o Barão

And thank you for posting the crash log, that helped me a lot to guess what was the issue.

@MDHansenit seems I found the issue. Revert the changes made by the devs in the params file. Air drag and shell kinectic energy Apply the previous values air_drag_coef,8.65,"modifier shaping up the shell ballistics, the bigger, the less speed dumping ",2.175,2.8,,,,, shell_kinetic_energy_mod,5.319,modifier for adjusting the landing speed of shells (allows curvy trajectories and shells do not land as feathers),,,,,,,

Apply only the stock shell velocity to see if you can make it work. Or maybe revert the shell changes in the params file made by the devs in the last update

Ok so maybe it can be the shell velocity values that I am using that are not allowing the game mechanic to reach the guns range? That explains why it is happening with the 17" guns and below

Same thing to me. For me, the issue is in the "guns" file, but I can't explain why. I tried to manually copy and paste my values but gives me an error at a specific point. Then I tried to manually edit the values, but still gives me an error. I can't explain what is happening.

You are correct, I saw the update yesterday, but sadly there is an issue with the "guns" file that is making the game crash. I need to find first what it is before updating. Already took my coffee, and I am going back to work. It should be ready in the next hours.

BETA v4.0.0 N.A.R. changelog: ---Major ship weight rework--- Important: If you are interested in playing the current campaign, don't update the mod and block steam updates to prevent updates from the devs. This update changes many things in how ships are build and will require a new campaign. Many changes to ship weight and armor values in game to be as close as possible to the real world*: *I used the data I have from the Bismarck BB as a reference. Hull weight Conning tower Belt armor Deck armor Bulkheads(1)* Fuel Citadel armor Torpedo protection Superstructure armor Turrets side and roof armor(2)* Barbettes armor (1)*About the bulkheads: The upgrades are much lighter now, according to the info I have from the Bismarck, but also some changes were made to balance the bulkheads: flooding_stop_chance,2,basic chance to stop flooding (every 10 seconds) buffed to 10 surv_flooding_stop,20,percent additional increase of flooding stop chance (from max survivability) nerfed to 10 water_spread_threshold,20,threshold of water level to start spreading into nearby sections (percent)buffed to 25 pump_water,0.4,remove water by pumps from non-destroyed sections buffed to 0.5 In conclusion, the maximum bulkheads still will give many buffs, but I hope to help the AI if using minimum bulkheads with this simple changes. I hope it is more balanced now. Needs testing. (2)* Main turrets should have a total weight value very close to the real world, however there is a small issue. NOTE: To check the turret real weight, always set the barbette armor value to "0". The issue is, in vanilla game there are 3 main parameters to set armor. One for main turrets, one for secondaries and other for casemates. The problem with this, is the way it works. The values are responsible for the armor weight, and the threshold when the armor start to be applied according to the turret weight. I understand why the devs decided to do this way, the issue is because of this 1 inch of armor have a different weight if being applied to a secondary turret, instead of a main gun. So in vanilla game, if you compare a 7" gun to an 8" gun, most likely you will notice that the 7" is heavier. Now I spend many hours trying to find a solution for this, and at the same time keeping the main turret's real weight (I used the Bismarck and Yamato main turrets as a reference) and I got a point where IMO is good but not perfect. The issue is the 4" turrets don't have any armor. In real life, most 4" only had splinter protection, but still no armor for those guns if you wish. On the other hand: The turret's weight should be more close to real world. The casemates 3" and 4" are not affected by these changes and can have armor. And finally the last big change. Armor limits modifiers removed from the resistance stats. No more crazy super ships with 31"+ belt armor and deck armor limits. These changes should help the AI in designing ships with more realistic values, but only time will tell.

I never had issues on my campaigns with tech research. Maybe because you started at 1900 you were unlucky with the random techs in the beginning? I really have no idea.

Remove the barbette armor first, only then you compare the turret weight to the real counterpart. EDIT: I took a closer look and you are right, even without the barbette armor still is around 60% heavier than it should be.

