>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<

[Ninja]

I'm going to break this up into categories to make it easier to read.

Functionality

• The system for moving turrets anywhere (Using Ctrl) should be replicated for the other systems, particularly the barbettes as it limits the turret positions at the moment. Towers and funnels would be nice to use this feature too.
• It would be nice if we had some control over turret shape design, maybe after selecting barrel numbers we could choose from a number of set shape patterns. (The round pre-dred turrets look particularly cool)
• Ability to switch nation state, which would update flags and perhaps provide a different set of designs (themes) for when choosing turrets, towers etc. 
• Saving out designs, but also the ability to save these out for Workshop support when on steam. I think that has the potential to be pretty popular. 
• A way to make it clearer what fore weight / aft weight penalties are, it is one of the few things that aren't described well. 
• Can we have more control over secondary armament? At the moment it seems shell type and amount of shells is used for both, would it be possible to split this and add a secondary section under the armament? In fact more control over secondaries in game too would be fantastic, I really wish there was a way to choose their targets separately. 

 

Graphical

• A way to change the camouflage or paint scheme for the ships would be nice. It would be extra nice if these give benefits to stealth obviously at a cost.
• Anti torpedo bulges should make visual changes to the outside of the ship, depending on the level of tech used.

 

Features

• Catapult launchers, both WW2 and prewar, I was always fascinated with launching planes from the top of turrets. This could come with a secondary requirement of needing a crane system if you hope to recover the plane. Or will it be a one shot launch. (Even if all this does is just add's bonuses without visually launching in game.)
• A way to name the Class of ship, as well as the vessel. 

[Niomedes]

Scout planes anyone ?

[Shaun]

8 minutes ago, Niomedes said:

Scout planes anyone ?

As long as it doesn’t turn into fighters, bombers and aircraft carriers...

I’m all for kite balloons tethered to ships though.

[Skeksis]

Some little suggestions.

a} Barbettes for secondary guns.

b} Barbette (or similar elevation) for torpedo tubes too, like for a destroyer design that has torpedo tube centre line but elevated over side deck guns etc.

c} Also along with barbettes, add some deck structures where guns etc could be placed on, just some square deck sections at first with shaped types added later, should increase designer tool capability for more variations. And Include the possibility of deck structures with barbettes on top and gun placements on top of that (3 tier), should produce some amazing designs.  

d} Remove the speed scrollbar and replace speed setting with power generated via funnel/boiler placement. If boilers/power generation could be associated with funnels (or something like that), then the more funnels/boilers added, the more power or steam generated, that is the more steam available to be sent to selected engines/turbines/generators. I’m just suggesting a more practical application for setting/designing ship speeds, via energy, rather than a scrollbar.   

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Skeksis

[FwsKungen]

On towers with Barbetts linked to them try and make them more flexible for example the Rear Tower IX can take triple 14" gun's maybe it be reasonable to be able to use dual 15-16" gun's with them but not triplets? This makes for more choices and that's always exciting to fiddle around with. Similar with the regular Barbetts maybe haven't tried that 

[balticsailor]

An option to influnce the beam and the lenght, or at least the beam to lenght ratio might be good. Often i find that there is not enought room next to the main tower to place any good secondarys or the roll of the ship just increases to much (decreasing the overall accuracy to much) so i often go with out any secondarys.

[Swiftsure]

Started playing the Alpha last week. I really like the game so far and the design and style choices. A few bits of feedback that aren’t repeating what everyone else has said in the thread so far. 

The procedural generation of ships that the AI uses can be whacky at times to say the least. Destroyers with the full deck full of funnels, a super dreadnaught with all single turrets.  So basically would like to see a bit more historical use of ships, each nation having its own feel and style as is the case in real naval development. This is probably something that will be coming later as the game gets flushed out but wanted to throw it in there. Superstructure styles really diverge as naval technology increased. 

Semi related I would love if there was a ship paint scheme customisation option as well. Pre-dreadnaught wartime or peace time nations would proudly show off their ships with bright white hulls and ochre smokestacks. Or black hulls with white superstructure and ochre smoke stacks like HMS Canopus in 1901. Would be a nice addition. 

Will different nations get different hull styles ? That will have their own game play characteristics. For example the US tended to be more pointed stern and  bow, which gave more useful space mid ships, but had less seakeeping qualities in rough weather. Whereas the British tended to be more rounded and oval, for the opposite effects better seakeeping in rough weather but less internal space. 

