a larger back tower, but the hardpoints wont allow for it.


This is just an image to illustrate how restrictive the system can be in certain instance. IMO.
the superstructure of the front tower can only be placed on these four hardpoints but it attaches to the front of the structure, thus the most forward position and the most rear (where it is currently) does not include a great variation.


This is an interesting one because im unsure if this is supposed to have this functionality. This rear tower structure cannot be placed on the furthest back hardpoint because of the overhang presumably. I do not think that with the proper structure supports that would be an issue at all. and it even looks rather good I think and makes a new interesting design. Moreover the interesting bit is that this piece of equipment is the only in the designer ive seen yet that actually has supports built into the model. They are sections that if placed forward on the hull would be under the deck but are visible in this photo as structural foundations.


I have two photos now to illustrate that I think that weapon placement is very restrictive and weirdly so, I get that you want to keep some restriction for your own ideal of realism or so the AI can better handle the designer but I think this could be tweaked greatly even within a conservative model. I showcase here that I cannot put even one 4" gun in the space here on the deck that I have when realistically I think I should be able to place at least 4 in there if the player should so choose.



I felt like Collating images of the issues I found, and I thinks others have in game to better give you an idea of what we are talking about. That said I would also like to offer some suggestions specifically for the designer and ask a few questions as well.

I think it would be very cool and especially appreciated to have more towers types, a greater variety and a greater selection for each hull. One of the largest factors in differentiating large warships is there above deck superstructure and its various appendages, it can really make or break the aesthetic of the ship as well as its functionality and I think we could use a little more variety there (I know you've said 80+ hulls and that likely means many more towers to come but even if that is the case I would love a greater selection per ship) As a for instance I personally LOOOVE the Japanese pagoda style superstructures, I know they are late period but I would really love if they are accessible to many hull types not just the historical classes that had them. After all the Kongo class was british made and she has one of the most beautiful superstructures around. I assume that in campaign we will have access to more than just a small selection of our own nations hull types for this suggestion.

In addition I would like to suggest the ability to either add pieces to the superstructure or new tower types with added sections. As a for instance many of the towers in game already have built in hardpoints for casemates and turrets, which is awesome. More of that and perhaps the ability to add sections like that to our hulls. This would be especially useful for fitting more small caliber guns onto a ship with space oddities like the BC examples Ive shown.

Here is an example of the middle portion of the Dreadnought hull type, it is a superstructure with hardpoints for both casemates and funnels. (I am talking about the middle section there)
It would be awesome to be able to place this on other ship hull types or other variations of superstructure like this.


In addition to this I do have another concern I have a love of torpedo bulges, I find them to be sexy and functional. However I have yet to see any in game, and more concerning upgrading it in the menu doesn't seem to actually give any girth to these ships. I really hope the final version of the game includes actual Torpedo bulges?
Not all torpedo bulges were visible from the waterline but most were I believe and some very much so. For instance the first refit of the HMS Warspite. Please tell me I will either be able to add this to hulls in game or there will be a hull for this class?



Or for an earlier example the HMS Glatton, where its physical Torpedo bulge is very present.




Finally as it pertains to what ships and ship parts are going to be in game. Will the final release of the game have both the hull types and ship parts to make my two favorite ships In their late war configurations. The HMS Warspite (Queen Elizabeth Class) and the Kongo Class Battle Cruiser?

Edited October 12, 2019 by Wakelessrex

[Fangsea]

Really enjoying the game and I know some technology needs to have a game feature but Triple Expansion engines should have the speed increase over turbines but have an exponential increase in engine weight over 21kts as historically that is where turbine engines shown at but the Triple expansion engines were more economical and better characteristics at slower speed. Being historical and would make for some interesting decisions in campaign mode as you design a slower ship so use older style engines and save cost and upkeep. 

