Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Asthaven said:

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...

If I had to guess I imagine the devs are working on getting the designer and all the other important bedrock mechanics nailed down.

Be easy enough to introduce different flavours and gun performance between nations later on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 297
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I know that what a lot of what I’m about to say has been said before, but I feel suggestion reports often work on a principle of ‘accuracy by volume’ I will preface this by saying that the compe

I'll second this piece of feedback right here. I was really hoping to being able to put together the hull myself, including superstructure and all that.

I never said it was a good idea 😉   If I'm honest, nail + head. I want to mess around! It's really no skin off the dev's back to free up many of the current constrictions to improve the pl

Posted Images

19 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:

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

unknown.png

And the 13" Armed ship:

unknown.png

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.

LOL at that front turret. How do you rotate things on the mount point?

I did what someone else did, namely used a smaller main tower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'd like to see is dynamic turret ring mount diameter for turrets that mount different numbers of the same caliber tubes.

For instance, back before WW2 there were plans to build the Scharnhorst class pocket battleships with twin 38 cm turrets, which was later changed to rearming them just so at the earliest opportunity by replacing their triple 28 cm mounts. Note that the main reason they weren't built with 38 cm guns was the fact the 28 cm turrets were readily available; 38 cm turrets would take years to develop, and mini moustache wanted capital ships as soon as possible to fulfill his political ideals.

Another thing I'd like to see is the ability to connect the forward and rear towers with deck assemblies and integral mounting points for secondary batteries.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 9:57 AM, Hangar18 said:

Shinano took 4 before capsizing.

Shinano wasn't even a finished warship, do some research please.

She had missing watertight doors and chambers, her captain didn't do ANY damage control measures, and generally she was doomed to sink because she was a floating paper boat.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Shinano wasn't even a finished warship, do some research please.

She had missing watertight doors and chambers, her captain didn't do ANY damage control measures, and generally she was doomed to sink because she was a floating paper boat.

 

Not only that what compartments she did have that were “finished” was such low quality they leaked anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 1:59 AM, Absolute0CA said:

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

This is already possible at least for the main battery. I got 9 gun salvos off at long range in a Nelson-type setup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sarrumac said:

Still fore heavy. Yup, everything is fine....

Are you going for speed? I have a design like this. I use torpedo to balance.

43oWotO.jpg

I ended up making this one instead. Two 2x16" gun weight and cost less than three 2x14. Target signature is lower, that is something that people often neglect, it make you harder to hit.
KGtwAoP.jpg

You get a noticeable Smoke interference penalty at these speed. But if you keep Pitch penalty low it wont hurt too much. Enemies have a hard time hitting this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am pretty sure that its much higher Target signature must negate the speed advantage evasion wise. Its armor and standard bulkhead must make it very sensitive too. And you only get two of them. I do not think its worth it to go that fast but I will try to make one to see. Probably gonna have to trade the firepower bonus for maneuverability. Gonna lose the radar...

Edit: I did it without sacrificing the Radar. But it only have the cost in survivability and accuracy is too high... Specially when you have just two ship. At 46 trough...

Edited by RedParadize
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would suggest to add warnings to inefficient armor distribution as well. I came across strange thing, that you can add more armor to extended areas than to the main one. Maybe I would even consider to lock the slide, so that you can not overbuff those areas at all...

Edited by puxflacet
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, puxflacet said:

Would suggest to add warnings to inefficient armor distribution as well. I came across strange thing, that you can add more armor to extended areas than to the main one. Maybe I would even consider to lock the slide, so that you can not overbuff those areas at all...

That's because its a comparatively small volume of the ship (about 1/5th to 1/3rd of length depending on who designed the bloody thing. So you can put more armor there than what ever would be reasonable. Its not so much a player problem because we all know to protect the citadel. (I hope) Its the random generated AI designs that can get wonky that's the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@puxflacet Well you could also chose to do that on purpose. If your plan is to go straight at the enemy (or away) then belt is not that useful.

:) weird designs ahead...i can imagine ship designed around humongous ram could use huge extended bow belt...but in case of deck armor no reasonable explanation comes to my mind...however it could be used to offset the balance, if there would be option for different values for bow and stern...

Still I hope that game will get pass that armor chart and evolves to actually visible armor model.

@Absolute0CA ...actually, I saw a youtuber to do it with serious mind :)

Edited by puxflacet
Link to post
Share on other sites

Warship Gunner series ship design where ya can design the ship interior like boilers or ammo storage or some other machinery  and have its own damage module and reflect the combats .Maybe some way to customize preset hull length or wide of set displacement

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 3:20 PM, sarrumac said:

 

Still fore heavy. Yup, everything is fine....

image.png

what the hello kitty

that makes no sense

its SO BOW HEAVY

seems like something that needs to get fixed it should not be that bow heavy by standard

Edited by Christian
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, first post etc.

Has it been mentioned yet that fuel stowage modifiers are rather borked at the moment? I did a quick search but didn't see anything mentioned. I don't know how the assigned fuel tonnage is calculated but either I am getting a weird glitch or something REALLY odd is happening.

The modifiers to the fuel stowage for oil fuel and diesel engines seem to be incorrect and when you combine them the ship has no fuel at all and the range slider has no effect.

Pics or it didn't happen:

stowage 1.jpg

stowage 2.jpg

Stowage 3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, FifthHorseman said:

Hi, first post etc.

Has it been mentioned yet that fuel stowage modifiers are rather borked at the moment? I did a quick search but didn't see anything mentioned. I don't know how the assigned fuel tonnage is calculated but either I am getting a weird glitch or something REALLY odd is happening.

