>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<

[Yuubari_]

I would like to report 2 things I noticed if they haven't brought up already

What I noticed was that if you try to set up crossdeck fire, the the weight is completely screwed over up to 100% weight offset on one side of the ship. 

The other thing that is kinda annoying is when you place down a turret in a rotated position that it doesn't mirror to the other side 

(Both things I mentioned are included in the attachments)

[Pedroig]

Your first one is probably due to the fact you still have the turret selected.  I was able to get balanced crossfire turrets down quite easily.

The second one, interesting...

[Faolind]

Second request for the devs:

 

I'd like tech for camo options.

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Faolind

[Absolute0CA]

11 hours ago, Yuubari_ said:

What I noticed was that if you try to set up crossdeck fire, the the weight is completely screwed over up to 100% weight offset on one side of the ship. 

This is because you still have the turret selected and because of how the designer work it’s calculates what the effect of the item you have selected would have on the ship even if it’s off screen.

[Absolute0CA]

Found an error, the 15" Mark 1 Turret is lacking the barbette cap so it fits in places it really shouldn't. the one in red is a 14" turret for reference.

 

[RedParadize]

Hi there!

First of, I would like to its a very promising game. I am loving it. About the editor I would like to suggest few things. For the most part its all about freedom and flexibility, but also about few things that must be bugs:

1- Hull shape and size:

I would really like to have more control on the hull shape and what section get extended when increasing the tonnage. You could add more hull shape but it would never be as good as having choice on each of them.

2- Snap point are very limiting:

Snap point for towers, funnels and barbettes are too limited. Often I have to redesign the ship from scratch just because Snap point for one of these is 1m away from where it could be. It also greatly restrict creativity. I would like to try Nelson style (all gun in front) or even asymmetric design with bridge off center. Why not removing them completely? Have them be limited to a specific surface area instead.

3- Weight distribution:

This problem is accentuated by the Snap point limitation. I like that ship balance is important, but I feel it is needlessly hard. Often I will add torp launcher on front/rear of battleship just to balance them (they are by far the most effective way). I would suggest to add dead weight, manually placed or automatic. That way we could fix the small unbalance left with minimal cost.

4- Tower model and attribute:

Atm tower hold too many attribute. Most case scenario you have to chose the latest to get the long range buff or else. Often the latest do not have the shape you like or have unneeded attribute that add extra cost. I would really like to have customizable tower, or to have the buff item like range finder etc separated and placable manualy. (were they are placed would matter.)

5- Turret Ring size and number of gun:

While it doesn't bug me on small guns, on the 16inch and up the turret ring is ridiculously big for the single gun mount. It would make sense that single, double and triple mount have different turret diameter, at least for these. Maybe it would be nice to be able to chose the turret independently from the gun. That way each of them could have different attribute, like rangefinder for turret and barrel length for gun.

Now the "Bugs":

1- Number of gun and ammo count:

Atm ammo get added per gun count and get extra amount for double and triple. Example: the 17inch turret get 50 ammo on single mount, 100 on double and 150 on triple. This is also true for torpedo launcher. This obviously should not be the case. Total amount of ammo should be constant. Btw, it would be very nice to have more choice regarding the number of ammo carried.

2- Extended belt and deck:

Atm they need to be heavily armored as you can get a ammo explosion and engine critical when shot land on them. Basically its like if these thing were not in the citadel. I read that you plan on reworking that part so I will wait and see.

3- Adjusting armor lag:

Adjusting armor can sometimes become extremely slow. I found a revealing work around trough. If you close all the stats bar on the right it fix it. I suspect updating your UI might be a bit too intense.

3- triple mount accuracy:

I suspect the triple mount accuracy penality is applied twice. First when selecting it and again during game. Would be better if it was only in editor.



Another note:

This does not belong on the game designer but I find small caliber guns to be completely useless. There is no point in adding secondary guns, they are just not accurate enough to get the Torpedo boat and Destroyer. Smaller main gun are too unaccurate to be usefull too. I think the 12inch accuracy should be on par with big gun at the 10000 range, or much closer. Otherwise as a player I will only use the most accurate big gun. Thats also mean not building anything smaller than BC exept for TB and Destroyer for spotting and torpedoing.