[Niomedes]

 

1 hour ago, Wakelessrex said:

I have two photos now to illustrate that I think that weapon placement is very restrictive and weirdly so, I get that you want to keep some restriction for your own ideal of realism or so the AI can better handle the designer but I think this could be tweaked greatly even within a conservative model. I showcase here that I cannot put even one 4" gun in the space here on the deck that I have when realistically I think I should be able to place at least 4 in there if the player should so choose.



I felt like Collating images of the issues I found, and I thinks others have in game to better give you an idea of what we are talking about. That said I would also like to offer some suggestions specifically for the designer and ask a few questions as well.

There is no room for any turrets there, unless your objective is to purpousfully reduce the firing Arcs of the 12 inch gun there. And that would honestly be a stupid Idea, since main guns should always have the best possible firing Arcs.

[Wakelessrex]

1 hour ago, Niomedes said:

 

There is no room for any turrets there, unless your objective is to purpousfully reduce the firing Arcs of the 12 inch gun there. And that would honestly be a stupid Idea, since main guns should always have the best possible firing Arcs.

In that particular case the objective might be for instance to have a heavier broadside. Or there could be other scenarios, placement of guns should not be solely left to what you think is not a "stupid" idea. Not to mention this is already allowed in game in other configurations.

As a for instance the first image you quoted would only have affected the 12" turret directly to stern in arc, if even that much no more than that 6" further down.
Here we can see an AI ship with two side turrets, you may call this "stupid" but I don't think it should not be allowed.


The designer I should hope is meant to allow players freedom to create what they want with the tools they are given. Sure within some bounds if you like but obscuring slightly firing arcs is hardly unreasonable for a ships weapon designs, lots of that in historical precedent to the extent those 4" guns would have obscured that 12" turret. Especially that first image.

[Niomedes]

2 hours ago, Wakelessrex said:

In that particular case the objective might be for instance to have a heavier broadside. Or there could be other scenarios, placement of guns should not be solely left to what you think is not a "stupid" idea. Not to mention this is already allowed in game in other configurations.
 

It's not about what I think is a stupid idea indeed. It's rather that anyone with even a crude grasp on naval warfare would tell you that this is a stupid Idea. I mean, why would you EVER limit the firing arc of your main battery if you don't absolutely have to do so. Also, you're not substantially increading the weight of your broadside substantially by adding a 4 inch.
 

2 hours ago, Wakelessrex said:

As a for instance the first image you quoted would only have affected the 12" turret directly to stern in arc, if even that much no more than that 6" further down.
Here we can see an AI ship with two side turrets, you may call this "stupid" but I don't think it should not be allowed.

 

This on the other hand isn't stupid, and I wouldn't call it stupid either. In contrast to the first picture I responded to, the two guns in this picture can actually rotate 180 degrees and are thusly NOT restricted in their firing arc. They're far enough apart for their barrels not to collide with the gunhouses of each other. Furthermore, those are main battery turrets of a large calibre, which means that they're going to fire with relatively high arcs most of the time, which in turn means that both turrets will almost always be able to fire in their full firing arc due to them firing over each other in those fringe cases in which they're engaging a target directly behind or in front of them.  

2 hours ago, Wakelessrex said:

The designer I should hope is meant to allow players freedom to create what they want with the tools they are given. Sure within some bounds if you like but obscuring slightly firing arcs is hardly unreasonable for a ships weapon designs, lots of that in historical precedent to the extent those 4" guns would have obscured that 12" turret. Especially that first image.

What you presented in the first picture isn't just slightly obscuring the firing arc, it's completely preventing the main battery turret to rotate to 180°, or even over more than roughly 100°. And there is no precedent for something like this being present on any Dreadnought or later ship. The only ships with similiar setups I can recall are french Pre dreadnoughts, and they're kinda notorious for their Ill-conceived designs.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Niomedes

[Christian]

4 hours ago, Niomedes said:

It's not about what I think is a stupid idea indeed. It's rather that anyone with even a crude grasp on naval warfare would tell you that this is a stupid Idea. I mean, why would you EVER limit the firing arc of your main battery if you don't absolutely have to do so. Also, you're not substantially increading the weight of your broadside substantially by adding a 4 inch.
 

