All Activity

1.16 -Updated for UAD 1.5.0.9 opt x3 and DIP 1.12.8

I'm sure it will be great if this idea can be consider. The current citadel armor system is too simplified and too far away from reality.

The tooltips, arguably, can be misinterpreted because in combat a gun of the same exact characteristics but using a much heavier shell, you will notice it to have a slower fire rate, which affects greatly the accuracy gaining. In practice the slower shell and with slower ROF will need more time to gain the maximum accuracy (not the base accuracy of the data). In practice everything works as expected.

@Nick Thomadis While you are right that the accuracies are estimated for the player in the penetration table, it is still either wrong or missleading (I don't know which one). I almost always use heavy or super heavy shells because they have always better nominal accuracy on these tables, even though the shell descriptions suggest othervise. (disclaimer: I have no idea how the chance to hit is eventually calculated in game. I just wanted to note that @o Barãois right in the that the heavier shells are atleast indicated to be more accurate than the lighter shells even though the tooltip advices othervise.)

Accuracies are also estimated in the data.

I am talking about the accuracy issues related to the muzzle velocity mechanic, not about the penetration. 😒

Hello Barao, There are many hardcoded factors that cannot be tuned with a config. They simulate real ballistic factors of the shell. One of those is the increase of penetration according to terminal velocity (the velocity expected at the end of the range). Players do not have to always read the words and specific stats but use the penetration table which shows the final calculations. There, everything is included, the maximum horizontal/vertical penetration at range and the accuracies. In the battle, these penetrations do not apply deterministically but again take extra factors evaluating the final random shell fire arc, the angle of fall, angle of side hit, and other depended on ship characteristics. Like in real life, you cannot predict 100% the outcome but you can expect a certain average result at range given by those penetration tables. See how penetration is increased at short/medium ranges with a shell of high velocity etc.

I would personally be interested to build something like the interwar cruiser design with box armor sheme, ie. little to no actual belt armor but armored citadel box inside the ship instead. This sacrifices overall survivability to save weight while still protecting the ship from a single hit totally disabling it. Currently this is not possible in game as one must have thick belt armor to have thick internal belt armor. Also, would you consider giving upper regions of the hull its own armor values? In real ships it was very rare for the main deck to be the main armored deck, as this would have been very bad for weight and stability. More common was to have the main armored deck somewhere inside the ship, whilest the uppermost deck was only splinter proof if even that. If the upper hull had its own armor region (or multiple regions) the ships armor weights could be made more realistic and it would be no longer that easy to turn a ship into a solid steel ingot. Easiest way to implement this might be to have six belt regions instead of three (lower main belt, upper main belt, lower aft belt, upper aft belt, lower front belt and upper front belt, limited so that upper belts can't be thicker than the lower belts). The first citadel deck would be allowed to be as thick as one likes independent of the main deck, while the current main deck could still be made thick if one wishes, but with a cost of weight and huge destabilizing effect. If that is too much of a work, at least remove the weight reduction of the advanced armor types for a given thickness, that is just weird and too easy to exploit.

I think the Citadel Armor System needs a improve too. For now the only meaning of the 1st and 2nd layer are to give a higher 3rd layer thickness threshold, or to say, the 3rd layer armor is too important, meanwhile the 1st,2nd and even the main belt/deck is too unimportant. If there is no better way to simulate the armor system,at least reduce the armor thickness threshold limit of the 1st layer citadel armor.

Just to give a better example how bad it is the muzzle mechanic. Stock game, no mods. Wouldn't make any difference since I have no way to fix this. Stock gun with 0% barrel length. Gun with 22% barrel length increase. What are the changes? At low ranges, where we could expect a better hit chance due to these reasons: Trajectory Flattening: Higher shell velocity generally means the projectile reaches the target more quickly, resulting in a flatter trajectory. Reduced Wind Drift: Faster-moving projectiles are less affected by crosswinds, as they spend less time in the air and have less exposure to wind. Reduced Time to Target: A faster projectile reaches the target faster, which means there's less time for external factors such as wind or target movement to affect its trajectory. This can result in greater accuracy, particularly for moving targets or in dynamic shooting situations. We get in fact the opposite. This makes any sense? At long range ranges where we could get a worse accuracy due to these reasons: Projectile Design: When fired at excessively high muzzle velocities, these shells may experience increased aerodynamic instability, leading to erratic flight paths and reduced accuracy at long ranges. Barrel Wear: Firing shells at higher velocities can accelerate barrel wear in naval guns. As the barrel wears down, the consistency of muzzle velocities and the quality of the barrel's rifling can deteriorate, negatively impacting the accuracy of shots fired over long distances. Projectile Dispersion: Naval artillery systems often have to contend with factors such as ship motion, sea state, and firing from a moving platform. These factors can introduce additional dispersion or variability in the trajectory of the shell, further exacerbating accuracy issues at long ranges, particularly when combined with excessively high muzzle velocities. Targeting Systems: Naval gunnery relies on advanced targeting systems to accurately engage distant targets. Extremely high muzzle velocities can introduce challenges for these systems, as they may struggle to predict the trajectory of the shell accurately, leading to less precise targeting and reduced accuracy at long ranges. We have in fact the opposite. And this mechanic is present everywhere. Shells weight, propellants, barrel length, gun caliber, the different between all HE and AP shells. It is such an important thing to how ballistics works that I can't stress enough how much this needs to be fixed. And this artificial modifier implemented here to fix the issue with the light shells wouldn't have a need to exist if the muzzle mechanic were working properly. Just my two cents.