Are there any ideas for an x-ray view or a highlight option in the ship designer to see where certain sections of the ship are for use when adjusting armour counters, the extended sections mains vs deck and belt. When the game reports damage in battle sometimes there sections are not where I would expect them to be, so would be nice to see beforehand in the design phase. Or for players not familiar with ship lay outs.

last point, in battles when a ship is listing over more there doesn’t seem to be an increased chance to hit the deck, a lot of shells look like they are hitting the deck but are registering as belt hits. 

Keep up the great work. 

[ColonelHenry]

Imo, at this stage of development, you guys should add a true ship editor for us to test different systems together. Being able to design ships and pit them against each other would be nice. What these mode will do is help people to spot bugs more easily since we like to mess around a lot. Any oversight or bugs or something along those lines would be easier to report as well since it is easier to replicate. And you guys do not have to add any more different naval academy missions. We will make our own

[nimbalo500]

Here are a few things i would enjoy seeing, more mounts for secondary guns and torpedoes along with visual changes to the ships from different tech such as the torpedo protection and range finders. Also a testing room where you have unlimited funds, all tech unlocked and can choose from all the hulls in game to really see what each is like along with having ships at different ranges to see the effects of the tech.

[Skeksis]

Blinding nodes.

For hulls with large flat deck areas, why do we need blinding nodes for towers, funnels and barbettes? If you wanted to create/design a HMS Nelson type of main gun layout (3 turrets forwards), these nodes can be restricting.

Maybe for these types of hulls, blinding node could be removed (or pitted all the way down the centre line) .

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Skeksis

[disc]

This is a cross post from the "shipyard" subforum.

I collated a bunch of requested changes for the ship designer.

General

• Allow design saves.
• (To be addressed) Allow name and nation changes.
• Add crew category(ies).
• Add deckhouses, allowing raised placement of items and improved "crew" effects.
• (To be addressed) Better explanation of funnel capacity.
• Allow display of citadel, magazines, turret trunks, boiler/engine zones, conning tower area, and other important places with a selectable viewer.
• Possibly add an armor viewer.
• Possibly allow paint scheme changes.

Displacement, Hull Stress, Stability, and Seakeeping

• It appears difficult to build armored cruisers, among other designs, to realistic displacements. Possibly rebalance some weights?
• Give option for 50 or even 25 ton displacement steps on destroyers and torpedo boats.
• Increase hull stress and/or reduce seakeeping for turrets or items too far forward or aft, proportional to size of turret/item.
• Possibly add small accuracy or seakeeping bonus for guns or torpedo launchers higher above the waterline, to reflect reduced spray. Inversely proportional to gun size. 

Armor

• Improve armor thickness selectors so that values can be typed in or otherwise changed by large amounts quickly.
• Allow gradations--for example, on most pre-dreadnoughts only the waterline belt would be full thickness, the belt above being thinner.
• Change citadel options to only three: Protected (turtleback deck with no belt), Armoured (belt with turtleback deck), and All-Or-Nothing (belt with a flat deck). Protected is cheapest and lightest and replaces "belt" value with "deck slope" thickness, but it has poor overall resistance. Armoured has bonus to short range resistance but penalty to long range resistance. All-Or-Nothing is lighter, possibly cheaper, and has bonus to long range resistance, but must be researched. For All-Or-Nothing, extremity belt and extremity deck armor might be restricted to an arbitrary small amount (splinter protection), but extremities would have better compartmentation and resistance to damage. Each of these options might have tech upgrades to increase overall resistance by some amount. Some hulls would have only one of the citadel options available. For example, destroyers were usually too small to mount turtleback decks, so the "All-Or-Nothing" option would be the only one available and would require no research for those hulls.
• Add transverse bulkhead thicknesses for (at least) all-or-nothing designs.
• Add barbette thickness selector.
• Add weather or top deck thickness selector.
• Possibly add turret side and rear thickness selector(s).
• Possibly add conning tower roof thickness.
• Possibly add rudder room armor thicknesses.
• Add underwater belt armor thickness selector, only if diving shells are implemented or are planned to be added. Does not contribute much to torpedo protection: indeed, on some real designs it reduced torpedo resistance.
• Lengthen citadel armor (with commensurate increase in weight) to accommodate turrets close to bow or stern.

