Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

If I may make a suggestion: ditch the separate barbette parts. Go the Naval Ops route and just have it be different settings for the guns themselves; in said series, you pushed a button to pull up a mini-UI where you could flip the gun's facing and raise or lower its elevation.

Implementing a similar solution would eliminate the current barbette placement woes and look much better than having three generic-sized barbettes for the whole huge range of turret sizes; you'd just be extending the turret's barbette cap texture downward. 

Another advantage of this sort of system is that you could tie the level of superfiring possible to tech levels. The earliest ships of this era didn't have superfiring turrets at all. Through the 30s, most ships used single-superfiring setups, with a few ships having double-superfiring secondary guns, like Yamatos and several models of American cruisers. And some very late paper designs like some Italian cruiser proposals had double-superfiring main batteries for a 5x3 203 broadside.

The very top of the tree might be, at its most extreme, something truly ridiculous like unlocking double-superfiring for massive guns and having the ability to have a 6x3 508 broadside (of course, your citadel would be visible from space, and you'd take enormous stability penalties, from being so topheavy, but, yknow), or you could just leave it capped to like maybe the 203 to 305 range or something.

If you fully implemented it, too, you could have things like the ability to set two centerline turrets between the bridges facing each other with one superfiring over the other, which would be a nice space saving measure, at a tradeoff of limiting your gun arcs a bit.

  • Like 4
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

Hi devs!

Great game so far, and it has so much potential!

Will barbettes for every size of gun be added eventually?  

Also, would it be possible to put snap to points along most of the length of the hull?  At the moment the snap to points can be quite limiting especially regarding the placement of towers and barbettes, which makes it difficult to balance the weight of ships.

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SoyIsNotMilk said:

Will barbettes for every size of gun be added eventually?  

Been asked for a lot.

17 hours ago, SoyIsNotMilk said:

Also, would it be possible to put snap to points along most of the length of the hull?  At the moment the snap to points can be quite limiting especially regarding the placement of towers and barbettes, which makes it difficult to balance the weight of ships.

Been asked to just remove that system entirely and let us free place them repeatedly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 3:33 PM, Absolute0CA said:

Been asked for a lot.

Been asked to just remove that system entirely and let us free place them repeatedly.

Yeah it seems like they start snap points gave up on implementation  and left so the game suffers because neither system is optimised 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

barbet snapping and tower snaps are really limiting the optimizations.
might be some technical thingy behind it but still it's bit annoying 

It's often true that the more 'open' a system the more difficult it is to create an AI able to use it effectively.

Consider some of the problems CA had with TW: Empire, and then ask yourself why sieges in TW: Warhammer are simplified so greatly. If I had to guess, I'd say they did that in TW:WH so the AI might have a chance in sieges, although frankly it's still incredibly stupid and open to exploitation.

So I'd not be surprised to learn that's a significant part of the reason for limited placement opportunities. I could, of course, be incorrect. 

Regardless, I agree it is annoying, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 7:58 AM, Steeltrap said:

It's often true that the more 'open' a system the more difficult it is to create an AI able to use it effectively.

Consider some of the problems CA had with TW: Empire, and then ask yourself why sieges in TW: Warhammer are simplified so greatly. If I had to guess, I'd say they did that in TW:WH so the AI might have a chance in sieges, although frankly it's still incredibly stupid and open to exploitation.

So I'd not be surprised to learn that's a significant part of the reason for limited placement opportunities. I could, of course, be incorrect. 

Regardless, I agree it is annoying, lol.

If that is the case, then why not only limit the AI to snaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2019 at 4:06 AM, AnonymousPepper said:

If that is the case, then why not only limit the AI to snaps?

You could in this case (unlike in a TW game), although it might inevitably mean the AI isn't able to get the 'best' out of any given hull.

That wouldn't be much of a problem, however, provided the 'snaps' still allow for effective and even sometimes historically accurate designs.

It could simply be the devs don't want to do the work that would be necessary behind the scenes to allow that sort of freedom, as we of course don't know how it operates under the surface. An apparently simple change to us as players using the interface might force some more significant changes behind the scenes to make that simple change operate.

We know they know, so I guess we'll have to see just how much freedom they feel they have time to introduce with all the other things on their list.

Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be possible to use snap points or "best practice" for AI ships, while removing some of the snap point requirements for User players?

We know the AI already can build with different constraints based on the mission (mission 23 they get the 105K ton hull which we only can use via cheat mode), why not keep the AI basically the same as for ship designing but remove some of the limits from the user interface side?

If the "auto-designer" is the problem, perhaps have a "pro" or "free" mode available to the player that turns off the auto-designer in exchange for getting rid of superstructure snap points, etc.

