>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<

[Martenzo]

Noticed this particular oddity. It appears the torpedo can be fired right through the front tower in amazingly good arcs. 

[Norljus]

Does the amount of ammo really need to be tied to the number of barrels ? I was playing the modern battleship scenario and opted for 2 barrel turrets because I wanted the best accuracy. Unfortunately I ran out of ammo and then had to use the 3 barrel turrets.

[Niomedes]

Just now, Norljus said:

Does the amount of ammo really need to be tied to the number of barrels ? I was playing the modern battleship scenario and opted for 2 barrel turrets because I wanted the best accuracy. Unfortunately I ran out of ammo and then had to use the 3 barrel turrets.

It does. Ammunition was usually issued per barrel, and stored in magazines directly below the or very close to the guns.

[Pedroig]

27 minutes ago, Norljus said:

Does the amount of ammo really need to be tied to the number of barrels ? I was playing the modern battleship scenario and opted for 2 barrel turrets because I wanted the best accuracy. Unfortunately I ran out of ammo and then had to use the 3 barrel turrets.

There is an Increased ammo option..

[sarrumac]

There should be a round counter like in rule the waves.

[Christian]

1 hour ago, sarrumac said:

There should be a round counter like in rule the waves.

there is a round counter when you hold the mouse over your ship

though it is for all combined guns of the same mounts

triples and twins will have seperate counters (and listed as seperate guns) but 4 twins will have ammo combined

 

an individual round counter might be a good idea as you are not always firing a full broadside thus some guns (front or rear) might run out faster

[Christian]

12 hours ago, Niomedes said:

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.

 

Quote

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°.

the only thing limiting the Iowas line of fire is the bow of the ship is that the first turret needs to raise its guns to fire over the bow

the 2nd turret does not need to raise its guns to fire right over the bow and can fire even with 0 degree elevation 

 

the only difficulty the ship would have firing at 0 degree elevation with number 2 turret is it would likely obscure number 1s rangefinders due to the smoke/fireball

it might also be a potential blinding hazard to the rangefinder operator

 

though iowas powder does burn rather cleanly

https://i.imgur.com/pEGp0zh.jpg

if we look at the sideways diragram of the iowa and north Carolina and the north dakota classes it is to be noted the top ship has several 20mm aa guns in the way

the following pictures show that main caliber naval guns did not rip out minor aa guns on deck and if they did the americans were apparently happy with replacing them constantly after firing the main guns

 

note 2 40mm mounts in front limiting angle of fire for the front turrets 

NOTE THE REAR TURRET its limited to basically only fire broadside since the 20mm oerlikons block the main gun from firing any angle aft 

 40mm mount placed right in front of the main gun

oerlikons placed in front of the front gun

oerlikons placed at the rear turret limiting angle of fire again

 

if it were true that guns were ripped off by the muzzle blast all of the 20mm placed close to the main guns (like right in front of the muzzle) would need to be replaced every time the battleship fired over or close to its bow

and in the case of BB-9 any time the rear turret did not fire an almost perfect broadside 

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/usa_battleships.htm

source for placement of guns

Edited October 13, 2019 by Christian

[RvT]

Thank you very much, you've made a strong start on what I am sure will evolve to become a really great game. 

Of course, you will be trying to keep three types of players happy:

• the ship designers (understandably vocal here as it is such a central part of the alpha release)
• the battle fighters
• the campaign/war fighters.

While I am happy to design a ship and fight a battle, it is the to be released campaign that most excites me. I want to fight wars and post great after action reports that tell a beautiful illustrated, with both strategic and tactical story.

So, a couple of points from my perspective.

1. If you do add extra ship designer features, it might be wise to add them to an "Advanced Design Options" or other mechanism not to overload the ship designer, as obviously there is a lot of (good) complexity in the designer already. 

2. The error messages in the designer can be very difficult to correct. For example: Starboard "Weight Offset 51.6%" - You need to show why this is happening, particularly when nothing has obviously been added to the starboard side. It makes correcting these error messages guess work.

 

However, you are doing great work and I'm very much enjoying what you've put together already!

[Niomedes]

36 minutes ago, Christian said:

 

the only thing limiting the Iowas line of fire is the bow of the ship is that the first turret needs to raise its guns to fire over the bow

the 2nd turret does not need to raise its guns to fire right over the bow and can fire even with 0 degree elevation 

 

the only difficulty the ship would have firing at 0 degree elevation with number 2 turret is it would likely obscure number 1s rangefinders due to the smoke/fireball

it might also be a potential blinding hazard to the rangefinder operator

 

though iowas powder does burn rather cleanly

https://i.imgur.com/pEGp0zh.jpg

if we look at the sideways diragram of the iowa and north Carolina and the north dakota classes it is to be noted the top ship has several 20mm aa guns in the way

the following pictures show that main caliber naval guns did not rip out minor aa guns on deck and if they did the americans were apparently happy with replacing them constantly after firing the main guns

 

note 2 40mm mounts in front limiting angle of fire for the front turrets 

NOTE THE REAR TURRET its limited to basically only fire broadside since the 20mm oerlikons block the main gun from firing any angle aft 

 40mm mount placed right in front of the main gun

oerlikons placed in front of the front gun

oerlikons placed at the rear turret limiting angle of fire again

 

if it were true that guns were ripped off by the muzzle blast all of the 20mm placed close to the main guns (like right in front of the muzzle) would need to be replaced every time the battleship fired over or close to its bow

and in the case of BB-9 any time the rear turret did not fire an almost perfect broadside 

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/usa_battleships.htm

source for placement of guns

The B turret is so far removed from the forward AA guns that its blast isn't threatening them eitherways, unless it specifically lowers its barrels to fire directly at them. The rear AA guns are also far enough removed from the rear turret that it will both be able to fire over them at any reasonable engagement range, while not putting them at risk from its blast. It's almost as if the designers took the blast range of the guns into account in order to specifically place the AA far enough away from the main guns to prevent it from being damaged. As such, there are no firing angles being limited here, and the AA guns are blocking nothing. Apart of 0° shots of course.
 

36 minutes ago, Christian said:

the following pictures show that main caliber naval guns did not rip out minor aa guns on deck and if they did the americans were apparently happy with replacing them constantly after firing the main guns

That's because all those AA guns were specifically placed outside of the blast zones the Heavy Artillery on those ships had during engagements over usual engagement distances. The guns you wanted to place on your battleship in the designer are within the blast zones, and partly even within the barrel traverse of the main Artillery turrets. 

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Niomedes

[Niomedes]

36 minutes ago, Christian said:

 

oerlikons placed in front of the front gun

 

Edit: Iowa can't fire her A turret at an angle which puts those guns into its blast zones anyways, since it's bow is blocking her shells in any firing angle below 10° in the first place. 

[Christian]

3 hours ago, Niomedes said:

The B turret is so far removed from the forward AA guns that its blast isn't threatening them eitherways, unless it specifically lowers its barrels to fire directly at them. The rear AA guns are also far enough removed from the rear turret that it will both be able to fire over them at any reasonable engagement range, while not putting them at risk from its blast. It's almost as if the designers took the blast range of the guns into account in order to specifically place the AA far enough away from the main guns to prevent it from being damaged. As such, there are no firing angles being limited here, and the AA guns are blocking nothing. Apart of 0° shots of course.
 

That's because all those AA guns were specifically placed outside of the blast zones the Heavy Artillery on those ships had during engagements over usual engagement distances. The guns you wanted to place on your battleship in the designer are within the blast zones, and partly even within the barrel traverse of the main Artillery turrets. 

