SpardaSon21

April 6, 2023

I'm loving the changes you've shown off so far. I would recommend adding @clavernever's government modifiers to this mod because they seem reasonably balanced while also making sense. I'd tone the unrest maluses down a bit because +100% is ridiculous, but other than that I see no issues.

April 2, 2023

8 hours ago, o Barão said:

I mentioned the Prinz Eugen and Bismarck, because I found interesting the costs comparing both ships. They were commissioned in the same year. So same technology available for both, but one is much bigger, with 15" guns, but still the CA is more than half the price of the Bismarck. As "killjoy1941" gave the idea to increase the huge guns cost as a balance factor, I thought it would be worth it to share this info. It is not because one ship is much bigger that we are going to see a huge difference also in the price. I suspect the most expensive component to be the engines, and that would explain why this values. But I am guessing here.

As he said, redesigns and graft are the most likely explanations. Contrary to popular image, the Third Reich was not exactly the most efficient when it came to military procurement. That and a good chunk of the cost would be the machinery. Prinz Eugen had the same machinery setup as the Bismarcks with 12 boilers feeding into three turbines, which is uh... not exactly the most efficient or cost-effective way to set up your propulsion system. For comparison USS Wichita used eight boilers that fed into four turbines to crank out 100k horsepower, and the Baltimores right after only four boilers and four turbines to generate 120k horsepower.

March 31, 2023

On 3/30/2023 at 12:50 AM, o Barão said:

Well 10.000kw is a lot more compared to what you mention in the first place. That's why I asked if you were sure the first time.

Considering I described that 500kw from the diesels as backup power I'm not sure how you read it as me saying it was their main power. Language issue, maybe?

On 3/30/2023 at 12:50 AM, o Barão said:

But, just to make it clear, my objective is to rework game mechanics related to ship design, ship combat, and some related to the campaign. Some to be more historical accurate, others to be QoL improvements to make the game more enjoyable to play. As an example, the fact the all ships in N.A.R., start the battle in columns.

I strongly recommend looking into equipment modules. While the armor and sonar changes are great, the citadel and powder/filler components should IMO be next in line due to how heavily they affect the armor and gun balance.

March 29, 2023

On 3/28/2023 at 3:18 AM, o Barão said:

Well, that is almost nothing in comparison with the Bismarck. Are you sure about that information?

"The electric plant provided power to all the ship's services such as weaponry, steering, lighting, cranes, fans, gyros etc. It had a total output of 7,910 kw at 220 volts, with eight 500 kw Diesel generators, five 690 kw turbo-generators, and one 460 kw turbo-generator. These generators were distributed into four compartments (plants). The starboard electric plant No. 1 and the port electric plant No. 2 (E-Werk 1 und E-Werk 2) were located in section VIII, and had four 500 kw diesel generators each. The starboard electric plant No. 3 and the port electric plant No. 4 (E-Werk 3 und E-Werk 4) were located in section XIV, and included five 690 kw turbo-generators, and one 460 kw turbo-generator.

In addition, in section VII adjacent to the electric plant No. 1 on the starboard side, was the Diesel motor room No. 1 (WE-E-Werk 1). This room included a Type MWM RS 38 S Diesel engine developed by Motorenwerke Mannheim A.G. serial number 170093 (170094 in Tirpitz). It was a 6-cylinder engine that gave a normal output of 460 ehp at a speed of 600 r.p.m.; however, a 20% overload to 550 ehp was possible for 30 minutes if necessary. The 550 kVA AC Diesel generator of the type P23 FA925 10 Spez. B2 (P23 FA925/10+RP 91 sp. in Tirpitz) was manufactured by Garbe-Lahmeyer and numbered 377071 (376848 in Tirpitz). It generated alternating current."

Well, considering the Iowas had a total standard electrical output of 10,000kw at 450V derived from a pair of 1,250kw turbo-generators in each of their four engine rooms, compared to Bismarck's 7,910kw at 220V I don't think they were lacking in the power output department. If you want to get as technical with power supply as you did with torpedo bulges, that is.

March 28, 2023

16 hours ago, o Barão said:

Secondaries seems to be 64 mm all around. Which I found very odd. I suspect the secondaries roof to be thinner.

63.5mm, actually, or 2.5 inches of blast and splinter protection. Not the sort of thing you skimp on, even on the top, especially in an era of aerial bombing where a lucky hit is better off blowing up in the turret where the anti-flash can stop the detonation from traveling down the ammo lifts to the magazines instead of thin armor that won't effectively detonate anything. We really didn't want to risk a Hood happening to any of them.

As to the Iowa itself, you went with Anti-Torp III when IRL it had an Anti-Torp V on account of the bulges traveling all the way down and integrating with the triple hull. She also had Aux V, with full diesel-electric backups for 500kw of emergency power and an underwater bypass system for power restoration. The Barbette anti-flash should be maxed as well, since if USS Boise could avoid imitating a T-72 after an ammo cookoff I don't think we had anything less than the max as standard. Not that this isn't excellent work at getting close, best I've seen, but I am still more than a little frustrated at the devs at how impossible it is to get anything close to historical for US ships, especially when you take into account the protection systems on account of the USN being paranoid about safety to the point they considered the tetryl boosters in shells dangerous for ten years after their introduction.

March 27, 2023

3 hours ago, o Barão said:

SI Armour plating (decks, inner bulkheads, etc): 9,165 mt

So unfortunately we don't have a specific number only for deck armor weight. But if we look at most armored ship sections, we can see that the deck area is usually larger than the belt area from both sides combined. So in N.A.R we have these values.

w_armor_belt,0.0059,weight multiplier (from tonnage): armor belt
w_armor_belt_extended,0.0061,weight multiplier (from tonnage): armor belt extended
w_armor_deck,0.012,weight multiplier (from tonnage): armor deck
w_armor_deck_extended,0.007,weight multiplier (from tonnage): armor deck extended

But most important, what you need to know is UAD have some limitations to calculate weights, to make it simple for the game to work I guess. As an example, increasing the draught level, will increase both the belt and deck armor weight in the same proportion. We should expect a bigger gain in weight to the belt armor, but only a minimal for the deck armor. But that is not how it works in UAD. The change % modifier, by changing the hull beam or draught, will be applied to both in the same way. So as an example, lowering the ship beam, to lower the deck area, to save weight and maintain a similar belt armor weight, it will not work. Both will lose weight in the same proportion.

Now the way I got this values, was by replicating the Bismarck in game with all the data I have from that ship and comparing with that weight ship list. And by doing this, changing the weight modifiers to get close to what I was reading. However, these modifiers are being applied to all ships, so what can work in one ship, probably will not be the exact same thing in another ship. This being said, there are important things that were changed for the better.

Right, I got most that from looking at things in the designer. I just struggled with the image you posted since the columns aren't quite lined up for that table, so I thought that 9,165 mt was describing the belt armor. One qualifier I'd add to the armor is that there is no waterline belt in this game: its from the actual waterline to the top of the top deck. Its why barbette armor is of dubious value: because the barbettes can't be penned unless your citadel is!

That said, I've struggled hard to make anything close to the Iowa without being 10k tonnes too heavy, even with your mod. Its hard to believe that she was only a couple thousand tons heavier than Bismarck was.

March 27, 2023

8 hours ago, Danz_Von_Luck said:

Fair enough not gonna lie from my current campaign I've been enjoying this mod loads, worth restarting for

Yeah, same boat here.

EDIT: @o Barão One thing I didn't see listed for Bismarck with a proper number was deck armor weight. I was designing a quasi-Iowa in the custom battle designer to test the changes and the deck armor is heavier than the belt, even when the belt is twice as thick. What should those numbers look like, historically speaking?

March 23, 2023

5 hours ago, o Barão said:

Try this link. Maybe is much better for me and for the players. No need to pack or unpack anything, just download.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1q3jd4AXtSRNYvMD7uEtfI51cbwDS-CNQ?usp=share_link

About the cruiser's size. Yes, but I need to think also in average numbers and tech tree progression. Not all nations could build ships with that size. This is a global modifier that is being applied to all nations.

About the gas turbines, is something that I will need to research before I do any change. And there are still other things that I want to do before I look at this.

I already the got link downloaded @StrikerDangerand their advice, but always nice to have a backup in case. And that's fair on the turbines and other things.

March 23, 2023

4 minutes ago, StrikerDanger said:

I find that I'm able to download it if one selects the PDF and the zip folder and downloads them as a package.

That worked. Thanks.

March 23, 2023

I'm sorry to say I haven't yet done a campaign with your mod since I've been hoping the devs slow down with updates (will tonight), but any chance you can take a look at the stats on the engine types? Some of it just doesn't make sense, like gas turbines having worse funnel efficiency than diesels and an absolutely terrible cruising speed despite turbines working best at higher RPMs. Does the game assume they're completely ungeared or something?

Also, to be historically accurate 9,000 ton cruisers should be acceptable for an 1890 start, unless you think one can research that by September of that year when USS New York of 9,043 metric tons fully loaded was laid down. Light cruisers should be 4,700 as USS San Francisco was 4,657 metric tons at full load and was laid down in 1888.

And is there an alternate download source? Dropbox isn't working for me at the moment when I try and download.

March 18, 2023

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

Update alpha build 0.25

Changelog:

Updated for UAD 1.2.8

rework some funnels for DDs, torpedo cruiser and BB Maine (still W.I.P.)

armor cost rebalanced

Increase damage taken from torpedos in DDs

Nice stuff, especially the funnels. Here's hoping things stabilize soon so you can get some more time to properly work on things instead of updating for patches.

March 17, 2023

Any chance you and o Barao can team up to make the perfect gun mod?

March 14, 2023

3 hours ago, mk4m said:

Italia in 1890 scenario not have ability to build big ships?? In reality they build this ships much earlier. 15.000+ tonnes.

Yep. And in 1890 the USA was building 8,900 ton armored cruisers.

March 6, 2023

1 hour ago, admiralsnackbar said:

This has some quality of life that i would like to use, but I am unsure how to go from looking at a given file like 'guns' and replacing it using this version of UABE. It doesn't let me import using anything other than a text file AFAICT.

Which is why you export a section to .txt file using the "Export .txt" function under plugins and when you open it in something like Notepad++ you get this:

March 2, 2023

6 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

it's 1 maybe 2 people actually doing

Adding features takes time, tweaking code and fixing game breaking bugs takes less time and adds more value.

The only feedback I think they should have taken to heart was against the submarine and mine features.

And yet they implemented that gun barrel accuracy change despite people's biggest concerns being low deck pen... which was added in almost immediately after gun barrel length could be tweaked in response to an off-hand comment by someone and hasn't been adjusted or tweaked since despite being based on flawed inputs.

Oh, and then they added the length techs to an already over-loaded tech category after people complained about how they could max length for range and accuracy and the AI would not.

March 2, 2023

1 minute ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Not much I can do about that. My preference would be that, given that 1.2.4 was highly stable, 1.2.5 would have been released on the beta branch. Had I tried to update the mod for 1.2.5 i would have been overridden by two subsequent patches over the course of a day.

Note that a game like mount and blade which has far more people working on it, and is now in official release [b/c game console] still has a split beta and live branch because bug squashing is mostly outsourced to the player base.

Its impressive and depressing in equal measure how quickly they fix bugs yet ignore our feedback on everything else.

March 1, 2023

36 minutes ago, madham82 said:

Simulated gun barrel erosion, so that there is a diminishing effect on accuracy for gun barrels that produce very high muzzle velocity for the shells. This improvement realistically balances the gun accuracy and fixes the human player exploit to create ships with overpowered long barrel guns with extreme accuracy.

How is this being implemented exactly?

And out of all of the gunnery problems mentioned by players they implement... that? Did anyone ask for that?

February 26, 2023

9 hours ago, o Barão said:

@Deathbringer221

I found interesting the issue you bring up, so I went on and tried to find anything that could be useful. And I found it. And I think you and others will find this very interesting. In the navweaps website, we have historical data for many guns, but what I was interesting to see was two similar guns, with different barrel lengths but using the same shell type. Well, we have this.

16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php

"An improved weapon when compared to the older 16"/45 (40.6 cm) gun used on the Colorado class battleships, this weapon was to a simpler, lighter design. A major difference was that the mountings for these guns were specifically designed to handle the 2,700 lbs. (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 projectile. This gun had a slight advantage over the 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 in terms of deck armor penetration due to its lower muzzle velocity. "

16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

"More powerful than the 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6 guns used on the North Carolina (BB-55) and South Dakota (BB-57) classes, this was possibly the best battleship gun ever put into service. Originally intended to fire the relatively light 2,240 pound (1,016.0 kg) AP Mark 5 projectile, the shell handling system for these guns was redesigned to use the "super-heavy" 2,700 pound (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 before any of the USS Iowa class (BB-61) battleships were laid down. This heavier projectile made these guns nearly the equal in terms of penetration power to the 46 cm (18.1") guns of the Japanese Yamato class battleships, yet they weighed less than three-quarters as much. "

16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6

16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7

So in conclusion, we can see that in similar ranges, the shorter barrel have better deck pen values. This is normal, however what is important to see here, is the longer barrel will have much better deck pen values at maximum range.

So yes the formula for deck pen in game when changing the barrel length, is completely wrong.

Yep. A longer range means the shell comes in at a steeper impact angle at that range. Its also important to note that shells IRL had much flatter impact angles than they do in this game, not exceeding 45 degrees until at their most extreme range unlike what currently happens. Its almost like super-heavy shells were intentionally designed to have reduced ricochet chances unlike how they currently operate in game.

