Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

o Barão

Members2
  • Posts

    1,879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    100

o Barão last won the day on April 19

o Barão had the most liked content!

4 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

o Barão's Achievements

Master and Commander

Master and Commander (9/13)

  • Great Support Rare
  • Helpful Rare
  • Helpful Rare

Recent Badges

2k

Reputation

  1. BETA v10.1 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog: Improvements to shell ballistics: By reading the data available from navweaps and comparing different shells, it is clear that the heavy shells, even with lower muzzle velocity, can reach a better range due to better ballistic coefficient, that is a measure of how well a projectile retains its velocity and resists drag as it travels through the air. Range modifiers were applied to all shells because of this. Also because of this, it is not needed anymore to have huge long rang accuracy bonus to achieve the same. http://www.navweaps.com/
  2. Not exactly. There are still range differences, but those are being applied by the muzzle velocity mechanic. The higher the muzzle velocity, the better range you will get. If you want a different range, then the propellant choice will be your primary source. The reason I removed the range modifiers, is because the way the game is designed, it will affect the gun's accuracy. More range equals to more accurate guns, and by applying the range modifiers (negative or positive) it makes it impossible for me, at the moment, to create two different shell dynamics. The better accurate at low ranges and the best for long ranges. I say it is impossible now, but maybe I can still find a way. I thought in adding a positive range modifier to shells using a ballistic cap, for obvious reasons, or light shells and a negative for heavy shells, but then it becomes a nightmare trying to create distinctive shell behaviors for different ranges as mentioned previous, without creating, without intention, one type of shell that it is better in most situations. A balancing issue. I will still be going to try to add a small range modifier to light, heavy and super heavy shells. If I find a solution, I will implement in a future update. One possible solution, is to halve the accuracy modifiers from the shell weight and add the range modifier to compensate. The problem is to find the right numbers that, when being applied to the AP or HE shell choice, the player can see a clear difference when looking at options available at the extremes. Improved APCBC vs SAP as an example. The problem is that ideas like this most of the time becomes a little nightmare, with many hours spending testing values and open the game to see how it is working. The choices are more for gameplay reasons and to give the player choices. They are not unrealistic in any way, but it is impossible for me to say exactly how each shell could work in a specific situation. For light shells: Less Momentum Transfer: Lighter shells have less mass, which means they carry less momentum. When a projectile with less momentum hits a surface, it's more likely to bounce off rather than penetrate or deform the surface. Higher Velocity Relative to Impact Surface: Lighter shells, especially those fired at high velocities, can retain more of their initial speed upon impact with a surface. This higher velocity relative to the surface can increase the likelihood of a ricochet. Less Energy Absorption: Lighter shells may not absorb as much energy upon impact with a surface compared to heavier shells. This can result in a more energetic rebound, contributing to ricochet. For heavy shells at steep angles: Greater Momentum: Heavier shells possess more mass, resulting in higher momentum. When a heavier shell impacts a surface at a steep angle, it transfers more momentum to the surface. This increased momentum can lead to the shell bouncing off the surface rather than penetrating it. Greater Penetration Resistance: Lighter shells are often more prone to deformation upon impact due to their lower mass. Heavier shells, on the other hand, may maintain their structural integrity better when striking a surface at a steep angle. This resistance to deformation can contribute to a greater likelihood of bouncing. Increased Energy Dissipation: Heavier shells may not absorb as much energy upon impact as lighter shells do. Instead, they can retain more of their kinetic energy, which can result in a more energetic rebound off the surface. Material Composition: Heavier shells are typically made of denser materials, such as lead, which are less likely to deform upon impact. This property can enhance their ability to bounce off surfaces, especially at steep angles. The game does not explain this very well to the player, and without looking at the game files, I think it is impossible to know. And this is only my interpretation of the mechanic. There is the min angle and the max angle. The min angle is where the ricochet chance effect starts to being applied. The max angle is where the ricochet chance effect will be applied at maximum. The ricochet chance is 55%. There is also another 70% ricochet chance by a shell hitting a main turret. By tweaking these modifiers for each AP shell, I can take into consideration the shell design or cap design to work in different way at different angles. To make it simple to remember, all AP shells with an AP cap and a ballistic cap have improved chance of getting a penetration at steep angles. The APC have improved penetration chance at low angles, but terrible at steep angles. The AP, SAP and SAPC have a wide angle where it can suffer a ricochet, however the semi piercing shells have a reduced chance of ricochet already, as a middle ground from AP to HE shells.
