ship hulls

[kineuhansen]

here is something i would love to have worked on in ua dreadnought we need more different types of hulls not just the bigger versions of same hull there need to be more visuels different between hulls of each types of ships and the same with the super structure the list of same hulls is under the text

 

 

british empire hulls 1940

modern destroyer leader is a bigger version of standard destroyer

destroyer 4 is a bigger version of destroyer 3

heavy cruiser 1 is a bigger version of modern light cruiser

n3/g3 is a bigger version of dreadnought 3

 

french empire

modern destroyer leader is a bigger version of standard destroyer

heavy cruiser 1 is a bigger version of modern light cruiser

large cruiser is a bigger version of heavy cruiser 1

 

 

german empire

modern destroyer is a bigger version of standard destroyer

heavy cruiser 1 is a bigger/longer version of modern light

heavy cruiser 2 is a bigger version of heavy cruiser 1

battlecruiser is a bigger version of heavy cruiser 2

battleship is a bigger version of battlecruiser

super battleship 1 is bigger version of battleship

super battleship 2 is a bigger version of superbattleship 1

 

united states

destroyer 4 is a bigger version of destroyer 3

modern destroyer leader is a bigger version of modern destoyer standard

heavy cruiser 1 is a bigger version of modern light cruiser

heavy cruiser 2 is a german hull

modern battlecruiser is a bigger version of large cruiser 

modern battleship 1 is a bigger version of modern battlecruiser

modern battleship 2 is a bigger version of modern battleship 1

super battleship is a bigger version of modern battleship 2

[Molotnikov'sk]

I would say for the Empire of Japan, we could have hulltypes based on the various Japanese cruisers from 1925 onwards, starting with the hull and superstructures of the Furutaka/Aoba classes in 1925, then the Myokos in 1930(?), then the Takaos as the mainline CA hulltype until 1938/39 where we have the emergence of the "Experimental CA Hull" which is probably going to be either Tone or Ibuki, maybe Ibuki as a super CA of sorts and Tone being an offshoot.
As for the CLs, we could have it be smaller versions of said hulls, but as we hit the 30s we get a Mogami hull, since Mogami was really a CL that could be a CA but really shouldn't.

[Worry_Rock]

2 hours ago, Molotnikov'sk said:

As for the CLs, we could have it be smaller versions of said hulls, but as we hit the 30s we get a Mogami hull, since Mogami was really a CL that could be a CA but really shouldn't.

although the Mogami's could work, I think the Sendai's or maybe Kuma's would work better, as they were actual CL's, or possibly at a stretch the Agano's...

But then again having a hull that could work as both a CL and CA would probably be good for the campaign so overall it would probably be a great addition. 

[TotalRampage]

24 minutes ago, Worry_Rock said:

although the Mogami's could work, I think the Sendai's or maybe Kuma's would work better, as they were actual CL's, or possibly at a stretch the Agano's...

But then again having a hull that could work as both a CL and CA would probably be good for the campaign so overall it would probably be a great addition. 

More variety in my opinion is worth it. Gotta think as well if someone wants to use an CL hull because they like the design or for the benefits they should be able to use it technically as a CA hull because for the most part after the washington treaty the main difference was really gun size. Like the Portland CA's belt was 3.25-5 inchs and then the cleveland CL's had the same armour thickness yet one was a CA and the other a CL. If i wanna put 8 inch guns on a traditionally CL hull I should be able to ya know? 

Edited October 4, 2020 by TotalRampage

[Shiki]

The thing about interwar Japanese cruisers is that they all use, broadly, the same hull configuration. The Myōkō, Takao, Mogami, and Tone classes all used the same basic hullform with only slightly different dimensions (affected values of which don't seem to count in this game, since existing in-game hulls don't seem to curve all that much). Using the same hull and instead creating different superstructures cuts down on hull modeling tremendously. The same is true of period American cruisers; once you hit Brooklyn, Brooklyn's basic hullform is the design plan on which you can build Wichita, Baltimore, Cleveland, and more.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Shiki

[Edge]

It would also be great to have an "experimental" hull for each nation, something that embodied part of that nation's unique design features. For example, the United States could have an extremely long, streamlined design, like that of the BB65-8C. It was 1,100 feet long with a beam of 110 feet, both at the waterline, for a length to beam ratio of 10:1. As far as I know, that's a higher ratio than any battleship or battlecruiser, ever. The incredible length would allow it to be faster with less power and give much more room for centerline guns but the narrow width would mean there is essentially no room for secondaries near the towers. The length would also increase longitudinal stability, but also give the ship a huge turning circle. Conversely, another nation could have an unusually wide ship, while another could bring back multi-level decks (or barbettes of different heights) that allow for three or more turrets to be directly in line and still superfiring.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Edge

[1MajorKoenig]

best would be to have a customizeable hull though

• displacement as now
• NEW: beam to lenght ratio
• NEW: draft?
• NEW: set bow and stern type - both visually and with different properties gameplay wise
• NEW: flush deck or multiple decks
• NEW: machinery spaces

[Marshall99]

8 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

best would be to have a customizeable hull though

• displacement as now
• NEW: beam to lenght ratio
• NEW: draft?
• NEW: set bow and stern type - both visually and with different properties gameplay wise
• NEW: flush deck or multiple decks
• NEW: machinery spaces

Exactly!