Thanks!

Edited October 20, 2019 by RedParadize

[Absolute0CA]

Two more things.

1. As shown in the picture below the DD bridge and the like doesn't block the firing angles of the torpedoes.

2. Even if the ship can't have barbettes the icon is still select able please fix this.

 

Edit: It actually effects all weapons not just torpedoes.

Edited October 21, 2019 by Absolute0CA

[Agathos]

Even with the unpolished UI i really like the ship designer in general, the following feedback therefore should improve the experience:

Bugs:

• if i rotate an item the mirror function will not mirror the rotation
• left UI bar seems to autoscroll down when certan - especially aux engine - tabs where opened

 

parts placement

• i would really like to have the same freedom of placement for towers and funnels that i have using the CTRL-key for turrets, so that i have more control over excatly where a tower is placed and how much space there is between parts
• i often find it hard to avoid for- or aft-weight setoffs when placing parts in a way i get a pleasant and somewhat realistic look, on some hulls it is required to place the aftmost or foremost turret at locations where its barbette would unlikely fit into the hull, so it would be nice if i could move some internal parts (engine, gear etc.) to some extend to balance out the weight
• currently i have the feeling that the barbettes for single, dual and triple mounts of one caliber have the same size, would be nice if there is some slight difference that i could place possibly place a dual mount, where a triple of same caliber would be to large, this would also give more choice i.e. triple 14" vs. dual 15" or single 16" i.e.
• barbettes should scale and be an option for the turret, not be a part itself, i.e. if i go into 15" turrets i could select a superimposed turret and it would that automatically get the necessary barbette, instead of choosing the barbette on its own
• it would be great if i could to some degree change the position where on the hull with a lower aft deck, the "break" in the deck would be, currently i often find the break to be to far forward to get a well balanced layout

UI

• when changing or hovering over the different armor sections it would be great to have an overlay on the 3d model to see which parts are changed and what is actually covered, would be even greater if this overlay than also shows the internal arrangement, so i can see if my heavy belt actually covers the engines room i.e.
• i would like to be able to type in most values on the left UI side i.e. displacement, speed, armor

[puxflacet]

I have a note to pre-designed platforms for turrets, like the last dreadnought tower with superfiring barbette, yamato tower with lots of platforms for secondaries, russian pre-dreadnought hull with side mountings for secondary turrets, even casemate gun cutouts... should be invisible , meaning hulls modelled seamlessly without them, no platforms showing and no holes in the hull for casemates, until you actually place something there. Anchor points would be informing you that there is a platform available, or make them semi-transparent, showing only when the player is placing appropriate turret/gun.

Now it just forces you to put something there or live with those gaping holes... which looks kinda weird.

Not to mention that those towers with baked-in barbettes dont handle 17 and 18 inches and you are just wasting space or are forced to take less advanced tower.

Edited October 26, 2019 by puxflacet

[Absolute0CA]

On 10/19/2019 at 9:13 PM, Absolute0CA said:

Found an error, the 15" Mark 1 Turret is lacking the barbette cap so it fits in places it really shouldn't. the one in red is a 14" turret for reference.

 

Should review all turrets for this because I’ve found one more the 13” mark 2 is lacking a barbette cap also.

[sarrumac]

A simple thing to implement would also be to name Hulls by the name of the ship they are inspired by intstead of dreadnought I,II, II, IV.

The roman numerals could be kept, though, indicating a "tier" for the different hulls.

For instance:

Dreadnought      Bayern      Richelieu

TierI                     Tier III       Tier V

 

 

Or something like that. It would be more immersive and would help the players improve their abilities at ship recognition, therefore making the game more educative.

Edited October 22, 2019 by sarrumac

[FinnishJager]

Will we see a hull/superstructure feature where a ship's torpedoes are inside the hull but above the waterline, like most of the Japanese heavy cruisers? I'd imagine they'd work just like the casemates where there's a hard point to attach a mount to.

[Iskander59]

Hello, I've been paying for a few days and here are some things that I think would improve the ship designer. If some people have mentioned them already sorry, but just want to add my 2 cents. Let me start off by saying I already love this game and I am extremely excited for future development. I've been having a ton of fun doing the various Naval Academy missions and designing ships!