Armament

• (To be addressed) Increase flexibility in barbette placement.
• Increase number of barbette sizes. Ideally, allow barbette to auto-scale to whatever turret is placed on top.
• Add secondary barbettes and raised torpedo mounts.
• Allow laterally offset barbettes (off centerline). Useful for secondaries and used on "K" German light cruisers.
• Allow barbette stacking, to allow "super-superfiring" turrets. That is, a turret that can fire over a superfiring turret. This was sometimes done for secondary turrets (Yamato, Des Moines) and was not uncommon for main guns in paper designs.
• Allow placement of guns and torpedoes upon deckhouses (for bigger guns, this would also add the same weight as a barbette piece).
• Do turrets mounted directly on the deck have "internal" barbettes below them? If not, they should.
• Do barbettes extend all the way down to the citadel? If not, they should (or a smaller diameter armored trunk tube should).
• Increase shell penetration with tech research.
• Increase rate of fire with tech research.
• Separate gun propellants from shell fillers as options.
• What are the autoloader and faster loading options supposed to represent? Readjust or rename this option.
• Add indicator to show if guns are too similar in caliber (ie, if accuracy is thereby reduced).
• Are diving shells implemented? AP shells should be able to hit underwater if falling slightly short at long ranges. A tech research upgrade should be available to improve this effect. For explanation, shells have unusual hydrodynamics, so they tend to follow an "inverse" ballistic trajectory in water, with their travel tending to flatten out relative to their impact angle. At this point most of their energy is exhausted, and they sink. Flat-nosed shells, like the Japanese Type 91, have more stable trajectories and travel much farther before losing energy and sinking. HE shells, of course, tend to explode when hitting the water surface. Not sure what exactly happens at short ranges to high velocity shells hitting water. I suspect they often break up or tumble, or ricochet in a bizarre direction, so any diving effect would be pretty small. Probably not worth simulating water ricochets.
• Allow larger torpedoes, up to 24 or 25 inches. Possibly allow smaller torpedoes, down to 14 inches.
• Add torpedo fuels/engines, such as: compressed air, dry heater, wet heater, burner cycle (semi-Diesel), oxygen-enriched, pure oxygen, and peroxide. Compressed air would be default, being the oldest, slowest, shortest-ranged, and cheapest. Electric propulsion would be folded into this category. "Fast" would be separated into another category.
• Create a speed/range setting for torpedoes: Slow, Default, and Fast. Slow would have long range, default would have medium, and fast would have short range. Could further balance this with torpedo detectability.
• Impose more penalties for underwater torpedo tubes (reduced underwater protection, reduced accuracy, or detonation risk).
• Allow deck-mounted torpedoes on higher-tech dreadnoughts.
• Blank off unused casemate gunports, that is, put plating over them as was done in reality when guns were permanently removed. Alternately, eliminate unused ports entirely (this may prove difficult).
• Provide some means of showing which guns will fit in a given casemate gunport. As is, trial and error is necessary.

Other Items

• (To be addressed) Increase flexibility in tower placement.
• Add catapults and spotter planes.
• Add fire control computers and/or other fire control instruments as selectable categories. For example, four options might be: None (default), Dumaresq with Range Clock, Analytic Computer, Synthetic Computer. From "None" to "Synthetic Computer," base accuracy and cost would steadily increase, and long range accuracy would dramatically improve. Each option might have its own tech research upgrades. They do not need to be named, but, for example, it could include "Continuous Aim" for None, "Range Averaging" for Dumaresq, "Improved Plotting" for Analytic, and "Stable Vertical" for Synthetic. Tower effects on accuracy might need to be adjusted if computers are added as a category.
• Add cross-roll effect. Guns firing close to exactly forward or exactly aft have penalty to accuracy. This is one of the reasons why broadside tactics predominated in the pre-dreadnought era. Fire control tech research upgrades would vastly reduce or eliminate this penalty.
• Add turbo-electric drive option for main engines, giving an increase in underwater compartmentation but with high engine weight.  This could be an option in the "Engines" category, or it could be its own category: diesel-electric drive and steam engine-electric drive are quite possible, although to my knowledge neither of these latter options was used on surface warships of that era.
• Possibly allow heavy cruisers to mount hydrophones with a special upgrade, though possibly with a penalty.
• Possibly add mine rails and minesweeping sets (if mines are added) and depth charge rails/launchers (if submarines are added in campaign) for destroyers and light cruisers. Depth charges could even be mounted on heavy cruisers and even battleships with the right upgrade, but with a very big scaling penalty to effectiveness.
• Add a twin rudder option. Increases maneuverability, increases cost, increases weight.

I do worry that adding too many of these changes may cause overcomplexity, but I figured I would include many options that could be pruned down if implemented.

[Akainosuisei]

I noticed that many things are reliant on mounts, and their respective nodes. Would it be possible to remove them in the future, so that ships such as the Nelson, G3, and N3 could be built?

[Fishyfish]

First I have to say a big thank you to the devs and sea gods who decided to build a game I've dreamed of for most my life. I don't know how many days or months I've frittered away dreaming up pre-dreadnought battleships, and now I can play a game where I do the same thing but only better? Things couldn't get much better than this. 

Now with that out of the way I do have a few suggestions and I am sorry if someone has already said these things, I read through a large chunk of the previous 5 pages but..

A lot of what I'd like to see has already been said, so I won't echo other players cries with one exception: echelon turrets pretty please. Instead I have some less useful suggestions. I'd love to see a few more wacky and off the wall hull types, ships based off the Ekatrina II class battleship or the Oden class coastal defense battleships with the ability to field two main battery turrets side by side forward and a single in the stern. Side, or wing, turrets they just don't sit well right next to each other, so the ability to place one or 3 in a triangle would be pretty interesting and I think might require it's own hull type. Further monitor style ships with a single primary turret, like the Imperator Nikolai I from 1889 or the Erebus class monitors. Right now as you know you must place two main battery turrets which leaves monitor style battleships full out. Head on attack and ramming was the naval tactic of choice after the battle of lissa despite several details outright ignored by the naval tacticians of the era. And last but not least, a pipe dream no doubt but one worth mention. Auxiliary cruisers and armed merchantmen. A very overlooked warship that played very interesting and typically overshadowed rolls in both world wars, the Russo Japanese war the like. Anywho keep up the good work!

[Hellstrike]

For the most part, I concur with the previous posters. Barbettes for secondaries and torpedoes would be important to have. But one system I dislike is how the superstructure is entirely dependent on the two towers. This is especially annoying when the best tower has a barbettes you don't need.

An ideal solution would be the option to add superstructure elements and the command/fire-control/spotting infrastructure as seperate elements. Later on superstructures got massive because more space was needed to fit the additional crew for AA/radar, but if you build a ship without those, you shouldn't have to include the bigger (and heavier) choices only for the accuracy buff. This might become more important when crew gets implemented.

Being able to mount secondaries on more of the superstructure options would be nice as well (not just casemate guns).

 

[Squatter]

After a few days of tinkering, I realise how much of the ship designer is still mystifying to me. I say this to remind the devs - although I'm sure they don't need reminding - that time spent on the ship designer UI, and the handholding given to the user, will be key in ensuring this game has a broader audience than just dreadnought enthusiasts. 

I would suggest: 

- detailed ship building tutorial, perhaps built around the battle academy missions, which holds player's hand in ship construction, explaining how the various mechanics work. There is a vast amount of unexplained information on the screen, especially the ship specs on the right. This could be make or break for many players as to whether they get into the game or not. 

- the two 'currencies' at play in ship building are 'cost' and 'weight' (and I suppose a third - 'time' will come into play in the campaign) yet the interrelation between the two, and how certain selections will effect them is obscure without much trial and error. Any effort going into clarifying this would not be wasted. I would highly recommend that all the flyouts in the 'components' section all have a weight/cost percentage value on their icons so when you click on armour type, for example, you can see at a glance the weight/cost impact of every selection at once. Then you can burrow into the details of which type looks most appropriate for your budget/displacement. Hovering on a choice could show the potential changes to cost/displacement? 

- buttons to strip out all secondary/casemate/main guns/torpedoes with one click for ease of use. Buttons to select badly placed weapons/restricted view/weapons causing aft/port overweight perhaps

-Make it clear that the panel on the left with components/armour etc can be scrolled - I played the first five scenarios without realising you could scroll down to chose armour thickness etc! 

 

[eraserr83]

Greetings.

