Pappystein
-
Posts
111 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Pappystein
-
-
3 hours ago, o Barão said:
The idea is for the game to tell you where is the enemy? It is interesting, the issue is that RDF will always work. So for me to implement an arrow telling the player where is the smoke in the horizon and the ships are sailing in the dark of the night is unrealistic. Interesting idea, good for the gameplay, but a fantasy. I would prefer the devs to implement some feature that would help players understand better where is the "smoke in the horizon".
IRL, a bearing (not North South East or West) would be given. It might be a 10 degree arc, but that is still at least 4.5x better than "North East." It is too easy to "miss" as a ship turns because "oh I didn't tell you the ship changed directions"
A VISUAL indicator of smoke (like literally smoke on the horizon, would be a huge boon. But, our ships are all clean burning Oil powered ships for the purposes of actual visual clues. And RDF could still be important if when Oil Tech is unlocked by the target player, the visual indication would disappear.3 hours ago, o Barão said:I am considering increasing the splash modifiers, this will indirectly make the stereoscopic more interesting in the first years (1890-1900), specially in the situation when there are many ships shooting at the same target. Something to consider.
I think the changes to the shells has helped a lot already as I tried to state earlier. But yes Shell splashes should have a greater effect, even a small one will likely bring huge improvements to gameplay for both player and AI.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, o Barão said:
From a gameplay point of view, maybe it could be possible by editing the tech tree to add a new branch, similar to what MDHansen did here:
I just skimmed through this mod's forum thread. Looks interesting. Some of the technology in UAD's vanilla experience doesn't quite line up with game-play. For example on the campaign, prior to the introduction of ESM/HFDF/RDF I have to either auto all the battles or have an extremely FAST, for the time period, set of ships reducing their survivablity. With the re-emergence of JSON editable saves, I have cranked the tech up on Communications to 100.0 until RDF is unlocked. Then I go back and crank it all back to 0.6 (to slow communication progression down to not run into the ever increasing "add weight for no real gain" repeating tech.
I think the changes to how the AI behaves in the latest few rounds of NAR have reduced the need for this... but it isn't eliminated.
I say all of this in honesty, not because I want to hear how I cheat (it is a single player game, everyone should have a right to play it their own way.) But rather to point out the possibilities that re-working the tech-tree could bring.
As I see it, the combined tech tree is cluttered with things that should "Not be here" and, could, with some work, be altered into a much more intuitive experience. If at some point, someone would re-design the tech tree from the bottom up I think it would behoove all of us to embrace it. No, @o Barão, I am not suggesting this is something you should do. You have stated multiple times you are trying to step back and take a break from constantly updating this WONDERFUL mod. I am more just "wishing."
-
22 hours ago, o Barão said:
BETA v10.6 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog:
- Wind resistance modifiers added to all shells. The lighter the shell, the bigger the effect, specially on stormy weather.
- Some shells descriptions were updated. The English file needs to be updated.
With this concludes the update about shells & ballistics. Summary of all changes in the past days:
So I am using the Accurate gun model, not the arcade model. I came to report on the patch previous to this...
In a Word.... AMAZING! My ship losses seem correct, and my ability to do damage down-range seems also correct. I think the Rangefinders could use a little more Tender-loving-care as the discrepancy between the types is too big... but I think what really needs to happen is a complete re-write there (I haven't paid attention if you have already made major changes on this front...
I admit I have been stuck in a rut of only using Coincidence range finders for many iterations of UAD and NAR, because the stereoscopic ones were just BAD in the past. With the new ballistic changes, I tried the stereoscopic rangefinders again. It seems the stereoscopic RFs are better than I remember (I am using them on all my CA/BC/BB/CB hulls currently at the point of unlocking Coincidence 4 (so stereo 4 is already fitted to my flag force)
-
1
-
Designation of Ship classes is ALWAYS a tough cookie... EG, what makes a Ticonderoga a Cruiser, when an Burke DDG is almost the exact same tonnage?
Another example is the *possibly* failed USN LCS Classes; They are, again nearly the same size as a O-HaP FFG.
My Opinion, is the designation of a class is All about role and nothing else.
when we get to a GAME that allows for customizing, that blurs even further. Thankfully o Barão, has given us some ability to work around this. However, the game itself limits what can be done.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, o Barão said:
BETA v8.1.0 - "Battle stations update" - N.A.R. changelog:
Note: From my 1940 tests runs, I noticed how bad is still the mines mechanic in this game. So I am considering removing it from the mod.
Personally I am of two minds on this. I fully back the removal of smoke due to AI incompetence.
I think Naval combat, at a strategic level ** IS ** a lot of RNG, things you can't control. And the Minefields do play into that. I think the damage model is out of wack, with small ships not getting sunk but big ones getting sunk often (yes they should take more hits but they should also be smart enough NOT TO charge through.But, OTOH, I don't know what, if anything that N.A.R. could do to alter this algorithm.
