Shipbucket

Well, assuming this is a light cruiser and not a destroyer, I'd say this is your most potential ful ship so far. But:
You haven't changed the funnels at anything but hight. They need to be wider - about 1,3-1,5 times the width should be quite good.
I still think that the current boat placing is a bit of a waste of space. Place them flanking the funnels - just above the torpedo tubes. Then you can take away the "cow bridge" and drag the aft superstructure together .
Also - but this is a purely aestethical, even though often seen on IRL vessels - I advice you to turn the Q gun mount so that the gun faces forward.

Btw, when is this supposed to be built?

No she don't ... not even close.
What ? ... firstly be such nice boy and answer our questions. What is the mysterious role of that ship.

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

How about now?

Gods, give me patience. Because if you give me strength, I'll will kill him ...

Can you answer the question ? If you can't just say so.

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

Getting better, but it still needs work.
~She looks a bit topheavy now, you could fix that by droppong the deck with the forward superfiring gun down a half level, and maybe merge the deck above it down into that deck. This would also break up some of it's boxyness.
~Drop the silly armor belt, it makes no sense on a DD. DD's are meant to be fast and sleek, as well as semi-expendable, so an armor belt doesn't make sense on her.
~The torp tubes by the funnels still won't work. Remember that they have to swing like this to fire:

~By merging the funnels into 2 or 3, instead of 4, you can free ups some space for another torp launcher.
~I still don't see the need for the 4" gun aft of the bridge, you could get away with the one above the torp launcher, but that's a bit of a stretch.
~That walkway between the bridge and the mast needs support. Better yet, stretch the superstructure aft around the mast.
~Speaking of masts, yours are way too thick. I count 10 pixels, most destroyers have masts 3 or 4. The reason for this is to decrease the topweight, and that it just isn't needed. You'd be suprised at how strong a thinner mast can be.

_________________
Worklist

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done." ~Ludwig Wittgenstein

It looks like you tried to downscale a RN light cruiser (C, Danae, or Emerald) in length and gun caliber and turn it into a destroyer. The thing about that is that a destroyer wouldn't be mounting 7 main guns like that. Nor would it be mounting more than 3 or 4 secondary guns, much less guns that a decade before were considered to be primary guns for destroyers.

Either that or you just drew a cramped version of an early RN light cruiser.

_________________
Worklist:
Puerto Oeste - AU - WWI-WWII

It's not an armoured belt for Pete's sake I have already said that once.

If you look closer you will see that I put the torpedoes right next to the gaps between the funnels.

I was going to add draught anyway.

If it's not an armour belt, remove it. Destroyers don't have any kind of bulges or armour. They rely on fine lines and high speed for survival, as do destroyer leaders and the majority of light cruisers.

_________________
"The first rule is not to lose; The second rule is not to forget the first rule"

It's paint not amour.

I'm wondering why,on a slim ship like a destroyer, you'd have heavier mounts up top, instead of the 3 pounders, also look at masts of small ships of the period, little more than poles, not elaborate structures that held spotting tops

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)
There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards