Turrets should be grouped by the size of their ring, not guns.

[Friedrich]

If this doesn't make sense allow me: the Scharnhorst class had 3x11in gun turrets. These were planned to be replaced with the 2x15in gun turrets which would be used on Bismark and Tirpitz. Same turret ring size. Try doing this ingame. Yeah... why this is a necesary alteration should be self explanatory. So turrets should go Barbette ring>gun caliber>barrel number. Too many barrels in too small a turret? Accuracy and RoF penalties. Length of the guns should also be taken into consideration, not just the bore diameter.

[Norbert Sattler]

I don't think this is necessary. The Scharnhorst class and her turrets were specifically designed this way... as was the Mogami for that matter.

It's not like every turret that exchanged one gun barrel for scaling the remaining two up by two or three inches was like that.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Norbert Sattler

[madham82]

I'm not following. What alternation are you talking about?

[Friedrich]

On 9/22/2020 at 9:47 AM, madham82 said:

I'm not following. What alternation are you talking about?

Alternation? If you mean alteration, that is that rather than turrets be placed by going "bore diameter>no. of barrels" they should be placed with "turret ring diameter>gun caliber>no. of barrels". Having deliberately oversized turrets like with Mogami or Scharnhorst would be edge addition, but depicting turrets as being more proportionate to the number of guns they house would be the big one. A single 18 inch gun isn't going to be massively bigger than a triple 16, yet currently that's how it works, since the ship builder conflates the caliber of gun with size of turret, which can get pretty silly. It also makes module placement somewhat more difficult than it ought to be and limits options by radically inflating the deckspace efficiency of multi-gun turrets. Which is saying a lot, since there is quite a lot of efficiency to be found anyways.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Friedrich

[Friedrich]

6 hours ago, Norbert Sattler said:

I don't think this is necessary. The Scharnhorst class and her turrets were specifically designed this way... as was the Mogami for that matter.

It's not like every turret that exchanged one gun barrel for scaling the remaining two up by two or three inches was like that.

That's why I mentioned turrets which could be oversized or undersized. There's generally some ideal size of barbette for a given gun layout, but you can go a bit bigger or smaller to try and cram in more gun.

[madham82]

29 minutes ago, Friedrich said:

Alternation? If you mean alteration, that is that rather than turrets be placed by going "bore diameter>no. of barrels" they should be placed with "turret ring diameter>gun caliber>no. of barrels". Having deliberately oversized turrets like with Mogami or Scharnhorst would be edge addition, but depicting turrets ad being more proportionate to the number of guns they house would be the big one. A single 18 inch gun isn't going to be massively bigger than a triple 16, yet currently that's how it works, since the ship builder conflates the caliber of gun with size of turret, which can get pretty silly. It also makes module placement somewhat more difficult than it ought to be and limits options by radically inflating the deckspace efficiency of multi-gun turrets. Which is saying a lot, since there is quite a lot of efficiency to be found anyways.

I follow you now. It would likely be a major change since the Devs have individual turret models instead of a modular design.

As far as being able to swap out turrets like in Scharnhorst/Mogami cases, we don't know what refit options will be like yet. IRL you couldn't widen the barbette ring after construction (at least I am aware), but the game doesn't have that limitation. We may be able to swap out turrets with a refit and just pay extra for it. 

[akd]

Big mistake baking caliber = turret diameter into the design.  Will constrain and mess with the system from here on out, not allowing for historical trade-offs and balance, and requiring lots of fake offsets for balancing choice of less or more guns in the design.  If the space required for a 1x XX-inch gun versus 4x XX-inch guns were the same, every ship historically would likely have mounted quadruple turrets.  The overwhelming increase in firepower with no effect on hull dimensions required or deck space consumed would far offset the minor issues that occurred (and were mostly solved) with multiple gun turrets.

Edited December 1, 2020 by akd

[Friedrich]

On 9/25/2020 at 9:39 AM, akd said:

Big mistake baking caliber = turret diameter into the design.  Will constrain and mess with the system from here on out, not allowing for historical trade-offs and balance, and requiring lots of fake offsets for balancing choice of less or more guns in the design.  If the space required for a 1x XX-inch gun versus 4x XX-inch guns were the same, every ship historically would likely have mounted quadruple turrets.  The overwhelming increase in firepower with no effect no effect on hull dimensions required or deck space consumed would far offset the minor issues that occurred (and were mostly solved) with multiple gun turrets.

Exactly this, minus the quad turrets since triple and quads were a pain to get working even ignoring size. Single, twin, and triple are still relevant though. And if it would be a major change... well I'm sorry, but it was the dev's mistake to commit to such a grossly limiting and historically dubious model for the game.

 

On 9/22/2020 at 2:33 PM, madham82 said:

I follow you now. It would likely be a major change since the Devs have individual turret models instead of a modular design.

As far as being able to swap out turrets like in Scharnhorst/Mogami cases, we don't know what refit options will be like yet. IRL you couldn't widen the barbette ring after construction (at least I am aware), but the game doesn't have that limitation. We may be able to swap out turrets with a refit and just pay extra for it. 

It isn't so much about refits as it is about hull capabilities. Ideally there should be a way to alter engine, magazine, belt, etc coverage/usage of a given ship's hull, and this would determine the relevant capabilities of the ship and where there was room for barbettes and such. That isn't applicable as of right now, but what is of import is deckspace utilization. If nothing else, it looks ugly as sin to see a barbette which is massively oversized for the turret you're mounting on it, yet there's literally nothing you can do, since the you can't make the barbette smaller, and the size of the turret is somewhere in the range of a typical 2 or 3 gun turret of that caliber, so your options are extremely limited if you want something that looks even vaguely historical/aesthetic/realistic. It also makes real world design considerations irrelevant. I'm not sure which ship exactly it was, but one of the US standards had a 3 gun turret superfiring over 2 gun turrets arrangement since the hull forward of the superfiring 3 gun turret was too narrow to fit more than the two. As the game stands, this would either be represented as the ship having more than enough deckspace for a 3x4 gun arrangement, or as the ship requiring two different calibers of gun, since nothing matters except for caliber, and it doesn't matter if your mountings have one gun or three, they still take up the same space.

Edited December 25, 2021 by Friedrich