 

if the ship had to be going bow on against something and had the 2 front turrets elevated at 10 degrees

aka the enemy ship was running away fast at night at 14km distance and the iowa was on the chase the blast would go right into the oerlikons

 

in case the iowa wanted to fire backwards with its turret (running) it would still fire right over several oerlikon 20mms

sure its elevated but the muzzle blast is still right next to it

 

if the muzzle blast cant damage anything which isent close to directly in front of the muzzle then this position shouldnt have any problems right 

Quote

That's because all those AA guns were specifically placed outside of the blast zones the Heavy Artillery on those ships had during engagements over usual engagement distances. The guns you wanted to place on your battleship in the designer are within the blast zones, and partly even within the barrel traverse of the main Artillery turrets. 

so let me get this right

a 4 inch gun atleast THREE BARREL LENGTHS away FROM A 12 INCH GUN is not ok

but a 20mm gun 5 meters away from a 16 inch gun is fine in real life

a 4 inch gun UNDER THE BARREL is considered too close to the muzzle blast yet the gunshield protects the gun from any muzzle blast as long as the 4 inch gun isent firing at the superstructure of its own ship

 THE BARREL HAS TO ELEVATE OVER to fire or the barrels will hit the 4 inch gun 

 

YET THESE guns ARE IN NO WAY in danger ?

the barrel barely goes over most of these 20mm guns when they are turned or they are right next to the muzzle (left or right side of it) when it fires 

yet surely they wont be ripped off but the 4 inch gun will

 

 

also the 2 bottom ships are using 16 inch guns the top ship (in game) is using 12 inch guns

the 16 inch guns have 3 times as powerfull a muzzle blast

 

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Christian

[Niomedes]

5 minutes ago, Christian said:

so let me get this right

a 4 inch gun atleast THREE BARREL LENGTHS away FROM A 12 INCH GUN is not ok

but a 20mm gun 5 meters away from a 16 inch gun is fine in real life

a 4 inch gun UNDER THE BARREL is considered too close to the muzzle blast yet the gunshield protects the gun from any muzzle blast as long as the 4 inch gun isent firing at the superstructure of its own ship

 THE BARREL HAS TO ELEVATE OVER to fire or the barrels will hit the 4 inch gun 

 

YET THESE guns ARE IN NO WAY in danger ?

the barrel barely goes over most of these 20mm guns when they are turned or they are right next to the muzzle (left or right side of it) when it fires 

yet surely they wont be ripped off but the 4 inch gun will

Yes.

[Christian]

what im trying to say @Niomedes is that the 4 inch gun is further away than the 20mm weights 6 times more and the main gun muzzle blast next to it is less powerfull

thus it should not get blown off makes sense right ? 

 

so let me get this right you are saying

a 600kg gun that is 1/4th the barrel lenght away from the muzzle of a gun with 3x as much muzzle power of the gun below

 should not be ripped off ?

 

while a 4 inch heavy gun that weights 4 tons (around 6 times heavier than the 20mm above (thats what the game says)

that is more than 3 times further away from the muzzle on a gun 3x less powerfull than above

 should be ripped off

 

i have shown the first picture the 4 inch gun is much further away from the muzzle than the 20mm

and in the second pic i showed the 4 inch is right behind the muzzle (under the barrel) like some of the 20mm oerlikons would be if the guns on the us ships were turned

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Christian

[Niomedes]

1 minute ago, Christian said:

what im trying to say @Niomedes is that the 4 inch gun is further away than the 20mm weights 6 times more and the main gun muzzle blast next to it is less powerfull

thus it should not get blown off makes sense right ? 

 

so let me get this right you are saying

a 600kg gun that is 1/4th the barrel lenght away from the muzzle of a gun with 3x as much muzzle power of the gun below

 should not be ripped off ?

 

while a 4 inch heavy gun that weights 4 tons (around 6 times heavier than the 20mm above (thats what the game says)

that is more than 3 times further away from the muzzle on a gun 3x less powerfull than above

 should be ripped off

You realize that the 4inch gun is larger in general and also higher, which means that it has more surface area which is going to be affected by the blast than the 20mm, which in turn means that the effect of the blast on the 4inch will be far stronger than on the smaller 20mm, since less of the blast's energy will be caught by it ? Aside of that, the 4 inch is very definetly a main battle weapon, which means that it is going to be manned during a gun battle, whereas the 20mm is an air defense gun that will only be manned during air defense. As such, the 4 inch will not only probably be ripped off since it will be more affected by the blast, but its crew will also be put at an unnecessary risk during operation. At that point, it might as well not be there.

