>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<

[Absolute0CA]

I said it else where that it should be a barbette a turret size, it actually makes a huge difference in fitting weapons on a ship if you have to mount a 15” single gun on a 18” three gun barbette.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Absolute0CA

[ThatZenoGuy]

Why not just merge the barbettes into the turrets?

Right now its "Centreline guns. Side guns"

Why not above, but when clicked goes to

"Turrets, Superfiring Turrets", etc.

[Nikarus]

Say I've got a few battlecruisers in a division. My fleet is in a good position relative to the enemy, but there's a couple cruisers retreating in a different direction after they've taken some damage. I want to detach 1 of my ships to go and chase them down and finish them off. So I select the rearmost ship of my formation, click the "detach" option.

What I'd expect is that the solo ship would remain selected, so when I right click, it'll be the 1 ship being sent to chase down the retreating ships.

What actually happens is that the initial division the ship had been part of remains selected, and when I click to send my 1 ship to chase down the stragglers... the whole division heads that way except the 1 ship I detached.

Don't know about other people, but I'd prefer it if the lone ship was what remained selected so I can immediately give it orders.

[Latur Husky]

Raised barbettes shouldn't be nod based stuff. They should work same as guns where you can plop them anywhere they can fit and they should have nod on top of them to plop gun on.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Asthaven

[DerekChasing]

Buy it! Play it! And love it!!!

 

BTW, is there any way to achieve HMS Nelson like of design which primary tower on rare side then there is enough room for 3 primary guns?

Currently, there is no way to achieve without skip front tower.

 

 

[Jetu]

17 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:

I said it else where that it should be a barbette a turret size, it actually makes a huge difference in fitting weapons on a ship if you have to mount a 15” single gun on a 18” three gun barbette.

Pretty much this, thinking about it... most turrets already come with a barbette base (or rather all should)?...
One could easily just extend the barbette trunks down so that you can simply raise the turrets as you are placing them. 
Speaking of 3 settings that the player toggles through when placing a turret down:
3- Triple overlap  (Like Atlanta, or Yamato 155mm secondaries)
2- Superfiring
1- Deck

Just thinking it would really simplify things designer wise if it was treated like rotation where you just have to tap a key.

[Agathos]

I noticed some visiual issues with the advance forward and aft towers that have a barbette integrated.

The 3D model of larger main turrets, even when they fit to the barbette of those towers will interfere and overlap with the bridges on those towers. I suggest that the integrated barbette be moved further away (about 5-10m) from the bridge or that the barbette will fit its size and position to the turret it actually mounts.

[JACK5225]

Please can anyone tell me if you can see how much ammo you will have of each type in the designer. Maybe i just cant see it, but it would be nice 

[RedParadize]

I personally cant stand the placement restriction of tower and barbette. Its way too limited and result is often very ugly and unbalanced. On some ship like the Battlecruiser IV stretching the ship do not free up space at all.

[Agathos]

In the new "Semi-dreadnought" mission the BB hull is useless. Once you place a forward tower you can not place any main turret infront of it.

[Absolute0CA]

8 hours ago, JACK5225 said:

Please can anyone tell me if you can see how much ammo you will have of each type in the designer. Maybe i just cant see it, but it would be nice 

For each gun size select the weapon, but yeah as far as I’m aware individual per weapon type shell count probably doesn’t exist.

5 hours ago, RedParadize said:

I personally cant stand the placement restriction of tower and barbette. Its way too limited and result is often very ugly and unbalanced. On some ship like the Battlecruiser IV stretching the ship do not free up space at all.

On most not just BC IV and it’s been asked for repeatedly.

2 hours ago, Agathos said:

In the new "Semi-dreadnought" mission the BB hull is useless. Once you place a forward tower you can not place any main turret infront of it.

Really? I’m going to have to test this...

[RedParadize]

3 hours ago, Agathos said:

In the new "Semi-dreadnought" mission the BB hull is useless. Once you place a forward tower you can not place any main turret infront of it.

