o Barão

I think is a normal thing on this website. I usually get notifications from new messages that were posted many hours ago. I have no idea why, but that is the way it works here, anyway let's focus on the message. I already compared old KGV photos with the 3D model size in game, and you are right, a size tweak can be made here to make it more realistic. Consider it done.

And here you have an issue that will destroy your argument. "In Newtonian mechanics, momentum (pl.: momenta or momentums; more specifically linear momentum or translational momentum) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object. It is a vector quantity, possessing a magnitude and a direction. If m is an object's mass and v is its velocity (also a vector quantity), then the object's momentum p (from Latin pellere "push, drive") is: p = m v . " Lighter shells have more muzzle velocity and by consequence more momentum. However, lighter shells will lose speed quicker due to the effect of air drag. That is why lighter shells have higher muzzle velocity, but worse range. So in close ranges the advantage would be for the lighter shells, and in long ranges for heavy shells. Also... Do too higher muzzle velocity, we apply a more flat trajectory to hit a target at close ranges, increasing the chances to hit the ship belt at more favorable angles. So again in close ranges the advantage would be for the lighter shells, and in long ranges for heavy shells. How can we apply this in game? We can't, is impossible. So for me, the next best thing is to remove the ricochet chance for all shells.

Is possible, yes. Because some dates were changed.

As I said before, the Dunnite changed place with the new explosives implemented. Where in vanilla game is the 6th, in NAR is the 5th. That is why is becoming obsolete atm. I can't control what becomes obsolete or not. Give me a source that explains exactly that. That is what I am trying to find.

As I said, I can't change that. But I will add some negative modifiers to the Dunnite, and some positive to others so that you will not miss that much. 😁 You are talking about shatter like it was a full direct hit, when what I am interested to know is how a shell weight will have an impact in the ricochet chance when hitting the armor in oblique angles. It is not the same thing.

@SpardaSon21 "As near as I can tell Ballistite was never actually used as naval propellant, only as a rocket propellant and in small arms, and Navweaps explicitly calls it a rocket propellant. So I'd remove that, move everything else over to the left one slot and then in the empty spot have the 1945 Albanite the USA invented that was a nitroglycerin-free triple base, offering the range and penetration of Cordite N but the safety and accuracy of RP C/38, albeit at increased cost and ammo weight. " That is a bad suggestion for the gameplay. Ballistite played a crucial role in the propellant technology, and it is well-balanced in game, and you are suggesting to replace by a rare post WWII propellant, that have no weakness. An OP propellant for the player to rush it and used it against the AI. When we think about explosives and propellants gameplay, I like to take this factors in mind: The AI doesn't understand what is good or bad. So if we have at any time 5 available propellants or 5 explosives to use, but all of them are interesting and not exactly inferior or superior, does not matter what the AI will choose, will always be a viable choice in the battlefield. To have all the 5 interesting choices to use, also makes the game more interesting for the player. If I make an "X" type of ship, what propellant or explosive should I use? The game is fun when we have to make choices. Increased weight and cost are not relevant balancing factors for an OP component in game. Yes, I can use and will use them, but the player will always ignore them to build the OP ship for the battlefield. "Regarding explosives, I have a US Navy document from WW2 that discusses the most common ones. " I have the same sources. I am tired, reading that up and down looking for hints.😁 " I'd also make Dunnite never obsolete itself since it was used by the USN even after WW2 as a result of its safety. " The components are organized by historical dates. A new one entered, and because of that Dunnite was moved to the side, making it obsolete by WWII. But what you are talking about the Dunnite, the same applies to other nations. White Powder as an example was used by the French since late XIX century, all the way to WWII, but is obsolete in game already in 1900. Nothing I can do. "Regarding AP/HE ammo types, my only plan was to swap the ricochet chance modifiers so heavier shells had a reduced chance to ricochet but the lighter ones more likely" That is interesting. I personally would remove all ricochet chance from the shells weight. IMO is more related to the use of a cap. I will need to research about this first. About your other suggestions about blackpowder, dunnite and tetrytol, I will take a careful look to see what I can change and if it is possible to make all balanced.

BETA v3.0.4 N.A.R. changelog: Updated to UAD 1.4.0.8

English file also updated.

BETA v3.0.3 N.A.R. changelog: ----Propellants and explosives rework.---- Part II explosives. Added historical explosives. Stats reworked to make all options interesting to use but at the same time respecting the historical explosive properties.* Added new explosive descriptions. *Please note that I had to take some liberties to make all explosives interesting. I tried to respect the historical explosive characteristics for all options, but at the same time I use the other modifiers to balance them. I don't like to see a situation where the new is always the best but instead, if I have 5 options, I prefer all 5 to be interesting for the player. The stats are W.I.P. and can be changed to achieve this goal. Also: Reload bonus removed from the Tube Powder. The explanation I got why it was faster is IMO related to the reloading mechanics, and we already have a component for that, and nothing with the propellant. All shell velocity modifiers removed from HE and AP shells since in some cases didn't make any sense. English file also updated.

Radar, scout plane and radio. The smaller the ship the better will be the recon value.

I am not aware. You can try increasing your fleet recon and range to generate missions, but I also can't explain in details how it works.

hahahaha good one.

Yes, by editing the "technologies" file inside the resource.assets

BETA v3.0.2 N.A.R. changelog: Small changes to propellants: SPD and White Powder: best accuracy, average safety, bad penetration, bad range, best weight. Ballistite and Cordite propellants, will have the best penetration and range, bad safety, bad accuracy, average weight. Tube powder variants (RC): best safety, average accuracy, average penetration, average range, bad weight, small reload bonus. Note: The devs mention that RC variants have a quicker reload times due to being it has the form of small tubes, but it is the heaviest propellant. In the book "Naval Firepower" the author mentions how the Germans stored the propellant in full brass case near the breech, where the gas seal was most important. The other charges were cased in thin zinc, which was destroyed when the gun fire. Maybe this explains why they were heavier but quicker to reload. I have no idea, but if I find more about this I can do some minor changes. Update From a comment on Quora. "The German large caliber naval guns utilized a cartridge case to seal the breech. This allowed them to use a simple sliding block breech on their guns. The British and other navies utilized an interrupted screw breech. The German gun was loaded by first ramming the projectile. Then the bagged fore powder charge and the cartridge case which contained the main charge were rammed together. The breach was then closed. The gun was then elevated and fired. The spent cartridge case was ejected as the gun was brought back to the loading elevation. In the British gun, the fore powder charge and the rear powder charge had to be rammed separately. If they were not, the compression on the rear charge could prematurely ignite the powder. Care had to be taken to not over ram the second charge. The breech was then closed. The gun was elevated and fired. The gun was brought back to the loading elevation. The higher rate of fire by the German gun was the result of only needing to load (ram) twice rather than three times. Using cartridge cases did cause some problems. It meant that the German turrets had to have openings in the back to eject the spent cartridge cases. In heavy weather, waves crashing over the bow could flood the fore turret through those openings under certain conditions. This happened to both the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during their engagement with Renown."

Many thanks. What you wrote give me an idea to make specific questions to ChatGPT to find what I need to know. In short, you are right, but not exactly for the same reason. It is not about the power but more about the rate of combustion. From Chatgdp "Low-burn-rate propellants refer to gunpowders or propellants that have a slower rate of combustion compared to higher-burn-rate counterparts. The burn rate of a propellant affects the pressure and velocity generated in a firearm, and different applications require different burn rates to optimize performance. Low-burn-rate propellants are often used in large caliber firearms, magnum cartridges, and applications where a slower, more controlled burn is desirable. This can contribute to more efficient energy transfer to the projectile and can help manage recoil." As an example, "Guncotton releases about 1,100 kilocalories (Kcal) of energy per kilogram, nearly twice that of black powder, almost the same as TNT" If Guncotton release the same kilocalories at the same rate as TNT, then it would be a high explosive and a terrible propellant for use in a gun barrel. and this... Nitrocellulose is not typically considered a high explosive; rather, it is categorized as a low explosive. Low explosives, including nitrocellulose, undergo a deflagration process, which is a rapid but subsonic combustion that propagates through the material at a speed slower than the speed of sound. This is in contrast to high explosives, which undergo a detonation process characterized by a shockwave traveling through the material at supersonic speeds. Nitrocellulose, also known as guncotton, is a highly flammable and energetic material. It is commonly used in the production of smokeless powder, a type of propellant used in firearms. The combustion of nitrocellulose is rapid, but it does not produce the shockwave and destructive force associated with high explosives like TNT or RDX. Nitrocellulose is more stable than many high explosives and is primarily used as a propellant or in the production of celluloid plastics. and this... Nitroglycerin is not typically used as a propellant in firearms. Instead, it is a powerful and highly sensitive explosive. Nitroglycerin is classified as a high explosive, and it undergoes rapid detonation rather than the slower combustion associated with low-burn-rate propellants. In the context of firearms and ammunition, nitroglycerin is often used as a component in the manufacture of some high explosives and blasting agents. It is known for its ability to release a large amount of energy quickly, making it suitable for explosive applications such as mining and demolition. So with this information, I have now a good idea how the propellants should work in game. I will make a few changes.