No. It should be around 3x times higher. +/- The Bismarck, as an example, had around 5k tons side armor. But I can't change now without ruining the players campaigns. I will do that with the destroyer rework.

You nerfed the denial zones?

No

The tech tree is universal, but in NAR only some nations have quads. France, Britain, America and Russia.

BETA v3.1.3 N.A.R. changelog: Updated to 1.4.0.9 Opt x1

That is most likely only a coincidence. I am guessing here, but I am almost sure the AI will spam subs when they failed to designs ships.

Glad you are enjoying, but if they are being sunk with regularity and not sinking your ships, then it is a problem. But I will not touch them for the moment. 😁 EDIT: Are you seeing subs in simulated battles with heavy/medium/light damage, or just sunk?

No because the minimum is 9" for the main battery. And that is only because the game starts at 1890. If that wasn't the case, I would bump the minimum to 10" or 11" to help the AI designing the ships. Same thing, the requirement is there to help the AI in designing something useful.

You and me are in the same boat. I have no idea.

No. I don't see any parameters related to transports values in simulated combat. There are the global values, but in NAR I already changed those to focus more on firepower, less on speed, crew quality and ammo count. Didn't we had a simple report message telling us how many transports were sunk in each region when the at the beginning of each turn? I don't understand why that was replaced by the current method. It was simple and easy to understand. Now we are looking at simulated battles without understanding why some results are possible.

BETA v3.1.2 N.A.R. changelog: Sub nerf compilation.* *Test, observe and share your feedback about the changes. Global parameters nerfs: Sub denial zone. 150km to 20km. Submarine stealth power. 8.68 to 7 Submarine stealth hull strength power. 3 to 1 Submarine combat attack power. 7.5 to 7 Submarine combat stealth power. 1.85 to 1.5 Submarine combat speed power. 0.55 to 0.2 Submarine combat hull strength power 1.25 to 1 Detection vs submarines ASW. 4.75 to 8. Also: Submarine hull integrity values heavily nerfed.* *I hope to get a situation where I don't see submarines with light, medium or heavy damage. Simple, sunk or not. Well I hope.

You and everybody I guess.

Yes. The vanilla AI have a tendency to use AP a lot, even if it is using against a heavily armored ship, angled. So I changed the parameters. I don't think the AI takes into consideration the bursting charge available on the ship. If it was pricic acid, as an example, using only HE would be the best option 90% of the time. The parameters can be edited in the "params" file for anyone interested.

You are asking too much, I am exhausted with the mod already. Unless the devs launch another major update, which can happen because of Christmas, I guess. My only plans are to make the destroyers 1-4 rework, other little changes and I am done. I am also interesting to see how the subs are playing with the recent changes. If they are powerful or weak. So anyone, playing late campaigns, please share your feedback about this. I prefer screenshots. After that, all modders are free to use my work, and do whatever they like.

A-H have a lot of subs. I suspect that to happen when the AI fails to design a ship. I am guessing here. I prefer not to comment about this here, since this area is about the devs updates.

1 In fact you could, by sending them in waves to form a big line in the ocean to cover a wide area. The Japanese sub that sunk the Wasp was part of a group covering a line east of Guadalcanal. It is not a question to intercept, since that is impossible due to speed factor, but to be in the path of the enemy fleet. Spread your subs to cover a wide area in a line formation where you expect them will come, and you increase your chances one of them to be in the right spot to attack. 2 IRL it was easier. The reason being the speed. The sonar man will have many difficulties to hear the sub with the ship's engines at high power to maintain a speed 20 knots+. In a convoy travelling at 9 knots, it seems much more difficult for a sub to slip away undetected, but they did anyway, so. 3 No difference. If detected by the enemy attacking a convoy or TF, the threat by destroyers is the same, and that didn't stop them before. Some were lucky and evade, others got sunk. Same thing.