Clown Car Thread

[Stormnet]

8 hours ago, Shneemaster said:

Here's two more instances of the AI apparently forgetting that ships go forward:

Also included with poor barbette placement, and horrendous aft weight.

[Cpt.Hissy]

Here's (un)funny thing, these ships might actually go for this layout to mitigate forward weight. These hulls have some issues...

[Fishyfish]

Getting really Cruiser Matsushima up in here. 

[Stormnet]

To be honest, my " Was this topic forgotten? I would love to see more crap AI designs..." was really to revive this thread.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Stormnet

[SonicB]

23 minutes ago, Stormnet said:

To be honest, my " Was this topic forgotten? I would love to see more crap AI designs..." was really to bring this topic back to the spotlight. By default, this forum runs on a "last reply date" order criteria. By posting a comment, it brought it back to the top. Im gonna do that to my last posts.

It is my fervent hope that this thread will eventually die out from lack of new content, but it is not this day.

This day we post a Japanese battleship hiding an entire light cruiser squadron under its... skirts? Someone give me an anime reference, I'm not cool enough to have one ready.

[Nick Thomadis]

Closing Thread

Please stop posting images of previous versions, showing issues that have been addressed.

EDIT:
Re-opening after SonicB request. The post will remain open for as long as it uses images of the latest version of the game.

[Stormnet]

Its back up again bois. Go get some screenshots ASAP.

(Just make sure they are from new versions)

Edited April 4, 2021 by Stormnet

[SonicB]

*straightens tie* okay welcome one and all to the New Serious Constructive Warship Design Critique Thread.

Today we will discuss the relative merits of 21-inch and 22-inch torpedoes, the important stylistic choice of two funnels or three on this season's fashion-forward predreadnoughts, and...

oh dear god what in the name of St Nick is that




"Give me a super Yamato, but... nine inch. I want twenty-four nine-inch guns. There was a special at the store and I bought the entire discount bin. Oh, and it has to do 39 knots."



In this parallel universe, the US Navy's famously competent Bureau of Ordnance takes one look at the truly awful Ise-class carrier battleship and decides "I want one of those! But we're constitutionally obliged to add MORE GUNS."

This was since justified by the ship being so front-heavy that the aft deck can be used as a ski jump in heavy waves.



We round out this month's clown ship appreciation post with What In The Cinnamon Toast Shrimp F--k Is That, a conceptual sculpture by an anonymous 1940s American artist. This collector's piece has the distinction of killing more US sailors than the attack on Pearl Harbor when it was broken in half by a light wave.

[Stormnet]

16 hours ago, SonicB said:

*straightens tie* okay welcome one and all to the New Serious Constructive Warship Design Critique Thread.

Today we will discuss the relative merits of 21-inch and 22-inch torpedoes, the important stylistic choice of two funnels or three on this season's fashion-forward predreadnoughts, and...

oh dear god what in the name of St Nick is that




"Give me a super Yamato, but... nine inch. I want twenty-four nine-inch guns. There was a special at the store and I bought the entire discount bin. Oh, and it has to do 39 knots."



In this parallel universe, the US Navy's famously competent Bureau of Ordnance takes one look at the truly awful Ise-class carrier battleship and decides "I want one of those! But we're constitutionally obliged to add MORE GUNS."

This was since justified by the ship being so front-heavy that the aft deck can be used as a ski jump in heavy waves.



We round out this month's clown ship appreciation post with What In The Cinnamon Toast Shrimp F--k Is That, a conceptual sculpture by an anonymous 1940s American artist. This collector's piece has the distinction of killing more US sailors than the attack on Pearl Harbor when it was broken in half by a light wave.

Im sure the AI is actively trying to give the middle finger to the devs and bypass their restrictions. 

"Can't have funnel in front of tower? Fine, I'll put tall turret instead."

The next thing the AI will do is fill a casemate with cannon assets straight from UA:AS, and pick a Peel P50 engine as propeller.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Stormnet

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Stormnet]

17 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

I don't see anything wrong with this design. It's very much something that a player would produce, including using the smallest possible diameter barbette for B turret. 

Actually I thing the auto-design has done a pretty good job in laying out the main turrets.
 

Are you joking or talking serious? I cant see that through text.

[Cpt.Hissy]

Rear barbette is biggest possible tho, so nope, still bad.
Seriously tho, ships being like this showcase flaws of the designer, perhaps, even more than flaws of autodesign AI.
Latter really became much better after patches that changed it.

Now, this is my new superbattleship from "Prove your might". I'll see how it goes, maybe i'll be able to win it at last, or maybe these are 20" Mk5 guns or their cruisers are UFO's with plasmaguns.

But this is no ship.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Cpt.Hissy

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Stormnet]

1 minute ago, Skeksis said:

Is historical ships clouding your judgment? While there's a desire to build historically, including me, the game is not historical exclusive, far from it actually.

No. I didnt mean to offend you. I didnt want to argue with your opinion and look like a fool if you were joking. Its not about being historical (trust me, I literally build the most unhistoricall ships, like a multicalliber monitor-like 1940 super BB).

Its just that a closer look reveals quite a few unecessary design choices that do nothing more than increase tonnage, like the aforementioned big rear barbette. But it also has a very tall barbette in the front (those are only used to fire over superfiring turrets) and there are a few secs whose positioning noticebly limit the firing arc of the main gun.

Its not in the WTF type of ships, maybe something a new player would build if they were told to build a BB, but any relatively experient player would not commit these mistakes.

[SonicB]

17 hours ago, Stormnet said:

Its just that a closer look reveals quite a few unecessary design choices that do nothing more than increase tonnage, like the aforementioned big rear barbette. But it also has a very tall barbette in the front (those are only used to fire over superfiring turrets) and there are a few secs whose positioning noticebly limit the firing arc of the main gun.

Its not in the WTF type of ships, maybe something a new player would build if they were told to build a BB, but any relatively experient player would not commit these mistakes.

What really stuck out to me was that ridiculous forward barbette. Only then did I notice that this 75,000t super battlecruiser had an industrial-scale farm of 9" turrets, which is also inherently a pretty dumb idea for multiple reasons I could go into at length.

If you were specifically ordered to design a ship like that (hence my commentary) then I suppose it's not the worst thing you could do. Maybe stick a couple turrets sideways on the main tower like elephant ears, idk.

I genuinely believe (as I said to Nick a few days ago) that this thread already shows how the AI designer has improved. But... my reason for posting stuff here is simply that it made me go WTF - this is an inherently sensible and balanced criterion and I will not be taking questions at this time.

[Stormnet]

Have the devs thought about introducing a rule of "when thinner barbette can be used, use it instead" to avoid AI installing thicc barbettes for skinny turrets. Right now it kinda reminds me of "Caps Lock + Shift" memes.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Stormnet

[captinjoehenry]

As amusing as a bunch of the new ships have been I’ve actually seen a few good and one really great AI battleship.  The great one had a 16” belt and a great mix of high end modules and armor and everything with about 10 17” guns.  Only issue with the design was it used cordite for some reason.  So even though it had great compartmentalizations and all the good stuff and armor it was a constant ammo explosion just from the ammo choice

on a similar subject the AI does seem to still have some issues with picking good shell fillers and the latest armor types.  But the ai has been vastly better with picking good armor types compared to before!

shell filler though does let the AI down a lot still picking all sorts of old fashion fillers when TNT is avalible.

[Cpt.Hissy]

3 hours ago, Stormnet said:

Have the devs thought about introducing a rule of "when thinner barbette can be used, use it instead" to avoid AI installing thicc barbettes for skinny turrets. Right now it kinda reminds me of "Caps Lock + Shift" memes.

On that, i remembered it late, but.. That thicc barbette is there because that hull for some unknown reason doesn't allow any other barbette at that position. Which is one of countless designer issues. Not autodesign AI.
Actually skinny secondary barbette forward may exist there for the same reason.

[Shneemaster]

Yes! this thread is back! Here's a few I collected only today:

Remember to have your forward turrets huddle together for warmth. 

The shipwrights appear to have held the blueprints upside-down when installing the turrets.

A single 5-inch and a twin 2-inch are enough guns for a destroyer, right?

"Sir, the 3x4 17-inch guns are two heavy! We can't fit them on!" "Remove the superstructure and make the funnel as small as possible, that'll save weight." With bonus bad secondary placement.

This was another ship IN THE SAME BATTLE. I'm noticing a trend. This time, they also removed the secondary battery. Notice the damage to my ship in the bottom. I was so enthralled by these ships I failed to notice to incoming torpedoes.

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Shneemaster

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[o Barão]

On 4/4/2021 at 8:10 PM, Stormnet said:

Are you joking or talking serious? I cant see that through text.

I also don't see anything wrong and i am not joking. Is a Tone main battery placement at the bow. Is a fast BC armed with many 9 inch guns it seems. Well it make sense if is a fast BC but i don't have any idea what is the ship speed and tonnage.

