Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

SpardaSon21

Members2
  • Posts

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SpardaSon21

  1. @o BarãoYou wanted to know about feedwater vs/ fuel and here's a sheet for a proposed US BB with both water and oil at 2/3: Feedwater appeared to be roughly 1/4 the weight of fuel oil, and stores for the crew just above the feedwater. Those are long tons, not metric tons, So that's 3,525.683 metric tons if all three are at full capacity, for an overall range of 14,816km, or 4.202km of range per ton of oil, water, and ship's stores. By comparison the steam engines, including electrical power supply, would have been at 3,962 metric tons for that top speed, or more than the range component.
  2. And in September of 1890 the USA laid down USS New York, which was just over 9,000 metric tons at full load. Since I don't believe you can add 1,000 tons of dockyard size in nine months in 1890 you should probably boost the USA's starting dockyard size to where they can build a ship of that size at that time.
  3. Hey, I'm poking around in params and found a few things you might be interested in. A partial pen does a bit less than twice the damage of an overpen, AP shells have a default weight modifier of 1.25 and HE shells 0.9. IMO shell weights should be normalized at 1 and 1 for both. Not sure how to handle damage ratios though. I also noticed that HE shells by default have a .2 pen modifier (he_penetration_mod,0.2), which is far lower than it should be. Considering that historical Common rounds had about half the filler of AP rounds, and since the "standard" AP round in the game is also a completely uncapped round, changing the base ratio to .5 to match those historical numbers seems like a better fit.
  4. Kiautschou Bay is unfortunately coded as a German home region by the game devs. The French province of Kwang-Chou-Wan is also one of France's home regions. There's nothing brothermunro can do about either of those regions with this mod. I've told the devs about it several times but no response. Hopefully he can have better luck getting them to fix it.
  5. Yeah, but as you said, it interacts weirdly with existing barrels, and muzzle velocity affecting reload rate seems like an odd choice. EDIT: If possible, I'd rather you look at how pitch and roll are calculated instead of refits. The game has a very strong bias towards citadel armor and the engines when it comes to things that reduce pitch and roll, so lengthening your citadel and putting a ton of deck armor on your ship reduces pitch and roll, when in reality deck armor was a major cause of instability in designs. Meanwhile just about everything else increases pitch and roll, including things traditionally used as ballasting such as fuel and torpedo bulges.
  6. I'll check this out after the beta goes live, but be sure to make the devs themselves know what you've done, too.
  7. At least the 6"/47 Mark 16 would be reasonably balanced as a 6" gun with a 5 second reload. Of course, the USN was working on a fully-automatic version similar to the 8" RF guns that would have had a per-gun RPM of 20 in triple turrets, but the end of the war axed those.
  8. Thankfully, Nebulous (check them out, its basically UA:D custom battles IN SPACE) has a very good mod scene and as a result some guides on just how to do exactly that! Let me know if that works out for you! It will only bundle things that are in a Bundle folder though, so be careful on how your assets are set up in the editor.
  9. I got those numbers from Wikipedia. Not sure about feedwater for Dreadnought, but Royal Sovereign predated the use of small-tube boilers by a great deal and so used salt water drawn from the ocean as boiling water.
  10. I found the issue: Coal weight at max range (13,446 km): Coal weight at min range(6,783 km): Even with her ungeared turbines HMS Dreadnought only needed 4,054 tons of mixed coal (2,914 metric tons) and oil (1,140 metric tons) for a cruising range of 12,260km. The Royal Sovereigns which were initially laid down in 1889 and with the first generation of triple expansion engines used 1,443 metric tons of coal for a cruising range of 8,740 km.
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectional_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
  12. Somehow the devs made Dunnite not obsolete at all in the base game. As to the shell itself, you missed my first sentence where I said the extra weight has a similar to effect to super-heavy shells in that any weight increase will also increase the sectional density and inertia, reducing any deflective effects that would arise from hitting at an angle.
  13. The French actually moved over to something similar to SPD around the same time the USA did, and then adopted their own variant of SC during the 1930's. And if Dunnite is the safest filler, then it performs a role that isn't obsolete, either historically or in gameplay. There is a Drachinifel video on that. The earliest caps were actually somewhat detrimental to oblique hits since they were soft and would shear off, deflecting the projectile as they did so, but as caps got harder and heavier they were more effective at both flat penetration and angled effects. As to the weight, the shells being heavier by having a reduced filler volume acts in the same manner as super-heavy shells regarding sectional density and their inertia, if not nearly to the same extent. The smaller cavity also increases the structural integrity, making them less likely to shatter and deform at the expense of post-penetration damage.