We need a better designer, and these are the key.

With the machinery spaces, we could design ships like the Fuso, the König and many other important historycal ships. Also in my opinion the draft is very important. I want to design, heavy, large vessels with deep draft, so the citadel or the important ship parts can be under water. (Also many pre dreadnoughts had low freeboard with deep draught.) 

Beam to lenght is also nice and it is a must. I want to design thick battleships with side main batteries. Or with superimposed secondaries.

 

[Cpt.Hissy]

A couple thoughts of how to connect above mentioned with gamey requirements of this, again, not an individual ship simulator but a strategy game.
Draft, not necessarily a thing in ship design from gamey perspective. Could be added as a modifier for creation of "coastal/freshwater" ships, together with addition of actual shallow waters and rivers on the map. So we'll got a normal seagoing vessel that cannot enter the shallows, or shallow water ship that can, but gets huge stability penatly from weather and less available displacement for given size.

What you refer to Marshall, is to be done as Freeboard option - this is how monitors were defined, not a deep sitting ship but ship with low freeboard. Better protection via low profile, lighter belt armour due to lower height of said belt, higher stability due to low COM, bad BAD relations with rough seas and non existent floatation reserve.
High freeboard on the other side, good floatation and seakeeping, bad everything else.
Normal freeboard is middle ground.
In all cases, sheer size of the ship matters, as "low freeboard" superbattleship will be actually higher than "high freeboard" destroyer.
I would split "monitor" from low freeboard category, with latter being more modest with just some penalties and benefits, and "monitor" being the extreme case of non submersible sub basically, with literally waves flowing over it's deck.

Important guts are by default underwater unless it's something with really fat engines, but in this case sorry, physics. AON citadel can include a lot of above water unimportant parts though just to create that citadel raft.

Simple-ish solution for machinery could be: simply tie the "machinery" hitbox to funnels. Wherever funnel is, a block of space under it and slightly aft is machinery. Size of the block is related to chosen machinery power and tech, so dynamically gets bigger as power increases.
Ideally, a block under the funnel is to be "boilers" and should not intersect with another boilers (in this case, shift the foremost one forward until it fits, but corresponding funnel must stay within it's limits), and smaller block right behind that should be "engines" and it CAN intersect with whatever, this would mean engines are somehow arranged around the thing they intersect with as this was done in real ships.
If later in the campaign a ship gets refitted with new engines, engine compartment size is now static and is a base on which your new possible engine power is calculated, accounting for current tech. If you go for less power than possible, you save weight and can assign that weight towards more range (fuel), but engine size stays. Would be perfect to be able to discard part of engine spaces or even entire compartment together with a funnel, and increase something else like crew amount instead.

Same for turrets, wherever turret is, underneath it is magazine. IF it intersects with "engine" machinery part - it's fine, just means lucky hit to there will damage both. Cannot intersect with boilers. Ideally, boilers space could be shifted slightly forward or aft relative to funnels if there's a turret in the way and there is spare space elsewhere.
Magazine size is dynamically defined by gun size and ammo amount (and ammo should be a number you put in and not just three preset options). If later in campaign ship gets refitted with different ammo type or new guns, then magazine size is now static and it defines your ammo supply.

End result of that will mean that order of placement matters: If you put some turrets too tight, it won't let you put a funnel in between. If you arrange things neatly and later increase the power for some reason, suddenly your guns don't fit anymore. Maybe slightly too complex for... certain categories of players, but me sorry, this game is simply not for you then.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Cpt.Hissy

[1MajorKoenig]

18 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Ideally, a block under the funnel is to be "boilers" and should not intersect with another boilers (in this case, shift the foremost one forward until it fits, but corresponding funnel must stay within it's limits), and smaller block right behind that should be "engines" and it CAN intersect with whatever, this would mean engines are somehow arranged around the thing they intersect with as this was done in real ships.
If later in the campaign a ship gets refitted with new engines, engine compartment size is now static and is a base on which your new possible engine power is calculated, accounting for current tech. If you go for less power than possible, you save weight and can assign that weight towards more range (fuel), but engine size stays. Would be perfect to be able to discard part of engine spaces or even entire compartment together with a funnel, and increase something else like crew amount instead.

I would actually go the other way round: your set engine power output and type could determine the needed volume which needs to be placed within the hull - maybe as simple as a segment. Splitting that segment should be possible though. These segments would determine where you can place funnels and you shouldn’t be able to place primary guns 

[Cpt.Hissy]

34 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I would actually go the other way round: your set engine power output and type could determine the needed volume which needs to be placed within the hull - maybe as simple as a segment. Splitting that segment should be possible though. These segments would determine where you can place funnels and you shouldn’t be able to place primary guns 

I think my way is more vegetable friendly from UI side, and devs already stated vegetable friendliness in their priorities. But effectively, it's just the same. You just not place engines separately and then funnels on top, but place funnels and engines are placed under them automatically, and can be adjusted afterwards.