[Nick Thomadis]

On 10/11/2019 at 5:53 PM, Entropy Avatar said:

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

In a sense, yes. Armor weighs according to the surface it cover. For example, deck armor is much heavier in a battleship than a Light cruiser. Another example, the total weight cost of a gun turret takes into consideration everything that is related to it, gun barrels, turret base, barbettes, average armor on all sides, ammunition etc. not only the turret itself.  

On 10/11/2019 at 9:37 PM, halfmanhalfsquidman said:

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.

Barbettes will be improved, as stated previously, in future updates.

On 10/11/2019 at 9:37 PM, halfmanhalfsquidman said:

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.

For a beginner, yes, you are right that funnel capacity is not indicated clearly, although it is very important for reaching the designed top speed. As UI becomes improved, we shall indicate this better.

On 10/11/2019 at 9:37 PM, halfmanhalfsquidman said:

I'd also like to throw my name on the list of individuals requesting an ability to save/name ships.

Yes, we will offer this, I say again

On 10/12/2019 at 6:09 AM, Wakelessrex said:

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.

Yamato hull will receive a little more flexibility. 

On 10/12/2019 at 6:09 AM, Wakelessrex said:

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?

We simulate torpedo protection levels abstractly. To do this also visually would be too complex and demanding, development wise. But certainly we can think about it when we finalize the game and we want to offer more visual optimizations.

On 10/12/2019 at 10:41 PM, Christian said:

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

We have to aid the player to make efficient designs and not spam the deck with tiny guns that obstruct the main battery. Yellow colored guns, are not prohibitive. It is just a warning for player that the guns are placed ineffectively, but they can be saved as a working design.

[Nick Thomadis]

12 hours ago, Martenzo said:

Noticed this particular oddity. It appears the torpedo can be fired right through the front tower in amazingly good arcs. 

Known issue, thanks to multiple reports. We will fix.

4 hours ago, RvT said:

2. The error messages in the designer can be very difficult to correct. For example: Starboard "Weight Offset 51.6%" - You need to show why this is happening, particularly when nothing has obviously been added to the starboard side. It makes correcting these error messages guess work.

We could but since we show that there is weight imbalance to one side of the ship, the player can investigate what is the reason and correct. It is also part of the game.

 

[Wakelessrex]

13 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We have to aid the player to make efficient designs and not spam the deck with tiny guns that obstruct the main battery. Yellow colored guns, are not prohibitive. It is just a warning for player that the guns are placed ineffectively, but they can be saved as a working design.

The 12" gun in that example should not be causing the smaller calibers to not be placed then? If it can be saved as a working design that way, currently it does not let you. This will be fixed in updates to come?

 

13 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We simulate torpedo protection levels abstractly. To do this also visually would be too complex and demanding, development wise. But certainly we can think about it when we finalize the game and we want to offer more visual optimizations.

That is very disheartening to hear, they are a distinct part of many ships that sailed. If you decide to upgrade this past release that would be amazing, I don't think that's very likely though if its a lot of work yea? Can I offer at least the suggestion that some hulls have that built in to the model such as the Queen Elizabeth hull (They spent more years active with them then without) and possibly some other hulls that were built with them or refitted to have them. 



@Christian I might recommend again you just agree to disagree with him dude, he obviously is just arguing to win and that will get out of hand fast. This is about feedback to the developers not arguments between people. I think more people want less restriction than more. So just let it be.