This on the other hand isn't stupid, and I wouldn't call it stupid either. In contrast to the first picture I responded to, the two guns in this picture can actually rotate 180 degrees and are thusly NOT restricted in their firing arc. They're far enough apart for their barrels not to collide with the gunhouses of each other. Furthermore, those are main battery turrets of a large calibre, which means that they're going to fire with relatively high arcs most of the time, which in turn means that both turrets will almost always be able to fire in their full firing arc due to them firing over each other in those fringe cases in which they're engaging a target directly behind or in front of them.  

What you presented in the first picture isn't just slightly obscuring the firing arc, it's completely preventing the main battery turret to rotate to 180°, or even over more than roughly 100°. And there is no precedent for something like this being present on any Dreadnought or later ship. The only ships with similiar setups I can recall are french Pre dreadnoughts, and they're kinda notorious for their Ill-conceived designs.

there is absolutely no reason why he shouldnt be allowed to place a 4 inch gun there though

several ships had bad turret designs for extra guns example french pre dread

which again limits the small turrets fire arc dramatically 

Quote

"It's not about what I think is a stupid idea indeed. It's rather that anyone with even a crude grasp on naval warfare would tell you that this is a stupid Idea. I mean, why would you EVER limit the firing arc of your main battery if you don't absolutely have to do so. Also, you're not substantially increading the weight of your broadside substantially by adding a 4 inch." 

maybe but there is still no reason to limit design creativity when there is clearly space for a deck gun

and as can be see here

the 9 inch double turrets in front significantly decrease the 12 inch main turrets arc of fire 

and when ships as hideously flawed as viribus unitis existed in real life i see no reason we cant have them in game

Quote

"This on the other hand isn't stupid, and I wouldn't call it stupid either. In contrast to the first picture I responded to, the two guns in this picture can actually rotate 180 degrees and are thusly NOT restricted in their firing arc." (not taking the intire quote since it was long)

that may be true but placing those 4 wing turrets is essentially doing what the nassau did and is probably one of the worst things you can do 

said ship already has 4 centerline twin turrets all with atleast 200 degree angles of fire there is no reason to sacrifice what is probably around 2-5k tons on extra turrets

said tonnage is much better spent on better armor as 2 of those turrets will never fire when facing broadside

in short having wing turrets in such a layout is a waste of tonnage which would have been alot more usefull

such as moving the thunnel further foreward and getting a 5th centerline turret 

 

Quote

"which means that they're going to fire with relatively high arcs most of the time, which in turn means that both turrets will almost always be able to fire in their full firing arc due to them firing over each other in those fringe cases in which they're engaging a target directly behind or in front of them. "

these are dreadnought turrets you are lucky to get 25 degrees of elevation you would hit the in front turret in addition to that in order to get 25 degrees of elevation on those guns you need a range in excess of 15km at which distance you wont hit and will run out of ammo before you win

also what prevents the main turret from shooting over the 4 inch gun? which is significantly smaller than the main turret ?

its a dreadnought which is using mixed caliber main guns (not good idea to begin with yet its not disallowed) but we cant sacrifice what is basically 10 degrees angle of fire for a 4 inch gun ?

also we can already place small guns in front of big guns basically making them unable to fire directly forewards i see no reason why we shouldnt be able to limit the firing arcs of bgig guns even more by placing additional armaments 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Christian

[Tankaxe]

In regards to the secondaries placement above it should be considered if they are armored enough to withstand the shock waves of capital ship armnements. If it was a  duel mounted turret armored enough that the ship can fire it's main guns with out worry of killing the crew on the secondary batteries then yes it should be allowed. If it was an open gun with just a gunshield like what we see the single 4" gun then yes it should be restrictive. Albeit in a more clear way like "gun turret is not armored enough to be mounted near main battery guns."