Updated for 1.5.0.9 Opt x3 compatibility.

Eh? No, it's more like I said I got nerdsniped into going _very_ hardcore, wherein on game load I render every hull model at every possible midships section count in 3 views so I can compute a bunch of stats about the hulls, then change how hulls get refreshed on change so they now scale properly to their displacements whenever you change the displacement slider. And I'm unsatisfied with SpringSharp's resistance/power approximations (which I was going to go with initially) since we actually _do_ have hull geometry here, so I've been trying to find better ways of estimating resistance. Taylor's method is good (and highly appropriate) but it's designed for use by humans with rulers. Holtrop and Mennen's paper is straightforward to implement but doesn't produce as good results for the kind of vessels we're talking about. There's definitely some things that have caused me to scratch my head in the game, however, like how foul weather is pretty much a flat penalty to speed rather than being based on seakeeping--destroyers, let alone early TBDs or TBs, should get absolutely pounded in a sea, and at best make a dozen knots or so, while 30kt+ dreadnoughts should laugh off the waves.

I'll be happy with just the gun and ship balance changes. Mildly surprised you've needed to put so much work into them, though. Did the devs really screw things up that badly with them?

@Nick Thomadis I need your help. First, I am going to quote what I supposed to be your own words about shells. Light shells. "Lighter shells have reduced damage and penetration properties, but they are cheaper, reload faster and are less prone to detonation. Furthermore, the lighter shells cause less gun barrel erosion, affecting the gun accuracy positively. The range of a lighter shell is, on average, shorter than a heavier shell of the same muzzle velocity. Because of the higher muzzle velocity of a light shell, its range can become larger according to other shell properties." Heavy shells. "Heavier shells cause more damage and can penetrate thicker armor at all ranges because of their better ballistics. However, they cost more, they are more prone to detonation and increase gun barrel erosion. Furthermore, their slower muzzle velocity increases the chance of calculation errors when firing at long range targets." Super heavy shells. "Shells of the maximum possible size cause immense damage and may make guns of smaller caliber almost equivalent to bigger guns in terms of firepower and ballistics. However, those shells are much heavier, riskier to become detonated and cause more gun barrel erosion, while their slower muzzle velocity increases the chance of calculation errors when firing at long range targets." Well, I have two issues here. One minor and a major one. What is written in the text is misleading for different reasons, that I will explain in details below. But the biggest problem is how muzzle velocity mechanic works in game, that it is exactly the opposite to what is in the text and still wrong at the same time. How the muzzle velocity mechanic works in UAD? In short: The higher the muzzle velocity, the bigger will be the penalty to accuracy. But the big muzzle velocity is tied to the light shells, which supposedly should have a better accuracy in game, according to the text, which it has by artificial means from other modifier. But is still wrong. But the opposite is worse. The slower muzzle velocity will give better accuracy, and the text is saying the exact opposite. Totally misleading for the players. The issue here is the muzzle mechanic and the weight of the shell, both combined are not having a real ballistic performance in game. It should be something like this. Two shells, same shape, same gun, same amount of propellant, all equal except one thing, the weight. The lighter shell will be sent at a higher muzzle velocity and with this it should more accurately hit targets at close range because: Trajectory Flattening: Higher shell velocity generally means the projectile reaches the target more quickly, resulting in a flatter trajectory. Reduced Wind Drift: Faster-moving projectiles are less affected by crosswinds, as they spend less time in the air and have less exposure to wind. Reduced Time to Target: A faster projectile reaches the target faster, which means there's less time for external factors such as wind or target movement to affect its trajectory. This can result in greater accuracy, particularly for moving targets or in dynamic shooting situations. The heavier shell will be sent at lower muzzle velocity but should it more accurately hit targets at long range because: Ballistic Coefficient: Heavier shells typically have a higher ballistic coefficient, which is a measure of how well a projectile retains its velocity and resists drag as it travels through the air. Shells with higher ballistic coefficients are generally more resistant to wind drift and other environmental factors, leading to better accuracy, especially at longer ranges. Trajectory Stability: Heavier shells tend to be more stable in flight, as they are less affected by minor disturbances such as air turbulence. This stability can contribute to greater accuracy, particularly in windy conditions or when shooting at distant targets. Now I searched everywhere for a modifier about this mechanic and I can't find anywhere. I can in theory fix this by applying a negative accuracy modifier plus a positive long range modifier and vice versa, but much better would it be for this mechanic to be working well in game, also with a text description that does not lead the players to mistakes. That is why I am asking for your help. I apologize for the long text, but this is not an easy thing to explain.