  14. So, a quick look at things in the designer... Wet guncotton was actually fairly stable in storage, and it was actually a mix of nitric and sulfuric acids it was soaked in, not hydrochloric. Second is the fact black powder is incredibly unsafe. It may be a low explosive but it loves to catch fire so easily that after smokeless powders were introduced it was utilized as a starter charge to initiate the combustion of the main charge. Its been designated world-wide as a Class A hazard on-par with high explosives thanks to how volatile it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive#Class_1_Compatibility_Group Smokeless powders are a mere Class C hazard as opposed to black powder being a Class A hazard. 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. http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.php#Flashless_Propellants2 Regarding explosives, I have a US Navy document from WW2 that discusses the most common ones. "Bullet impact value" was how the USN measured resistance to things like an AP shell flying into the magazines, so Explosive D should be the safest by far at about -35% to ammo detonation/flash fire with Composition B at -30%, TNT at -25%, and then since Tetrytol's in-game description mentions it as more sensitive than TNT set it at -20%, swapping values with TNT. I'd also make Dunnite never obsolete itself since it was used by the USN even after WW2 as a result of its safety. Aside from that, everything looks great. Can't wait to start a campaign, assuming Game Labs doesn't patch it again. 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, but to compensate tone down the penetration penalties on the lighter shells. Even a thin-walled HC round is still going to be able to penetrate some armor, both from the sheer kinetic energy it possess and the explosive within. That, and a surface detonation is still going to cause shattering effects on armor plate, especially if its thin enough relative to the charge where it might be powerful enough to just blow the armor open. The IRL US 6" HC projectile weighed 105 pounds, and I doubt that's going to penetrate a mere .6" at 1km, nose fuse or not. I'd tone down the fire chances and overall damage though, since the fact you can burn down even the most heavily armored warship with HE is a constant complaint and bad for gameplay.
  15. Keep in mind you also have a great deal of heat from high explosives, which as NavWeaps mentions several times increases barrel wear as the steel softens more under firing. As to combustion rate, that's exactly why US cannons, especially later on, weren't that much worse in velocity and range despite not using such potent powders. Our cannons used a substantial amount of slow burning powder combined with a progressive grain that burns faster and faster during the combustion process (creating more and more gas as it does so) to maintain a near-constant pressure inside the gun even as the shell moved down the barrel to expand the total gas volume. On the other hand the shells of other nations would gradually begin to slow down inside the barrel as pressure reduced from both more volume to expand in and the combustion rate either stayed the same or in the case of cordite, actually slowed down.
  16. One minor detail: the single base propellants are the lowest burn ones out there. To quote from Navweaps: Guncotton/nitrocellulose has 2/3 the power of nitroglycerin, so Poudre B and SPD should have the best accuracy but worst velocity and range.
  17. Some of the US bursters were. That said, it looks like I conflated things somewhere along the way into a general application of it.
  18. I'll need to find a replacement for TNT IV, but otherwise I did have all ten. Years are easy, and I gave basic descriptions in the files at the end, replacing any vanilla ones if they existed. As for stats... ugh, its iffy since there's so many propellants the best I can give you for the double-base ones is rough analogues to certain kinds. Yes, but not very well. I'd like to get something closer to historical. There's no reason for Cordite and Tube Powder to have wildly different properties since until the final few versions of Tube Powder they both used nitroglycerin and nitrocellulose as their explosive bases, only differing in ratio. Cordite was more powerful but also a lot less safe since the lowest it went for nitroglycerin percentage was 30%, the initial version being 58% nitroglycerin and its final form that was stabilized with centralite 41.5%. That said, the Japanese used both Cordite and later on their own variant of Tube Powder, with Austria-Hungary using Poudre B until 1897 before switching over to something similar to Cordite. And the USA and France both used nothing but various forms of Poudre B until the WW2 era since neither of them trusted anything with nitroglycerin in it, the French switching over to something akin to Tube Powder during the 1930's once they realized centralite made it safe to use and the USA sticking with a modified form of Poudre B until the very end of WW2 when they adopted a nitroglycerin-free and flashless triple base.