With the understanding that I have no programming background and no idea how it would be implemented, here is what THIS player would love to see:

  • If NOTHING else, just remove all snap points in favor of the limit boxes that are already in game (you can find them when you are trying to place secondaries or MB turrets if you get too far from the snap points). There is a key that lets you micromanage where the guns go, at the very least couldn't we do the same for funnels, towers, barbettes?
    • The only snap points would be secondary/barbette mountings and casemate gun points, or a funnel point specifically for a certain tower. These seem to work fine and don't cause major issues.
    • You could retain the limits on how many of a thing can be placed on a hull (so a hull can only support 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 main turrets, but they can be placed anywhere they will fit, a hull may have only a single main tower, only a single secondary tower, etc.)
    • Weight and balance would be even more important, perhaps adjust the "yellow" limit down since we will be able to adjust balance better.
    • Perhaps replace funnel snapping rules to the designer such as "funnel must be aft of main tower". Could funnel cost scale with the amount of "trunk" distance from the boilers? This way you could put a funnel quite a ways aft (think the N3/G3 British design) but it would cost more and weigh more.
  • IDEALLY, I'd like to see an "advanced designer" that lets you get inside the ship more. Have all items have a complete "placement box" that you need to account for when setting up your ship. For example, you can't place a main turret directly over the boiler or engine rooms, but you can place a tower over them as long as there is space for the funnels.
    • When you select your "engine" components, we actually see where the engines are, and how their size changes based on equipment installed. While you have clicked on the engine model, you can move the box around the ship (subject to rulesets like "must be aft of boilers")
      • the further forward engines are the more a shaft will cost (and the more it will cost to upgrade to "Shaft II or III")
      • Just like towers and turrets, moving engines affects balance.
      • They start at a default position
    • Boiler components are selected the same way, but you see in the hull where their "box" is. You can move this around too, but must stay ahead of the engines.
      • You see the funnel uptakes modeled on the deck of the hull. You can click on them and move them, but it adds cost and weight. This can just be a deckhouse looking box, (which you bring to full efficiency by choosing a funnel or funnels that match the exhaust, as we do now), or maybe better yet, 1, 2, or 3 discrete mountings that funnels HAVE to cover (the less powerful the engine/boiler tech, the more funnel mountings are required, up to and including two boiler rooms for a given speed)
      • Instead of having many (rather confusing) options for funnels, you have "single" funnels which would cover ONE point, "double" or "wide" funnels which cover two, and "trunked" or "Mega" Funnels which cover three points.
      • Again, you can move the funnel uptakes at least some (say at least the same length as the boilers are) but the cost and weight of the funnels will scale up.
    • Towers have collision boxes that do not take up space in the hull but need to negotiate the funnel mountings.
      • Some towers in game do not have funnel mounting space, and they CANNOT touch the funnel uptakes.
      • Some towers in game DO have funnel space built in, and they CAN cover the funnel uptakes.
    • Under THIS system, If you want a setup with all armament forward (Dunkerque, Richelieu, Nelson, G3/N3) you can do it but have to move the engines and boilers back. This means you pretty much HAVE to balance it out by setting guns all forward. You could do all aft as well (which would be SUPER cool) but you'd have to spend more money on shaft armor. So this system ALLOWS you to do things but there are definitely disadvantages to doing them.
    • Main Turrets: Each turret has a barbette (this is true in reality, even for deck flush guns). All "barbette" separate components can be removed I suppose.
      • You can place guns as you currently can, but you also can control superfiring by extending the barbette (perhaps a key "shift-up or shift-down") to go up or down one level. This can be controlled by technology and superfiring will reduce the stability score of your ship. Maximum of 3 superfiring - deck level, superfiring position1, superfiring position 2, which is available only with higher tech level)
      • Each barbette acts the same in the damage model as they currently do. Higher barbettes are longer and more likely to be hit, they also cost more to armor. (again, use the mechanics of the game to prevent foolish designs)
      • Each barbette penetrates into the hull, and cannot share the space of a boiler room or engine room. You can place a center P or Q turret, but you have to leave space between the boiler and engine to do so.
      • Each barbette ends with a magazine, which I believe is already modeled.
    • Secondary Turrets that are mounted on the deck can be raised the same way, but do not penetrate into the hull. As far as damage to the module, a hit to the barbette could count as a hit to the gun. They can go up to the third superfiring level (as in Yamato) with appropriate tech.
      • Towers that have dedicated secondary mountings do not need changed, they count as "deck level", but secondaries cannot be raised.
      • Alternatively, towers with secondary mountings automatically set the secondary barbette to the appropriate height, extending to the deck.

