Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

Actual position of the center of mass of this hull is ridiculous.

1572783822-build-exe-screenshot-2019-11-1572783928-build-exe-screenshot-2019-11-

Edited by sarrumac
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sarrumac You can just imagine the conversations at the shipyard with the builders bitching about the hassle of slapping 6" of additional armour aft of the superstructure instead of simply shifting the machinery 20 feet aft, lol.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2019 at 7:24 AM, sarrumac said:

Actual position of the center of mass of this hull is ridiculous.

1572783822-build-exe-screenshot-2019-11-1572783928-build-exe-screenshot-2019-11-

Aaaaaand apologies for doubleposting, but yes, this hull angers me immensely. For the love of god let me move that bridge aft some. *Please.* This is the one from Search and Destroy, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not always apparent if additions and subtractions are being made symmetrically. Sometimes I add a turret but one does not appear on the other side, leaving the ship unbalanced because it is not always possible to mirror image manually 

Share this post


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 

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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...