You can if you use the lower tier tower or with lesser gun. Then you have to deal with the weigh offset that barely can be compensated. Personally I do not like these choice limitation. It feel too imposed, at that point you might as well give me the choice between a couple variant it would not make much difference.

Edited October 26, 2019 by RedParadize

[Steeltrap]

Hi, my first post.

When it comes to the designer, I have 2 initial points:

1. Weight distribution seems a bit wonky. In reality, of course, the designers put everything they knew was going to be constructed in the correct positions to give the greatest stability possible. In other words, you shouldn't end up with a bow heavy ship by placing two turrets up front and one astern because the engines and boilers etc would be position so as to address that (indeed the ship would be stern heavy at launch).

2. Engine efficiency is critical. It would be good to get a warning message that "Your top speed is limited as your engine efficiency is below 100%. Add more funnel capacity" or something similar. I've seen plenty of videos where people don't realise this because the designer only displays that aspect in the right side data if you scroll down. As ship speed was one of the 4 major design aspects, I think this should be clearly visible.

Cheers

[sarrumac]

We need more barbettes sizes, more heights, and more positions to put the; in. The game does a good job at modelling pitch and roll. So if a player wants to design something over the top, let him do it and pay the price.

Edited October 26, 2019 by sarrumac

[Bloodravenftw]

On 10/7/2019 at 12:36 PM, Jatzi said:

I kinda disagree about the whole less complex ship design thing. Now I don't know about implementing things like hull customization and if you guys don't put it in cuz it's hard to do from a technical standpoint then ok. But not doing it because you want the ship designer less complex is a mistake I think. Being able to change the hull, even a little, in order to fit what we want would be really nice. And in some cases it just makes sense. For example, in a lot of the pre-dread hulls there's dedicated space for funnels with casemates on the sides but I, at least, haven't used all space yet in any design. I can't get rid of it though and am stuck with empty space, in some cases quite a bit of space too. Why would a ship be designed with all that empty space? Let us be able to change if we have the tech for it, centerline turret tech for example. You can make it a tech thing if you want, idk. But just let us be able to change the hulls a little bit, to add more space or main guns, or casemates, or whatever. Complexity is good, we like complexity. Please

I second this. This game is not going to appeal to casual players to begin with so you might as well go all out for those of us that are interested

 

[Bloodravenftw]

I don't like that I keep getting issues with placing guns it says it collides with border on a lot of places where the model fits but the gun barrel stick out over the side. This is rediculous. Players should be allowed to place items on the ship with much more freedom. Unless models collide I don't see the point of making it so stuff doesn't fit 

[Bloodravenftw]

On 10/6/2019 at 8:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

The Auto-Designer is made in a way that player can easily understand what to do, create his ship fast and send it to combat. Making the system even more detailed, with cut parts (we tried that) would raise so many questions about usability for players, even ourselves the developers, that the game would lose a lot of its playability. We will add several more design options but not cut parts. Much later, we can try to add more complexity, but first we have to focus on finishing the game's campaign.

Gun turrets will be strictly tied to technology, but some special hulls will be available only to specific Nations. Barbette thickness/function is planned to become more detailed in the near future.

Press Ctrl while moving the mount point for more placement freedom. If the problem persists, please use the in-game report button, so we can take a look and fix accordingly.

In campaign it would be easier to recreate this ship for Germany. But in missions you can find it and possibly recreate close enough. For example in mission "The Power of Dreadnoughts" with no tech boost option.

It is planned for the future.

We will note down to make, if possible.

I suggest to you and also everyone else, to first use "Auto-Design" button then make any necessary adjustments for an effective and faster ship design.

Thank you. We shall correct that.

We will check, but if possible make an in-game report to check specifically this issue you notice.

Turrets and the like should have a few styles of each to chose maybe just a few but at least some variety. And maybe as a 50/50 on the hull thing allow a hull designer on its own you can chose to use or something.

 

[Steeltrap]

On 10/24/2019 at 5:06 PM, Absolute0CA said:

I said it else where that it should be a barbette a turret size, it actually makes a huge difference in fitting weapons on a ship if you have to mount a 15” single gun on a 18” three gun barbette.