Edited October 12, 2019 by Tankaxe
Clarify

[akd]

4 hours ago, Christian said:

also what prevents the main turret from shooting over the 4 inch gun? which is significantly smaller than the main turret ?

 

Killing everyone manning the 4in gun and probably disabling the gun itself.  Game is already very generous with allowances for superfiring guns and cross deck fire with no chance of damage.

[Niomedes]

4 hours ago, Christian said:

there is absolutely no reason why he shouldnt be allowed to place a 4 inch gun there though

several ships had bad turret designs for extra guns example french pre dread

which again limits the small turrets fire arc dramatically 

maybe but there is still no reason to limit design creativity when there is clearly space for a deck gun

and as can be see here

 

That's the very french Pre Dreadnought I was talking about when mentioning that it was discontinued for a reason. But even here, the firing arcs are still at about 140°, while the Main gun retains 180°. So it's still superior to the setup you want to have, while still being discontinued for being bad.

4 hours ago, Christian said:

these are dreadnought turrets you are lucky to get 25 degrees of elevation you would hit the in front turret in addition to that in order to get 25 degrees of elevation on those guns you need a range in excess of 15km at which distance you wont hit and will run out of ammo before you win

also what prevents the main turret from shooting over the 4 inch gun? which is significantly smaller than the main turret ?

its a dreadnought which is using mixed caliber main guns (not good idea to begin with yet its not disallowed) but we cant sacrifice what is basically 10 degrees angle of fire for a 4 inch gun ?

also we can already place small guns in front of big guns basically making them unable to fire directly forewards i see no reason why we shouldnt be able to limit the firing arcs of bgig guns even more by placing additional armaments 

Those 25 degrees are still more than enough to fire over the turret. As to what prevents the Main turret from shooting over the 4 inch gun ? Well... The gun blast, which is going to cook the 4 inch gun's crew alive, and rip it clean off the ships hull. 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Niomedes

[Christian]

1 hour ago, akd said:

Killing everyone manning the 4in gun and probably disabling the gun itself.  Game is already very generous with allowances for superfiring guns and cross deck fire with no chance of damage.

generally when firing close to non enclosed secondaries they would be unmanned

this is also why in ww2 when unarmored AA guns had to be used against aircraft the main guns could not be used because they would quite literally splatter the intire crew on deck (one of the reasons yamatos broadside AA mounts are enclosed so that she could battle enemy ships while not destroying half her AA battery they also granted protection against strafing runs shrapnell and all other bad things generally associated with plane attacks)

this was less a problem with 12 inch guns but yes was still a problem

when for example the guns were firing with barrels close to the superstructure the over pressure could kill and thus the crew had to be moved away or behind something so they did not die

but yeah having a non enclosed mount would make it basically useless

however the restriction is also on enclosed mounts which makes minimal sense as they should be able to be placed in the main guns blast zone

 

also cross deck fire and superimposed turrets do not damage the ship itself 

cross deck fire is more dangerous yes (because the muzzle blast basically happens right in the middle of the ship) but it still does not cause enough damage to destroy pieces of the superstructure or anything along those lines

at most it would rip floorboards made of wood up but considering the light size of the guns (sub 14 inch) that is also unlikely to happen

 

superimposed turrets dont damage each other even when firing over each other as the USS olympia showed and subsequently basically every ww2 battleship

guns have alot of power but generally the muzzle blast is not powerfull to rip mounts or anything off the deck 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Christian

[Christian]

16 minutes ago, Niomedes said:

That's the very french Pre Dreadnought I was talking about when mentioning that it was discontinued for a reason. But even here, the firing arcs are still at about 140°, while the Main gun retains 180°. So it's still superior to the setup you want to have, while still being discontinued for being bad.