Finally, I will add, removing the mines will mean my Light cruiser will be even MOAR Murder-bots than they are currently. All that freed up tonnage means more armor (I am already maxed for guns on deck in my designs as well as all the torpedo.) I think adding mass to the Light Cruisers and Destroyers to compensate for mines going away is a bad design choice because there are probably a lot of people out there who make classes of ships without mines currently. I know I do even with my use of mines, I tend to build 2 classes of Light cruisers at any given times. 1 With max mines and 1 without.
PS up until now, I have played exclusively with the Semi-REalistic version of your mod... Will continue until it gets crazy hard
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:
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.
Ok I had a HUGE reply all typed up... and my browser crashed
Then I realized we are probably talking about two different definitions for "Over-penetration"
OVER PENETRATION is the act of destroying a component (Room, section of hull etc) with extra damage left over that goes un-spent. OR the hit is calculated in some way as to be too powerful and the final effect of it is not spent in the location targeted as it "passed through"This can be a shell flying right through the hull because the hull section randomly chosen for damage was already destroyed (and I have seen over Penetrations on many of those hits)
OR
The compartment targeted by the warhead (shell in this case) is completely destroyed as a result of being hit.
OR
The Game calculates that there is too much time for the fuse to detonate.
Given the game is trying to "average" all the various datapoints arround the world, and really ISN'T going for full realisim, A country with a great fuse is going to feel less good, and a country with notoriously bad fuses is going to feel BETTER than it should be. But that Is just my OPINION. -
8 hours ago, basedana said:
I firmly believe that HE shells should be unable to overpen, specially high capacity and incendiary. I hate when a BB shoots a merchant with an HE (that HE is HC) and then overpens.
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.
-
2 hours ago, TheBlackCitadel said:
So, found a bug in Beta 7.3.0
For some reason, the Ironclad Battleship III hull for France in 1890, has like 1930-1940 forward tower and funnels. It's hilarious but kinda cursed
Damn that actually looks kinda good... NGL
-
6 hours ago, flaviohc16 said:
2) Max caliber for modern cruisers 9.9 inches, because I still haven't seen any somewhat realistic proposal in real life about a modern ( post Washington naval treaty's) shipt hat is less than 25k tons and have guns bigger than 250mms (9.9'). If we want to give more freedom up to 10 inch guns.
That is because one of the core "Laws" of the Washington Treaty is No cruiser could have a caliber of weapon greater than 8"/20.3cm/203mm that not less than 10.9 inches in diameter. At the time the treaty was drafted no one thought you could put an 11"+ weapon on a cruiser and be effective... Then Marine Diesels became more efficient mass-wise, and Armor became less important. And this combination of loopholes allows the Graff Spees to exist with 6 11" cannons.
No one else did it because they could build replacement Battleships under the treaty with the bigger guns in a limited way: the Replacement and latter escalator clauses.
Why did the Washington Treaty have such weird Cruiser armament wording? In part (from reading my various Friedman books on the subjects as well as my own research), there seems to be an undercurrent of wanting bigger guns on cruisers and it was a bargaining chip that various (I believe Britain and Japan,) used to force compromises in their favor during the Treaty Negotiations. Likewise, as the British economy collapsed after World War I, they pushed for smaller and smaller ships to be cruisers. At the point of this, the earlier threats for a new lighter 9.2" BL cannon for the RN's cruiser force seem to be farcical at best.
-
1
-
-
So I am doing a campaign Italy, with V6.0.1, Am I safe to update to 0.2 for the purposes of economy tracking? I am taking snapshots every 5 years of the Politics page so you have data on all of them in the same format.
Currently in 1893 I am at Advanced tech and barely positive in financials. I have dialed back the Technology acquisition to increase funds. the game chose Belgium and Greece as my allies (I am Itally) so no Oil countries
-
8 hours ago, o Barão said:
Could it be because you are always at war? Screenshots would help me a lot.
Yeah, I have been editing the JSON Saves for GDP for a few versions but will start a new test career when I wake up. No editing, just play and see.
And actually I am never really at war early on. I think I fought 2 wars in my last career of V1.5 by 1910 (Italy)
-
1
-
-
I am having the opposite effect... But maybe it is down to a different play style. With the later updates I am struggling to field a force up to date in any nation I am playing unless I JSON my save and make some serious edits, to Technology and to finances.
I have tried Italy, UK, USA, and Japan. In each case I was quickly outnumbered by my opponents. I have tried with 200% transports, with 50 and 100% tech and with 33 and 50% crew.