Current superstructure and barbette placements makes really difficult to do any superfiring turret arrangements on dreadnoughts and battlecruisers. (Exception is wide dreadnought hull). Placing superstructures, funnels and barbettes should me much more flexible. Also the base hull should be also customizable, to either increase or decrease the lenght of deck 1 (upper deck) on battlecruisers and dreadnoughts.

[Skeksis]

In regards to the consideration of adding independent targeting for secondary's , what about assigning a target to each “director”.

Each “Director” can assign one target.

Each director to be assigned a weapons set.

After adding the main tower, If a player adds another director, then it can be assigned a weapon set like secondary's , so when in battle, with two directors there are two targeting options, main director with main guns and the second director with secondary's.

This can be expanded too, if players adds two more directors, one on each of the starboard and port sides, then the directors can be assigned the starboard and port weapons sets giving the player options of firing on targets on both sides.

Here's how the (new) targeting structure might look like (listed ancestor to descendant).

Fleet: 

               Default Target.

               Main Director Target (lead ship).

               Director 2 Target (lead ship).

                …. (more).

Division: 

               Main Director Target (lead ship).              

               Director 2 Target (lead ship).

               …. (more).

Ship: 

Main Director Target.    

Director 2 Target.

Director 3 Target.

              …. (more).

All targets default to the fleets main director target, independent targeting only changes when the player selects a director and targets something.

The main fleet director is also the default target (in-case the main tower is destroyed).

If a director is destroyed then that extra targeting ability is lost.

If a descendant director or its target is destroyed then that weapon set is assign its ancestor target. If there is no matching ancestor or no ancestor target then the weapons are assigned to the next matching ancestor.

There could be an auto-assignment for directors and weapons, e.g.

if secondary's director is placed on the starboard side then all starboard secondary's (weapon set) are assigned to it.

if secondary's director is placed on the centreline and forwards, then forwards secondary's are assigned to it.

The same for main guns, if an extra main gun director is placed on the centreline and aft, then all aft main guns are assigned to it.

If an extra main gun director is placed on the starboard, then all starboard main guns are assigned to it.

Etc.

If no extra directors then no extra or independent targeting.

And the system could done for torps too, if a designer wants independent targeting torpedo's, then they would add a torpedo targeting system (a small director of sorts). 

All-n-all it will be up to the designer to describe there targeting design for battle. Full the decks with Functionality I say!

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Skeksis

[Kampfgurke]

I just want to safe my ship designs. Also i dont know if you guys have it implemented because i am not so far into. I would like to choose design types. the japanese battleship style is different than the german. 

[Jetu]

Designing ships is fun, but there are some things that need more attention than currently is provided.
Internal space: Barbettes and Turbines & Boilers. Citadel length paired with armor weights.

Currently, the only major hinderance you come across is weight and cost.
So I just want more attention to be paid at what isn't seen on the surface of the ship, but what's inside. 

Switch the slider to a button to place the turbines and boilers yourself, where the turret barbettes hinder space available...
Though it doesn't have to be individually placed, could just be "Assign engine space" (Where you click and drag a box to place engines, and ctrl+click to remove), and have the game calculate speed based on how much is available, and quality. 

((From an older game, but it shows what I mean. But I understand you want to keep things rather simple))

Lastly, just wanted to say the game should take into account citadel length for the Belt, Deck and Extended Belt, Extended Deck.
(Something like: Citadel Length ##% of ship length)
This percent could be calculated automatically by the length end points of barbettes and engines.
This would help players that want to keep weights down by creating condensed citadel designs.

[akd]

15 hours ago, Skeksis said:

In regards to the consideration of adding independent targeting for secondary's , what about assigning a target to each “director”.

Each “Director” can assign one target.

Each director to be assigned a weapons set.

After adding the main tower, If a player adds another director, then it can be assigned a weapon set like secondary's , so when in battle, with two directors there are two targeting options, main director with main guns and the second director with secondary's.

This can be expanded too, if players adds two more directors, one on each of the starboard and port sides, then the directors can be assigned the starboard and port weapons sets giving the player options of firing on targets on both sides.

Here's how the (new) targeting structure might look like (listed ancestor to descendant).

Fleet: 

               Default Target.

               Main Director Target (lead ship).

               Director 2 Target (lead ship).

                …. (more).

Division: 

               Main Director Target (lead ship).              

               Director 2 Target (lead ship).

               …. (more).

Ship: 

Main Director Target.    

Director 2 Target.