  3. BETA v10 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog: Updated to UAD 1.5.0.9 Optx3 Link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ac6FZM6KTnY3Rhm5GRsEO6Zs6V8Jfasf?usp=drive_link Note: The english file needs to be updated. ----- Major update ----- Ballistics reworked. Light, standard and heavy shells have unique properties at different ranges. New shell added, SAPC SAP and all HE shells damage was improved. SAPBC penetration improved. HCHE, CNF and CP fuse are now more sensitive since they were designed to work against light armored ships. Min angle and max angle for all shells, reworked taking into account the shell shape or the AP cap design, if present, for ricochet chance calculations. Shell weight modifiers from all components reworked to fix the unrealistic values. No more 15" shells with 1.5 tons as an example. Realistic accuracy formula reworked to improve the closer it is to the target. AI personalities updated. Added vanilla TECH AI instructions. Torpedo launchers costs rebalanced. Credits to @NoX for the idea. ----- Ballistics rework ----- All shells have unique properties at different ranges. This offers new tactical options for the Admiral to consider when designing the ships and what will be their role. Note: In NAR, the long range mechanic starts to have effect at 5500 meters and will get the maximum effect at 40000 meters. This adds a new dynamic to the game, where according to the ranges is expected the ship to fight, the Admiral can take into consideration using one type of shell or another. ----- Min angle and max angle ----- Now every shell shape or AP cap design, if present, will take into consideration the angles of ricochet. APC shells have a unique cap design that favors penetration at low angles, but is very poor at steep angles. With the invention of the ballistic cap, new cap designs are now possible to increase the biting angle. The players should notice a better performance from the APCBC variants and SAPBC because of this. The values used in NAR as reference for the shell modifiers, are: Min angle 30º Max angle 40º Ricochet chance 55% Min angle is where the ricochet starts to have an effect and the Max angle where it gets the full effect. There is also a 70% ricochet chance for hitting the main turret. Note: Only the max angle value is different from vanilla game. I changed to help the player in reading the gun stats. Typical APCBC shell. Note the changes to the armor-piercing cap to better improve the chance of penetration at steep angles. ----- Realistic accuracy ----- American 16"/50 mk7 performance on trials. Around 9km. Around 27km. Changes to the accuracy formula to improve the closer you are to the target give me what is now IMO a very realistic feel. Because of this, the mod two options are now: Realistic accuracy and the Arcade accuracy (3x times the chance of hit) VERY IMPORTANT: I don't know when I am going to update the mod again, so to avoid any issues, block the auto updates from steam: Set game to update when start game. Do this in game setting(properties)-> update. Don't start game by steam or steam shortcut. Make a shortcut on desktop from the main game .exe in this location: "....\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts.exe" Start a game from this shortcut. Game will run without update. Do not report any bug to the devs if you are using this mod. They are not responsible for the changes I made to the game.
  4. I am talking about the accuracy issues related to the muzzle velocity mechanic, not about the penetration. 😒
  5. 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.
  6. @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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. In the mod description, you will see that I always recommend blocking steam updates. I wrote the instructions in details to how to do that. I am working on a BIG update atm and I don't know when it will be ready. Probably around Friday or maybe sooner.
  10. If you are comparing with vanilla, you will notice a big difference. There is still a penalty, but is much smaller. This change helps players to interact more with the tech tree if they wish, without the feeling they are being penalized too much. Because of your comment, I went on to take a look at a AIPersonalities file to see if there were any changes by the devs, and there are. So what you're experiencing is an old vanilla gameplay. I will update in the next version. Thanks 👍
  11. "Improved methods to use oil as fuel for ship engines with boilers or not. The fuel consumption is further decreased and it pays off for the higher cost of the new system."
  12. The problem is not the armor weight. It is the lack of priorities or rules to force the AI to use a minimum armor value in the different ship sections.
  13. Armour does have no influence in the hit rate, so we can ignore that. But now let's list some of the most possible factors that you are ignoring, or you are still not aware how important they are. Gun grade is the same, ok, but what guns, what was the range, caliber length, and what shell was being used by both? What was the weather? What are your hull stats in that weather? And what were the AI hull stats in that weather? What are your hull stats? What is the enemy ship hull stats? What are your cruiser tower stats? What is the enemy tower stats? Were you sailing in a straight line at cruise speed for the most part and using most guns? The AI was doing the same or was maneuvering for the most part? Were you shooting trough smoke? You had the sun in your back? Pitch roll status from your ship and the AI? I could list other things, but you probably already got the idea what I am trying to tell you. This game is too complex, and many things about how they work are never simple. But I can assure you that the AI does not have any unfair advantage in the battlefield. However, for someone that comes from vanilla to NAR, the first impression can be a shock.😁
  14. "...dunking on every single ship of mine." English it is not my native language and I failed to understand what "dunking" means here. Google translate is also not helping me. What I did understand it's that you are having difficulty against the AI in battles. Well that's good news for me. 😉
×
×
  • Create New...