The modifiers to the fuel stowage for oil fuel and diesel engines seem to be incorrect and when you combine them the ship has no fuel at all and the range slider has no effect.

Pics or it didn't happen:

stowage 1.jpg

stowage 2.jpg

Stowage 3.jpg

Thank you, we will look to fix.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope to levy Legitimate criticism, and offer decent suggestions, But i will first preface that so far I think everything is fantastic, This is certainly on its way to become a great game.

 

One thing I do not like is that Displacement is merely a slider that extends length, Perhaps in its stead we could have 3 sliders one for length, one for beam, and one for draught, then Displacement would be generated. This very well could be a nightmare to program, so at least having a slider to change beam would be nice.

Hull forms are more limiting then it looked like it was going to be in the first preview. I have read that this seemed to be over complicated for both the player, and to a degree the developers them selves. I would like to suggest a compromise in a second party hull form slice builder of hull forms. If this were done perhaps the alpha tester base can submit hull forms for the developers to examine. Otherwise I can only imagine the base will ask for progressively more and more hull forms, weather these are given free or in cheap DLCs this seems to also be a suitable option.

Placements of barrettes, towers and smoke stacks are over limited. I think overall the snap points should be removed, or have the option to turn them off. I am aware of the Ctrl key to help with movement of parts, I just find it too limiting.

Guns Independent form turret forms I would like to see additional turret styles of course as i am sure the entire community dose, but what i would like to ask is that turret body be divorced from the guns themselves. perhaps selecting a turret body, and then having caliber options available this would then affect the turret size.

Torpedo casemates, not common but sometimes battleships had them Pre-refit Nagato class did atleast. just a suggestion.

a more interactive boiler/ exhaust feature, and DISGUSTING THICK BLACK SMOG.

Later on it would be nice to see additional class types, Gun boats, protected cruisers, support ships for the campaign, Oilers, repair, food ships not so much for combat, but to be protected for out of combat purposes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings, a new person appears lurking here. Preordered this promissing game, but the standard edition, and play it on youtubes. That is enough though to see what is what for now.

I have some thoughts about designer. Some for gameplay too, but these worth little without actual playing.

First of all, ship designer clearly is key feature for this kind of game. It should at minimum allow the proper recreation of historical ships, at maximum be just as flexible as possible, and in this view, and with me being mostly interested in ship design, it's current version is... disappointing. It is so much limited, so much unnecessarily simplified in some quite important parts, as much as it's great in others.

So, thoughts. Or complains. Or suggestions?

I don't like how close this editor is to "slap together 2.5 parts in the only possible configuration, oh look, we already did this for you".
If this is intended, the need of even adding ship editor seems unclear.
What's needed to make it better - what makes any gamey builder better - is two things.

More detailed breakdown. Split these boats into bigger count, of more specialized functional parts, and give us better control over them.

And less obvious matching. Less embedded gun mounts, restricted hardpoints, predefined shapes.

 

   For first one: a Hull, Towers, Funnels, Guns.. and that's all.

- Hull can greatly benefit from becoming more modular. Adjustable sizes for all axes already were proposed multiple times, and I'll add: make Engines adjustable entities, and allow us to move them inside the hull manually, or at least by presets. Engines aren't always in the dead center of the ship. Additionally, funnels may be locked to be placeable only above the engine rooms. And on the other side, turrets (mains, or any above 6") can not be placed above engines (means engines are automatically moved away from turrets until no more space left).

- As proposed many times, turrets with different numbers of same gun should, as they were irl, have different diameters, and turrets of less, but bigger guns, should match sizes with turrets of more, but smaller guns. Barbette part must have matching variants for all possible turret diameters.

- Also, the raised forecastle, which currently is copied from inspiration ship as is. That particular shape was created for that particular ship, and will not work well in any other config. I think, the forecastle should become separate adjustable component. For each hull, basic shape will be flat main deck, and we'll be able to choose length and shape (from several preset types) of the forecastle/casemate deck, or even remove it completely; for each hull what exactly is treated as forecastle is to be determined.
- Towers can be separated into superstructure fore/aft and actual masts, with current Tower's functions split between them. Only one mast can be mandatory, with second giving some good bonuses. Superstructure mid may be added, to provide more design options and additional space for guns.

 

 And for second: there's too much parts that are clearly made to fit on some other parts, or to have something very particular fitted on them. After all, they are all ripped from real ships.
Namely embedded gun mounts and empty places for funnels. This includes casemate insets on almost all hulls.
- Good part set must be as neutral as possible. Hulls should not bear empty casemates, superstructures should not be covered in gun platforms or even maingun barbettes. Individual part's model must look like it's supposed to be mounted as is, with nothing more. And only if you mount something else on top of this model, said something else should bring necessary mounting point with it. So unarmed ship must look like it's not even supposed to have guns.
 - Guns, funnels and other parts that are supposed to be mounted in particular way, should have their own separate models of mounting points, in best case specific to the each hull's part set. Barbettes and casemates for guns, boats or whatever around funnels, all this stuff will come together with the part that needs it. So you can freely place a casemate gun somewhere on the edge of the deck, and this part of edge will be replaced by casemate, where the gun will happily sit; but without that gun it's just flush side. Or you can place a turret on the front edge of the Tower III and it will create a barbette underneath; but without that turret there's no barbette. Funnel will spawn set of boats around if there's enough space, but without that turret, there will be no empty space surrounded by boats. Small gun mounts will create gun platforms for themselves if placed somewhere on narrow edge, but without that gun there will nit be any platforms.
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...