>>>Alpha-11 HotFix v84 Feedback<<< (1/4/2020)

[Bluishdoor76]

19 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The tower is perfectly placed for the battleship you refer to, in all mounts. 

Can you please check it again? It is the Russian BB of the 1940s.

yeah, I've checked and seems like it can fix itself upon game restart, but it can also return upon game restart when its fixed...

[WiselessOwl]

5 hours ago, coalminer said:

Seems like underwater guns are caused by the hull not recognising guns being too far off? (see the 2 6" triples above the B quads, it was an accepted design according to the designer.

Also theres a weird bug with the new UK Modern(? i forgot the name the highest tech level one) where the mega funnel would fit/not fit depending on where the rear tower was placed. Ran out of attachment space, will upload images if required.

For images you can use Imgur. Upload there and use "direct link" or something like that - it will spawn the image in your post without using your allowed space

[Capilla]

Trying to build echelon turrets on España class hull is a pain... Any help or tip please? Being able to see or modify the hull's center of mass position would be of great help on a future. There was a lot of ship designs with echelon turrets that would be nice to reproduce.

 

Also i think the germans shouls have access to the small dreadnought hull because the Nassau class had almost the same size.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Capilla

[brucesim2003]

 

On 3/4/2021 at 9:58 PM, Marshall99 said:

Looool wat tha f....🤣🤣🤣

These are some secret anti submarine guns xd

When silent hunter 4 was released, you could have ships completely capsized, but still steaming at full speed. The theory behind that? Secret underwater binoculars!

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by brucesim2003

[coalminer]

4 hours ago, WiselessOwl said:

For images you can use Imgur. Upload there and use "direct link" or something like that - it will spawn the image in your post without using your allowed space

Yea was kind of lazy to do this during work hours, uploaded the images below.

https://imgur.com/881kAkDhttps://imgur.com/881kAkDhttps://imgur.com/a/zfZqdV7

Its easy to recreate, just place down the rear tower and play around with the mega funnel, a number of placements are invalid.

[Erwin_the_fox]

Unfortunately, the game still places small guns where they shouldn't be.

[Cpt.Hissy]

11 hours ago, NineOneFour said:

Hi, all. Downloaded Alpha 11 and got a warning message about the launcher and did not see it because was on another tab and I was in the middle of another task and stupidly hit enter and did not read it. Now when I try to launch the game I get the error message "Another instance of Launcher client already exist!"

Can you tell me how I should launch the game now, please? 

I suppose I could just re-download it from Xsolla, but I updated the Alpha 8, 9, and 10 patches and the launcher/shortcuts were not affected.

Or look in system tray for already started launcher, as it is there somewhere?
If not, then it glitched, and easiest for you will be to reboot your computer.

[Draco]

Okay here's my five cents lately.

I have two main issues with the game right now, and they are deck armour and bulkhead size, yet not for the reasons you might think!

Okay so first off, I recently tested out just how much armour you'd need to create a zone of immunity similar to that of the never built Montana class of the US navy (according to wikipedia this zone was from 18000-31000m against it's own 16"/50 Mk.VII guns firing Mk.VIII "super-heavy" shells) but upping this to the game's highest calibre guns (20") firing super heavy shells, and the results were mind boggling. So first off, I found that you can get away with a relatively pedestrian 14" krupp IV belt on an all-or-nothing scheme if you accept that your armour will lose it's immunity at just under 16000m and below.

The math fore this is straightforward.

with SH shells, a 20" gun penetrates 32.3" of equivalent armour plate at 15000m.

krupp IV + AoN armour gives a 118%+ to effective armour thickness, so 14x218%=30.93" effective thickness.

This is considerably less than the 16.1" belt of the montana, and it resists a much heavier shell at less range according to the game. However, it's not game breaking. It's a bit off, but not by that much. Acceptable so to speak.

Next comes the deck armour, and boy are you in for a mindhello kitty now.