Those 25 degrees are still more than enough to fire over the turret. As to what prevents the Main turret from shooting over the 4 inch gun ? Well... The gun blast, which is going to cook the 4 inch gun's crew alive, and rip it clean off the ships hull. 

the 25 degrees of elevation was the best you could get from guns in the dreadnought era unless you are russian you need to stick with 15 or under until you get 14 inch guns

also looking at the ship it wouldn't be able to fire the guns directly forwards in that setup anyway since the bridge is in the way

and unless you wanna fireball half the bridge on each side by 4 giant fireballs and clouds of smoke not only roasting anyone not behind several metal walls in that superstructure but also choking anyone in there out with smoke go ahead 

 

 british 12 inch guns were limited to 13.5 degrees of elevation until they got 13.5 inch guns

guns from the united states were limited to 15 degrees of elevation until they got 14 inch guns

japanese 12 inchers were also limited to 15 degrees elevation

russian guns however could do 25 degrees of elevation

german ships first 13.5 degrees upgraded they could do 16 degrees

also if it was the case that they could fire over each other ships like the nassau would be able to fire 5 turrets while facing forwards towards the enemy which was not the case

considering the gunhouse shape id say british guns

things like these would also be able to fire over its own turrets (spoiler it cant and has to have all barrels of the aft mid turret clear of the turret in front to fire without causing damage to the one in front) 

also to be noted the 2 small secondary turrets on the rear next to the big turret

the rear main gun could still fire right over them without having to elevate its barrels 

i think we should have the ability to place guns so close to the main guns even if it limits the firing angles i can perfectly understand the main guns firing angles being very heavily effected by this but i still feel smaller guns should be able to be placed in areas like that

Quote

and rip it clean off the ships hull. 

this would not be the case as has been demonstrated with ww2 battleships

 

as can be seen there is no lack of 20mm oerlikons or 40mm bofors mounts right in front of the muzzle of the 16 inch guns 

despite ships like iowa having significantly more firepower than a 12 inch gun

for comparison the 12 inch gun used by the british had a 117kg propellant charge the iowa had a 299kg propellant charge almost 3 times as much

id also like to note the 4 inch gun IS SHIELDED but only from the front this would allow the gun to be placed close to the 12 inch gun and the front shield would protect the 4 inch guns crew from the majority of the blast (its accuracy is probably gonna be effected but they wont have injuries)

as seen in the picture the 12 inch guns barrels are longer than the 4 inch gun is away thus the muzzle would extend past the gunshield if the gun could elevate above the 4 inch gun

(which would probably be complicated to do in terms of the game so it would be alot more simple to just limit the firing arcs while at the same time having minimal game impact few people would place 4 inch guns in such locations) 

and the gunshield would provide enough protection to keep you relatively safe from the blast

 

 

however this would likely not work as while the 4 inch has a gunshield its too far away to be usefull and if the gun is facing any direction except towards the 12 inch gun while the 12 inch gun fires in the direction of the 4 inch gun the 4 inch gun crew is most likely dead due to being directly in front of the muzzle blast

we should be able to place enclosed secondaries anywhere as long as there is enough space damned the firing angle consequences

 

also the ship pictured here (the USS Maine) has cross deck firing

but its important to note the rear gun if fully elevated to its glorious 13,5 degree elevation would basically make a giant fireball right next to the 37mm gatling gun and the walkway said 37mm gatling gun is its anti torpedo boat guns and both are quite likely to be used at once if torpedo boats are present

this would also be true for whenever the ship was firing both guns directly aft at high elevation or directly forwards at high elevation 

 

[Wakelessrex]

1 hour ago, akd said:

Killing everyone manning the 4in gun and probably disabling the gun itself.  Game is already very generous with allowances for superfiring guns and cross deck fire with no chance of damage.

Its not very generous its inconsistent. Heres and example of what you can do which if we just decided to only take what Niomedes considers to be acceptable doesn't seem to fit. Though you can do it currently in game.


