|
|
Post by thenewteddy on Apr 15, 2019 12:52:34 GMT -6
Curious what the pros and cons are of these two strategies.
What I tend to do is auto-generate over and over until I find something I like, and then make my own edits to that template to fit my own needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Apr 15, 2019 13:55:04 GMT -6
Curious what the pros and cons are of these two strategies. What I tend to do is auto-generate over and over until I find something I like, and then make my own edits to that template to fit my own needs. Pretty much what I do. Do an auto-design of the class and then modify from there. Maybe a few iterations if I am looking for a "nice" superstructure design since those are cosmetic details for the most part. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 15, 2019 14:08:40 GMT -6
Auto-generated designs work off templates that are primarily based on fairly conventional historical designs, and as a result mostly produce ships that look more or less like conventional ships of the predreadnought, dreadnought, and WWI period, with some exceptions and oddities. Additionally, I feel that the auto-designer is biased towards favoring speed and firepower over armor protection, with the result that, at least in my opinion, auto-designed ships tend to have marginally-adequate or inadequate armor from sometime in the 1910s onwards, or occasionally earlier. Using the auto-designer also provides you with a ready-made top-down line drawing of the superstructure, though whether that is an advantage or not depends on personal preference, and to at least some extent on how far any revisions you make to the design affect the top-down view.
Manually-generated designs have more freedom to directly produce ships based on historical oddities like Tsukuba, Courageous, and Renown that aren't really represented in the standard design templates, to produce somewhat-anachronistic ships based on older designs like Olympia or later designs like Littorio, King George V, or Dunkirque (or, to a somewhat lesser extent, the British cherry trees), or to break with historical convention more completely and produce more or less completely ahistorical designs.
As to actual advantages and disadvantages, there aren't really any other than time. If the standard templates that the auto-designer uses for the stage of the game you're in will give you something close to what you want, it's probably faster to use the auto-designer than to completely manually generate the design, and if you don't like messing around with the line drawing for the superstructure or with placing the funnels yourself then the auto-designer also takes care of that. If the standard templates that the auto-designer uses for the stage of the game you're in will not give you a design that's reasonably close to what you want, then it's probably about as fast or perhaps even faster to manually generate the design from scratch than it is to use the auto-designer and then make your changes, with the caveat that the auto-designer still gives you a top-down line drawing whereas a manually-generated design does not in general do so. There's nothing stopping you from using the auto-designer to create a design and then editing the design to the point of it being no longer being recognizable as being based off something that the auto-designer produced.
|
|