The deck armour of the montana was spaced, with a 2.25" sacrificial top deck to activate fuzes and cause the shell to detonate before reaching the main deck. The main deck itself sat at 7.35". Thus by adding them up we get 9.6" of deck armour, but since they were spaced one must account for about 15% of a decrease in efficiency, since two plates next to each other are not nearly as effective at stopping incoming shellfire as a singular plate of the same thickness, so in effect we end up with 2.25+7.35-15%=8.16" effective deck armour.

According to the leading naval experts at the time, this relatively pedestrian deck protection was more than enough to prevent deck hits from a 16"/50 Mk.VIII super-heavy shell at 30000m.

In contrast, here's how the game handles it...

at 30000m, a 20" super-heavy shell in-game penetrates 48.4" of equivalent armour thickness...
let that sink in...
48 point 4 inches...

Okay so let's do the math... 48.4/218%=22.2" of real armour thickness... 22 point 2 inches!!!

What the hello kitty??? I need a deck armour of 22.2" to protect against 20"ers at 30000m when the montana needed only slightly over 8 to protect against 16"ers at the same distance? surely it should be closer to 12" or 13" to be realistic, and certainly that seems to be a more sensible forecast considering that a 20" mk.III can shoot a whopping 41km, and will likely spot you and begin lobbing shells at you before you enter into your zone of immunity at 30000m anyways.

By that forecast, a peak 1940s battleship needs at least 14" of belt and at least 22.2" of deck armour to be considered safe in battle conditions if you follow conventional IZ design parameters within the game's mechanics.

This obviously makes no sense... shells lose a lot of velocity in flight, and a 16" shell that hits you at 20000m has about the same velocity and penetration capabilities as a 14" or 13" hitting you at point blank range, and right now it feels like this just doesn't happen and the only factor is the acute angle of the armour... which btw is still a bit nerfed right now, since even at 30000m a Mk.VII 16" shell, which was considered by the americans themselves to be a superior plunging fire shell because of it's higher arching trajectory compared to the high powered Mk.VIII super heavy shells, would still only hit the deck at 30000m at an angle of 32 degrees, giving you an over 60% penetration decrease when compared to the absolute vertical, even before you account for the loss in velocity, which then implies that around over 8" or 9" of armour would actually be sufficient to stop such shells at such range.

Is this intentional? is that how the developers want it to be? just accept that deck armour is pointless and you might as well go with 0" there because nothing will work at 1940s combat ranges anyways? What am I missing here fellas? Am I the only one who tries to keep my battleships at combat ranges, is that it? does everyone else just sail to within 10km with 18" of belt and 10" of deck and hope they don't get hit at all in those 20km of travelling time?

Even a 14" deck, which is considerably thicker than even the deck armour of the yamato, does not become effective against a 20" gun until it is below 15000m, and mind you, at 15000m the shell impacts the deck armour at an obligue angle of around 10 degrees or less, literally just glancing it with no realistic chance of penetration what so ever if you use conventional real world math formulas and not those of the game.

I just don't get it. For such an otherwise historically accurate game this single area seems completely off the mark.

Although I did notice one favourable new development.

During testing, I encountered multiple occations where 15" or 14" guns hitting my ship at just about the range where my armour began to become effective (around 20000-22000m) penetrate the armour, but then proceed to do surprisingly little damage, closer in scope to an over-pen than an actual pen.
This makes sense, since a lot of deck armour was historically spaced like in the montana example above, meaning that a smaller upper plate would de-cap and initiate shell fuzes of shells making them explode against the lower main deck armour, and having a penetration which does about a 3rd or 4th the damage of a full pen neatly repressents this dynamic, so if that was intentional, well done! now expand on this!
That's the kind of damage one would realistically expect from all penetrations out to about 33000 or so meters with 14" or 15" guns on a 9" deck with 2" of that being the upper de-capping deck. If this was made into a more common occurence, rather than a "freak" incident that only sporadically appears right around maximal penetration range, then that would immediately fix the deck armour issue.
Of course it should still be possible to entirely overmatch deck armour and cause full, devastating penetrations on the engines and so forth, but this should only happen with severely heavy guns of 15" or above striking next to no armour at mid-to-long ranges, so for example 3" of deck at 20000m or above might go through entirely and cause full damage, whereas a similar shell hitting 6" of deck at the same range should only do the splinter deck damage with about 3/4ths of it being absorbed by the main deck armour.
So yeah, if that was indeed intentional, well done, now make it the default rather than the freak result of long range deck hits!