1. More Hull Designs: I hope that when the game is released there are more diverse base designs, perhaps based on nationality or at least inspired by the multitude of designs. So for like a Battleship 1 base hull there could be several variants, like ones based off of an American design, French design, German design,  Japanese design etc for all the hull types. I think this would multiple replay-ability exponentially and promote more diverse ship types.

2. More freedom to edit the Hull: Raise sections, widen sections, etc. I've seen people post this already so I wont say much more other than It would be an excellent addition

3. More freedom to place barbettes and additional turrets. I find myself extremely limited in how I want to place turrets and the number of turrets I can place due to the snap points. Especially for barbettes, I feel like there are many places I could put them if they were not restricted by snap points. I guess this applies to towers and funnels as well though I have felt less hindered by them atm.

 4. A little more clarity on how improved armor works. For instance, when I add Krupp it reduces the weight and then says +70 effectiveness (as an example) does this mean that If I had set it 11 inches that it is 11 inches + 70% or is it as strong as 11 inches but lighter?

5. Ability to restrict some features on Auto design, say I want the ship to have a top speed of 26 knots, or 3 main guns, 10 inches of armor, etc.

That is all I can think of right now. Overall I really love this game so far and I am having a ton of fun, please keep up the great work! I cannot wait to play a campaign!!

 

 

Edited October 23, 2019 by Iskander59

[Absolute0CA]

21 minutes ago, Iskander59 said:

1.

That's already coming it's just limited with the academy missions we have right now.

22 minutes ago, Iskander59 said:

2.

As you said mentioned many many times.

22 minutes ago, Iskander59 said:

3.

Press CTRL to disable auto snap for turrets and barbettes, in an upcoming patch this will apply to all on deck components like towers and funnels.

24 minutes ago, Iskander59 said:

 4.

Both are true its 40% lighter and 70% stronger so it would look something like Weight = 1 * [1 - (40%)] and Effective thickness = 1 * [1 + (70%)] so as per your example the effective thickness of 11" armor would be...18.7"

28 minutes ago, Iskander59 said:

5.

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but then again I never use it so I wouldn't realize it has any issues.

[Nikarus]

Can turrets with fewer guns be a bit smaller than their more heavily equipped counterparts?

At the low end, some single mount guns (like 6in and lower) are smaller than their double and triple counterparts. But larger caliber guns, a 10in single is the same diameter as a double, or triple.

IIRC, the Germans planned to fit dual 15s in the same turret space as a triple 11 (Scharnhorst Class). Americans had it planned to be able to fit quad 14s on the North Carolinas instead of triple 16s. Colorados were designed quite along the lines of the previous "standard" battleships, fitting twin 16s where triple 14s previously sat.

[Hangar18]

Glad to see AP getting a pen buff, currently its pretty awful.

FEEDBACK

• I'd like to see more attention on flooding. flooding one side of a ship thats very top heavy could cause a capsize, and thats not really taken into account. Flooding doesnt really do much of anything but add a new HP bar.
• Add an aircraft hanger someday
• Trunked funnels PLEASE
• The CC hull can't get larger than a 14" gun super firing in the front because of the hull shape, which is a bit disappointing... I also found that the hull is very front heavy almost regardless of what you do if you use large guns because of the hard points. 
• Plunging fire seems non existent. 

 

trunked funnel design

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

5 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

I'd like to see more attention on flooding. flooding one side of a ship thats very top heavy could cause a capsize, and thats not really taken into account. Flooding doesnt really do much of anything but add a new HP bar.

THIS!

SO MUCH THIS!

Historically flooding was horrific when done on one side. Its what made torpedoes so deadly.

Musashi which was hit on both sides took almost 20 torpedoes to put down.

Yamato who was focused on one side took half as much.

[TAKTCOM]

7 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:

Press CTRL to disable auto snap for turrets and barbettes, in an upcoming patch this will apply to all on deck components like towers and funnels.

How it works? I can put the turret anywhere with enough space, it doesn't matter press CTRL or not. The same goes for barbettes,  there are few hard points for install barbettes. Press CTRL I am still limited by these hard points. 