Edited October 13, 2019 by Wakelessrex

[Christian]

@Wakelessrex yeah probably a good idea 

Quote

Aside of that, the 4 inch is very definetly a main battle weapon, which means that it is going to be manned during a gun battle, whereas the 20mm is an air defense gun that will only be manned during air defense.

might be the case but as previously stated on ships like the USS maine there were ships which had its anti torpedo boat guns next or close to the main guns

also as shown earlier its not just 20mm mounts 40mm mounts were also in the muzzle lines

you are also forgetting while the 4 inch gun might be bigger the muzzle blast close to it is 3x less powerfull and the 4 inch has 6x the weight 

if you wish to discuss it further in pms we can but as far as im concerned i see no way to make you change your oppinion 

 

 

either way even if we cant place non encased 4 inch guns (with open gun mounts) we should atleast be able to place enclosed 4 inch guns or other size enclosed guns

as Nick said gun placement which does not make sense would be highlighted in yellow 

 

guns which have gun-houses (complete protection 360 degrees against weather to the gun) should be able to be placed close to other guns regardless of size BUT

they would be highlighted in yellow to tell people its not a good idea to place them there (if they significantly interfere with other guns)

this would say to newer players its not a good idea to place it but you can

 

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Christian

[Niomedes]

5 minutes ago, Christian said:

@Wakelessrex yeah probably a good idea 

might be the case but as previously stated on ships like the USS maine there were ships which had its anti torpedo boat guns next or close to the main guns

 

 

 

either way even if we cant place non encased 4 inch guns (with open gun mounts) we should atleast be able to place enclosed 4 inch guns or other size enclosed guns

as Nick said gun placement which does not make sense would be highlighted in yellow 

 

guns which have gun-houses (complete protection 360 degrees against weather to the gun) should be able to be placed close to other guns regardless of size BUT

they would be highlighted in yellow to tell people its not a good idea to place them there (if they significantly interfere with other guns)

this would say to newer players its not a good idea to place it but you can

 

 

Those guns were usually done away with once it became clear that they couldn't be efficiently operated due to their proximity to the main artillery.

Being able to place guns pretty much eberyhwere will just lead to unrealistic and unsensible designs which don't make sense in any way.

20 minutes ago, Wakelessrex said:

@Christian I might recommend again you just agree to disagree with him dude, he obviously is just arguing to win and that will get out of hand fast. This is about feedback to the developers not arguments between people. I think more people want less restriction than more. So just let it be.

Nonsense. The point of an argument isn't to win anyways. It's to re-evaluate your own position by the application of new information delovered by the opposition according to the principle of charity. So, I'm not arguing to win. I'm arguing to either convince you guys that unlimited options are not necessarily a good Idea, or to be convinced otherwhise. If you however like your oppinion so much that you'd rather keep it than having it challenged, be my guest. 

[Schwieger]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

...We could but since we show that there is weight imbalance to one side of the ship, the player can investigate what is the reason and correct. It is also part of the game....

He's probably talking about what I noticed before, that merely ghosting over things with a competent causes the weight imbalance notifications to pop up even if you do not actually place the component. I think this probably could be worth looking into.

[Nick Thomadis]

5 minutes ago, Schwieger said:

He's probably talking about what I noticed before, that merely ghosting over things with a competent causes the weight imbalance notifications to pop up even if you do not actually place the component. I think this probably could be worth looking into.

Yes understood, noted to check.

PS. But if this information was not visible, then player would have to do multiple mounts/unmounts to check weight effects = worse.

[Shaun]

11 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Yes understood, noted to check.

PS. But if this information was not visible, then player would have to do multiple mounts/unmounts to check weight effects = worse.

The main issue is when I haven't placed an item and my cursor is away from the ship and it says my starboard offset is 100%. Bit of a nuisance that's all.

Also found that to cancel a placement I have to click my right mouse button very quickly or it doesn't register? Also in game, I can't direct a ship unless I click my right mouse button extremely fast, but I can target ships fine with a normal right click. Is this the game or is it my mouse? I don't have issues with any other game with regards to this.