Second is the bulkheads, and hold on, it' not what you think.

My main issue with bulkheads isn't that they're too heavy or too light, my main issue has to do with simple physics.

I ran some tests, and it appears that a battleship of 109000t displacement has about a 90% chance of receiving over-pens rather than actual pens on unarmoured sections of the hull with max bulkheads, meaning that when a battleship grade gun hits the extended deck (which for test purposes was left on 0" thickness) the shell goes right through and does next to nothing.

If this experiment is then repeated on a ship with low bulkheads (anything from many to minimum) the shell almost always penetrates and does full damage.

I find this confusing.

Logically, the less bulkheads you have in the way, the higher the chance of over-pens, because once a shell strikes a bulkhead, it tends to detonate, since those are heavily armoured, often as heavily as the main belt of the ship in question.

Instead what we get is the lower the bulkhead setting, the higher the chance of shell detonation as opposed to over-pens.

Again, what am I missing here?

Shouldn't a hull saturated with heavy and numerous bulkheads be more rather than less susceptible to in-ship detonations on unarmoured sections of the ship?

I find it especially problematic since with the above mentioned mechanics of bulkheads in relation to pen-over-pen dynamics, maximum bulkheads are essentially a necessity that you cannot in good faith downgrade on and still consider your ship competitive. They are now extremely heavy to field on your ships for sure, but the current mechanics surrounding them still makes them an absolute must, and so I find that all my designs are now exercises in how to still make a semi-competent ship around the key feature that is maximum bulkheads, sacrificing everything from firepower to speed to armour (especially deck armour) to keep this essential feature, often ending up with ships that are twice or thrice as heavy and expensive as the ship I'm trying to replicate, either because I had to give it triple it's historical deck armour to give it a similar long range protection characteristic to what it historically had, or by simply sacrifing the extended armour entirely and hoping for maximum bulkheads to give me those over-pens rather than full-pens.

To give an example, here's my current design for a US super-Iowa.

maximum bulkheads, long range, maximum displacement (109000t or about two yamatos worth) and 30 knots of speed.

This baby costs a whopping 236000000$, or 2.3 regular iowas, has zero rudder or turret rotation upgrades because I couldn't spare the weight, also has only a double bottom and lvl 1 torp protection because that isn't important enough either, meaning that it actually has far worse underwater protection than the Iowa herself (3 torp bulkheads, equivalent to lvl 3 protection in game, and a tripple hull bottom). However I'd rather forego it and just keep them completely out of torp range if it buys me a bit of extra long-range protection with the way the game works right now.
extended belt and deck are both literally left at 0", which is actually quite historical, but logically shouldn't work with maximum bulkheads, yet somehow it does.
She also sports 14.4" of deck armour, which is completely inadequate given the current game mechanics but it was the best I could do, and it will only protect her from her own armament inside of 20000m, giving her an extremely narrow zone of immunity of just 3000m, between roughly 17000 and 20000m once her 14" belt is accounted for.
Notice that the deck is heavier than the belt.
The only part of her armour that is adequate within the current mechanics of the game is her turret top armour, which I was able to bop up to 21.4", giving her immunity from direct turrent hits from 27000m and below, which at least begins to seem sufficient from a designer's point of view, though still not ideal, even if you disregard the fact that historical battleships usually made do with less than 10" of top turret armour. Meanwhile, her turret front could be reduced all the way down to 18", again giving her immunity from her own guns up to around 9500m, which is actually more than necessary and I might consider giving her a 16" or even 14" turret face instead to give her more deck and turret top protection to bring her closer to a historical result in terms of effective IZ.