If you consider everyone swimming money after a few years into the campaign, but the computer still falling behind in tech, designing clowncars anyway, behaving suicidal in battle and as a result of those factors, getting stomped by the player wich doesnt get anything interesting/decisive in a peace conference after the war, despite the fact of totally or almost totally annihilating the enemies navy, then yeah, this version is as enjoyable as the previous ones. As enjoyable as beeing limited by arbitrary rules (buhu, you are not allowed to design BC with german / bb level of armour, cause poor computer cant compete with you) but facing ships so horrible in balancing that they should sink themselves just by shipping around or so ugly that they should scrap themselves. As enjoyable as the computer seems to be obsessed with South-East-Asia (Wich would be understandable, if there would be a ressource system in the game) und reliably low fueling its own fleets by sending them there and back, completly denying the protection of its Core Provinces As enjoyable as having not enough Funnel Locations for german SBB due to a lack of Secondary Tower selection. Or as enyoable as not beeing able to outfit german Cruisers with sufficient Torpedo-Armament thx to way to big Superstructures, that cant be altered in size. And all the other enjoyable thingz.

It kinda dependts. Early turbines were horribly inefficient and the range thus suffed compared to triple expanison engines. For comparison, Lord Nelson -class pre-dreadnought battleships hade range of some 9000 nm at 10 knt with triple expansion engines, while HMS dreadnought could make only 6600 nm at the same speed and turbine engines, even though the two classes dedicated roughly same percetage of the total displacement for the fuel. On the other hand, tripple expansion engine can run only so long at full power before something brakes, while turbine powered ship can retain almost full power as long as you have coal left and your stokers don't work themselves to death. However, when reduction gear, double reduction gear and turbo-electric transmisson became available, turbines efficiency rose to such a degree that using tripple expansion engine was pointless in large warships. They were still used in small and/or slow vessels like merchant ships and ASW corvettes upto ww2, as there were significant bottlenecks in production of turbine blades and they reguired less specialized knowledge from their crews to operate. If you are interested, Drachinifel has excelled video on the subject:

Btw, in real life, did coal + turbine ships have less range compared to coal + triple expansion ships?

Uploaded optimized version x3 including the following: - Fixed critical bug that caused ships to reset their screen/scout/follow status and move forwards. We are sorry for this temporary inconvenience which was brought by last night's update. - Fixed rare issue which could cause ships to start a campaign battle with the desire to stop movement (unless the player gave any other command. This bug could be caused in specific map coordinates. - Fixed, hopefully, the last reason related to AI logic that could cause damage calculations to fail and cause ships to freeze and the game to stop functioning. This could happen very rarely, depending on frame rate and fast forward of time. You have to restart Steam to get this update properly. At this point, we think that v1.5+ is stable and enjoyable for all players. We will provide more minor updates only if it is needed.

I am not sure if this is a bug or a feature, but when one does mount a turret on a Richelieu-style hull near the main turret barbette, the firing arcs of that turret become extremely limited on the front sector, even though there is should be nothing nothing visibly blocking them. Something similar happens on Iowa- and North carolina -style superstructures, where the upper tier secondary battery mountings have limited arcs of fire seamingly for no reason.

yup i have the sprites fropm earlier. but it stopped there. and I misunderstood, and thought it was the texture2d files that was important. ill have a go later

Thank you, much appreciated!! For me what you are saying is still unknown territory since I have no experience in that, but sure your information shared can a make a big difference.👍 @MDHansen In uabea it is possible to download the flags sprites. The problem is to upload them and create new files. Maybe this little information can help you somehow.

That is the point. It isn't. It can be or not, all depends on other modifiers and how you are designing your ship. Oil I Oil II Oil III

1.15 -Updated for UAD 1.5.0.9 opt x2 and DIP 1.12.7

Updated for 1.5.0.9 Opt x2 compatibility.

Thank you so much for this @NathanKell. Ill have a look after work today, see if I understand and able to do this 🫣