I have a simple suggestion about changing the way armour works to make it playable. Basically, the way people are advised to play it seems armour is not a realistic choice for most nations, because it slows you down and is useless if it's not a complete bounce.

I propose (and yes this is "unrealistic" but I hear enough people saying NF =/= RL) that armour should provide a % reduction to damage taken based on thickness.

It can be a simple linear relationship, with a multiplier for each nation to reflect the armour "pecking order" we already have.

So for example, lets hypothetically assume 16" of armour will on average bounce a 16" shell (note this is just for demonstration, obviously this isnt how it works ATM)

THEN, based on multipliers:

15" of UK armour will bounce a 16" shell, but it takes 17" of IJN armour to bounce that same shell.

BUT, on top of this, linearly scaled reduction:

7.5" UK armour will reduce the damage from a 16" shell 50%, and therefore 8.5" IJN armour will do the same. etc. etc.

Obviously this needs to be balanced based on available displacement and average gun sizes of ships of various tiers.

I think this way it would be better because people can choose to armour a little or a lot, mix belt and deck etc. to get the effect they want, or choose speed over armour (as they are basically forced to do under the current system unless they play UK).