Changing gun caliber

[HusariuS]

I got an idea that could be implemented at some point in the future, to the game.
The Idea is simple, instead of choosing a gun with exact caliber, we choose turret that can fit guns from the smallest to the biggest.
Like here below on that screenshot edited with my amazing Paint.exe abilities:

So we choose turret that can fit any gun caliber from 305mm to 356mm in triple configuration.

EDIT: Of course, we can also use on it single and twin configurations.

When we choose that turret, we can change our gun caliber by using something like this thing below that we use to change armor of our ships.

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by HusariuS

[Cptbarney]

Yes please this is an excellent idea @Nick Thomadis would this be possible at all? 

Maybe we could choose what mark the gun is and turret plus barrells in future updates? Should help to relate how different nations had sifferent ways of doing things.

oh and do the same for secondaries as well.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Cptbarney

[Nick Thomadis]

Barrel length is something already considered but we are far from putting it in our priorities list, because we have to focus development on crew and campaign.

Using guns of lower technology is something more complex than it appears, it will need more work and therefore we cannot promise it at all. When we make all the necessary for the game, we can develop this and other similar details of the ship design system.

[Friedrich]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Barrel length is something already considered but we are far from putting it in our priorities list, because we have to focus development on crew and campaign.

Using guns of lower technology is something more complex than it appears, it will need more work and therefore we cannot promise it at all. When we make all the necessary for the game, we can develop this and other similar details of the ship design system.

Good to know, although I must ask: will Barbette size scale with number of guns per-turret in the future? The fact that it presently doesn't is a massive black mark against this game's ship designer being even vaguely accurate to life, which is a damn shame since it's major flaws are relatively few.

 

As for the OP, I think the proposal, assuming I am understanding it correctly, of grouping guns by Barbette size rather than caliber is definitely the right way to go. I would also add to this that a bit more flexibility in the exact caliber of gun would be well appreciated. At the very least I would expect half inch increments, such as the historical 13.5 inch guns, to be added. As a more of a minor nitpick I'd also point out that the odd metric numbers on most guns isn't accurate. The Yamato's guns were 46cm for example, not 457mm.

[RedParadize]

@Nick Thomadis If I may suggest, having a more granular increase in guns mark would be great. If it as graded from 1 to 10 instead of just 5 it would make each step smaller. This way a 15" mk 4 would not be better than a 16" mk 3

[arkhangelsk]

OK, time to be a wet blanket.

9 hours ago, HusariuS said:

The idea IMO is entirely unrealistic. I don't think the concept of the "modular turret" has been thought up yet and further, a turret is a lot more than just the barrels - it includes the various powder lifts and magazine arrangements, so there isn't a lot of commonality in major parts between a 12 and 14 inch gun. 
I'll also point out every ton is precious on a warship (especially if they are Treaty-limited), and every extra ton in one system area (say weapons) would have knock on effects such that to compensate for it would require several more tons, so why would any designer knowingly accept a weight-wasting, inefficient "modular turret" on his ship is a mystery.
This is the thought pattern of a lazy gamer trying to save a few seconds in the Ship Designer (which admittedly the present "Custom Battle" format encourages, since it won't let you save your ship thus minimizing the value of putting in anything more than minimal effort), not someone cogitating deeply on the best warship for his nation.

1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

@Nick Thomadis If I may suggest, having a more granular increase in guns mark would be great. If it as graded from 1 to 10 instead of just 5 it would make each step smaller. This way a 15" mk 4 would not be better than a 16" mk 3

First, from a historical perspective, few if any nations had "ten marks" of the same caliber gun. The British for example had only 1 Mark of the 15, 16 and 18 inch calibers. They had maybe 3 marks of 14 inch guns, 2 real marks of the 13.5 and so on.

From a gaming perspective, it is not entirely clear why it is unacceptable that a 15" Mark 4 is beter than a 16" Mark 3, and any joy you may feel is likely an illusion caused by Custom Battle (so you don't have to develop the things). When you start campaigning, all this extra granularity will feel more like nuisances than benefits. As it is, you have 4 shell weights *3 barrel configurations * ~10 propellants = 120 gun variants for each caliber. Do we really need more?

[RedParadize]

@arkhangelsk I think you missed my point. First of, Even if there was just 2 or 3 mark version of the 10" because there was multiple model of them. The Mark number was added once selected by the navy. Also, we are talking about the full turret here, not just the gun. And again, this was not from a historical perspective, but purely about gameplay.