Director 3 Target.

              …. (more).

All targets default to the fleets main director target, independent targeting only changes when the player selects a director and targets something.

The main fleet director is also the default target (in-case the main tower is destroyed).

If a director is destroyed then that extra targeting ability is lost.

If a descendant director or its target is destroyed then that weapon set is assign its ancestor target. If there is no matching ancestor or no ancestor target then the weapons are assigned to the next matching ancestor.

There could be an auto-assignment for directors and weapons, e.g.

if secondary's director is placed on the starboard side then all starboard secondary's (weapon set) are assigned to it.

if secondary's director is placed on the centreline and forwards, then forwards secondary's are assigned to it.

The same for main guns, if an extra main gun director is placed on the centreline and aft, then all aft main guns are assigned to it.

If an extra main gun director is placed on the starboard, then all starboard main guns are assigned to it.

Etc.

If no extra directors then no extra or independent targeting.

And the system could done for torps too, if a designer wants independent targeting torpedo's, then they would add a torpedo targeting system (a small director of sorts). 

All-n-all it will be up to the designer to describe there targeting design for battle. Full the decks with Functionality I say!

 

But guns were entirely capable of independent fire, and that would of course be the norm early in the era.  Don’t like the idea of an entire broadside of secondaries sitting idle because you don’t have late-era secondary directors.  Directors should be an aid to targeting, not a hard gate.

[Vekken]

First well done dev team. It is a good start and has alot of potential. I am not going to rehash anything mentioned before. I do like the fire control director idea it would allow us to build in redundancy in case of damage. One thing I would like to see is the additional option to select gun length. I am surprised no one has mentioned it before. Many ships had same bore guns with different barrel lenghts. Ex. Pennsylvania class 14" 45s, New Mexico and Tennessee class 14" 50s. Same with North Carolina and South Dakota 16" 45s and Iowa's 16" 50s.

[Absolute0CA]

I mentioned it in my fleet review general game review list. 

1 hour ago, Vekken said:

First well done dev team. It is a good start and has alot of potential. I am not going to rehash anything mentioned before. I do like the fire control director idea it would allow us to build in redundancy in case of damage. One thing I would like to see is the additional option to select gun length. I am surprised no one has mentioned it before. Many ships had same bore guns with different barrel lenghts. Ex. Pennsylvania class 14" 45s, New Mexico and Tennessee class 14" 50s. Same with North Carolina and South Dakota 16" 45s and Iowa's 16" 50s.

 

[Skeksis]

5 hours ago, akd said:

But guns were entirely capable of independent fire, and that would of course be the norm early in the era.  Don’t like the idea of an entire broadside of secondaries sitting idle because you don’t have late-era secondary directors.  Directors should be an aid to targeting, not a hard gate.

Maybe you haven't keep-up with the forum, the "status-quo" still has secondary's (all weapons) firing but only on one target and not the opposite side.

Dev's have already stated no independent firing for each single turret, most likely too hard on the CPU for lower end rigs.

Dev's have already stated they're considering starboard and port side targets.

Common feedback is for secondary's to have there own target.

To change from the status-quo, adding directors is a solution, in-between the current constraints and incorporating almost everything!

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Skeksis

[akd]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

Maybe you haven't keep-up with the forum, the "status-quo" still has secondary's (all weapons) firing but only on one target and not the opposite side.

Dev's have already stated no independent firing for each single turret, most likely too hard on the CPU for lower end rigs.

Dev's have already stated they're considering starboard and port side targets.

Common feedback is for secondary's to have there own target.

To change from the status-quo, adding directors is a solution, in-between the current constraints and incorporating almost everything!

 

Everything you wrote before last indicates a change from status quo, and none of it is tied to directors.

Guns / turrets of same type are grouped batteries, then director technology adds bonuses to accuracy that are consistent with fire control through a director.  So early on you get "centralized firing" but without the benefits of the actual technology installed.

Edited October 18, 2019 by akd

[Skeksis]

6 hours ago, akd said:

Everything you wrote before last indicates a change from status quo, and none of it is tied to directors.

Guns / turrets of same type are grouped batteries, then director technology adds bonuses to accuracy that are consistent with fire control through a director.  So early on you get "centralized firing" but without the benefits of the actual technology installed.

It is what it is, it isn't what it isn't. 🤣

Edited October 19, 2019 by Skeksis