Hint to the devs: lighter shells have both reduced sectional density and inertia compared to heavier ones, which means they're more likely to wind up deflected if they hit at an angle. You have SAP and AP Capped backwards when it comes to ricochet angles and chances.

3 hours ago, Deathbringer221 said:

Wow you actually went above and beyond here to pretty much put in a clear well defined post what I was trying to convey here! I love you this is such a beautiful post. This is what I would have expected to happen to guns in game if I improved the barrel length.

Worst penetration values (at least about 20% from the looks of it) at the mid-range brackets (probably because of the ricochet angles being quite sharp from the increased velocity) but better penetration at the new increased brackets of range. Thank you very much for this post it must have taken you quite some time to make.

Not really. The information is all right here: http://navweaps.com/ Actual IRL gun, mine, torpedo and armor specifications, pre-computed tables that are very close to reality... its probably the single best source out there for 1880-1945 naval warfare. And yet for whatever reason the devs ignore the actual historical data and facts more often than not.

February 23, 2023

14 minutes ago, Deathbringer221 said:

Yeah at least I'm really looking forward to the next mod update, the game seems in a decent spot now. Just the gun reload times from this mod are a must for me now. Same thing with the government and tech changes.

For sure.

February 17, 2023

5 hours ago, ijp8834 said:

I don't have too much real world data, but ai can go over some historical events. Especially late game tech, on undamaged ships, should be pretty dang accurate.

Denmark Straits had hits within the first few salvos, including a flooding hit on Bismarck, a bridge hit on Prince of Wales, and that magic below the waterline hit on Hood.

The subsequent battle had Rodney bracketed within the first few salvos, and a hit on Bismarck's fire control.

Guadalcanal has several examples of accuracy. Hiei against Atlanta and San Francisco come to mind, as well as Washington's slaughter of Kirishima.

Duke of York scored a hit on her first salvo against Scharnhorst, in a stormy, low visibility conditions.

West Virginia hit Yamashiro on her first salvo at Surigao Strait.

Basically, every major engagement between Battleships in WWII showed exceptional accuracy from one or both sides.

Going back to WWI-

Moltke managed 9 hits on Tiger in the first 12 minutes of Battle Cruiser action at Jutland. During those first 12 minutes at least 3 of the British ships sustained hits.

And that's in hilarious contrast to the Battle of Manila Bay at the start of the Spanish-American War where a 3% hit rate by the USA was considered above-average for the time.

February 6, 2023

11 hours ago, Dave P. said:

By 1942, the US Gulf Coast province has no oil resources discovered. Dude, that map area includes Texas.

The Western USA should also be producing oil at all eras. California was a major oil producer starting in the 1870's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_oil_in_California_through_1930

Oil numbers also kept going up and up and up across the whole USA, as well. The USA had several instances of overproduction of oil threatening to collapse the market during the game's time frame, funnily enough.

February 6, 2023

17 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Funnel capacity values need to be adjusted by hand. I don't want to attempt that until I feel like the game can go one week without being updated.

Oh, I'm aware of what a pain its going to be, especially since that funnel type is also shared by a lot of other nations. Its the sort of thing Game-Labs should have tried to deal with long ago, but alas...

February 5, 2023

9 hours ago, DasMoss said:

any possibility of increasing funnel capacity for some of the later war battleship funnels? Currently even with oil 3 and forced boilers its impossible to achieve 27 knots for a Yamato using its real tonnage. You can compromise with the larger tower but then its not a yamato anymore. Similar proposed H-41 class BB's had a proposed speed of 30 knots (similar to the Bismarck) but the best you can get with its proposed tonnage is barely 28 and that's really pushing it. Though it goes without saying the real reason is because some of the larger funnels don't fit when they appear like they should due to a long standing bug im assuming it would be cool to have a temp work around.

American battleships are especially hard-hit. Good luck getting up to 32 knots with 80 capacity funnels! They max out at Mega Funnel VI when even the British get up to Mega Funnel VII (Enhanced). And then you have the French and their ridiculous Angled Funnel Complexes that even boost aiming speed, and have more capacity for less smoke interference.

February 5, 2023

And they just did a hotfix update to 1.1.7, whoops.

February 4, 2023

And they just updated again, whoops. Guess they got wind of this mod's popularity and decided to imitate it, judging by the patch notes.

Of course, they did it pretty poorly, judging by the feedback here.

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Downloads

Events

Posts posted by SpardaSon21

16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6

16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7