o Barão

o7! @Fangoriously & @SpardaSon21 Errr... maybe just get rid of it for now, then? Most likely, from all HE and AP shells, but the shell weight modifiers will still use them. Stereoscopics are almost double what coincidence ones are. In the mod description, in the "source" section, you will find a link for Drachinifel video about rangefinders. Most likely it is a more complex mechanism and that explains why. I will look at stereo cost difference between different versions. I've done it before myself and Common becomes a major threat to ships with limited armor, which as you can see from above is exactly what it was supposed to be. I thought about that before. But there will also be HE damage modifiers changes to balance them. To make CPC and CPBC more close to SAP in terms of penetration but also damage. A nice progression curve from incendiary all the way to APBC. Maybe swap those out with more boost/penalties in range and muzzle velocity, those primarily result in individual accuracy bonus/maladies, and would realistically be effected by more aerodynamic caps. The problem is how muzzle velocity mechanic works in game, and everything I did was to fix those issues. Everything is connected. I will probably need to remove these modifiers from the HE & AP shells: muzzle velocity accuracy long accuracy wind resistance? I have no idea at this point if affects both shells- And only use them in the shell weight modifiers. The idea will still be present but will be more limited.😒 Sometimes we can't win and we need to adapt.

Oh! Shit. Maybe it is a game engine limitation. I will try to find a solution. Thank you for the report!! Much appreciated. EDIT: It seems to be a game engine limitation. There is no he_accuracy or ap_accuracy modifier. Only the regular accuracy modifier. 😒

The BCs are limited to 37 knots. It is impossible for you to see a BC at 45 knots if using NAR since the beginning of the campaign.

BETA v10.9 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog: AI building program changed. Multiplied by x2 or more, in some cases, the chance of building BBs and BCs for all nations. I was noticing what should be powerful navies with few capital ships. Now most likely it should be much better. There is still the possibility of seeing a nation without BBs, but that is most likely the AI that failed to get a ship design when starting the campaign. In that case, I suspect the AI will start a building program to fix that issue in the first years. Note: I also noticed a limit for subs the AI gets when starting a campaign. Maybe a coincidence, or maybe it was limited by the devs. As a result, I think it is not possible to see Germany controlled by the AI with many subs. Initial shipyard size for later increase. This should help the AI to get capital ships designs. Japan as an example went from 48k tons to 64k in 1940. So it should be able to built Yamato class BBs from the start. I think I found the solution for convoys vs subs, and it should be using escorts more often if available in the area. I also add the chance if a big convoy is being attacked by subs for a CA, BC or BB to be present. Mine laying subs technology removed from the tech tree. Wolfpack subs progression moved to later years. Some of the more powerful subs unlocked also moved to later years. English file updated with the changes to subs. Auto resolve parameters updated. It is now 10 armor, 5 firepower, 1 speed, 0 crew, 0 ammo. In general, I like the results I got from these values, but I can't promise anyone that will work the way you want all the time. To get all the benefits, a new start is recommended. Manor Lords is coming tomorrow, so I am now retired for the next weeks. 😁

Most subs missions are against transports. Subs attacking TFs in transit are rare events. Your DDs being on ports are doing nothing against them. Subs don't attack ports. If your DDs are on sea control status maybe they can participate in events against subs. I am not sure. And don't expect miracles about the auto resolve. It is probably better for me to remove that feature from the mod and use the vanilla values instead. I am not going to waste more hours generating battles just to see if I can make it work reasonably most of the time just for a player to report me that it happen this or that in that occasion. Not worth it.

BETA v10.8 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog: Updated to UAD 1.5.0.9 Optx4 Updated the single German single barrel 5" mk4 & mk5 for all ships to be open turret version. A little size tweak and barrel length to be the same as the x2 and x3 versions.

Good suggestion! 😉

For me all 3 are big problems 😂

Did you tried Imgur? Is very simple.

The first problem is that you are suggesting for small invisible ships to be able to fire against larger targets without being spotted unless they come very close to the capital ships. The second problem is if you delete the spotting range you will need to edit hundreds of towers stats and to compensate that you will need to edit all the hulls visibility in the "parts" file. The third problem is that it is perfectly normal for big tower to have better spotting range value and you want to remove that. Your suggestion comes with many red flags, and with new and more problems. It is a big NO-NO IMO.

BETA v10.7 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog: Changes about the splash modifiers. In 1890, I noticed that also with a positive modifier there would be always a negative value present, so I changed the modifiers to be a direct relation with the shell weight. The values now are very close to vanilla. The negative modifiers for the heavy shells seem to be already big enough and should indirectly make stereo range finders a good option if the Admiral likes to focus the firepower of many ships against a single target. Added main quad guns for light cruisers. Changed the German 5" single barrel for late years on German CL and DDs to be open turret. Fixed grammar errors in the english file.

It is the same for the Portuguese language. I will fix it. @Azerostar your suggestion adds other problems. The AI needs to focus on the nearest targets, and that only the devs can do. I just don't know why is taking so much time for them to realize that. It is hampering the AI capability to win battles. 😒

I didn't make any change to them, and IMO, they work well. Interesting to what you are saying, I always prefer to use the stereoscopic. Now, with the changes to shells accuracy, I think coincidence will be the best until around 1910. After that, stereoscopic for the big capital ships and coincidence for DDs and TBs. I am considering increasing the splash modifiers, this will indirectly make the stereoscopic more interesting in the first years (1890-1900), specially in the situation when there are many ships shooting at the same target. Something to consider. The idea is for the game to tell you where is the enemy? It is interesting, the issue is that RDF will always work. So for me to implement an arrow telling the player where is the smoke in the horizon and the ships are sailing in the dark of the night is unrealistic. Interesting idea, good for the gameplay, but a fantasy. I would prefer the devs to implement some feature that would help players understand better where is the "smoke in the horizon".

I think I understood what you are saying. To use the old single barrel 5" for late versions, right? It is a good suggestion. 👍 From a gameplay point of view, maybe it could be possible by editing the tech tree to add a new branch, similar to what MDHansen did here: But I also would need to add negative penetration modifiers and would be a little of a pain to balance out without creating situations where players could find exploits and abused the mechanic. If it is possible? Maybe. If it is worth it? Probably not.

That is a good suggestion. 👍 There is also the possibility to increase the splash modifier. Small impact during a battle atm, almost irrelevant unless there are many guns shooting the same target and still when that happens the influence is little.