Now heres two more examples of what you cant do in game that both do not interfere with the arc at all and especially in the second case aren't really in danger of killing the crew. Even though I don't consider that A good argument, the guns can be unmanned until they are needed, they most certainly would be able to be used in broadsides for instance and more likely to defend the large ship against small craft the large guns would have trouble hitting.





Finally @Niomedes the justification that we should not be able to have more freedom in armament placement in a designer is because you believe that it is a stupid idea is pretty poor. IMO
or "It's rather that anyone with even a crude grasp on naval warfare would tell you that this is a stupid Idea"
I mean that are lots of historical examples that with hindsight we can say that, doesn't mean they didn't exist or should be discounted. Especially in a designer that should offer freedom in experimentation.
I think wing turrets are a "stupid idea" but I recognize that is my opinion and that they are historical and moreover they should be allowed in the designer.

Moreover there is LOTS of "stupid" things you can do in the designer now, would you totally disallow these?
Such as making a dreadnought with 0" of armour everywhere except for a 4" belt.


Anyway these suggestions were for the Design team, Nick.

Not really for the peanut gallery to decide hopefully he appreciates the feedback.

[Christian]

even if non armored turrets are not allowed to be placed next to main guns

 

armored turrets should at least be able to be placed next to them

Edited October 12, 2019 by Christian

[Wakelessrex]

1 minute ago, Christian said:

even if non armored turrets are not allowed to be placed next to main guns

 

armored turrets should at least be able to be placed next to them

Yes I agree, though I would go one step further in saying I think most of the restrictions on gun placement should be done away with as you mentioned in your last post. I think for instance you should be able to place a 3 or 4 4" guns in the section I made a pic of earlier but that it should also probably affect its arc of fire (as well as all the other additional factors). There you have more options with consequences which is what imo makes a fun designer.

[Niomedes]

7 minutes ago, Christian said:

the 25 degrees of elevation was the best you could get from guns in the dreadnought era unless you are russian you need to stick with 15 or under until you get 14 inch guns

also looking at the ship it wouldn't be able to fire the guns directly forwards in that setup anyway since the bridge is in the way

and unless you wanna fireball half the bridge on each side by 4 giant fireballs and clouds of smoke not only roasting anyone not behind several metal walls in that superstructure but also choking anyone in there out with smoke go ahead 

 

 british 12 inch guns were limited to 13.5 degrees of elevation until they got 13.5 inch guns

guns from the united states were limited to 15 degrees of elevation until they got 14 inch guns

japanese 12 inchers were also limited to 15 degrees elevation

russian guns however could do 25 degrees of elevation

german ships first 13.5 degrees upgraded they could do 16 degrees

also if it was the case that they could fire over each other ships like the nassau would be able to fire 5 turrets while facing forwards towards the enemy which was not the case

considering the gunhouse shape id say british guns

Guns in the game seem to in general have much higher elevations than even 25°, which allow them to fire over each other when engaging distant targets perfectly well in most battles. Firing directly forward however, isn't possible due to the placement of the superstructure anyways, so the setup works perfectly in its own context.

10 minutes ago, Christian said:

this would not be the case as has been demonstrated with ww2 battleships

 

as can be seen there is no lack of 20mm oerlikons or 40mm bofors mounts right in front of the muzzle of the 16 inch guns 

despite ships like iowa having significantly more firepower than a 12 inch gun

for comparison the 12 inch gun used by the british had a 117kg propellant charge the iowa had a 299kg propellant charge almost 3 times as much

id also like to note the 4 inch gun IS SHIELDED but only from the front this would allow the gun to be placed close to the 12 inch gun and the front shield would protect the 4 inch guns crew from the majority of the blast (its accuracy is probably gonna be effected but they wont have injuries)

as seen in the picture the 12 inch guns barrels are longer than the 4 inch gun is away thus the muzzle would extend past the gunshield if the gun could elevate above the 4 inch gun

Iowa can't fire forward at an angle which would put the mounts of the Anti Aircraft guns in front of its main abttery at risk anyways, so placing it there isn't a problem. Aside of that, those guns wouldn't be crewed during a regular gun battle, but only during anti Air operations. This is entirely different from your suggestion of placing a gunhouse-less secondary right in the firing arc and blast radius of a main gun.

