Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

I always love the new updates, but in my opinion the most important thing that the devs must implement into the game, that getting rid of the fixed points. Without this feature the game will be always repetitive. We can't create historycal ships, witch is obviously a very important thing to do. Secondly, armour viewer. If I design a ship, I want to know where I have to place more armour in the designer, where is the citadel, is it under water, waterline above waterline. This is also very important. I want to see the deck, the citadel deck, upper deck etc...

I know that the campaign is the priority, but without a "deep" ship designer, maybe we will have hard time on the battlefield. I just can't designt the Wyoming Class, because of the fixed points etc...

 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Admirals, We would like to inform you about our next patch which will arrive soon. In this update we offer crucial improvements on battle gameplay, especially regarding the formations and

Hello all, We would like to share an update regarding the upcoming patch. We wanted to release it this week but we found two major issues from the old implementation, so we had to refactor all mo

That's what frustrates me. The ship designer is literally a core function of the game, as well as its main selling point. It's sad to see it unnecessarily crippled with no promise of a fix, while mino

Posted Images

On 12/23/2020 at 2:33 PM, Marshall99 said:

I always love the new updates, but in my opinion the most important thing that the devs must implement into the game, that getting rid of the fixed points. Without this feature the game will be always repetitive. We can't create historycal ships, witch is obviously a very important thing to do.

That's what frustrates me. The ship designer is literally a core function of the game, as well as its main selling point. It's sad to see it unnecessarily crippled with no promise of a fix, while minor things like reversing - which I've never felt I needed - are prioritised in patches.

It's why I've largely given up playing.

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

here's some of my observations on the current state of the shipbuilder:

1. the bulkheads are too heavy. In testing with a 100k ton hull, I had to dedicate 3 percent of all the weight to bulkheads alone to get max bulkheads, which I usually consider a must have on a battleship.

2. the triple turrets are quite inefficient in that they don't have any advantages on a tonnage per gun basis against a double turret. In testing, a single 16" gun turret with barbette 4 weighs about 1200t per gun, both the double and triple turrets weigh about 900t per gun, and the triple turret weighs about 870t per gun. In fact, a dual 18" mount is lighter than a triple 16" mount.

3. the fixed placements on some hulls can be quite annoying. certain battlecruisers and  fully extended American SHBB definitely come to mind.

4. it would definitely be nice if we could enter an exact displacement instead of fiddling with the slider.

5. anti torp 5 is quite redundant, since anti torp 4 does the job well for less tonnage.

6. the AI always seems to have battlecruiser grade armor on battleships. rarely do I see it use more the 12" of belt armor, when I usually use anywhere from 13-17" of belt armor

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2020 at 5:25 PM, SonicB said:

That's what frustrates me. The ship designer is literally a core function of the game, as well as its main selling point. It's sad to see it unnecessarily crippled with no promise of a fix, while minor things like reversing - which I've never felt I needed - are prioritised in patches.

It's why I've largely given up playing.

Last I heard they were going to increase number of points you can use to place modules but free placement isn't going to happen. The reason was those modules may interfere with machinery spaces (Please correct me if I'm wrong). I argue that if we could actually build our ships, instead of modifying them, it wouldn't be a problem.  I suspect there is more going on, possibly with tech, than the Devs are willing to admit.

The project is walking on eggshells. Enthusiasts, History Nuts and sim nuts would be willing to open wallets without questions if they just focused on the simulation and ship design. However, with the direction it's heading now it'll just be another game left in the dust before it even officially launches.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2020 at 1:25 AM, SonicB said:

That's what frustrates me. The ship designer is literally a core function of the game, as well as its main selling point. It's sad to see it unnecessarily crippled with no promise of a fix, while minor things like reversing - which I've never felt I needed - are prioritised in patches.

It's why I've largely given up playing.

 

3 hours ago, Ruan said:

Last I heard they were going to increase number of points you can use to place modules but free placement isn't going to happen. The reason was those modules may interfere with machinery spaces (Please correct me if I'm wrong). I argue that if we could actually build our ships, instead of modifying them, it wouldn't be a problem.  I suspect there is more going on, possibly with tech, than the Devs are willing to admit.

The project is walking on eggshells. Enthusiasts, History Nuts and sim nuts would be willing to open wallets without questions if they just focused on the simulation and ship design. However, with the direction it's heading now it'll just be another game left in the dust before it even officially launches.

It doesn’t sound like super difficult to fix honestly.

 

If they would allow placement of machinery which could simply be represented as a volume based on the calculated speed -> power output + chosen machinery type the rest would logically follow. Funnels could be placed anywhere on the set machinery spaces, barbettes could placed anywhere outside the machinery spaces (and not directly on the bow and stern where space is too limited). 
 

Heck it the AI doesn’t get it to deal with such simply mechanics the devs can implement some hard points in the background just for the AI to use but let the player do what they need to do!

 

That the one big part, the second being the superstructure parts - they are currently much too repetitive! By breaking them up in smaller modules we could create a little variety: bridge, main mast, etc 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

what machinery are we even talkimg about? Last I checked there was no machinery category in the designer. there is no "look under the deck feature" the mythical machinery space does not exist. just allow us to place everything how we want to and assume thah engine space is always under the superstructure. ok screw free placement, maybe it is too hard on the tech (tho it works with turets and back in alpha 6 you could even rotate funnels which I want to do again) Just make the hardpoints for everything on the entire length of the ship, screw your magic machinery space we cant even see. it's limiting my player freedom in a SINGLE PLAYER GAME THAT HAS NO CURRENT PLANS OF BECOMING MULTIPLAYER. Give us what we want, and you will swim in money.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ruan said:

Last I heard they were going to increase number of points you can use to place modules but free placement isn't going to happen. The reason was those modules may interfere with machinery spaces (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

Yes, that's the reason Nick gave further up in this post. It makes no sense to me because turrets - which penetrate further into the hull than barbettes - can be placed anywhere. Historically, a few designs such as the Fuso-class actually had their midships turret raised in a barbette to fit the machinery under it.

If they really want us to worry about machinery space, then let us choose the location manually - or simply define it as a 'no-turret zone' around wherever we place the funnels. This would also provide a much-needed way to balance weight on older designs. For now, I think it would be far easier just to imagine that the machinery can be built around wherever we choose to place turrets - or barbettes.

 

10 hours ago, Ruan said:

Enthusiasts, History Nuts and sim nuts would be willing to open wallets without questions if they just focused on the simulation and ship design. However, with the direction it's heading now it'll just be another game left in the dust before it even officially launches.

Yeah, I agree. I hope I'm not being too harsh while the game is still in alpha, but whatever we're saying now is going to be repeated a hundred times worse if this game makes it to release without a fully functional designer. I bought this game simply for the reason that I could play Jackie Fisher in 1906, sitting at my computer with my copy of Jane's Warships of World War One open on the desk and letting my imagination run free.

 

7 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Heck it the AI doesn’t get it to deal with such simply mechanics the devs can implement some hard points in the background just for the AI to use but let the player do what they need to do!

This is what I've been saying for months. Frankly, I don't think the AI should even have this much design freedom, as we keep getting clown car designs. If they can't get it to play nice with the designer, then define a few default tower, funnel and barbette layouts for each hull, and let the AI pick the guns and all the invisible stats as it does now.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, werwaz said:

the AI always seems to have battlecruiser grade armor on battleships. rarely do I see it use more the 12" of belt armor, when I usually use anywhere from 13-17" of belt armor

Yeah I noticed that to. AI generated ships always try to maximize gun power over armor. Once I got a Battlecruiser with 20inch guns with virtually no armor and to no ones surprise it got sank in the first 10mins. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am coming to ask something relatively unrelated
You made me curious with this phrase:

5 hours ago, SonicB said:

 Historically, a few designs such as the Fuso-class actually had their midships turret raised in a barbette to fit the machinery under it.

So i went to check it..
1gta9Qa.png

Doesn't look so. Where did you get that data?

(I always thought it was raised to leave some deck space for boats etc, common problem with those turret covered ships is whole deck stays empty and cannot be utilised because of turrets. Or maybe for more clearance from muzzle blast, hull is almost widest in this part)

Edited by Cpt.Hissy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Am coming to ask something relatively unrelated
You made me curious with this phrase:

So i went to check it..
1gta9Qa.png

Doesn't look so. Where did you get that data?

(I always thought it was raised to leave some deck space for boats etc, common problem with those turret covered ships is whole deck stays empty and cannot be utilised because of turrets. Or maybe for more clearance from muzzle blast, hull is almost widest in this part)

Okay, hands up, you may be right - I remember reading this in one of the Osprey books about a certain class but I couldn't say for sure it was Fuso. That said, from looking at that cross section and comparing to other turret designs, it was apparently usual for steam lines to the engine room to pass midships turrets between the magazine roof and the rotating turret base. That could explain the elevated shaft and ammunition hoist compared to '3' turret.

Where did you find the deckplan, and any chance you also have the Ise class? Part of me just wants to buy the modeller's books to clear this up :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Where do you get these ship schematics/cuttouts from??? 

@Zuikaku@SonicB just googled hard enough, it's from "Anatomy of the Ship" about Fuso, but you can find similar images for most if not all somewhat well known ships elsewhere. I believe there are some even at wikipedia.

Steam lines in any sane ship will run inside machinery/citadel, either by centerline or along side walls. It's just a pipe after all and it doesn't need much space.
I've read something regarding steam lines actually passing through midships magazines, causing unwanted heating there, so i guess that's also an option.
 

Anyway, in design process there is no such thing as "here's a hull with machinery installed, fit the guns somewhere". Apparently it starts from basic scheme: they ask for these guns, being placed in this  layout, protected with this armour and moving with this speed. Then engineers mash stuff together trying to get as close to that request as physically possible.
There's no even such thing as "machinery space". Biggest part of machinery, and the only one that does absolutely need to take a certain position, is an engine or turbine, and individual turbine is not THAT big actually. More so, if it's really necessary, those could be placed sub-optimally to free several meters in some part, or for better protection - and this was often done on destroyers and later capital ships
If they need that turret amidships, it will be there one way or another.
Limiting designer under the excuse of "machinery spaces" thus is total bullshit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wat's the means of the in week or next week in the previous week.it means the week after this week or which week I said was the correct week?

鑒於國外的朋友可能看不懂所以我決定用原文打一遍

你上週說的本週和下週是什麼意思,是這週的下一周還是我說哪周就哪周的意思?

Edited by wzjistc
who knows the correct update date?
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wzjistc said:

Wat's the means of the in week or next week in the previous week.it means the week after this week or which week I said was the correct week?

鑒於國外的朋友可能看不懂所以我決定用原文打一遍

你上週說的本週和下週是什麼意思,是這週的下一周還是我說哪周就哪周的意思?

All of us are unfortunately still waiting for the info from the devs.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...