[disc]

I have also noticed that guns on the destroyer forecastle have the same bug as the torpedoes. It’s not just visual, the gun can and will fire through the bridge.

In terms of barbettes, they should be available for secondary armament, too. It would be nice if barbettes auto-scaled to match their turret, but I understand that might be a pain.

I also think there should be the ability to place barbettes off centerline. This isn’t very “practical” for battleship main guns (although it might look cool!). But this was done on the German “K” light cruisers and with secondary guns, notably on the Nelson class. Of course, offset barbettes would increase hull stress and might decrease stability.

Considering hull stress, there should be a penalty applied as heavy placeable items get too close to the bow or stern. For example, there’s no apparent reason not to put big guns at extremes to get better firing arcs, leading to awkward ships that would have terrible hogging in any real seaway. I think we should have the ability to create whatever idiotic designs we desire! …just with appropriate disadvantages.

As others have pointed out, (I assume this is in the works) shells should have increased long-range belt penetration with increased tech, to a point. Additionally, there should probably be some increase in rate of fire with improved tech.

Gun propellants and shell fillers should be separated as categories, as they tend to have vastly different properties and different effects. Additionally, the use of TNT as one of the “top” fillers is odd, as pure TNT is generally too sensitive for naval shells.

Torpedoes should go up to 24 or 25 inches in size, to encompass Japanese and British types. For balance this may require rework of damage numbers. Might be interesting to have bigger guns available, too. The Japanese famously considered 20in guns, so that could be a practical limit. Understandable if 18in is kept the maximum anyway.

More torpedo fuel differentiation would also be nice, such as semi-Diesel, oxygen, peroxide, etc. Alternately this could just be abstracted into tech research for increased torpedo weight/explosives/speed/range.

For pre-dreadnoughts, perhaps we could place small secondary guns on top of the casemates, with a big penalty attached? I imagine future pre-dread hulls with space for secondary turrets would mitigate this, so it might not be a long-term issue. Likewise, guns in low or far forward casemates could have penalties from water spray.

Underwater torpedo tubes should impose more penalties. They may reduce the protection of the torpedo belt (if there is one), are difficult to subdivide, and they can blow up if hit (is this already implemented?). Finally, side tubes are hard to launch accurately at high speeds.

I think it might be interesting, but maybe too complicated, if amidships big-gun turrets interfered with the engines in some way. Amidships turrets had certain advantages (hull stress, protection from spray, wide torpedo protection), but they tended to crowd out the engines, and insulation from hot steam could be an issue. No idea how any of this could be implemented. Might be a waste of time.

Could also be interesting to add fire control computers and other fire control instruments as selectable categories.

The game is fun to play and is very impressive. Good job!

[Schwieger]

Please see screenshots below:

These are the twin 8 inch secondaries. I noticed that I can place these guns facing outward as in the top screenie, but as soon as I rotate the guns forward, there isn't enough room for both them. There shouldn't be a collision here? The superstructure of the boat is inbetween the two mounts.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Schwieger

[Thennek]

I realise that most of what I have to say is just echoes, but I need to let you guys know what an awesome job you're doing. I became aware of this game yesterday and bought the special preorder the same day; this project is like a dream come true for me.

Questions and suggestions:
- In regard to hulls, I realise that having a highly custom hull system is extremely time consuming and expensive but this shouldn't matter if there are a large selection of hull types to choose from. How many hull types are planned to be implemented into the campaign? How many hull types will be nation specific? Additionally, will all nations have access to some features not generally associated with their naval history (i.e tumblehome hulls)?
- In the future, will the freeboard of ships vary along with a visual change in the ships' position in the water?
- You mentioned previously that width would be affected by changes in displacement like length but to a lesser degree (5% I believe it was?), would it be possible to have more sliders for dimensions so that a desired displacement could be met in a very particular way?

- Will the game be moddable in so far as to add minor nations to the campaign?

Even without the campaign, this game was $73 Australian well spent. Can't wait to see what you guys do next. :)