This system SHOULD allow for most any actual historical ship to be built. The only thing really missing is the potential of quadruple turrets at least up to 15" guns. Perhaps this can be locked behind research, or be a national flavor.

 

Thanks for reading!

dbs1701

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to purpose a change in the relationship of bulkheads and the damage display compartments. Currently there is no relation between the number of squares and the number of bulkheads. Just a invisible value that is quite hard to judge when in game.

In addition to the values bulkheads give to a ship, the damage control display could also reflected the number of bulkheads with an increase the number of "compartments" shown. To expand on that could compartments be scaled to different sizes depending on what that compartment holds. For example the boiler room would be larger than most compartments and if compromised would equate to larger portion of the ship lost, in the case of fire or flooding.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more freedom with casemates would be nice and allow for some more varied designs imo. For example on the Brandenburg old pre-dread hull most of the casemate spots are limited to 4" guns, why can't I place a 5" or 6" gun there instead? Just have the bigger guns make the slots beside them unusable to reflect the extra space needed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Snap points for Barbettes and Superstructures are rapidly becoming the bane of my life right now - for barbettes in particular, they are unnecessarily restrictive as well as not being able to barbette secondary armaments due to disabling the smaller "pads" causes no end of frustration for me.  Additionally, the displacement slider really isn't that intuitive - perhaps have a hard cap like we do currently but allow for us to manually increase or decrease the length and beam of the ship manually! We also need way more options in terms of superstructure (Nelson, King George, Hood and Lion/Vanguard superstructures when please :D) as well as the ability to mount quad turret mounts similar to the Dunkerque/Strasbourg, King George, Richelieu/Jean Bart classes would be amazing!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this game I guess this is what you would call my wish list

1/Save ship's/Scenario's feature so that they may be shared between players (A Steam Workshop?)

2/I would love to have builds like the Nelson or Agincourt like builds It was one of my fist attempts at designing a historical ship but the Agincourt had 14 12" in twin turrets not possible in the shipyard.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi i'm new here and love the game so far.

i like to try to build ships as close to real ships as possible but noticed that when it comes to attempting to replicating the german armored cruisers it's simply impossible.

At the moment the size of the casemate guns for armored cruisers stops at 127mm (5inch), while the german armored cruisers had 150mm (5.9 inch) casemates and in the case of the scharnhorst class it had 210mm (8.3 inch) casemates even.

I'm not expecting to see those precise calibers in the game but it would be nice if casemate guns from the armored cruisers models could go up to 203mm (8inch) instead of capping them at 127mm (5inch).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello! Recently got the game and have been having lots of fun in the ship designer. With that said, here are my suggestions.

I feel like it would be nice to have barbettes of all sizes be available for all hulls, or at least for smaller barbettes to still be available on larger hulls. Perhaps have the smaller barbette size available in short and tall heights as well, to allow for configurations such as the Yamato's secondaries superfiring over both fore turrets, or for the triple superimposed primary battery of the Atlanta and Dido-classes. 

On the subject of barbettes, it seems a bit odd that turrets can be placed freely while barbettes are limited to pre-set mounts on the hull. I feel like both should be freely placeable.

Other than that, perhaps a penetration table to showcase the ship's zone of immunity and thus better optimize your armor? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello. Last time i was somewhat convoluted, so I'm jumping here quickly to just say: Rule The Waves
  For this designer to justify it's existence, it needs to allow that level of freedom in design. AT MINIMUM.
Smooth change in hull sizes and thus available deck space with displacement (!!!!!!!!), mostly unrestricted placement of guns (only limited by their physical size/firing arc, mount type and research), and superstructures never being in the way of important parts.
  Ideally it must allow that plus manually shifting things around to create uncommon and unique layouts.
  And feature of literally drawing superstructures over assembled functional part (guns + funnels + fire control spots) may be the best solution for combining properly compact gun placement with nice looksies. If it will be possible to place and resize some boxes with shippy textures and details on decks, it may work. Automagical placement of shippy textures already exists.

 In the last update some major issues were addressed, i see now a possibility to shift main tower backwards for Nelson type, but the biggest limitations are still there. Still restrictive snap points, still prefab towers and forecastles, still all turrets of same caliber are of same size, still separate barbettes, hull sizes changing in huge discrete steps, and so on.
I really hope all of this will be fixed, as leaving the designer as it is today potentially may ruin the game for anyone who's actually into this theme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has been covered already:

1. Would like to see ability to stretch the hull to exact length and width in order to accurately replicate historical ships. 

2.  Would like to be able to "fill" in some of the empty areas after the masts.  Some ships just have an open area there.  If we could add deck we could add more guns.  