It could be bad luck but basically I am having an ecconomic collapse instead of a snowball. The longer I play the quicker it is too hard to even field a fleet at all. The costs of technology and the limitations on not building older hull types far outstrip my ability to pay for anything.
This may be because I take a more passive stance on foreign relations (I don't bully other nations into a fight ever year or 5) *SHRUG*
***EDITED BELOW***
Given the notes on the 1.505 update, it looks like I am not the only person having issues with Economic collapse instead of snowball.... makes me feel a tiny bit better
-
Downloaded mod today... researched 1100 Ton Destroyer... New Destroyer II is not available. I can build 1100ton Destroyer I based boats, but Destroyer II is not located in this spot (Italy if it matters)
If it matters this is a career I started after the end of the 1.5 beta. -
39 minutes ago, SMS said:
still can't begin campaign 1940.what should i do?
Completely uninstall the game. Manually go into the game folders and delete anything that remains. I had this problem in the 1.4 beta and that was the solution that fixed my issues (some of the files were not up to date but Steam wasn't seeing it I GUESS)
Re install the game and be certain *NOT* to install any mods (this is a beta test and things are changing fast best to not add variables)
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, HMS Implosive said:
I was wandering if the funnels "Protected Funnel" and "Protected Combat Funnel" have their 3D models mixed? Thats because the first ones provide bonus to communications and aiming, but the second ones have the physical antennas and the rangefinders.
What country and what hull. Need to provide detailed information because ther eare a lot of ship parts with the same name that are significantly different form one country or hull (or combo) to the next.
-
Austria-Hungary Belted Cruiser 1890. Stacks are HUGE compared to other cruisers of he same size around the world. And nodes do not allow for 2nd Tower of ANY size unless at the far forward position, eliminating many gun options. Mk2 4" Guns are SO HUGE as this seven gun version becomes a two gun version when unlocked.
Same basic Hull a few years later... as you can see 3x 4.5" vs 7x in the Mk1 version. Each Mk2 4" weapon in Austria Hungary is aproximately 5x the size of the weapon it replaced. (lets not talk about how HUGE 9" turrets are)
Battleship Hull II for Austria-Hungary may be the tallest Battleship hull per ton in the game? Might need a Z-Axis (height) debuff
-
18 hours ago, Skeksis said:
Made even worst with mods, mod authors don’t always update their mod with each new version. Referring to gaming mod authors in general but also there is nothing to say that UAD mod authors will be here forever too! Not saying they won’t either, but time does go on.
Devs should list previous versions in Steam, not only for player campaigns, academy missions, shared designs and custom battles, but also for recently added mod listings.
If you are using STEAM, you can use the BETA tab to roll back to a previous version... This has been Unlocked by the DEV since somewhere in the V1.4 update cycle.
You MAY be able to do that with GOG but I have exactly one game on GOG and it is 26 years old now so not a lot of updates to worry about
-
20 minutes ago, Masonator said:
Destroyers seem far too fragile in the latest patch. My DDs use RP C/38 powder, Amatol bursters, Electro-Hydro II traverse gear, Anti-Flash V, Anti-Flood III, Bulkheads II, and triple bottoms (read: maximum resistance and 0% flash fire chance), and are still being completely crippled or detonated outright by single 203mm hits. Earlier today I had one take 48,000 damage, two floods, and engine and steering gear crits from a single 283mm hit, barely managing to limp away at 5kts with 3% structure and 1% floatability remaining.
I've now played three campaigns using NAR, and in my experience the changes to DDs (particularly disabling smokescreens which are absolutely critical to their survivability) have rendered them completely ineffective as fleet vessels. Large Tribal/Porter-style gunboats are now suicidal to use, as the weight of the guns demands that they be both big and slow, resulting in a huge target signature that makes them atrocious at spotting and very easy to hit and leaving them utterly incapable of "speed-tanking" as smaller 40kt destroyers can. Combined with the substantially increased fragility inherent to NAR means that these ships die en masse when presented with anything larger than another, smaller destroyer.
The broader changes to HE have also made such gunboats virtually useless as gunboats, since their guns are universally too small to deal effective AP damage despite now also having terrible firestarting ability (unless built as floating bombs with Cordite, Picric, and Super-Heavies), all of which results in destroyers as a class being relegated to disposable one-shot torpedo sleds or small ASW/minesweeping pickets - which isn't particularly fun, engaging, or realistic. Destroyers were not just big torpedo boats, and were probably the single most important ships of WWII. In my opinion, a flat 25-50% increase in surivability - closer to the vanilla figures - would make them a lot more useful.
Wait, they weren't useless EXACTLY as you describe in Vanilla?!? WHAT!?
Because, your description is EXACTLY my experience in Vanilla let alone the various versions of this mod.