 

18 minutes ago, Christian said:

 

also the ship pictured here (the USS Maine) has cross deck firing

but its important to note the rear gun if fully elevated to its glorious 13,5 degree elevation would basically make a giant fireball right next to the 37mm gatling gun and the walkway said 37mm gatling gun is its anti torpedo boat guns and both are quite likely to be used at once if torpedo boats are present

this would also be true for whenever the ship was firing both guns directly aft at high elevation or directly forwards at high elevation 

 

First of all, crossdeck firing was eliminated for a reason. Second, the design choices which lead to the placement of Anti torpedo boat guns in the blast zones of larger weapons were informed by the notion that Torpedo boat attacks wouldn't occur during gun battles, which turned out to be wrong. That's also the reason why all secondaries on later vessels tend to be placed somewhere where they are not a threat of being subjected to the blast of a main gun.

18 minutes ago, Christian said:

we should be able to place enclosed secondaries anywhere as long as there is enough space damned the firing angle consequences

Why though ?

[Christian]

first of all

Quote

"Guns in the game seem to in general have much higher elevations than even 25"

they dont the 12 inch guns in game dont have more than 13,5 degrees of elevation (13,5 degrees elevation still allows for 18km range)

Quote

Iowa can't fire forward at an angle which would put the mounts of the Anti Aircraft guns in front of its main abttery at risk anyways, so placing it there isn't a problem. Aside of that, those guns wouldn't be crewed during a regular gun battle, but only during anti Air operations. This is entirely different from your suggestion of placing a gunhouse-less secondary right in the firing arc and blast radius of a main gun.

why would iowa be unable to fire forwards at an angle ?

ive heard of people saying the iowa couldnt fire directly forewards with 2 turrets for some reason with no backup for that claim ive also heard people say the same about the yamato but also no backup source despite the fact the ship was rated by the japanese to handle even more recoil which prompted the development of 51cm guns which were cancelled in 1941 after pearl harbor after one gun had been completed out of the 2 guns and one mount ordered 

if that is the claim then please source it

https://wwiiafterwwii.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/missourifiring.jpg?w=809

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Qg5_VZws--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1276763157872328774.jpg

3 examples of iowa firing at an angle forewards

either way it dosent matter because the rear turret is also covered with 20mm guns around the muzzle and in this case the rear turret has 20mm guns around its muzzle in almost a 30 degree arc 

not to mention a 40mm gun right next to one of the barrels when its firing broadside 

Quote

Aside of that, those guns wouldn't be crewed during a regular gun battle,

that was not the original claim though the claim was that the gun would be ripped off which is not the case

the 20mm guns are also significantly smaller than the 4 inch guns 

Quote

As to what prevents the Main turret from shooting over the 4 inch gun ? Well... The gun blast, which is going to cook the 4 inch gun's crew alive, and rip it clean off the ships hull. 

Quote

First of all, crossdeck firing was eliminated for a reason. Second, the design choices which lead to the placement of Anti torpedo boat guns in the blast zones of larger weapons were informed by the notion that Torpedo boat attacks wouldn't occur during gun battles

so because they learned from their mistakes we shouldnt be able to make the same mistakes ? or do the same mistakes as them?

sure they werent informed that torpedo boat attacks would occur during battles

but neither are we ? if we havent had a battle with torpedo boats with battleships against us what prevents us from making the same mistake (assuming a new player who has not faced torpedo boats)

Quote

Why though ?

to counter torpedo boats and destroyers

more secondaries means more destroyer and torpedo boat deterrence and also allows my ship to quickly dispatch enemy ships

if i feel its acceptable to sacrifice some degrees of firing angles on main guns for better secondary armament i think i should be able to do it

Edited October 12, 2019 by Christian

[Wakelessrex]

@Christian Not to mention he didn't even acknowledge my follow up pics, which would completely negate his reasoning anyway. I see that barreling out of control into just agrueing though, so perhaps just agree to disagree. 