This example should make it blatantly clear why the current design parameters are not very realistic.
A ship that is theoretically not only capable of but specifically designed for fighting at 20000-30000m currently requires much heavier deck than belt armour to enable it to fight at it's own designated combat ranges, and this is true across all the nations (I find it especially enfuriating to contemplate that german ships of 130000t disp. still cannot hope to equip enough deck armour to give them reasonable zones of immunity even against 18" guns, much less 20"ers).

Thus I sincerely hope that deck armour will be addressed in the next patch, and made much more effective than it currently is, and that some thought be put into making maximum bulkheads have some drawback to incentivize people to avoid them, rather than just making them prohibitively heavy and expensive to equip, which doesn't really balance things but just makes all other aspects of the design process more aggravating. because you absolutely still have to have max bulkheads anyway, until some balance is introduced that is, possibly in relation to the max-min pen-over-pen dynamics I outlined above.

Thanks for reading, and keep up the good work devs, still an amazing product you're developing in spite of it's flaws.

[Gangut]

I've been having a bit of fun with the new update, especially with the designer. Saying that I like how the AI still comes up with some weird and goofy designs like the one below. I mean my latest light cruiser design in sketchup has slightly beefy barbettes considering the guns that are mounted, but that rear turret is like next level XD.

 

[LazerHax]

I've confirmed it, you are unable to place the short secondary barbettes in a wing-mounted/side-mounted configuration without them being on a mount already on the side, and even then it now doesn't let you place it on said mounts; Holding ctrl just snaps them to the centerline, and you're lucky to find a place where the game allows you to place it. Also, it seems placement of some barbettes is broken. You have the option to place barbettes in places, as well as the room, however the game simply won't let you on the basis of "mount" or "mount 2", whatever that means. Where you could previously place barbettes, you are now unable to. This can also happen with main towers, secondary towers, and funnels in some cases. The only way I can think of to fix this is to remove the "centerline only" restriction on all barbettes (minus destroyers because there's not enough room to do that anyway) and to not limit where you can place them along the length of the ship or what deck you want to place them on (quarterdeck, main deck, forecastle, etc,) except for the borders at the bow, stern, and sides.

Edited March 5, 2021 by LazerHax

[madham82]

1 hour ago, Draco said:

Okay here's my five cents lately.

I have two main issues with the game right now, and they are deck armour and bulkhead size, yet not for the reasons you might think!

Okay so first off, I recently tested out just how much armour you'd need to create a zone of immunity similar to that of the never built Montana class of the US navy (according to wikipedia this zone was from 18000-31000m against it's own 16"/50 Mk.VII guns firing Mk.VIII "super-heavy" shells) but upping this to the game's highest calibre guns (20") firing super heavy shells, and the results were mind boggling. So first off, I found that you can get away with a relatively pedestrian 14" krupp IV belt on an all-or-nothing scheme if you accept that your armour will lose it's immunity at just under 16000m and below.

The math fore this is straightforward.

with SH shells, a 20" gun penetrates 32.3" of equivalent armour plate at 15000m.

krupp IV + AoN armour gives a 118%+ to effective armour thickness, so 14x218%=30.93" effective thickness.

This is considerably less than the 16.1" belt of the montana, and it resists a much heavier shell at less range according to the game. However, it's not game breaking. It's a bit off, but not by that much. Acceptable so to speak.

Next comes the deck armour, and boy are you in for a mindhello kitty now.

The deck armour of the montana was spaced, with a 2.25" sacrificial top deck to activate fuzes and cause the shell to detonate before reaching the main deck. The main deck itself sat at 7.35". Thus by adding them up we get 9.6" of deck armour, but since they were spaced one must account for about 15% of a decrease in efficiency, since two plates next to each other are not nearly as effective at stopping incoming shellfire as a singular plate of the same thickness, so in effect we end up with 2.25+7.35-15%=8.16" effective deck armour.

