SpardaSon21
-
Posts
251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by SpardaSon21
-
-
16 hours ago, o Barão said:
I look more careful, and I don't know if it is better to fix that issue. The reason being that "home" status is applied to any nation that owns that province. An engine limitation. There are other starts that it is China that owns that province, or there is also the chance of China to conquer those provinces. Would those provinces be a colony or a home province for China? There is also the "claim" status and it says it belongs to China. So the home province should only be applied to China but is also being applied to the European nations?
If France conquers West Germany, will be considered a colony or a home province? Both have the "home" status. It is a little confusing.
15 hours ago, MDHansen said:the big problem is that we can't, per date, change "home" provinces. They are hardcoded.
Damn, that sucks to hear. Its a major issue in the 1890 start where you can't blockade either nation until you take those via naval invasion. And since they're classed as home provinces you can't take them via peace deal, either.
-
23 hours ago, o Barão said:
I edited the home provinces, but I need to check it again in detail if there is something missing.
If you can do that, can you finally fix the longstanding issue where the Chinese colonies France and Germany have are classed as home territories and not colonial ones?
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, King_Tiger_II said:
the Liberty type hull, a wooden ship
Only wood I'm seeing is scaffolding for the construction workers.
8 hours ago, Pappystein said:Remember Mass*Velocity Squared, By that, so long as there is enough strength in the shell casing to withstand the armor/deck/bulkhead strength, it will over-pen. EG, an US 16"/50cal HC Shell has more than enough wall-thickness, to survive mostly intact going through a WWII era destroyer Escort/sloop etc. With how little metal a Tin-can has even a HC shell is an AP shell for purposes of penetration with this setup. Conversely, a typical 4" 45 or 50 caliber weapon of WWII, would have a hard time over-penning in the same situation. It is an interesting dichotomy, where Penetration vs size impacts on a given amount of armor or just hull steel.
The base fuses used for 16"/50 HC rounds had a delay of 0.01 seconds at most, so even at the muzzle with its 2,690 feet per second velocity you're looking at 26.9 feet of travel before detonation. Fletchers were 39.5 feet at their widest. Even when you factor in the time for the impact shockwave to travel to the rear of the shell and trigger the fuse the chances of an overpen with HC and a properly set base fuse are extremely small against destroyers at anything resembling combat range. You'd pretty much need to hit the much narrower bow to have a chance of overpenning. If you're using a nose fuse, the shell is going to detonate almost immediately after impact, even against thin plate, at which point a destroyer is screwed no matter where it gets hit.
For comparison, the base fuses used for AP shells were 0.035 seconds, or 87.5 feet at the barrel and at 20km/21,800 yards 60 feet, or probably enough to detonate inside of a Cleveland class and its 66 foot beam if it hits the armor belt and gets fused as a result, especially when you realize its coming in at an angle. If the ship isn't flat on the chances of a successful internal detonation go up dramatically.
I don't know how fuse times are handled by the game but they could use a serious examination by @o Barão.
-
On 3/28/2024 at 3:02 AM, o Barão said:
I am going to tell you a little secret, but don't share this with our American friends, because I am really not interested to start a debate about this.
For us europeans, large cruiser and battlecruiser, it is exactly the same thing! It is only a fancy Yankee name for the same ship role.
I can't really disagree, although from a purely doctrinal perspective the Alaskas were intended as super-heavy cruisers as opposed to the long range raiding and sea control roles of a traditional BC. They also used a scaled-up CA hull as their base instead of something derived from a BB.
On 3/28/2024 at 3:13 AM, flaviohc16 said:I'm Italian BTW, and I know about the Americans' large cruiser/battle cruiser insanity, to me the only problem is making one redundant, for gameplay purposes, when one is 20k tons bigger than the other (50% more displacement) without bigger guns, even by 1 inch.