  19. Okay, its annoying to read a double post, so I'll condense everything into one. First, the USA never had a dedicated turret for single 8" guns. When used in a single mount it was always open. Our only turreted mountings for the 8" gun were twins or larger. For the USA, having a turreted single 8" or 7" gun in the early game is just not historical. Yeah, I am aware that's going to be a major concern. One thing to note is that by 1890 brown powder was already obsolete. Cordite Mark I began manufacture in 1889 with full adoption a few years after that, while the French had already been using Poudre B since 1886. The rest of the nations didn't adopt smokeless powders until a few years after, but even if they aren't start techs you can still change the year on them so they research very quickly. Regarding damage, that was me copying over values from NavWeps on explosive equivalencies. While it definitely will break balance, well, maybe in the earliest years. But the USA adopted Dunnite in 1900 at the latest, TNT was 1903 with Germany, and various forms of Lyddite in the 1890's. If you go with historical years for the vast majority of the game everyone will be using roughly equivalent explosives, with Composition A only being introduced in 1945 and incredibly expensive since it is almost pure RDX, and historically only used in AA guns for use with VT fuses where you absolutely need as much explosive power as you can get. As for the range part, the issue isn't with the range increase in general but the way the game calculates overall accuracy as a fraction of the maximum range. If we went by the game's logic the interwar refits dreadnoughts got to increase their maximum gun elevation would magically make them more accurate at their older maximum range. As a result using anything that increases base accuracy but decreases maximum range will give you a net loss on accuracy, countering the entire point of doing so. And no, the base game is not consistent on this. Cordite II and Cordite III both increase range but decrease velocity. A lot of it is still a holdover from when propellants and explosives were just the one component.
  20. Whoops, I was juggling a few different tabs at the time. This is the actual one. The single open mount was used on USS New York's side guns, as well as our weird early protected cruisers that had a mixture of 8" and 6" guns.
  21. Regarding the ammo weight, the overall idea would be to have ammo weight become simply shell weight to allow for more realistic weights and possibly velocities and firing angles. The current setup in the game has propellant and shell both being chucked out the barrel, which makes for very awkward firing setups. As to the range and velocity, yes, that is true. But this isn't my first time working on a mod for a historical game, and unfortunately certain decisions must be made due to how the game itself handles matters. Chief among those with UAD is the fact boosting range automatically boosts accuracy due to how the tables are computed, and to a far larger degree than boosting the accuracy stat itself does. As a result of that mechanic being so lopsided, I'm hesitant to have propellant boost it without there being significant downsides. I am very aware the actual figures are rough and there's a great deal of room for changes, but this was more of a basic concept pitch than anything else. If you think the idea works, I'll be happy to go back and smooth things out. If you have any more questions on why I chose things on either a gameplay or historical basis, let me know. Additionally, when swapping out brown powder for smokeless charges, the British used a powder charge that was a mere fraction of what had been used prior precisely to avoid the guns blowing up from overpressure. And the USA did in fact have several guns explode from overpressure as a result of using smokeless powder. Regarding my primary sources: here and here. And I'd like to request an open single mount 8" gun for the USA.
  22. @o Barão I finally got around to working on those propellants and explosives. Shell types and weights next, but first let me know what you think of these. Completely untested, so don't blame me if your PC spontaneously explodes, but the CSV plugin for Notepad++ didn't throw any errors or inconsistencies at me. https://mega.nz/file/ockmDBJL#EpD719pB_nataSdkOQ8mgb2WpqHtBnHhlqL_jqQQssA For a basic overview of the changes: No changes to ammo weight, velocity, or range, since those are all inherent to the gun/shell combination. Penetration is affected solely by the lyddite fillers. More powerful propellants need smaller magazines for reduced hull weight, but the tradeoff also more barrel wear and reduced accuracy until the late game, but less powder to move to the guns also means a faster reload rate. Fillers were based on the NavWeps data, TNT being used as the absolute baseline as it was for the time period, all damages based around it. No artificial boosts to HE damage over AP, and fire chances were increased for both AP and HE equally. Its a basic first draft I whipped up in an hour or two or cross-referencing a few things so don't expect a whole lot of balance. I did try to make sure they were reasonably close to IRL values, especially the fillers. I also added what I changed each of them to at the end of each line.
  23. Kiatschou Bay/Tsingtao is a German home territory as well. They both need to be changed to colonial ones.
  24. Oh, I know. I was mostly referring to vanilla. You should still get rid of the weight increases and reduce or reverse the cost increases.
  25. Vanilla-wise, assuming @o Barão hasn't touched them, Rangefinders (towers), Gun Layout (guns and barbettes), Gun Mechanisms (guns), Torpedo Size (torpedoes, obviously), Shells (shells), and Submarine Survivability (Subs) all increase the weight of the components I put in parentheses by them. This is bad not just because they weigh more, but also because all of those things getting heavier contribute to increased pitch and roll. The only weight you can add to decrease those two factors is on the citadel armor (belt and deck, deck contributing more than belt for some odd reason!) and the engines, and both of those decrease in weight with the repeatables. Naturally you also wind up paying more for all of these upgrades, when in reality the overall trend is for simplification and ease of manufacture as technology improves, not complexity. There's an exception to be made for things like microchips, but even then the US military has largely stagnated since the 90's or even earlier since they're good enough and nobody's felt like dumping in the money to EMP harden the newer generations of microprocessors with the end of the Cold War.
×
×
  • Create New...