At the moment, there is little insensitive to chose a 16" Mark 3 over a 15" Mark 4 outside of damage per shell (rpm cover a good portion of the gap). the 16" Mark 3 is heavier and less accurate. So basically everyone take the 15" Mark 4 or go for two inch above or more. Now,, by going up to 10, you can have a more granular increase. Look at what change between 20 and 30, what does it mean for campaign? If gap move every 2 or 3 years  people will wait for them.

Note that Rule the wave went the other direction. There is some merit to that too. But the down side is who would built a ship with -1 gun? No... 0 yeah, +1 hell yeah. When I was lucky I could keep some very early cruiser active to the end of the game. Big question is how refit will work, but that's a other question.

[arkhangelsk]

As far as guns are concerned, please find below the evolution of guns, as of v67 (i.e. pre-hotfix). Even now there is something to look forward to every few years. You get the Mark 2 15" in 1922, the 16" in 1924, which is also when you can consider the 17" gun. In 1926 the Mark 3 15" comes out and the next year the 18" joins the party. In 1929 the Mark 3 16" comes out. The next year 17" and 18" go Mark 2. The 18" goes mark 3 in 1933, the 17" the next year, in 1937 you get 14" Mark 4 and in 1939 15" Mark 4. Do we need any more "granularity", and I am not sure what's wrong with the concept of their being "little incentive" to pick a 1929 gun over a 1939 one.

[HusariuS]

4 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

OK, time to be a wet blanket.

The idea IMO is entirely unrealistic. I don't think the concept of the "modular turret" has been thought up yet and further, a turret is a lot more than just the barrels - it includes the various powder lifts and magazine arrangements, so there isn't a lot of commonality in major parts between a 12 and 14 inch gun. 
I'll also point out every ton is precious on a warship (especially if they are Treaty-limited), and every extra ton in one system area (say weapons) would have knock on effects such that to compensate for it would require several more tons, so why would any designer knowingly accept a weight-wasting, inefficient "modular turret" on his ship is a mystery.
This is the thought pattern of a lazy gamer trying to save a few seconds in the Ship Designer (which admittedly the present "Custom Battle" format encourages, since it won't let you save your ship thus minimizing the value of putting in anything more than minimal effort), not someone cogitating deeply on the best warship for his nation.

Sure but that doesn't mean if we change gun caliber and number of barrels in the turret, it will not change the size of the turret.

As i said, idea is simply, the rest of the job goes to the devs that will know how to improve it.

And they can do it for example by adjusting a little bit turret to the number of guns and their caliber, so if we choose triple, the turret will be wider, if we choose for example 320mm gun instead of 305mm, the turret will make itself a little bit bigger.

Every idea we post here can be added to the game only by the devs, and they are the one who decide how it will be implemented and how or if they gonna improve it.

[arkhangelsk]

That's a completely different request from what I got out of your OP text. Basically, what you are really asking for is to allow you to change the gun caliber and number of guns per mount without going through the whole Remove and Replace process. If that's the case I won't mind (though as you said it is not a priority). Though frankly you should still expect to have to adjust the positions of the guns to obtain the best possible longitudinal offsets and pitch and when you are done.

[Cptbarney]

36 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

That's a completely different request from what I got out of your OP text. Basically, what you are really asking for is to allow you to change the gun caliber and number of guns per mount without going through the whole Remove and Replace process. If that's the case I won't mind (though as you said it is not a priority). Though frankly you should still expect to have to adjust the positions of the guns to obtain the best possible longitudinal offsets and pitch and when you are done.

Like he said the devs would implement it in the way they would see fit and obviously after all major requirements have been completed.

I fail to see what the problem is with this.

[arkhangelsk]

16 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

I fail to see what the problem is with this.

The only problem from my perspective is that the first post and the second are different requests. That may not be what he meant to say, but that's what I hear. The first is a change in the substance of the turrets, the second is a QoL UI change. I have no objections to the latter. I have objections to the former so am happy the former is not the case.

In general, I become a wet blanket when I think the proposal isn't looking too good in its present form. Maybe it is just a bad idea. Maybe it is a good idea but lacking an explanation. Maybe a solution of smaller or different scope can meet your needs. Through hashing it out, these issues can be clarified, and I may be brought around to at least abstain to your proposal. Who knows, maybe the devs would have a better idea of how to meet your request as well.

[HusariuS]

Well it might sound like two different requests, but remember the fact that many people already said that there is no difference in size of the turret between single/twin and triple configuration.

And my idea/request is aimed to the later versions of the game, mainly after the design of campaign is finished more or less.

After that, developers can focus on doing less important things, like adjusting size of the turret to the number of barrels, barrels length, and maybe implementing my idea to the game.