We've always been weird with cruisers. Its something that dates back to the start of the USN back in the Napoleonic Era. Even (or perhaps especially) later on during the post-CW era we continued that trend with ships like USS Franklin, a steam frigate commissioned in 1867 that carried an 11" gun, 34 9" guns, and a pair of 100 pounders. USS Trenton that was laid down post-war as a patrol ship had 11 8" guns. And then in this game's time frame you have USS Olympia and some other protected cruisers with 8" guns, and then the incredibly well-armed Tennessee class of armored cruisers that entered service in 1906 and carried 2x2 10" guns as their primary armament.
We even kept at that after the naval treaties when the Pensacolas were designated as CL's for several years after their commissioning despite their 8" guns on account of their thin armor. As far as the USN was concerned the designation fit since massive guns on a smaller ship was just how we liked to do things.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, o Barão said:
Thanks for the detailed report. 👍
I like the GDP growth values, so I will bump instead the base income, province income and oil income for the next version.
"The shipyard is good I would say, both in size and capacity, I'm at 50k tons in 1914 with 250k of capacity, in the first 15 years is very limiting, as it probably should be ( maybe we should start at 10k tons instead of 8k)."
That is an independent value per nation, and it reflects what each nation could built around that time period.
Maine BB was a 6700 tons ship, so more or less close to that initial limit. No need for changes.
England as comparison starts with 13500 tons limit.
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.
-
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.
-
13 hours ago, Ronny 1001 said:
What am I missing here. Surely as the local nation I shouldn't be so totally overwhelmed by Germans from the other side of the world who have no supply lines...
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.
-
7 hours ago, NathanKell said:
These aren't bugfixes, they're balance changes; I'm pretty sure that the devs intentionally made these choices in the service of game balance. The caliber length one is kinda weird and could use some reworking, but it's clearly a design choice to penalize the player a bit for altering their gun's caliber length.
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.
-
I'll check this out after the beta goes live, but be sure to make the devs themselves know what you've done, too.
-
On 1/30/2024 at 1:36 PM, o Barão said:
You want 8" shell with a 6 seconds reload.
It would be fun, but I can't. In game there are already loading mechanics, but they are universal for all nations. It is not possible to create a gun, to have a different reload time only for that caliber, that nation.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Nsalez said:
It seems like this is a pretty general problem with unity games, especially ones that have their resources in compressed folders
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.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, o Barão said:
I need a link I can read about that, to be used as a reference. By the way, the values I applied are using the data from the Bismarck as a reference, and that is a modern BB. To compare one engine to another old one running on coal can lead to some issues. Will never be perfect.
The data from the Bismarck is available on the mod description (pdf)
Also, not only the coal, but the weight of the boiler feedwater stored is important.
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.
-
1 hour ago, TheBlackCitadel said:
Here's an example: The 1890s British Battleship 1 Hull. The typical Pre-Dreadnought. In the first image you can see i've only put on the superstructure and funnels, 16 knot speed, max range, and standard crew quarters, and it's already overweight.
In the second image you can see i've added all of the weaponry. 12 inch main guns, 6 inch and 5 inch casemates, and torpedo tubes. Vastly overweight.
In the third image you can see the armor thickness, which i've trimmed down from how it was generated.
In the 4th image, to get it underweight, I had to lower the range to 6744 km. Even if I put zero armor on the ships aside from the necessary 9 inches of belt armor, I'd have to lower the range to 11600 km to get it to be underweight as show in the 5th and 6th image.
Lowering it to 15 knots doesn't fix it, and that's the lowest possible speed for it. I don't know if the weight rebalance is just bugged or if this is intentional.
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. -
15 hours ago, o Barão said:
Give me a source that explains exactly that. That is what I am trying to find.
-
21 minutes ago, o Barão said:
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.
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.
-
2 hours ago, o Barão said:
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.
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.
2 hours ago, o Barão said: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.
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.
-
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.
-
14 minutes ago, o Barão said:
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.
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.
-
11 hours ago, o Barão said:
- 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.
One minor detail: the single base propellants are the lowest burn ones out there. To quote from Navweaps:
QuoteSingle-Base, Double-Base, Triple-base and Composite Base Propellants - Propellants are normally classified into three types; single-base, double-base and composite. Single base propellants are primarily gelatinized nitrocellulose that do not contain an additional explosive ingredient such as nitroglycerin. Double-base propellants are mainly compositions that are predominately nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin. Triple-base propellants are double-base propellants to which has been added a third explosive, Nitroguanidine (see below). Composite propellants are compositions that contain mixtures of fuel and inorganic oxidants but do not contain a significant amount of nitrocellulose or nitroglycerin. There are also combinations of composite and double-base propellants.