According to the leading naval experts at the time, this relatively pedestrian deck protection was more than enough to prevent deck hits from a 16"/50 Mk.VIII super-heavy shell at 30000m.

In contrast, here's how the game handles it...

at 30000m, a 20" super-heavy shell in-game penetrates 48.4" of equivalent armour thickness...
let that sink in...
48 point 4 inches...

Okay so let's do the math... 48.4/218%=22.2" of real armour thickness... 22 point 2 inches!!!

What the hello kitty??? I need a deck armour of 22.2" to protect against 20"ers at 30000m when the montana needed only slightly over 8 to protect against 16"ers at the same distance? surely it should be closer to 12" or 13" to be realistic, and certainly that seems to be a more sensible forecast considering that a 20" mk.III can shoot a whopping 41km, and will likely spot you and begin lobbing shells at you before you enter into your zone of immunity at 30000m anyways.

By that forecast, a peak 1940s battleship needs at least 14" of belt and at least 22.2" of deck armour to be considered safe in battle conditions if you follow conventional IZ design parameters within the game's mechanics.

This obviously makes no sense... shells lose a lot of velocity in flight, and a 16" shell that hits you at 20000m has about the same velocity and penetration capabilities as a 14" or 13" hitting you at point blank range, and right now it feels like this just doesn't happen and the only factor is the acute angle of the armour... which btw is still a bit nerfed right now, since even at 30000m a Mk.VII 16" shell, which was considered by the americans themselves to be a superior plunging fire shell because of it's higher arching trajectory compared to the high powered Mk.VIII super heavy shells, would still only hit the deck at 30000m at an angle of 32 degrees, giving you an over 60% penetration decrease when compared to the absolute vertical, even before you account for the loss in velocity, which then implies that around over 8" or 9" of armour would actually be sufficient to stop such shells at such range.

Is this intentional? is that how the developers want it to be? just accept that deck armour is pointless and you might as well go with 0" there because nothing will work at 1940s combat ranges anyways? What am I missing here fellas? Am I the only one who tries to keep my battleships at combat ranges, is that it? does everyone else just sail to within 10km with 18" of belt and 10" of deck and hope they don't get hit at all in those 20km of travelling time?

Even a 14" deck, which is considerably thicker than even the deck armour of the yamato, does not become effective against a 20" gun until it is below 15000m, and mind you, at 15000m the shell impacts the deck armour at an obligue angle of around 10 degrees or less, literally just glancing it with no realistic chance of penetration what so ever if you use conventional real world math formulas and not those of the game.

I just don't get it. For such an otherwise historically accurate game this single area seems completely off the mark.

Although I did notice one favourable new development.

During testing, I encountered multiple occations where 15" or 14" guns hitting my ship at just about the range where my armour began to become effective (around 20000-22000m) penetrate the armour, but then proceed to do surprisingly little damage, closer in scope to an over-pen than an actual pen.
This makes sense, since a lot of deck armour was historically spaced like in the montana example above, meaning that a smaller upper plate would de-cap and initiate shell fuzes of shells making them explode against the lower main deck armour, and having a penetration which does about a 3rd or 4th the damage of a full pen neatly repressents this dynamic, so if that was intentional, well done! now expand on this!
That's the kind of damage one would realistically expect from all penetrations out to about 33000 or so meters with 14" or 15" guns on a 9" deck with 2" of that being the upper de-capping deck. If this was made into a more common occurence, rather than a "freak" incident that only sporadically appears right around maximal penetration range, then that would immediately fix the deck armour issue.
Of course it should still be possible to entirely overmatch deck armour and cause full, devastating penetrations on the engines and so forth, but this should only happen with severely heavy guns of 15" or above striking next to no armour at mid-to-long ranges, so for example 3" of deck at 20000m or above might go through entirely and cause full damage, whereas a similar shell hitting 6" of deck at the same range should only do the splinter deck damage with about 3/4ths of it being absorbed by the main deck armour.
So yeah, if that was indeed intentional, well done, now make it the default rather than the freak result of long range deck hits!

Second is the bulkheads, and hold on, it' not what you think.