BETA v3.0.1 N.A.R. changelog: Reworked all shell velocity values for all guns to be more realistic.

BETA v3.0.0 N.A.R. changelog: ----Propellants and explosives rework.---- Part I propellants. Parameters defined Shell velocity modifier exclusive for propellants: more shell velocity, will give more range and more penetration to the guns. Brown Powder gets a hull weight penalty because the volume needed for storage. Also, a reload penalty due to the weight. Brown Powder gets an accuracy penalty due to smoke. Low burn propellants gets a bonus to accuracy and high burn propellants gets a penalty to accuracy. Single based propellants are neutral in this regard. Added the American single base propellant SPD Added the propellants historical names. All propellants have the years unlocked close to reality. With minor changes for a few for gameplay reasons. Special notes related to late propellants: RP C/38 used diethylene glycol dinitrate (DGN), which was cooler-burning and less bore erosive, improving accuracy. Cordite N is a triple base propellant that uses nitroguanidine which had the benefit of reducing the muzzle flash and its lower burning temperature greatly reduced the erosion of the gun barrel and improving the accuracy. Some propellants descriptions updated. ENGLISH file updated. Note: In the ballistics software, for the most part, if I increase 10% the muzzle velocity, I would get around 13% - 16% bonus to range and penetration. HE fire, AP fire and shell damage modifiers are exclusive for explosives and coming in the next major update. W.I.P.

I suggested the same thing to the devs, but no luck. 😞

Yes. That is a specific American application, but not an explosive technology breakthrough.

Where did you saw TNT mixed with black powder? @SpardaSon21

In the "guns" file you will see these modifiers for all calibers range_1,range_2,range_3,range_4,range_5

BETA v2.0.9 N.A.R. changelog: Updated to UAD 1.4.0.7 Optx2

In this situation, the issue is not caused by the component size, since the same happens to all guns available. It is an issue with the 3D model, so the only thing to do is to report to the devs.

BETA v2.0.8 N.A.R. changelog: Updated to UAD 1.4.0.7 Opt

I never edited the ship roll or pitch angle. I don't think it is possible to edit those modifiers, but that are instead a consequence of the values that we can edit below in the "params" file. But I can be wrong about this, so take with a grain of salt. This values below are GLOBAL and applied to all ships. Maybe you can find something related to each individual hull in the "parts" file that can be responsible for what you are looking for. #,,Constructor Stability,,,,,,, citadel_offset_modifier,41500,modifier of the weight offset produced by Citadel center,,,,,,, engine_weight_coef_mod,0.000004,modifier for engine weight which affects weight offset of ship according to the position of engine rooms,,,,,,, stability_z_threshold,0.000012,"threshold of instability start (forward), New: Changed to work as weight tolerance delta",150,0.001,0.01,0.5,,, stability_x_threshold,0.000012,"threshold of instability start (side), New: Changed to work as weight tolerance delta",100,0.0025,0.25,0.2,,, stability_z_convert,2700000,convertion of value above threshold to instability (forward),150,65,410,50,,, stability_x_convert,79000,convertion of value above threshold to instability (side),100,65,200,80,,, stability_range_power,1.2,range exponent for stability,1,3.55,1.32,3.3,,, stability_zz_threshold,-1137.5,threshold of momentum instability start (forward),-9100,-1137.5,,,,, stability_xx_threshold,-853.125,threshold of momentum instability start (side),-6825,-853.125,,,,, stability_zz_convert,50,divisor of momentum instability (forward),240,43.2,,,,, stability_xx_convert,50,divisor of momentum instability (side),325,58.5,,,,, instability_damage_ratio,0.065,multiplier from damage-received value to instability-due-to-damage stat,1,0.065,,,,, instability_damage_decrease,0.045,"decrease of battle instability due to damage received (percent, per second)",1,0.045,,,,, acc_instab_flooding,-50,convertion of instability due to flooding to own inaccuracy,-30 (-10~-80),-50,,,,, acc_instab_damage,-50,convertion of instability due to damage-received to own inaccuracy,-30 (-10~-80),-50,,,,,