Just prior to using this mod I relegated DD/TBs to escort missions and to Long range TT shots. Leaving the AI controlling the TB/DD forces on SCREEN seems to keep them alive the best... and they do a good job as AI controlled ships skirmishing with enemy forces at low losses but still manage to sink enemy forces. Sending them in against far superior forces with 8" Plus Cannons (203+mm) is ALWAYS extremely risky. The AI does not understand nor is there an easy "evasive" control that the player can use.
Blaming this mod for what is at it's heart a set of 4 core game mechanic issues that are either very bad (Smoke, how fusing works, how LIMITED armor interacts with fusing) or out right missing (evasive sailing,) seems presumptive to me. This mod improves so many things in the game that it is well worth the investment. That being said things have been CHANGED and thus you, the player need to CHANGE the way you play to match said changes.
My suggestion is: Set your Torpedoes to "Safe shot" Set the Formation to Loose and wide (not inline), Set the AI to SCREEN your Flagship (or if you have a lot of TB/DDs set them to screen other ships as well) and ignore them in your main battle formations. When Building your DDs go for Fletcher types not Tribal types. But It would be nice to get a "Destroyer Leader" hull at some point. Unfortunately the best hull I can think of for that role is the Scout cruiser which is a no go due to the stupid FIXED davits with boats.
RE Smoke Specifically. If the AI knew how to effectively use Smoke instead of just spamming it all the time and thus running out right when at their most vulnerable, I am pretty certain it would be added back to the mod. At Least that is how I took the Barron's original statement on the subject to mean.
-
I have to say I do love this mod
It provides me with hours more of game play beyond the core game...
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, o Barão said:
The mod versions will only affect the guns' accuracy, ships formations and AI behavior in the battlefield. I just checked that hull and I don't have any issues. Delete the custom save file, or move to another folder, open the game and try to design that hull again in custom battles. Should be working fine.
After a shut down of the game and restart it reverted to proper look Just a weird memory glitch I guess
-
1
-
-
Err, I may have done something wrong with the latest update? Spain Dreadnought I
I chose the Semi Realistic with real formations version of that matters.
-
12 hours ago, o Barão said:
To be fair, the barbette is not responsible to protect the magazines or the citadel, so this is not the best example.
Is not. For that, you use the component barbette Anti flash. I run several tests and until this day I have no idea what the barbette armor does in game and if it is worth it. Probably not.
Barbette armor seems to only apply to the appropriate Barbette structure to raise turrets in my experience. It is NOT a scientific conclusion but rather one based on, Oops I didn't have THAT armor set high enough and lost a turret and magazine from a shell that should not have penetrated either
-
So I know lots have been going on... Is a new set of shared designs in the works still or are we waiting for something more first?
PS I refuse to play UAD without this mod now I went back to base game... and it is great... but it isn't NAR Great!
-
2 hours ago, o Barão said:
That was implemented by the devs if to balance the long barrels many patches ago.
The "excuse" behind that was the higher pressure inside the barrel will wear down the gun, decreasing the accuracy.
Yes, and while it is somewhat often true it is also a negligible instance... really once you get past a certain point (approximately 40-50 Caliber) it the mass and power requirements to MOVE the cannons becomes exponentially gigantic very quickly. Changing the algorithm mid update cycle would cause a lot of people using really long guns to be quite angry if the turret mass doubled because of making the elevation gear more realistic as a balance to Super long guns. So instead you loose accuracy... SO GLAD I never INTENTIONALLY build a turret with longer than 50 caliber cannons past 3"/76mm bore diameter.
IRL This can be somewhat compensated for by making a LIGHTER cannon (eg the US 16"/50 Mk 7 vs the US 16"/50 Mk1/Mk3 ) But that also actually lowers the accuracy in it's own right (yes the Lexington's 16"/50 Mk1 or Mk3s were more accurate than the Iowas Mk7s!
Of course probably the most accurate US 16" is the experimental 16"/54 Mk4 But it is also almost 2.5 the mass of a Mk7 cannon
Before someone starts throwing data from places like Naveweaps.com for the 16"/50 masses... The 16/50 Mk1, Mk3 and 16/54 Mk4s were never mounted on ships the mass is just the barrel with the breach with no recoil no elevation etc equipment included... where as the ones that were on ships includes all that mass (which is why the Lightweight 16"/50 Mk7 is almost exactly 2x the mass of the HEAVIER 16"/50 Mk1. Sadly a lot of websites don't compare apples to apples in this case... it is more apples to pears. Right ballpark wrong field.
"Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA v10.9.2 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - for UAD v1.5.1.0 Opt
in Unofficial Mods
Posted
Port Strike requires you to have enough speed to outrun the transports... the more speed the more often the transports are sunk in my LIMITED experience
19kt battleships couldn't hit for me either... 26kt ones struck the port every attempt (most transports are in the 16-20kt range... gotta outrun them