My main issue with bulkheads isn't that they're too heavy or too light, my main issue has to do with simple physics.

I ran some tests, and it appears that a battleship of 109000t displacement has about a 90% chance of receiving over-pens rather than actual pens on unarmoured sections of the hull with max bulkheads, meaning that when a battleship grade gun hits the extended deck (which for test purposes was left on 0" thickness) the shell goes right through and does next to nothing.

If this experiment is then repeated on a ship with low bulkheads (anything from many to minimum) the shell almost always penetrates and does full damage.

I find this confusing.

Logically, the less bulkheads you have in the way, the higher the chance of over-pens, because once a shell strikes a bulkhead, it tends to detonate, since those are heavily armoured, often as heavily as the main belt of the ship in question.

Instead what we get is the lower the bulkhead setting, the higher the chance of shell detonation as opposed to over-pens.

Again, what am I missing here?

Shouldn't a hull saturated with heavy and numerous bulkheads be more rather than less susceptible to in-ship detonations on unarmoured sections of the ship?

I find it especially problematic since with the above mentioned mechanics of bulkheads in relation to pen-over-pen dynamics, maximum bulkheads are essentially a necessity that you cannot in good faith downgrade on and still consider your ship competitive. They are now extremely heavy to field on your ships for sure, but the current mechanics surrounding them still makes them an absolute must, and so I find that all my designs are now exercises in how to still make a semi-competent ship around the key feature that is maximum bulkheads, sacrificing everything from firepower to speed to armour (especially deck armour) to keep this essential feature, often ending up with ships that are twice or thrice as heavy and expensive as the ship I'm trying to replicate, either because I had to give it triple it's historical deck armour to give it a similar long range protection characteristic to what it historically had, or by simply sacrifing the extended armour entirely and hoping for maximum bulkheads to give me those over-pens rather than full-pens.

To give an example, here's my current design for a US super-Iowa.

maximum bulkheads, long range, maximum displacement (109000t or about two yamatos worth) and 30 knots of speed.

This baby costs a whopping 236000000$, or 2.3 regular iowas, has zero rudder or turret rotation upgrades because I couldn't spare the weight, also has only a double bottom and lvl 1 torp protection because that isn't important enough either, meaning that it actually has far worse underwater protection than the Iowa herself (3 torp bulkheads, equivalent to lvl 3 protection in game, and a tripple hull bottom). However I'd rather forego it and just keep them completely out of torp range if it buys me a bit of extra long-range protection with the way the game works right now.
extended belt and deck are both literally left at 0", which is actually quite historical, but logically shouldn't work with maximum bulkheads, yet somehow it does.
She also sports 14.4" of deck armour, which is completely inadequate given the current game mechanics but it was the best I could do, and it will only protect her from her own armament inside of 20000m, giving her an extremely narrow zone of immunity of just 3000m, between roughly 17000 and 20000m once her 14" belt is accounted for.
Notice that the deck is heavier than the belt.
The only part of her armour that is adequate within the current mechanics of the game is her turret top armour, which I was able to bop up to 21.4", giving her immunity from direct turrent hits from 27000m and below, which at least begins to seem sufficient from a designer's point of view, though still not ideal, even if you disregard the fact that historical battleships usually made do with less than 10" of top turret armour. Meanwhile, her turret front could be reduced all the way down to 18", again giving her immunity from her own guns up to around 9500m, which is actually more than necessary and I might consider giving her a 16" or even 14" turret face instead to give her more deck and turret top protection to bring her closer to a historical result in terms of effective IZ.

This example should make it blatantly clear why the current design parameters are not very realistic.
A ship that is theoretically not only capable of but specifically designed for fighting at 20000-30000m currently requires much heavier deck than belt armour to enable it to fight at it's own designated combat ranges, and this is true across all the nations (I find it especially enfuriating to contemplate that german ships of 130000t disp. still cannot hope to equip enough deck armour to give them reasonable zones of immunity even against 18" guns, much less 20"ers).