[SonicB]

5 hours ago, Skeksis said:

I'm not seeing too much wrong with these layouts, they are all systematized fighting ships. Ioann and Rozhdeestvo has nothing in the way of engine power but there armament arrangements is defiantly production possibilities, including Warship [1] with its C turret rear facing.

Sure they are not conventional, absolutely outside historical bounds but this game has the freedom of armament arrangements and layouts to be unhistorical, for both us and the auto-designer.

For real? Rozhdeestvo is hilariously stern-heavy. Ioann's B turret can't fire straight ahead. Both ships have appalling and completely unnecessary distribution of weight towards the ends that would make them downright dangerous to sail in anything more than a light sea, as well as requiring a main belt almost the entire length of the ship.

Yes, you could build one if you really wanted, but there is no sane reason why you would. It looks ridiculous because even the craziest naval architects in history (ohai 19th century Russia) wouldn't have built it, and they had a reason behind every design choice.

More to the point, even if you don't care about historical accuracy one bit, they're badly unstable designs that hand a significant accuracy advantage to the player, which you don't want even if all you care about is game balance.
 

3 hours ago, o Barão said:

I also don't see anything wrong and i am not joking. Is a Tone main battery placement at the bow. Is a fast BC armed with many 9 inch guns it seems. Well it make sense if is a fast BC but i don't have any idea what is the ship speed and tonnage.

The B barbette is far too high and would add serious longitudinal and lateral stability issues (bear in mind it has to be armoured.) There's no aft turret behind the aft barbette (a problem that persists with the AI autodesigner.) Finally, as my previous post stated, it's a 75,000 ton battlecruiser and there is no reason /at all/ to arm such a large ship with cruiser-calibre guns. It's bad for the balance of the scenario.

[Intrepid_Arty]

8 hours ago, Shneemaster said:

This was another ship IN THE SAME BATTLE. I'm noticing a trend. This time, they also removed the secondary battery. Notice the damage to my ship in the bottom. I was so enthralled by these ships I failed to notice to incoming torpedoes.

 

Ah yes, taking the all-big-gun battleship concept to the logical extreme, I see.

[SonicB]

4 minutes ago, Intrepid_Arty said:

Ah yes, taking the all-big-gun battleship concept to the logical extreme, I see.

Jackie Fisher would be proud.

[Stormnet]

Im seriosly starting to believe the AI is just trying its best to bypass the Dev's patches and outdo itself in creating naval equivalents of the Valiant tank.

 

On 2/1/2021 at 4:38 PM, Stormnet said:

This one is not that bad...

 

Until I tell you the only armament besides those 5 triple 14 inch guns is...

...a pair of triple 2 inches.

 

 

Similar problem here. All the casemates in the world, and you put a pair of 4 inches, 2 triple 3" and call it a day.

 

 

Lets hope destroyers are something from an alternate reality... damn it!

 

Like, this was back in alpha-10 v79, and its gotten even worse.

 

9 hours ago, Shneemaster said:

This was another ship IN THE SAME BATTLE. I'm noticing a trend. This time, they also removed the secondary battery. 

 

 

One thing that I noticed is that the AI likes extremes. This is outdated and was back in v79, but in this ship the AI it picked lots and lots of big guns. 

On 2/2/2021 at 5:50 PM, Stormnet said:

I found another one while I did a battleship vs battleship scenario. I had a 130k ton beast with a quad 50.6 cm sitting in the center, and 6 triple 38.1 cm cannons.

 

I expected to fight a worthy foe, but I should have known better:

 

 

Yes, your silly eyes arent deceiving you:

 

The 30k ton battlecruisers going along were far more threatning with their 3x triple 33 cm.

 

Jokes aside, Im pretty sure this will be the absolute worst nightmare of any light/medium ship, its a somewhat fast for a 90 thousand ton battleship, its armor is decent, and that is a strong 24" torpedo armament...

 

But I dont think lots of butterflies can destroy a tank... especially one with 55 cm of side armor... 

Also, the AI used huge barbettes for these tiny guns...

And, if you are ever in this situation, make sure to add a 17.8 cm double to further increase the accuracy penalty.

It also used to and still tries sometimes to do Glass Cannon BBs. I've seen it in the past doing the oposite of thicc barbette thin turret, and putting thicc turret in smoll barbetter. It aparently either wants lots of secs, or next to none. It makes stupid fast ships sometimes. It makes all to the front turrets sometimes. Like, does the AI even listen to the warnings and restrictions?

Its designs might have gotten better, but its constantly doing these "exploits" to bypass the Dev's patches/fixes/rules, sometimes outright ignoring them. Does the AI designer even obey to restritions players have to?