8 simple improvements I would like to suggest (short)

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

There are some extensive and detailed lists regarding huge reworks of the ship designer, some of them often considered to be too drastic or complex to implement as they would require to rework core aspects of the designer, and denied as they would be "too complex for new players and the A.I"...

So I thought I would do a list with what I think that could be simple yet great additions to the current system, easy both to implement and to understand:

-Select bow form: each bow would have its own speed and stability modifiers and bonuses.

-Ship length, beam and draft sliders: and displacement is modified accordingly, rather than the other way around. I think this would be great, both to make historically accurate ships, and to have more flexibility and control on your own designs.

-Divide the belt in three parts: upper, middle and lower belts: This would both increase historical accuracy on ship designing, and provide more flexibility overall.

-New citadel type: "sloped all or nothing": with an internal belt, like Iowa class, for example.

-Add two separate decks: weather deck and citadel deck. With their respective extended parts.

-Make "all or nothing" armor scheme be actually viable: All or nothing scheme was designed so that the "extended parts" of the ship were entirely unarmored, as penetrations there would be meaningless, so that all the armor could be dedicated to the citadel. However, you can't currently use this philosophy ingame, as shells penetrating the unarmored extended parts deal great amounts of damage. I think that, while you are making use of this armor scheme, penetrations on the unarmored extended parts should cause minimal damage, just as it is expected from this armor scheme.

-Be able to define the sloped deck armor thickness on the "turtleback" armor scheme.

-Armor viewer: it would be the cherry on the top, but I think it would be a great quality of life addition. At very least, a basic armor viewer for each citadel scheme, showing the deck and belt extensions and dimensions.

The recent improvements on the ship designer are greatly welcome, and I hope more come soon!

90% of what made me get this game, is the ability to design ships and use them ingame. I get that there are other points the developers want to focus on too, like the campaign, but I believe polishing a final version of a ship designer on its full potential should be the priority, as, as I said, it's the main selling point of the game.

Edited March 17, 2021 by SPANISH_AVENGER

[CapnAvont1015]

2 hours ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:

-Make "all or nothing" armor scheme be actually viable: All or nothing scheme was designed so that the "extended parts" of the ship were entirely unarmored, as penetrations there would be meaningless, so that all the armor could be dedicated to the citadel. However, you can't currently use this philosophy ingame, as shells penetrating the unarmored extended parts deal great amounts of damage. I think that, while you are makingu se of this armor scheme, penetrations on the unarmored extended parts should cause minimal damage, just as it is expected from this armor scheme.

I agree with this. Every single time I use the All or Nothing armor scheme my ship gets absolutely destroyed from the bow and stern due to their lack of armor. I find my self using the Turtle-back or Armored Citadel more than the AoN scheme.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

31 minutes ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

I agree with this. Every single time I use the All or Nothing armor scheme my ship gets absolutely destroyed from the bow and stern due to their lack of armor. I find my self using the Turtle-back or Armored Citadel more than the AoN scheme.

Indeed!

The trade off of AoN should simply be more chances of flooding due to the unprotected parts being hit below the waterline, overpens on these parts shouldn’t deal the structure damage they currently deal.

 

Alternatively, the amount of damage that could be dealt in the extended parts should have a limit, so that hits there still cause some damage, but couldn’t sink an AoN battleship simply by overpenning its bow repeatedly.

[SonicB]

12 hours ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:

Indeed!

The trade off of AoN should simply be more chances of flooding due to the unprotected parts being hit below the waterline, overpens on these parts shouldn’t deal the structure damage they currently deal.

 

Alternatively, the amount of damage that could be dealt in the extended parts should have a limit, so that hits there still cause some damage, but couldn’t sink an AoN battleship simply by overpenning its bow repeatedly.

Exactly. The bare minimum requirement for any AoN warship was positive citadel buoyancy.

AoN schemes also frequently protected the shafts and steering gear, which is not reflected in the current game.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

4 hours ago, SonicB said:

AoN schemes also frequently protected the shafts and steering gear, which is not reflected in the current game.

 

True! From heavy cruisers to battleships, it was frequent that those zones had thick armor around them too.