Thus I sincerely hope that deck armour will be addressed in the next patch, and made much more effective than it currently is, and that some thought be put into making maximum bulkheads have some drawback to incentivize people to avoid them, rather than just making them prohibitively heavy and expensive to equip, which doesn't really balance things but just makes all other aspects of the design process more aggravating. because you absolutely still have to have max bulkheads anyway, until some balance is introduced that is, possibly in relation to the max-min pen-over-pen dynamics I outlined above.

Thanks for reading, and keep up the good work devs, still an amazing product you're developing in spite of it's flaws.

Think you should start your own thread with some more screens showing your findings, otherwise it will be lost in the sea of complaints about designer issues. You definitely seem to be on to something with why bulkheads magically make ships near invincible. Also it seems the gun pen values need to be balanced against plunging fire. If I read correctly, they can pen more armor plunging than they can in a flat arc. That certainly isn't case IRL. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by madham82

[Draco]

2 minutes ago, madham82 said:

Think you should start your own thread with some more screens showing your findings, otherwise it will be lost in the sea of complaints about designer issues. You definitely seem to be on to something with why bulkheads magically make ships near invincible. Also it seems the gun pen values need to be balanced against plunging fire. If I read correctly, they can pen more armor plunging than they can in a flat arc. That certainly isn't case IRL. 

Exactly my point and yes, you're right, I need to start a separate thread for this.

[lapis]

The New Spanish Small Dreadnought hull can only be used before 1917. Is that normal?

Edited March 5, 2021 by lapis

[Maty83]

Very saddenned by the current update. Note how it says "Design invalid"

It does this on every new hull once you mount a smoke stack. I tried everything else-removing thm, moving them down, etc. I see no other reason for this than just the smokestacks doing something wrong. Mind you, I am using the attachment points. These messages have never appeared before, including weird errors which seemingly don't have the proper text strings coded in.

I should add that this happens in any designer

Edited March 5, 2021 by Maty83

[Shneemaster]

1 hour ago, Maty83 said:

Very saddenned by the current update. Note how it says "Design invalid"

It does this on every new hull once you mount a smoke stack. I tried everything else-removing thm, moving them down, etc. I see no other reason for this than just the smokestacks doing something wrong. Mind you, I am using the attachment points. These messages have never appeared before, including weird errors which seemingly don't have the proper text strings coded in.

I should add that this happens in any designer

It's because the game wants you to put something on the secondary barbettes on the side.

[CapnAvont1015]

I'm starting to notice something. A lot of the new hulls have flagpoles on the bow and stern but no flag but the old hulls do. Now it could just be the Devs just forgot to add the flags but I'm hoping this is a set up add our own custom flags in the future. 

[Draco]

4 hours ago, Maty83 said:

Very saddenned by the current update. Note how it says "Design invalid"

It does this on every new hull once you mount a smoke stack. I tried everything else-removing thm, moving them down, etc. I see no other reason for this than just the smokestacks doing something wrong. Mind you, I am using the attachment points. These messages have never appeared before, including weird errors which seemingly don't have the proper text strings coded in.

I should add that this happens in any designer

had that problem too. put a secondary gun on these guys and your ship is good to go.

[brucesim2003]

7 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

I'm starting to notice something. A lot of the new hulls have flagpoles on the bow and stern but no flag but the old hulls do. Now it could just be the Devs just forgot to add the flags but I'm hoping this is a set up add our own custom flags in the future. 

Most warships don't have flags on the ensign/jack staff at sea. Those flags shouldn't be there in reality.

[roachbeef]

7 hours ago, Draco said:

had that problem too. put a secondary gun on these guys and your ship is good to go.

Can confirm the issue with British supercruiser design:

Before adding secondary:

After adding secondary:

[Tycondero]

I like the new default rotated secondary gun positions, however the devs should really specify for each tower how the (secondary) guns should be rotated by default for each position. Currently in Alpha11 v80, there are multiple towers with internal gun placements that will get a wrong rotation if used. The guns are rotated so they do not have a correct firing zone and would have to be rotated manually. I can imagine that, especially for the AI, this could give some issues.

From what I have observed this occurs for the following assets:

Main towers:

- Modern Tower V

- Modern Tower IV

- Modern Tower III

Secondary towers:

- Modern Sec Tower III

- Modern Sec Tower II

In addition, I observed that the British "modern battleship I" hull has some issues/bugs regarding the placement of barbettes. For some reason, for the rear turrets, placing a barbette smaller than the "huge superimposed barbette" doesn't fit/work, whereas the huge barbette itself can fit. Doesn't make any sense.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Tycondero

[DerRichtigeArzt]

4 hours ago, Tycondero said:

I like the new default rotated secondary gun positions, however the devs should really specify for each tower how the (secondary) guns should be rotated by default for each position. Currently in Alpha11 v80, there are multiple towers with internal gun placements that will get a wrong rotation if used. The guns are rotated so they do not have a correct firing zone and would have to be rotated manually. I can imagine that, especially for the AI, this could give some issues.

From what I have observed this occurs for the following assets:

Main towers:

- Modern Tower V

- Modern Tower IV

- Modern Tower III

Secondary towers:

- Modern Sec Tower III

- Modern Sec Tower II

In addition, I observed that the British "modern battleship I" hull has some issues/bugs regarding the placement of barbettes. For some reason, for the rear turrets, placing a barbette smaller than the "huge superimposed barbette" doesn't fit/work, whereas the huge barbette itself can fit. Doesn't make any sense.

many bugs like this on almost every hull. its like devs handpick what part goes on what ship and none other fit, this approach is doomed tho cuz there are so many parts you cant pake everything by hand. They need to write a script or something that would do it for them. 

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello all,

We wanted to inform you that we prepare a hotfix and, so far, the following have been readied:

*HotFix v82*

• Japanese late tech 4/5-inch guns of large capital ships got their proper model (for making Yamato looking secondaries).
• Various repairs in Auto-Design. (Addressing some potential overlapping issues between guns and superstructure).
• Fixed bug that could cause AI to build ships with underwater guns or player to create floating guns. Please report if you anticipate this bug again.
• Fixed "empty barbette" warning on new British towers, caused by unoccupied side gun placements.
• Various tower and ship part fixes/improvements as reported.
• Reduced further the distance in which AI scout and independent ships operate away from the main fleet. 

----------

Thanks to your continuous reports we are able to trace and fix quickly all important errors. We are still reviewing to include a few more fixes.

The hotfix is going to be released as soon as possible.

[Bigjku]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello all,

We wanted to inform you that we prepare a hotfix and, so far, the following have been readied:

*HotFix v82*

• Japanese late tech 4/5-inch guns of large capital ships got their proper model (for making Yamato looking secondaries).
• Various repairs in Auto-Design. (Addressing some potential overlapping issues between guns and superstructure).
• Fixed bug that could cause AI to build ships with underwater guns or player to create floating guns. Please report if you anticipate this bug again.
• Fixed "empty barbette" warning on new British towers, caused by unoccupied side gun placements.
• Various tower and ship part fixes/improvements as reported.
• Reduced further the distance in which AI scout and independent ships operate away from the main fleet. 

----------

Thanks to your continuous reports we are able to trace and fix quickly all important errors. We are still reviewing to include a few more fixes.

The hotfix is going to be released as soon as possible.

Can you please make it so we can mount dual 5 inch guns on late model US cruiser superstructure?

[Nick Thomadis]

3 minutes ago, Bigjku said:

Can you please make it so we can mount dual 5 inch guns on late model US cruiser superstructure?

This should be already possible. Can you tell me on which hull exactly you cannot do that?

[Bigjku]

1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:

This should be already possible. Can you tell me on which hull exactly you cannot do that?

1940’s heavy cruiser the most modern two towers that fit together nearly and have 5 secondary platforms on each side.  Will not show an attachment point for 5 inch guns but will for 4 inch guns.