3.  AA guns would be great to see, along with aircraft of course.  Some ship launched aircraft would be great.   

4.  Ability to save ship designs.  I read this was possible just haven't been able to.  

5.  Ability to design all the ships in a quick battle - only can design one ship and if you launch battle the others are aut-designed.  Not sure if there's a way to do it, can't figure that out.  

6.  Would be nice to see half calibers.   For example the King George VII battleship had 9.5" guns.  

7.  Would be nice to add decks or other platforms around hull to cusomize look but also able to place more guns.  

8.  Would be nice to change position of anchor.  Aesthetic look, but helps replicate historical ships.  

9.  Ability to place the ships name on the hull.  

10.  Ability to add different paint schemes.  

11.  Ability to add porthole "decals" to hull and decks.  



Hopefully there will also be an Ultimate Tank.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Others have covered some very good ideas so far and I like them. I have a simple request though. Being fairly new to the whole ship designing in this detail it's hard for me to visualize where armor starts and stops at. I know there is a description when I hover my mouse over the sections on the left. Would be quite helpful for me if it highlighted on the 3D model of the ship what sections are covered when the description pops up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Will there be mod support? 

Just look at what good mods have done for kerbal space program, from players making extra parts, to changing it into a warfare game, to a full-on realistic spaceflight simulator.

Even if the only mod support allowed would be the ability to allow players to include their own home grown parts onto the game, would give an endless amount of possibilities on ship design.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly love this game, and as a lot of people said, most of my improvement ideas are for the designer of the ship :

-1 Please please please make so that we can put barbette like we put central turret : not having "preset" place for them, so we can for example put barbette on DD to have aft superfiring turret design, or that we can have secondary turret on top of main battery guns, or we can create interesting design like USS Texas without having to get a headache from "preset" positions

-2 Also just maybe you should remove preset positions for EVERYTHING, not being able to "pinpoint" place the main tower, secondary tower and the likes is kinda meh, and it would give far more design to be re-done more accurately

-3 It would be very nice for some nation to get Quad battery mount, for France and UK namely, as most (if not all) their BB during the mid war period/ WW2 period had quad turrets (Nelson, KGV, Dunkerque, Richelieu, ...)

-4 Maybe a bit more difficult, but being able to place secondary turrets on top of some of the main towers ? some of them have kinda large freeboard on them, but they are considered as a object and so you can't place anything on it but if there is a "preset" place for a turret/casemate

-5 I would personally love being able to choose from different design of turret,... without having to reload each time a scenario to get the right nation

-6 Scaling and procedural : I would love, LOVE seeing this in the game : Barbette that you can choose the width and height , Bigger turret of smaller caliber, changing the size of some parts of the ship's superstructure to try to create a replica of a certain ship, and so on.

 

-7 Decorations : I would very very very very much love being able to place some "decoratives" on my ships design, and they would allow for very nice looking ship, or better replica : a dome like radar on a cruiser sides ? some lifeboat in the middle of the superstructure ? AA guns to fill in the "blank space" ship sometimes have ? Flag pole and some other kind of things that would look nice ? It would be nice for example for british and american ship to have the bell be placeable where you want

-8 Paints, decals, and camo : It would be nice to be able to be able to paint parts, or even maybe some part of the parts : coloring your US BB turret's top in red , germans ones in dark, etc etc or just going for a "dark looking ship" or a "bright, cheerfull and pink-y love spreading ship" ? would be fun !
Decals : as there is already a decal system in the game for damage (implemented like 1/2 update ago), i thought it would be very nice to be able to customise the ship's part with decals of your choosing : adding the "clock" on a french ship's main tower, or some kriegsmarine decal on your deck, and so on.
Camo : as for camo, it would be kinda simple : have a huge, colored decal that would only be appliable to the hull of the ship/ superstrcture, and would make for some pretty amazing looking ships !

-9 Planes : Adding some kind of rails either on your main turret, middle of the ship, stern, woudl both look good (so mostly the 7th part about deco) but would also make plane a possible system in the game : having a plane could for example just give you a boost to accuracy/range, with just having to add a plane flying away animation, and would make for some very cool pictures and ships ! (also would make the "decorative" AA gun to fill the blank space maybe a useable gun ?)


Thanks for reading, and i really really hope you'll consider adding some of those ideas in the game, it would be awesome !

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically barneh will take all ideas for muhself!

*Gleefully rubs hand together*

'w'

But seriously i doubt theres anything else to add at this point the devs will hopefully start adding these suggestions in one by one or more depending on how complex they are.

Happy new year ladz!

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...