[CapnAvont1015]

9 hours ago, SonicB said:

Exactly. The bare minimum requirement for any AoN warship was positive citadel buoyancy.

AoN schemes also frequently protected the shafts and steering gear, which is not reflected in the current game.

Now that you say I just remembered that my rudder is get damaged from the weirdest angles. Just the other day I was playing my Thunderer replica (sue me) and for a short time I was playing bow in and somehow my rudder got damaged from being hit in front. The only way that could happen realistically if the shell flew through the whole length of the ship and in any other circumstance that would instantly blow me up.

[Cpt.Hissy]

Or the game treats damage to the bridge as rudder damage "because a guy with the wheel is there"

[1MajorKoenig]

On 3/13/2021 at 1:00 AM, SPANISH_AVENGER said:

Ship length, beam and draft sliders: and displacement is modified accordingly, rather than the other way around. I think this would be great, both to make historically accurate ships, and to have more flexibility and control on your own designs.

This one I agree with - or the other way round: implement a slider for length-to-beam ratio and freeboard.

 

On 3/13/2021 at 1:00 AM, SPANISH_AVENGER said:

Make "all or nothing" armor scheme be actually viable: 

While I agree it would suffice for me if  the module selection AoN actually worked 

 

The other two essentials for me are:

1) break up main tower into bridge and tower section 

2) select bow form

 

These two would serve the purpose of creating variety in designs rather than the “same-ship-syndrome”

[Cpt.Hissy]

I would add, there's no much reason to divide the belt if the damage system isn't using WT-like complex armouring model, and it isn't.
Yet i can see a viable game-y implementation of this, a selection out of several options (such as "uniform belt", "variable thickness belt", etc) that add some modifiers to armour weight and protection. these would generally offer balance between armour weight of same thickness, and damage reduction for, hmm "collateral damage" such as partial pens and hits to non critical parts. So you can save on armour weight while still having enough belt to make your engines and magazines impenetrable, but lighter option will take more overall damage.

Same goes for turtleback slope - it doesn't really exist in the game. And of course, for armour viewer. Nothing to view.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Cpt.Hissy

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

9 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

2) select bow form

 

HOW COULD I FORGET THIS!?
Thank you for reminding me, I am going to add it!

Bow form affects aesthetics, speed and stability: it would give a lot more personality to the ship.

[1MajorKoenig]

1 hour ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:

 

HOW COULD I FORGET THIS!?
Thank you for reminding me, I am going to add it!

Bow form affects aesthetics, speed and stability: it would give a lot more personality to the ship.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

22 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Yes! That goes, from more stability, to better speed and acceleration.

 

3 would be the default one, which doesn't give any specific bonus, it's the all rounder, or maybe 4 would be that

1 and 2, aimed at stability, but at the cost of acceleration and speed

And 5, the one that sacrifices stability the most over hydrodynamics

Edited March 17, 2021 by SPANISH_AVENGER

[1MajorKoenig]

2 hours ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:

 

Yes! That goes, from more stability, to better speed and acceleration.

 

3 would be the default one, which doesn't give any specific bonus, it's the all rounder, or maybe 4 would be that

1 and 2, aimed at stability, but at the cost of acceleration and speed

And 5, the one that sacrifices stability the most over hydrodynamics

And it would be cool if we could change the bow during Refits.

In any case these bows should be era based and made available as technology progresses.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

28 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

And it would be cool if we could change the bow during Refits.

In any case these bows should be era based and made available as technology progresses.

 

Yes! For example, the bow 5 for example is very modern compared to 1 and 2

[Cpt.Hissy]

These shapes are interesting topic by itself

[admiralsnackbar]

I don't think the Armor Viewer is necessary, but I would like to see some way to custom control the armor and arrangement of the citadel directly. Instead of 'selecting' a citadel type that applies probability/weight/cost multipliers based on your current armor scheme.  

The damage model would then need to account for the fact that penetrating hits at the midsection of the ship are causing structural damage and possibly flooding but are hopefully not blowing up magazines or destroying engine components, so shells that fail to penetrate the citadel do noticeably less damage then ones that penetrate the armor and the citadel.