Indeed I seem to remember reading that in the North Carolina class (from memory, haven't checked) the forward barbette was such a close fit for the hull shape that it had consequences for the torpedo defence system.

In some respects the design system is doing a great job of streamlining what was a remarkably complex task, balancing armament, armour, firepower, displacement, hull design and power plant all to meed a set of requirements that themselves might change. It's bound to have a few limitations at this stage, but it's true to say you don't put a larger barbette than is strictly necessary and, consequently, there really ought to be one for each calibre and turret for that calibre.

[Schwieger]

It would be nice to be able to place turrets in this type of arrangement: 

 

[Absolute0CA]

Not only that, have turrets able to fire over the ones in front of them at sufficient range.

[Tankaxe]

On 10/25/2019 at 6:54 PM, Agathos said:

In the new "Semi-dreadnought" mission the BB hull is useless. Once you place a forward tower you can not place any main turret infront of it.

I can confirm the maximum allowed gun caliber is 11". I have a theory that it was made to fit the more earlier round turrets and the more advanced turrets cant fit.

On the same not please devs give us the option to customize our turrets. It doesn't has to be a priority but it can go a long way of giving a flavor to player designed ships

[Absolute0CA]

1 hour ago, Tankaxe said:

I can confirm the maximum allowed gun caliber is 11". I have a theory that it was made to fit the more earlier round turrets and the more advanced turrets cant fit.

On the same not please devs give us the option to customize our turrets. It doesn't has to be a priority but it can go a long way of giving a flavor to player designed ships

Don't just say it actually give a picture, though I did manage to get 13" to fit with some shenanigans.

And the 13" Armed ship:

Edit: Yes I'm taking advantage of a glaring design flaw with the model not having the barbette cap to place it in a way that really shouldn't work at all.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Absolute0CA

[Tyrendian89]

What I'd like to see at some point further down the line would be a bit more variation/options in the guns we have access to.

Right now, a 6" gun is a 6" gun, period, and even gun sizes only go up in increments of one full inch (there were obviously tons of guns historically that fell between these neat increments). On top of that we have shell weight, type of powder, and an arbitrary "advanced loading/autoloading" buff option.

There's a lot more to it, for example in barrel length (one of the best examples are probably the USN 5"/38 vs 5"/51, but also the various kinds of 16" guns from Colorado to Iowa), actual autoloaders like on the Des Moines or some post-war 6" cruisers that gave a lot more than 25% better reload, shells becoming a lot better over time, and others.

Not a high priority issue at all, but at some point I'd kinda like to be able to recreate more of the intricacies of historical ships 🙂

[Latur Husky]

1 hour ago, Tyrendian89 said:

What I'd like to see at some point further down the line would be a bit more variation/options in the guns we have access to.

Right now, a 6" gun is a 6" gun, period, and even gun sizes only go up in increments of one full inch (there were obviously tons of guns historically that fell between these neat increments). On top of that we have shell weight, type of powder, and an arbitrary "advanced loading/autoloading" buff option.

There's a lot more to it, for example in barrel length (one of the best examples are probably the USN 5"/38 vs 5"/51, but also the various kinds of 16" guns from Colorado to Iowa), actual autoloaders like on the Des Moines or some post-war 6" cruisers that gave a lot more than 25% better reload, shells becoming a lot better over time, and others.

Not a high priority issue at all, but at some point I'd kinda like to be able to recreate more of the intricacies of historical ships 🙂

We'll probably see more of that in a campaign, but yeah it would be nice to see other variants of same caliber gun from different time periods or other calibers at all etc...

[Steeltrap]

On 10/24/2019 at 12:57 PM, Hangar18 said:

Shinano took 4 before capsizing.

To be fair, Shinano wasn't the completed article in terms of having ducting and other breaches between compartments and had a relatively novice crew (supposedly).

That's what I remember reading, anyway. Was a book by Edward L Beach about his time in Trigger (I think) but also discussed other notable submarine happenings, including this one.

p.s. I appear to have lost my training wheels, I'm sure the mods will be happy not to have to read all my posts LOL.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Steeltrap
Added a postscript