Steeltrap Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 On 10/22/2020 at 3:56 PM, Skeksis said: 1) Building HMS Dreadnought using 'Dreadnought 1' hull and its commissioned armament of 12' guns, you can't rotate the side turrets to be inline with the hull without it causing indifference. Could we have the hull widen alittle (or whatever is needed) for this aesthetic... If only we could dictate to the shipyard how we want guns to be placed and other details and then it gives us a hull that works, rather than it giving us ones that don't meet our needs. 🙃 As a compromise, perhaps we could alter the beam and length using a slider rather than the catch-all of pre-locked displacement 'versions'? The current one suddenly stretches or shrinks around certain displacements, but also never changes its beam to the best of my knowledge. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeksis Posted October 29, 2020 Share Posted October 29, 2020 (edited) 19 hours ago, Steeltrap said: perhaps we could alter the beam and length using a slider It’s a common request but I think there has to be a big advantage for narrower hulls otherwise everyone would just slide to the widest to fit the best armament. And if players are doing that, then the Dev’s might aswell supply the widest. I don’t see any pressing need for beam adjusters. 19 hours ago, Steeltrap said: If only we could dictate to the shipyard how we want guns to be placed and other details and then it gives us a hull that works, rather than it giving us ones that don't meet our needs. ...widest also equals Dev’s game limit of design for those hulls, it's probably the easiest limitation system for them to implement (to keep the campaign balance throughout). Edited October 30, 2020 by Skeksis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Hissy Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 (edited) Classic, narrow hull means much more speed. Can't resist of touching this again.. and sorry for long text. If this game actually goes as far as accounting for ship's physical dimensions and hydrodynamic properties, it absolutely needs ways to control and adjust these. We not only need a beam control, but so much more. That's what hull settings there may be as bare minimum, balancing required depth with gameyness: - length - duh.. - beam - less is faster, more is more stable but slower - type of bow (clipper, bulbous, ram, etc) - has different effects in different weathers, speeds, in turn / straight sailing - type of stern (cruiser, round, flat/transom etc) - same as above - block coefficient / "hull fullness" - integrated value simulating various related parameters, increase should make ship "fatter", slower and having more usable displacement for given size and hull weight/cost. - Displacement, of course. - And possibly draft, which also may be dynamic stat derived from the designed draft (by comparing final displacement to the one set during designing a hull): underloading makes your ship sit higher, go faster, be harder to sink, but a bit less stable; overloading... better to avoid. All of them combined will form ship's now dynamic seakeeping stats, hull construction weight, and to some extent influence displacement. Length, beam, types of ends would also affect ship model's physical dimensions in game and determine what you can put on top. Other things can be numerical only, but "fullness" will only win from visual representation. Out of these, two - displacement or "fullness" - would have special gamey meaning. Displacement is your weight limit, as it is now. Not only for ship editor, but game potentially could have other uses for it, as cargo capacity, wartime supplies capacity, score for sinks. "Fullness" determines how good is your ship's seakeeping, and as side effect hull's strength, weight and size efficiency. Idea here is, the closer the hull shape is to something round and simple like a bathtub, the less mass is wasted on fancy curves, and the less are ship's linear dimensions for the same volume, but the worse is it's hydrodynamic quality, and also it gets cheaper. Hard part for the devs will be to do necessary research and come up with some satisfying formula to represent all the complex science of hydrodynamics in a single slider. Both of these features can be "locked", and at any given time one of them (and only one) must be locked - which means "locked" feature will stay as you set it, and when you adjust other parameters, value of "locked" feature is maintained by auto adjusting another one. So for example, let's say you have a basic hull. If you're more interested in it's seakeeping stats, as if building something that must maintain specific speed , you lock "fatness". Changing displacement will make it straight up bigger or smaller. Changing size will change displacement, while keeping variables around the same (they may vary as they're also dependent on sizes) If you're satisfied with displacement and want to keep it, probably due to some treaty, you lock displacement. Now you can play with sizes, but the system will reshape entire hull for you: squeezing them too tight makes your ship a barely mobile barge, and stretching too far creates a canoe with no space for equipment and decreases hull strength. Edited October 30, 2020 by Cpt.Hissy 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Hissy Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 Addition to above, to not bloat it more. Customizable above-water design. - Freeboard height/number of above-waterline decks - Forecastle - Poop deck / stern cut-off (look at