The issues/limitations with the current designer

[BobRoss0902]

Coming from RTW 2 this game is very limited, however most of these problems could be resolved by an overhaul of the ship designer. As of right now some hulls are objectively better than others such as how one of the pre-dreadnought hulls can hold 3 (main) guns instead of two. Now this would not be a problem if it was like RTW 2 where you actually can build a ship of similar style if you so choose, but in UA;D since the hulls are locked to certian countries this means that say as Japan, you could not build a 3 turreted Pre-Dreadnought even if you wanted to. I'm not saying that it should all be equal (things never are in war) but that it should be noted that when you are completely incapable of building a ship of the same style even if you wanted to, with an advantage such as 3 main guns instead of 2 you simply cannot.

Additionally this lack of flexibility really bites many of the more speciailised ships one might want to create. For example in RTW 2 I always create a line of large 8 inch cruisers, that are meant to get directly into an enemy formation, threaten the enemy with a torpedo attack causing them to break off from formation, and then run down the whichever highest value target is alone and sink them. However in UA;D I would have some serious difficulty creating such a peculiar ship, that for all practical reasons is a scaled down dreadnought.

Im not even going to get into sameship syndrome where there is always one objectively "best" superstructure, because it should be certian types of superstructure offer different bonuses while maintaining similar charecteristics to the others and getting upgraded over the years while still providing their advantages that way you can design a ship with a unique look in mind.

Edited January 19, 2021 by BobRoss0902

[Skeksis]

7 hours ago, BobRoss0902 said:

I'm not saying that it should all be equal

You are either for all hull/components access for every nation or you’re for nation specialized traits, you can’t be both!

I’m for each nation to have there own unique hulls/components, this way each nation should be different to battle against, different to command and especially it’ll be different in the way we build/design ships of those particular nation. The scope of the game increases with each and every variance and we can play those variances  by selecting its retrospecting nation. Wouldn’t this way make for a better and re-playable game? Including custom battles, like if all the hulls were accessible, why would you bother selecting nation type?

I’m not so sure UAD would be more limited compared to RTW2. RTW2 has fixed turret spots, they just have alot of them, basically they have just covered all the conventional spots but you cannot place/include turrets in any other position. Whereas UAD has multiple fixing nodes where you can finely adjust positions, even all the way along the hull, side to side, therefore ultimately vastly more variable.

And as with every single other player who has ever play this game, there needs to be more placement freedom, it's the ultimate must have. I think this has become the most difficult and continuous conundrum for us to convey to Dev's. 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Skeksis

[Cpt.Hissy]

Welcome to the club of designer dissapointment, take your tea and feel comfy.

[BobRoss0902]

4 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Welcome to the club of designer dissapointment, take your tea and feel comfy.

Been here since like November of last year and havent played the game in months, I just want a campaign

[1MajorKoenig]

I am all for more variety in the designer

 

I am all for more freedom in placing parts 

 

I am against „all-equal“ and want nation specifics 

 

I am very much against „same ship Syndrom“ 

 

I want this Game to be awesome

 

I feel that this game needs a great designer with a lot of freedom and a good dynamic campaign to use the designer meaningful 

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

One of the biggest reasons I've been playing UA:D less lately is the lack of, specifically, cruiser designs. With the current system, starting at roughly 1915 to 1920, every nation's heavy and light cruisers are exactly the same. They all have the same superstructure, funnel and hull options and the only gun layout they really support is the four gun AB-XY turret arrangement, unless you go with the heavy cruisers and then you can maybe squeeze another turret somewhere along the sides. Once you start getting into the the 1930s, you start getting more hulls and superstructures for some nations, but even then they usually look like downscaled versions of battleships. With the exception of the US, Germany, France and Japan every single light and heavy cruiser is the same.

The main reason this bothers me so much is that cruisers were probably the ship type that saw the greatest variation and specialization throughout the years and various wars, with many cruisers being designed for a wide variety of specific purposes. For example, when looking at the US Navy you could compare the Atlanta class with the Cleveland class of light cruisers. The Atlantas were given destroyer-caliber guns (lots of them) and torpedoes, and were originally designed to lead destroyer flotillas into battle, where as the Clevelands were given six-inch guns, and lots of AA firepower to begin with and so they were originally designed with long range escort and carrier protection in mind.

TL;DR: The lack of variety with the cruisers has been obvious for a while and it would just be nice to see an overhaul/rework of the cruisers to allow for more variety and possibilities rather than "same ship, different nation"

[DeadlyWalrus]

So, I think the limitations of the ship editor are pretty obvious.  1MajorKoenig has a very extensive post on that subject elsewhere so I'll not rehash it here other than to say, if you allow sufficient freedom in the designer to make ships that fulfill roles that the user decides on rather than sticking rigidly to roles dictated by the game designers then you naturally eliminate a lot of the "everything is the same" issue.

 

As far as nation specifics go, I think this would be better handled as a set of technology advantages rather than a special "thing" that I can have and no one else can.  Historically, it was very hard to keep ideas from spreading to rival nations so it makes no sense to have nation "exclusives" so to speak.  What does make sense is make it relatively easier or harder to certain nations to develop certain technologies, so it is never impossible to build a certain item if you really want it, but it might not make sense for every nation to develop the exact same technologies because of the varying costs.

 

Edited for typos

Edited January 20, 2021 by DeadlyWalrus

[madham82]

28 minutes ago, DeadlyWalrus said:

As far as nation specifics go, I think this would be better handled as a set of technology advantages rather than a special "thing" that I can have and no one else can.  Historically, it was very hard to keep ideas from spreading to rival nations so it makes no sense to have nation "exclusives" so to speak.  What does make sense is make it relatively easier or harder to certain nations to develop certain technologies, so it is never impossible to build a certain item if you really want it, but it might won't make sense for every nation to develop the exact same technologies because of the varying costs.

Example, Spain being able to build a Yamato equivalent. Sure the player could do it, but it won't be as easy to do as playing the US. I think the majority would agree with that approach. It also will help give each nation a distinct playstyle based on their starting conditions and tech. So playing the long game you could get Spain to that level, but you would probably be spending all your funds on research and improving infrastructure for the majority of the game and have a tiny navy.  

Edited January 20, 2021 by madham82

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:

The lack of variety with the cruisers has been obvious for a while and it would just be nice to see an overhaul/rework of the cruisers to allow for more variety and possibilities rather than "same ship, different nation"

I think it’s more to do with unavailable hulls rather than not including them, the team just has alot of work ahead of them. Even though we didn’t see any new hulls in the last couple of updates (produced turrets instead etc.), generally the team does produce them at a steady rate e.g. alpha 5 30+, alpha 6 33x destroyers.

[Cpt.Hissy]

Have patience people.
On current very early stage, filling the game with "content" aka hulls etc is a low priority. First thing to be done is logic itself, and this can be done with literal untextured cubes for models if needed. Team already went far ahead with adding what we have now, and i'd rather like to see them using it to refine and fix the core now, instead of spreading forces on adding more useless models...