Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
MiniHamm

Thoughts on Build Placement

Recommended Posts

What would people think it there was more options for where the towers could be placed especially on dreadnought plus hulls, like setting up to make a Nelson class style of ship, but with the yamato style hull currently available.

Also second thought, I would like the Dev's if they haven't already to look into some form of superstructure pieces to fill in some of the empty spaces and give more slots for guns on certain hull types.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well as I said in another post, the only reason I bought this game was because of an old game on the PS2 called "naval ops warship gunner" it had a similar build engine. Only in this game it was totally open as to where you could place things. it was an awesome game!

sadly, this game is quite restrictive as to placement of components which imo is a bit lame. maybe the devs want to keep it as realistic as possible? I think a better idea would be to have a "box" of sorts instead of snap points as to where things can be placed. example "you may place this barbette anywhere in "this area"" instead of "you may place this barbette on these specific points only" this would open up many more build possibilities and make for a much more interesting build phase.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some kind of attachment point in each one of the hulls is desirable even if myself have been bothered by this feature when trying to place the superstructures only to find I couldn't place them where I wanted.

But I can see the reasoning behind needing those attachment points. Not just for realism sake (and to prevent players from doing downright awkward stuff as putting the secondary aft structure BEFORE the main one XDDDDD), but also because designing each hull with the possible spots to place things like structures, main turrets, hull mounted secondaries, etc, makes that much easier the task of the AI when desiging it's random ships.

Now I'm sure this limitation is like it is now because there's a limited number of both hulls and structures to choose from. Once we have more hull forms, and more importantly, more structures with different shapes to choose from, the design process will be a lot more dynamic and feel less restrictive.

Even then I'd agree that I'd like to see a somewhat expanded selection of places where you can put your superstructures, not just the tight areas we have right now. And as it seems the next alpha patch will incorporate this, so it's all good :).

Edited by RAMJB
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know with the barbettes I wish you had more options for placement.  Many times it feels like those aft turrets (superimpose X and Y) are way to close to the stern.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally we shoul'd be able to place machinery and boilers as well. On the placement of these it woul'd depend where we can place main gun turrets. That woul'd be EPIC!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Who knows if we get the chance to modify the ships displacement via moving engine room, ammo storage and so on

i think you are talking about COG (center of gravity), not displacement, but yes, it would be nice to be able to move the internals around for better COG since the boilers and turbines are the heaviest part of the internals (except the shell storage), being able to rearrange the boiler and turbine compartments to change the COG. would also be nice to be able to place the smokestacks and superstructure more freely, as well as a slightly better displacement range on the modern battleship (and allow placement the smaller barbettes on battleships) so we can make proper richelieu or dunkerque class ship once we get the quad turrets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combine warthunders armour viewer and x-ray viewer, with that ps2 naval games design mechanics and something else and boom! you have a really gud ship designer and hell if possible introduce that swap the hull thing (again if possible).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2019 at 4:00 AM, Mooncatt said:

well as I said in another post, the only reason I bought this game was because of an old game on the PS2 called "naval ops warship gunner" it had a similar build engine. Only in this game it was totally open as to where you could place things. it was an awesome game!

sadly, this game is quite restrictive as to placement of components which imo is a bit lame. maybe the devs want to keep it as realistic as possible? I think a better idea would be to have a "box" of sorts instead of snap points as to where things can be placed. example "you may place this barbette anywhere in "this area"" instead of "you may place this barbette on these specific points only" this would open up many more build possibilities and make for a much more interesting build phase.

Yeah this game gave me a hard nostalgia for that game, i still have it but it doesn't hold up as well as i would like as we get more and more spoiled on newer games. Don't get me wrong game is still great fun to play, wish someone would pick up rights to it and make a newer version of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2019 at 12:51 PM, Wowzery said:

I know with the barbettes I wish you had more options for placement.  Many times it feels like those aft turrets (superimpose X and Y) are way to close to the stern.

I agree, i feel like there's too much emphasis on main turrets and the like being reversed when i feel like they should be pointed forward too on some of my designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 9:37 PM, MiniHamm said:

I agree, i feel like there's too much emphasis on main turrets and the like being reversed when i feel like they should be pointed forward too on some of my designs.

"r" and "t" keys to rotate stuff in the designer ;).

Doesn't work well with the mirror system for things as side secondary turrets, etc, but it works like a charm for everything else (and for things that need mirroring, you can just disable the mirror option on the upper right and put each item individually on each side).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the more freedom you give to the player to play with designs, the better. I want to be able to place everything myself and not be restricted to span points. I understand why we have then right now, I just hope in the future its opened up a lot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Benjamin Magnus said:

I feel like the more freedom you give to the player to play with designs, the better. I want to be able to place everything myself and not be restricted to span points. I understand why we have then right now, I just hope in the future its opened up a lot.

I have a feeling this will be the case once a more complex and intuitive armour system comes into play, although if anything games design has told me. Its a lot easier to say it than to implement it xD.

Shame really i wonder if the hull swapper will ever comeback?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a risk of beating a dead horse, I think we look at the barbettes wrong.  People complain about the limited snap points and scaling based on different turret sizes. 

On the turret configuration, there should just be the barbette option added on by pre mating the pieces together.  That way, since turrents aren't confined to snap points, problem solved.  It would also be able to easily scale with caliber and number of guns per turret. Then the only other option would be for how high you want the turret superfiring.  

Similarly, I feel like a pre mating option for main plus secondary tower, as with the snap points, sometimes there's an unavoidable gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed on some designs, that when you put the fore structure touching with the aft structure, then select the fore structure to move it to another place, the aft structure stays attached and the lot move as an unit. In the most modern battleship hull, for instance, Iowa's superstructure, it does that.

The problem is, of course, than you still have to place the damned thing on a freakin' anchor point XDDD. But that's a whole other thing (that I also hope to see changed in the future...let me place stuff where I want, not where the game wants me to! ;))

Anyway, what I mentioned about the superstructures merging and moving together,  suggest some "entity attachment" work has been done already and that it's actually working in the designer. Extending the concept to things like barbettes would be almost the same as that "mating pieces together". 

All things said, is clear that this part of the designer is going to be extensively worked on, so I have little doubts the end result will be both a lot more dynamic and flexible than what we have now :).

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...