Same ship syndrome.

[BobRoss0902]

We seriously need more customisation outside of just "plop down one of a set of prefabricated superstructures" make it where you can customize mast type, (as in tripod, quad, etc...) conning tower type, and some other things.

Also, make middle superstructure, this will add customisability where if you don't want a barren ship you can add some extra meat to the superstructure.

Make the built in barbette's optional, or put in a superstructure type to cover them up. Either way, don't Segway people into certian ship design like this.

Also make it to where there isn't any one "best" superstructure, this will help with ship diversity.

Edited August 17, 2020 by BobRoss0902

[Rina Ravyn]

I agree 100%

 

You could actually come at this with a whole heap of customisation methods if you take the values the different basic hulls provide and then make it independent from each other.

What do i mean by this: 
basic ship hull types offer only the rough shape of a ship and can be modified to suit the player´s needs.

For example, an atlantic-bow may give german ships some benefits in high seas and rough weathers, just as some food for thought.

As well as that, i think something like, beam, draft, propeller amount, rudder armount, torpedo belt shape or makehup, should all be customizable things that change the hulls values accordingly.

Lets say you increase draft, beam and engine HP, you get a ship with a worse signature and maneuverability (wich could be coundered with maybe two rudders and 4 props) for higher resistance and form. I think a system similar to this would have much more future than what we currently have.

But lest not forget the alpha status of the game. We dont know exactly where the devs really want to take it and if this idea would match up with any of theirs. Maybe they even have a better idea for this in the future that we cant even concieve of. We dont know until they tell us. 

[swordmania]

I cannot agree more.

Sadly, right now, battlecruisers to super-battleships(even down to heavy cruisers in some cases) are pretty much the same ship, just scaled up or down. We really need a little something more, at least to be able to see clear differences between two ships of the same class.

For example, when building german ships, its seems as if you are just building a smaller or bigger Bismarck. (also, germany BBs really need a secondary tower with a funnel slot!)

As for barbettes, I think it would have been much more simple to have all guns have their own barbette which you would toggle on/off instead of have two different menus for both.

I guess we will see where things are going with the next update.

[Cptbarney]

7 hours ago, BobRoss0902 said:

We seriously need more customisation outside of just "plop down one of a set of prefabricated superstructures" make it where you can customize mast type, (as in tripod, quad, etc...) conning tower type, and some other things.

Also, make middle superstructure, this will add customisability where if you don't want a barren ship you can add some extra meat to the superstructure.

Make the built in barbette's optional, or put in a superstructure type to cover them up. Either way, don't Segway people into certian ship design like this.

Also make it to where there isn't any one "best" superstructure, this will help with ship diversity.

Makes me wonder if they will ever bring back the hull module swap style of customization? I heard they binned it due to being to complex, however im not sure if this is still the case anymore and probably could be tested in the future too see how viable said mechanic is still.

I think gameplay mechanics should get a bit more prioity atm, such as the armour rework and different shell types, proper weights and more accurate ballistics (not 1:1 as that would make the game boring as hell but nothing like world of danks ships).

Also each type of module should have multiple different ones for cosmetic reasons and maybe other smaller types provide better bonuses in certain areas and worse in others. Would make customization better too.

[Shaftoe]

I agree. We need way more HISTORICAL hulls and superstructures for key naval powers: UK, US, Japan, and Germany. Especially for destroyers, light & heavy cruisers.

 

Personally, I'd prefer to see more 30s-40s ship components.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Shaftoe

[Skeksis]

If we were to highlight a series of superstructures would Dev’s consider them?

[1MajorKoenig]

12 hours ago, BobRoss0902 said:

We seriously need more customisation outside of just "plop down one of a set of prefabricated superstructures" make it where you can customize mast type, (as in tripod, quad, etc...) conning tower type, and some other things.

Also, make middle superstructure, this will add customisability where if you don't want a barren ship you can add some extra meat to the superstructure.

Make the built in barbette's optional, or put in a superstructure type to cover them up. Either way, don't Segway people into certian ship design like this.

Also make it to where there isn't any one "best" superstructure, this will help with ship diversity.

I agree a 110% !

 

We need the parts much more granular - at the moment all ships look the same.

 

The ship designer is a huge selling point! It needs to be fabulous 

[Tycondero]

On 8/17/2020 at 4:31 PM, Cptbarney said:

Makes me wonder if they will ever bring back the hull module swap style of customization? I heard they binned it due to being to complex, however im not sure if this is still the case anymore and probably could be tested in the future too see how viable said mechanic is still.

I think gameplay mechanics should get a bit more prioity atm, such as the armour rework and different shell types, proper weights and more accurate ballistics (not 1:1 as that would make the game boring as hell but nothing like world of danks ships).

Also each type of module should have multiple different ones for cosmetic reasons and maybe other smaller types provide better bonuses in certain areas and worse in others. Would make customization better too.

I hope the hull module section tech will make a return on the roadmap. It can be as simple as having three sections: mid, fore and aft. The fore and aft sections should could then be chosen out of various options (e.g. Atlantic bow). The displacement can then be chosen by a slider similar to now. 

The only real downside (besides AI issues) I see with this approach is having nations feel unique.

We will see whether it will ever make a return, fear not tbh.

[Cptbarney]

12 minutes ago, Tycondero said:

I hope the hull module section tech will make a return on the roadmap. It can be as simple as having three sections: mid, fore and aft. The fore and aft sections should could then be chosen out of various options (e.g. Atlantic bow). The displacement can then be chosen by a slider similar to now. 

The only real downside (besides AI issues) I see with this approach is having nations feel unique.

We will see whether it will ever make a return, fear not tbh.

They could limit it to nation only hulls plus class type and in custom battles allow any hull to be swapped around by any nation, that would be a sensible way to go about it.

[Sentmassen]

  I wonder if the hull superstructure and the towers could just be made into layers. You can build them up to give yourself room for secondaries and other bonuses, or keep them to a minimum to save weight.  Being able to place them more liberally  would also be appreciated.

[1MajorKoenig]

19 minutes ago, Sentmassen said:

  I wonder if the hull superstructure and the towers could just be made into layers. You can build them up to give yourself room for secondaries and other bonuses, or keep them to a minimum to save weight.  Being able to place them more liberally  would also be appreciated.

Yep split up the superficial would be the way to go including what type of mast you want to use. Eg Tripod, Pole Mast, etc