8 hours ago, FinnishJager said:

Will we see a hull/superstructure feature where a ship's torpedoes are inside the hull but above the waterline, like most of the Japanese heavy cruisers? I'd imagine they'd work just like the casemates where there's a hard point to attach a mount to.

We some sort already have this

 

Edited October 23, 2019 by TAKTCOM
*

[Absolute0CA]

4 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

How it works? I can put the turret anywhere with enough space, it doesn't matter press CTRL or not. The same goes for barbettes,  there are few hard points for install barbettes. Press CTRL I am still limited by these hard points. 

Sorry forgot barrettes still have snap to locations only, but CTRL is more so you can place turrets close to snap to locations without placing one on a snap to location

[Capt in pyjamas]

Firstly I am thrilled with the game you are developing, and hence happy to buy into it at alpha. 

I see UAD as developing into RTW with WoW quality graphics and UI, which is the dream combination IMHO. 

Also three cheers for making speed and distance correct in battles. 

So onto the ship designer. Some points I noted already (after first evening of "testing"). 

1 Hull design - more hulls is better, but ultimately being able to shape them is best. Perhaps with sliders, the user can tailor a standard Hull for numerous parameters, add various options like anti torpedo bulges, tumble home, bow shape, stern shape etc. This way users can generate thousands of different combinations. I admit this would cause the game issues in calculating the effects of all these variables... It needs to be more than cosmetic though to be of meaningful benefit. More hulls is a good starting point. Maybe make a Hull designer apk kit available to those willing to tinker. 

2 upper deck design. OK so this is more cosmetics, but some more freedom would be nice. 

3 casement main guns? Seems a thing pre dreadnought, I may be wrong. 

4 I guess in campaign mode range of action, fuel types, crew accommodation, freeboard, bow shape etc will take on more significance. 

5 I didn't see much control over citadel design, but I may have missed it in my first few goes. 

 

Hull design in UAD can take on more significance than in RTW because the battle simulation is more realistic (I assume), but only if the Hull design choices actually influences the performance in battle. Do you model ballistics? Also damage modelling needs to be quite realistic to really be impacted by Hull design. 

 

I very much look forward to seeing how this game develops, it has huge potential. I will give more considered feedback later. What you have already released is fantastic. Please keep it up. 

Chris

[Absolute0CA]

51 minutes ago, Capt in pyjamas said:

1 Hull

This is coming the devs have already stated there is 40+ new hulls on the shelves, it’s mostly limited right now by our limited selection of academy missions.

52 minutes ago, Capt in pyjamas said:

2

Surprised no one has mentioned this in this way being able to decorate our decks would be cool.

52 minutes ago, Capt in pyjamas said:

3

You’re thinking Central Battery Iron Clads the step before Pre Dreadnoughts

54 minutes ago, Capt in pyjamas said:

4

Yes, Academy is more sandbox with restrictions than what the campaign will be.

55 minutes ago, Capt in pyjamas said:

5

This is being worked on as of right now there is only 5 fixed citadel options. 

[pegzounet]

Hi everyone, just joining this game and forum, only started to look into it but it looks promising.

I have a suggestion for a small quality of life improvement, when adjusting armor thickness, would it be possible to ctrl-click or shift-click to increase or decrease by a bigger increment than 2.5mm/.1in ? For example click -> .1in, CTRL-click -> 1 in, Shift-click -> 10 in.

 

 

[Absolute0CA]

3 hours ago, pegzounet said:

Hi everyone, just joining this game and forum, only started to look into it but it looks promising.

I have a suggestion for a small quality of life improvement, when adjusting armor thickness, would it be possible to ctrl-click or shift-click to increase or decrease by a bigger increment than 2.5mm/.1in ? For example click -> .1in, CTRL-click -> 1 in, Shift-click -> 10 in.

 

 

This has been mentioned countless times, not in your solution but the general consensus is for being able to type entries or to be able to use the mouse scroll wheel.

[thereddaikon]

This may have been listed elsewhere but, having the barbettes list the range of turret sizes they support would be nice.

[Hangar18]

16 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

THIS!

SO MUCH THIS!

Historically flooding was horrific when done on one side. Its what made torpedoes so deadly.

Musashi which was hit on both sides took almost 20 torpedoes to put down.

Yamato who was focused on one side took half as much.

Shinano took 4 before capsizing.