I think most people are in the camp to have more freedom, especially of placement in the designer. I don't understand his reasoning to want more restriction for what I consider bad justification but he is more than welcome to his opinion and im sure it will give the game design team something to mull over as we are supposed to be providing feedback for them on this.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Wakelessrex

[Shaun]

Could the choice of guns be extended on cruisers? Would love to add a single 12/13 inch turret to replicate the Matsushima class. Gotta love real world derps. Also, I'm pretty sure most armoured and protected cruisers were armed with 6-inch guns so would be nice to be able to accommodate these as case-mates too.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Shaun

[Niomedes]

6 hours ago, Christian said:

first of all

they dont the 12 inch guns in game dont have more than 13,5 degrees of elevation (13,5 degrees elevation still allows for 18km range)

why would iowa be unable to fire forwards at an angle ?

ive heard of people saying the iowa couldnt fire directly forewards with 2 turrets for some reason with no backup for that claim ive also heard people say the same about the yamato but also no backup source despite the fact the ship was rated by the japanese to handle even more recoil which prompted the development of 51cm guns which were cancelled in 1941 after pearl harbor after one gun had been completed out of the 2 guns and one mount ordered 

if that is the claim then please source it

https://wwiiafterwwii.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/missourifiring.jpg?w=809

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Qg5_VZws--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1276763157872328774.jpg

3 examples of iowa firing at an angle forewards

either way it dosent matter because the rear turret is also covered with 20mm guns around the muzzle and in this case the rear turret has 20mm guns around its muzzle in almost a 30 degree arc 

not to mention a 40mm gun right next to one of the barrels when its firing broadside 

that was not the original claim though the claim was that the gun would be ripped off which is not the case

the 20mm guns are also significantly smaller than the 4 inch guns 

so because they learned from their mistakes we shouldnt be able to make the same mistakes ? or do the same mistakes as them?

sure they werent informed that torpedo boat attacks would occur during battles

but neither are we ? if we havent had a battle with torpedo boats with battleships against us what prevents us from making the same mistake (assuming a new player who has not faced torpedo boats)

to counter torpedo boats and destroyers

more secondaries means more destroyer and torpedo boat deterrence and also allows my ship to quickly dispatch enemy ships

if i feel its acceptable to sacrifice some degrees of firing angles on main guns for better secondary armament i think i should be able to do it

Can't confirm that they have a lower angle than 25° when firing at very long distances as in the last mission, the angle seems to be more along the lines of even almost aüproaching 45 degrees.

Of course Iowa and Yamato can fore at an angle. It would be considerate if you read what I wrote, which is that Iowa can't fire at an angle which puts the guns in its front at risk. And that is because the bow of the ship is squarely in the way, which is pretty evident by just looking at it. You even posted a few pictures of Iowa yourself, so just look at them. The guns need to be raised at what looks like at least 10°.

And yes, the gun would probably be ripped of if it was directly in the blast of the main artillery, as it was in the original picture. That's however not the case with Iowa.

And as for whether or not we should be allowed to repeat the mistakes made in game ? Probably not. The only thing you're accomplisshing with that is people not understanding what they do wrong since the game at this point will become so complicated that nobody will really know what's going on without an engineering degree. There are already enough people in this Forum asking questions which should be pretty easy to figure out by themselves. You're asking at the very least for that to increase tenfold. 

 

And if your objective is to quickly dispatch enemies, shoot them with your main artillery. What more secondaries actually means in this game is less precision due to tons of guns engaging the same target, esepecially if they are of different calibres.