QuoteGun Cotton or Nitrocellulose - Explosive substance formed by the nitration of cotton or some other form of cellulose. As a projectile force, gun cotton has around six times the gas generation of an equal volume of black powder and produces less smoke and less barrel heating. Guncotton releases about 1,100 kilocalories (Kcal) of energy per kilogram, nearly twice that of black powder, almost the same as TNT and two-thirds that of nitroglycerine. Moist or "wet" guncotton is relatively stable but can be easily exploded by using a small amount of dry guncotton (which is sensitive to shock) to start the deflagration. Some history about guncotton: In 1838 the French chemist Theophile Jule Pelouze discovered that an explosive could be produced by nitrating cotton, that is, by treating cotton with nitric acid in such a way as to cause NO2 groups from the nitric acid, HNO3, to enter into combination with the cotton cellulose. He thus produced cellulose nitrates, generally called nitrocellulose. His explosive was the first guncotton, but it was an inconsistent mixture and was not put to practical use. The German-Swiss chemist Christian Friedrich Schönbein discovered in 1845-46 that by nitrating cotton with a mixture of nitric and sulfuric acids, an explosive of good quality would result and that the nitration process could be satisfactorily controlled. Manufacture of guncotton via his process was undertaken in several European countries, but poor quality control led to a series of disastrous explosions in many of the factories where it was being produced. The researches of various investigators during the middle of 19th century, notably those of General von Lenk in Austria and the British chemist Frederick Abel at Woolwich Arsenal (who, together with James Dewar, later invented cordite), showed that the danger was due to the presence of impurities, which could be removed by careful courses of treatment. The methods of purification which they introduced consisted principally in washing and boiling, together with pulping the material to facilitate cleansing. In 1865, Abel was the first to safely produce good quality guncotton.
Guncotton/nitrocellulose has 2/3 the power of nitroglycerin, so Poudre B and SPD should have the best accuracy but worst velocity and range.
-
11 hours ago, o Barão said:
Where did you saw TNT mixed with black powder?
Some of the US bursters were.
That said, it looks like I conflated things somewhere along the way into a general application of it.
-
2
-
-
21 hours ago, o Barão said:
- I need 10 historical propellants and 10 historical explosives
- The years that are unlocked needs to be more or less historical accurate.
- If the propellant increase the range, also needs to increase the muzzle velocity
- I need the component description for all of them. This is the easy part.
- And most IMPORTANT, the stats need to reflect the component's realistic properties.
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.
20 hours ago, StrikerDanger said:Doesn't this one get a little easier since some of the historical propellants and explosives are already in-game (IE Cordite, Dunnite)?
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.
-
2
-
1 hour ago, o Barão said:
That is the issue. I can't make single mount open without removing the turret version from the game. It is not possible to have the two versions. So I always choose what was the most common from the era. And that you must agree it is a rare example for the time period.
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.
1 hour ago, o Barão said:Oh, I like a lot. I think it is possible to do something very interesting. There are some issues with the values that you used, as an example black powder guns having a minus -70 shell damage I guess, or Composition A having 170 shell damage. I don't remember the values atm, but was something like. Looking at those values at the table make sense, but I need to find a way how to implement in game without breaking the game balance.
Give me a few days, I will need to research more before I do anything.
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.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, o Barão said:
That is a turret gun 😁
But no, no, not going to happen. 6" is the limit for the Americans.
I am going to read careful what you wrote. I am not seeing the table you posted in those links. Maybe I missed.
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.
.JPG/1920px-USS_New_York_(ACR-2).JPG)
Realism Work (code changes) v0.2
in Unofficial Mods
Posted
I'll be happy with just the gun and ship balance changes. Mildly surprised you've needed to put so much work into them, though. Did the devs really screw things up that badly with them?