There should be an option to offset internal machinery to offset weight imbalance

[goduranus]

When people build ships, they could move the internal machinery around a bit to balance things out, so minor bias toward the front/back or sides wouldn't affect ships. I think this should be a part of the game for balancing slight weight asymmetries. Or at least make it so that a slight imbalance wouldn't be a problem.

[Absolute0CA]

I really like this idea, because machinery wasn’t always directly beneath the funnels.

[Angus MacDuff]

2 minutes ago, Absolute0CA said:

I really like this idea, because machinery wasn’t always directly beneath the funnels.

There can certainly be some options.  The destroyer I served on had one diesel generator right up forward and another back aft.  Obviously, you'll want the boilers under the funnels and the engines shouldn't be too far forward of the screws to reduce the length of the shaft lines, but all of the auxiliary stuff can be somewhat spread out.  Are we really getting down to that level of design?

[Absolute0CA]

I want to be able to chose turbo electric yes it’s heavier but that instant power is so gratifying.

[Balu0]

Ye it would be nice if you could shift it around just a bit, to fine tune the designs. I would be happy if I could just correct, lets say 0 - 5%

[RedParadize]

You know it's fairly easy to place some lead were needed to counter balance weight offset. 

[Pedroig]

Funnel placement should shift displacement balance due to moving machinery around to match.

[Steeltrap]

On 10/23/2019 at 1:52 AM, goduranus said:

When people build ships, they could move the internal machinery around a bit to balance things out, so minor bias toward the front/back or sides wouldn't affect ships. I think this should be a part of the game for balancing slight weight asymmetries. Or at least make it so that a slight imbalance wouldn't be a problem.

One of the first things I posted on the forum commented on exactly this. It's a bit ridiculous you end up with potentially large weight imbalances putting on guns etc because the designers worked it all out before building it (duh, lol).

By all means have some limitations, but they ought to be pretty elastic.

[Christian]

this would also allow for all rear machinery and boilers so we could make nelson like ships

+1 im all for it

[Steeltrap]

On 10/23/2019 at 1:52 AM, goduranus said:

When people build ships, they could move the internal machinery around a bit to balance things out, so minor bias toward the front/back or sides wouldn't affect ships. I think this should be a part of the game for balancing slight weight asymmetries. Or at least make it so that a slight imbalance wouldn't be a problem.

LOL, I found (by accident) that the first point I made in my first ever post was about the weight offsets seeming to be rather wonky given the architects knew what was going on the ship and they'd work it out before building it (d'uh).

[Angus MacDuff]

2 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

LOL, I found (by accident) that the first point I made in my first ever post was about the weight offsets seeming to be rather wonky given the architects knew what was going on the ship and they'd work it out before building it (d'uh).

It's a very detailed field.  We are currently engineering an addition to our current subs that has a major impact on stability.  Quite a lot of cerebral horsepower is going into the project and the smallest errors can be significant when discussing naval architecture.

[Illya von Einzbern]

But if we can move the machinery shouldn't we be able to place ammo dumps for secondaries and fuel stowage areas?

Speaking of fuel. I noticed that ships don't suffer from fuel leakage nor lack of said fuel?
Will this be implemented in campaign who knows. Just a small extra tidbit to think of when designing ships and armor. Also damage control of fuel leakage could be harmful or healthy. If RNG wills it your ship shares the fate of Taihou ^^

[Steeltrap]

3 hours ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

But if we can move the machinery shouldn't we be able to place ammo dumps for secondaries and fuel stowage areas?

Speaking of fuel. I noticed that ships don't suffer from fuel leakage nor lack of said fuel?
Will this be implemented in campaign who knows. Just a small extra tidbit to think of when designing ships and armor. Also damage control of fuel leakage could be harmful or healthy. If RNG wills it your ship shares the fate of Taihou ^^

Fuel loss is obviously more relevant once dealing with oil bunkers, but even then the danger is mainly that of range limitation (obligatory Bismarck mention).

Bunker oil tends to be somewhat inert, so setting fire to it is really only likely to happen if something ruptures a tank or fuel line through an explosion; torpedo or penetrating shell/bomb hit. The 14" shell hit to Bismarck's bows was an 'overpenetration', so there wasn't an explosion potentially to ignite the fuel.

CVs have the problem of lots of aircraft fuel, an entirely different matter in terms of volatility, rather catastrophically demonstrated by Taihou as you pointed out. As an aside, perhaps calling something carrying lots of explosives and volatile liquids "Great Phoenix" is asking for trouble, lol.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Steeltrap

[FinnishJager]

Well, I would say it depends on how much (or if any) role oil/coal will play in the campaign. (I hope it does!). This way your ships can have combat ranges. I don't know if specific placement of oil/coal bunkers is necessary (the number should be worked out via displacement and the range slider. ie abstracted to some ship design subcommittee at your shipyard) but being able to place basic machinery in the ship designer through a bulkhead viewer that looks like the one we get in the battles would work. This bulkhead viewer should ideally also show us the ammo storage and the citadel layout. This way we can visually see any citadel settings we choose and when we increase or decrease the number of rounds carried.

[Illya von Einzbern]

On 11/12/2019 at 10:38 PM, FinnishJager said:

Well, I would say it depends on how much (or if any) role oil/coal will play in the campaign. (I hope it does!). This way your ships can have combat ranges. I don't know if specific placement of oil/coal bunkers is necessary (the number should be worked out via displacement and the range slider. ie abstracted to some ship design subcommittee at your shipyard) but being able to place basic machinery in the ship designer through a bulkhead viewer that looks like the one we get in the battles would work. This bulkhead viewer should ideally also show us the ammo storage and the citadel layout. This way we can visually see any citadel settings we choose and when we increase or decrease the number of rounds carried.

also know what parts to armor more in case the citadel grows in length depending where to guns are located like extreme bow and aft areas