I can't think of anything else besides that which would work, aside from spinblock shenanigans if you don't care about using them for function instead of just aesthetics. With the hydrofoils in the wings you could basically make it like the Scorpion or Terawatt from Lightning Hoods.

I dont use the benchmarker much ,campaign and workshop vs battles is a much better meausure but 50% seems about campaign expert level , Good to know steam props are limited, lead keel and custom jets ??

@RandomNOOBY I don't have any experience with the benchmarker, most of my design process revolves around combat testing against steadily tougher campaign ships once I've got things roughly built. But you're probably right on the score dip, speed is huge given the limitations of the current targeting system. Not sure if steam props are going to get you that speed, to be honest. No matter how fast you get the cranks going, props have a limit on output. Like I said below, maybe bumping up to the 5m prop would do it but that might be a slight engineering nightmare given how compact it is.

@Zorc I implemented all the changes you suggested, corrected all the little details and it scored 74 on nicks combat efficiency benchmarker, which is dam good, but way short of the pre - updates 100K Multirole Frigates score of 100, I will need to re- engineer the whole back end with big steam shafts to hit 40Ms-1 to score so high. I will retrofit workshop version hopefully soon

The AA gun was a pain I was trying for fairly good at everything, and ended up with meh for everything, timed it has to be I guess, if I can get it back up to 40+MS-1 then it will be very CRAM proof so not too worried about the armour, but the rear does need a solid heavy plate across the rear somehow

Thanks for the intelligent feedback, most of the issues are because it was a rushed refit of my favourite campaign killer, and most of my attention was in retaining the originals 42MS-1 speed which was an epic fail. that said it still hits 100 on the FTD benchmarker. The use of 1/2 and 1/3 heavy slopes is deliberate, they beef up metal and alloy aand the main issue is weight not cost, the air gap provided is also handy against some munitions, Good to know about targetting delay, I just assumed Nick would have fixed it by now. The hydros are there because at some point I hope to get its speed up to the originals, and then I will need the hydros. Best review Ive seen on the workshop for a long time. The rest is because I havent got around to it yet or because Im lazy and/ or stupid.

I'd also add in target restrictions to the weapon controller on the main guns, having them fire at small air targets is wasteful, and add azimuth restrictions on them as well so they won't try to rotate past the point where they physically can't.

Minor thing, it looks like you have a missile connector piece on the torpedo decoys but its not actually connecting anything? I'd replace that with a Missile Identify-friend-or-foe, or your LAMS will shoot it if it gets detected and then it won't distract any torpedoes. It could also distract your own torpedoes if you decide to add any in the future.

You've got the hydrofoils in the wing sections, I'm assuming those will be either roll or altitude controlled, I don't think they do anything at just 0 degrees.

All in all, looks fantastic, just need some tweaks.

For the big guns, if you're going to use HA to protect the firing piece you might as well go full HA beams or not bother. The inverts instead of beams is something I'd change, given the amount of health you sacrifice there to save like 120 materials. Having the LAMS issue above, and with your ammo placement, the rear gun tends to get its head blown off too easily. For 120 materials, it might survive a cram hit better. Same goes for the HA around the ammo compartment. If you're going to spend the money for full beams anywhere, do it there. That also goes for the metal underneath and behind the ammo. If explosive torps happen to hit there, the HA will live, the metal and ammo won't. Either fully encase it in HA, or don't bother.

Speaking of timed fuses, they're pretty much mandatory for a flak CIWS system. You've got the anti missile controller on that gun, but I don't think prox fuses react to missiles? Not something I've seen done before at least. If you still want to keep the flak to take out swarms of small missiles definitely switch out for timed fuses and laser targeter.

Another thing with that gun, I'd avoid fire delay at all costs. Unless things have changed in the recent updates, to my knowledge all it does is mess up targeting because the AI thinks it's actually firing when it pulls the trigger and doesn't account for that time delay. Even a sub-second delay lets the target move away from where the AI thinks they are when it finally shoots, especially something as insanely dodgy as The Flying Squirrel. Better to just use the fire rate control, by my tests around 400 rpm is fairly sustainable.

For a 142 mm gun flak is all but useless unless you go for a much slower shell with a bigger payload. You're much better off making it pure frag at that size, or sabot. Also avoid the low cone angle frag, if you want AA, you need AOE. I'd say stick to 90, its a solid balance of getting all the frag going towards your target, not losing too much damage, and still getting the AOE you want for AA. This is also where I'd say prox fuses are pointless, because 3 meter range is pretty much nothing. That gun has plenty of space, especially with that internal alloy, where you could put in a laser targeter and use a timed fuse on the shell. That'll force the shell to detonate around where the AI thinks the target is, instead of it missing the 3m prox, flying past, and doing nothing.

(I threw 5 Squirrels at it several times, and for something with a dedicated AA cannon that should shred them considering how unarmored they are, it missed more shots than it ever hit.)

Main steam prop looks fine to me, at least its running at about 100% consistently, but that's only until you start using the power its putting out. Not sure you could really get more out of it without going for the 5m propeller which I can't see fitting without serious hull redesign in the rear. However, I'm pretty sure the offset shenanigans going on with the cased cranks is a bug. Speaking of cased cranks. that engine doesn't even get close to the rotation cap, so you could swap them around for caseless without issue.

Looks great, could definitely see it as a sort of Steel Striders -esque experimental ship.

As for the things I've noticed could use some tuning.

Definitely need to adjust the AI broadside behavior, the defaults are garbage for anything bigger than a DWG Antlion, and it has a habit of crashing into whatever it's fighting. With those near 500m/s main guns and 400m/s AA gun, fighting at 2km away is perfectly viable and will make that speed more useful for dodging cram and slow APS.

LAMS have a huge imbalance on storage to recharge rate. The damage numbers are promising at first glance until you actually throw something at it. They might take a couple of the first missiles/cram shells out of the air but then recharge so slowly they're effectively useless afterwards. Anything with a vaguely sustained volley will keep them drained perpetually, and then the cost of even putting them in at all come in to question.

Undergoing combat trials