Where is Deck/Belt vs Deck/Belt Extended?

[MyTeitoku]

Let's take this Japan super BB hull as an example. Where is the demarcation line between deck and its extension?

And, does deck/belt provide better protection compared to extended part, if the armor thickness is set all the same, all the same for all the parts?

[Cptbarney]

There isn't as the armour system is very basic atm, theres no internal armour viewer or hitboxes to view and interact with yet. Im guessing they are using the places where the wood texture seams end but i could be wrong.

[disc]

Based on the compartment viewer in battle, each ship is divided evenly into seven longitudinal parts. The first two and last two parts are covered by the extended belt. The middle three parts are covered by the main belt. I am less sure about the decks, but I think they cover the same areas respectively.

I don't know how the extended belt is actually laid out. My suspicion is that it is considered to be at about 45 degree angles from the centerline, so that the belts form a hexagon in plan.

It is unclear where the magazines are, but I think the idea posited is that they are directly below the respective turrets no matter what. The engines are evidently inside the main belt/deck.

[MyTeitoku]

1 hour ago, disc said:

Based on the compartment viewer in battle, each ship is divided evenly into seven longitudinal parts. The first two and last two parts are covered by the extended belt. The middle three parts are covered by the main belt. I am less sure about the decks, but I think they cover the same areas respectively.

If so, then the Dev definitely needs to show these parts on ship design interface. And how/where did you know this information? Is it written somewhere in the game?

 

I do feel terrible ship designs, such as the one in my picture, in which too many turrets are placed in (relatively weak) extended parts would result in more detonation. But on the other side rudders are so easily destroyed, which are probably in extended parts. So I'm feeling maybe an even armor thickness is better than all or nothing.

[ThatZenoGuy]

4 hours ago, MyTeitoku said:

If so, then the Dev definitely needs to show these parts on ship design interface. And how/where did you know this information? Is it written somewhere in the game?

 

I do feel terrible ship designs, such as the one in my picture, in which too many turrets are placed in (relatively weak) extended parts would result in more detonation. But on the other side rudders are so easily destroyed, which are probably in extended parts. So I'm feeling maybe an even armor thickness is better than all or nothing.

The game at present has serious "Rule the Waves"-fication, in which ingame information is either nonexistent, or hard to find.

At present only a handful of hulls allow for actual 'all or nothing' designs via sticking the turrets in the middle of the ship. Otherwise you MUST go for an even armor thickness or even thicker armor on the outsides instead of the insides.

A destroyed engine is no biggie. An ammo rack is a big biggie.

 

[Cpt.Hissy]

Doing "realistic" armor most of the time and true all-or-nothing (0 on extended parts) sometimes. Hasn't had any major issues with this. Looks like there's some more under the hood besides just hitboxes. All those multipliers do work somehow.

That being said i also prefer "realistic" distances and not yoloing bow first right into enemy's face.