Player Suggestions - December

[Warbie]

I also forgot to add in my previous post;

For the Ship Designer;

 The initial aspects in the designer like range, displacement, bulkheads etc need +/- buttons additions to the slider as the current armour thickness section has. It will be really helpful to fine tune and balance the ship design to optimum specifications.

   Armor scheme cards. These cards would work like other component cards and can be researched in the technology tab. Since after the most recent update, 1.01, the armour has more importance in ship balance, the ship designer can introduce different armour schemes that would be represented in RTS battles such as default, full belt production, all-or-nothing and turtleback armour protection with buffs and disadvantages on balance, speed, turn rate, risk of flash fires etc 

For the RTS Battles and interface

 Improved and methodical spotting at the starting phase of the battle. Sea state, time of day and weather effects should also provide advantages, disadvantages for this system.

 Addition of more detailed fire control commands for each ship. Instead of firing when each gun in a turret is reloaded, you should be able to order "main gun volley fire", for maximised firepower, "ranging fire" which improves main/secondary battery accuracy over time, or "suppressive fire" which would be much more inaccurate and faster, but fire when each single turret is ready to keep pursuing forces in the distance but also has a negative effect using more ammo....

For the turn-based Campaign

  Depending on the starting year and researched technology, certain bases should be able to be upgraded over the time with off-map modifiers like spotters/watch towers, airship hangars or radio interception sections, radar which would gather intel on enemy fleets in their own ports in size and numbers and depending on tech range and the distance of the base from the enemy ports. This would also encourage players to shuffle bases more, or have better interception chances and establish screening squadrons that would work as pickets/early warning screens. Players can see the enemy force before committing to the battle encounters and choose which fleets (within the range) can engage enemies

Edited December 29, 2021 by Warbie

[Sincress]

Simple suggestion: give us the option to set the camera to the bridge of a selected ship.

Free view first person camera from the ship's open bridge. It should be a simple change and I think it would be absolutely amazing to view the battles from the perspective of the ship's commander.

[Norbert Sattler]

Please add a way to disable the collision avoidance.

I don't care if it's a button in the UI or in the options or even a parameter in a file, but give us a way to shut that down.

Even if the collision avoidance wasn't near enough completely broken right now, I'd still greatly appreciate a way to shut that down.

[Admiral Lütjens]

first of all good day , I have 1 issue that I would like to suggest.
1- Fog Mechanics: Only dd's and cl's do the fogging in the game , if only we could add and remove it manually in dry dock. The type of ship we want. After all , battleships can also fogging. While expanding the in-game usage area, their duration can be adjusted again to improve it. For example 
Battleships: 30sec active , 7,5 min cd
CL , CA , BC: 45 sec active , 6 min cd 
DD's : 1 min active , 5 min dc 

As for the qualifications , they can fall out of detection(out of radar and hydro range) , they can be detected again if fire is opened. These are my personal opinions and maybe some of you might like it.

 

[Captain Meow]

Among the first things that caught my attention when I started playing this game was ships having sorta cables instead of anchor chains.

May I suggest this little visual improvement for the game? I understand that "cables" were used to reduce number of details/polygons in 3D model but what if an anchor chain could be made of 2 long rectanglular non-intersecting but crossing transparent surfaces with "links" as textures on them? That would look so much more realistic without making the model polygon-heavy.

 

Also this thing: my or enemy ship was on the move but right when it's status becomes as "sinking" the ship suddenly stops & proceedes submerging. Like it had a speed of some 3-10kn or something & a second after it has 0kn when it starts sinking. Make them stop more smoother than instantly?

Edited December 31, 2021 by Captain Meow

[SpardaSon21]

1.  Fix Range-based accuracy.  Range should be a flat boost to accuracy up to a certain distance based on a fixed portion of the gun's overall range before tapering off to reflect whether or not a target is within the effective capabilities of the gun itself, as opposed to how it currently provides a scaling boost to accuracy all the up to the muzzle itself.  This would increase reliance on accuracy boosting techs and modules, force a tradeoff between range-boosting and accuracy-boosting propellants and shell weights, and end the current meta of big guns uber alles.

2.  Implement proper pre-dreadnought designs.  The USA is perhaps the most egregious of all nations when it comes to early designs.  I have no idea what its Battleship II design is supposed to represent as it seems to be an ahistorical amalgamation of a few early designs.  The USA needs those hulls properly separated, and a proper Battleship III or Semi-Dreadnought hull representing the Connecticut and Mississippi classes added.

3.  Change the current South Carolina inspired Dreadnought I to a Small Dreadnought design, and add a proper Dreadnought I hull based on the Delawares.  At 17,900 metric tons fully loaded the South Carolinas absolutely were small by the standards of 1910, weighing much less than Dreadnought herself or any of her successors.  Further, the overall hull layout of the Delawares would be used as the basis moving forwards, not that of the South Carolinas.  You can thank Congress not understanding anything besides "Why does the Navy keep asking for more money?" as to why we made a 16,300 metric tone design in 1910.

Edited January 1, 2022 by SpardaSon21

[Druzki]

I'd like to suggest 2 naval academy missions relating to the the Russian navy:

 

1. Clash with the Ottomans

Design a dreadnought using late 1900s russian technology to destroy a numerically superior but predreadnought ottoman force with superior training

2.Worker's fleet 

And anglo-French task force with several super dreadnoughts and cruisers has ventured into the black sea. You only have access to light cruisers and destroyers which are however very fast and well armed. Design a response force to cripple the task force.

 

 

Also I'd like to see bow mounts for torpedo tubes for torpedo boats, since many models like the durandal and bulgarian druzki class had them. Some torpedo boat hulls in the game also  already have bow tubes visually modeled

Edited January 1, 2022 by Druzki

[Schirüno]

I know that some others might have said this already, but the “Equipment” components in the ship designer are stupidly overweight, I’m no naval expert but some rangefinders and a radar set isn’t going to weigh as much as one of Yamato’s main gun turrets. 

[akd]

38 minutes ago, Schirüno said:

I know that some others might have said this already, but the “Equipment” components in the ship designer are stupidly overweight, I’m no naval expert but some rangefinders and a radar set isn’t going to weigh as much as one of Yamato’s main gun turrets. 

It's because they are set as fixed percent of tonnage, not an actual weight based on tonnage.  They should just be fixed weights based on the type of equipment.  If the equipment is too big for small ships, then it is too big.  Equip something smaller even if it is less effective.

[The PC Collector]

1- QoL improvement for the Ship Design window: Add a second tab on it for obsolete/decomissioned designs, and add a "mark as obsolete/Decomission design" button on the main tab. This way you can keep at hand only the designs you are going to use. That is already a problem in the current, short campaigns, in the long ones this will be a must.

Then, in the Obsolete/Decommisioned designs, you should have an option to make the design active again, or to delete it definitively (useful for failed designs)

2- QoL improvement for the battle overview: Add the class of the participating ships, at least for your own ships. Useful when you have more than a class of the same kind of ship.

3- QoL improvement for the ship designer: Add a "generate name" button in the design tool, to choose another name of the list, instead of the one shosen automatically.

Edited January 2, 2022 by The PC Collector

[T_the_ferret]

So which features ended up making it into the development plan @Nick Thomadis?