Hood and others) Adding more decks enhances ship's behaviour in heavy seas and crew accommodation, but hits negatively it's weight, stability (esp. with guns on top), detection ranges and cost. Lowered stern decreases reverse speed, while raised stern decks increase it. Also obviously floating castle is easier to hit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disc Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 Sounds great, but I fear that would be too much to add at this time. The team appears to be putting a lot of modeling effort into these prebuilt hulls. I would rather they use a customizable hull system, as suggested, but from the evidence I don't think the developers are very interested anymore. Still, this would be a cool approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeksis Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said: Classic, narrow hull means much more speed. Can't resist of touching this again.. and sorry for long text. If this game actually goes as far as accounting for ship's physical dimensions and hydrodynamic properties, it absolutely needs ways to control and adjust these. We not only need a beam control, but so much more. That's what hull settings there may be as bare minimum, balancing required depth with gameyness: - length - duh.. - beam - less is faster, more is more stable but slower - type of bow (clipper, bulbous, ram, etc) - has different effects in different weathers, speeds, in turn / straight sailing - type of stern (cruiser, round, flat/transom etc) - same as above - block coefficient / "hull fullness" - integrated value simulating various related parameters, increase should make ship "fatter", slower and having more usable displacement for given size and hull weight/cost. - Displacement, of course. - And possibly draft, which also may be dynamic stat derived from the designed draft (by comparing final displacement to the one set during designing a hull): underloading makes your ship sit higher, go faster, be harder to sink, but a bit less stable; overloading... better to avoid. All of them combined will form ship's now dynamic seakeeping stats, hull construction weight, and to some extent influence displacement. Length, beam, types of ends would also affect ship model's physical dimensions in game and determine what you can put on top. Other things can be numerical only, but "fullness" will only win from visual representation. Out of these, two - displacement or "fullness" - would have special gamey meaning. Displacement is your weight limit, as it is now. Not only for ship editor, but game potentially could have other uses for it, as cargo capacity, wartime supplies capacity, score for sinks. "Fullness" determines how good is your ship's seakeeping, and as side effect hull's strength, weight and size efficiency. Idea here is, the closer the hull shape is to something round and simple like a bathtub, the less mass is wasted on fancy curves, and the less are ship's linear dimensions for the same volume, but the worse is it's hydrodynamic quality, and also it gets cheaper. Hard part for the devs will be to do necessary research and come up with some satisfying formula to represent all the complex science of hydrodynamics in a single slider. Both of these features can be "locked", and at any given time one of them (and only one) must be locked - which means "locked" feature will stay as you set it, and when you adjust other parameters, value of "locked" feature is maintained by auto adjusting another one. So for example, let's say you have a basic hull. If you're more interested in it's seakeeping stats, as if building something that must maintain specific speed , you lock "fatness". Changing displacement will make it straight up bigger or smaller. Changing size will change displacement, while keeping variables around the same (they may vary as they're also dependent on sizes) If you're satisfied with displacement and want to keep it, probably due to some treaty, you lock displacement. Now you can play with sizes, but the system will reshape entire hull for you: squeezing them too tight makes your ship a barely mobile barge, and stretching too far creates a canoe with no space for equipment and decreases hull strength. I don't think the scope of game is fine turned enough for all those hull adjustments. Even if it was, those adjustments could only amount to very little buffs here and there, else if they were too much and you add in all the other sliders and components buffs already in-game, stacking would be problem. And once those adjustments have been minimalize to solve stacking, the whole overall implementation wouldn't be worth it. The current hull adjustments suits the current scope. Edited October 30, 2020 by Skeksis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madham82 Posted October 30, 2020 Share Posted October 30, 2020 8 hours ago, Skeksis said: I don't think the scope of game is fine turned enough for all those hull adjustments. Even if it was, those adjustments could only amount to very little buffs here and there, else if they were too much and you add in all the other sliders and components buffs already in-game, stacking would be problem. And once those adjustments have been minimalize to solve stacking, the whole overall implementation wouldn't be worth it. The current hull adjustments suits the current scope. Could implement just for visuals and keep using the existing hulls stats. But I think adding that alone would be significant development time too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts