Mundus_Dog
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Mundus_Dog
-
-
On 11/18/2022 at 11:31 PM, Nickthenuker said:
Do you think you could make quadruple turrets for 9-12 inch guns? The base game for some reason doesn't have them.
i beleve this is a modeling thing and i dont think sapphire knows how to do that. Mainly because you would have to make the game realise there is a fourth barrel, then make the game model that fourth barrel without it being placed wrong or floating, then make the game realise that the fourth barrel is functional and can shoot, then you have to make the game shoot all four barrels properly without the gun not bugging out (i.e only the fourth barrel rotating or not rotating, the gun firing all barrels not just 1-3 or just #4) its a long process that is very difficult because its adding a whole new feature to the game rather than modifying one thats already there (as four barrel tech for the smaller big guns doesnt exist in game).
Im not answering for them im just using the knowledge of what they do so they have something to quote and say this is right or wrong because of this or that.
Sapphire can correct me if im wrong and ill be glad to accept that im wrong but in any event this is just here to be a quote so that they dont have to type it.
-
On 11/17/2022 at 3:38 PM, Himbeereule said:
Would you mind sharing which entries in resources.assets are of interest for these tweaks, so that others can delve into modding this game as well?
sapphire already answered that for me. they will be making a tutorial on how to do it by next month
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Kane said:
I'm not sure what point you're making with your screen-shot, as I noted multiple times in my post that I had researched torpedo tech all the way to capstones, and still had ridiculous failure rates.
That aside. I don't think addressing many of my concerns would require that big a change. The fact that torpedoes don't do nearly enough structural damage seems like the kind of thing that could be easily handled with some numbers tweaking, and simply upping that value. Unless the developers have used some kind of incredibly convoluted formula to calculate damage then this shouldn't be that big a change.
The failure rate as well is something that should be a relatively simple number-tweaking, that really shouldn't require all that much work. It would also help if the AI had to play with the same failure rate we do, which I refuse to believe is the case. As the old saying goes; "Once is coincidence, twice is happenstance, three times is enemy action." Too many times now I've seen a wildly imbalanced success-failure ratio that heavily benefits the AI. Again, this should not be that difficult to address.
Lastly on the idea of magnetic exploders, yes, I do imagine this one would require a fair amount of work on the developer's part. (r not, depending on how its implemented) Incremental torpedo sizes would probably take some as well. Work that I think would be worthwhile, but I'm an opinion of 1. The idea of magnetic fuses was simply a way to justify the ridiculous failure-rate currently in game, in the event that some feel a high torpedo failure rate is needed for game balance purposes. (Also goes back to the high-risk / high reward idea)
As it stands, every torpedo in game is a Mark-XIV (and from what I can tell actually has a higher failure rate than the actual Mark-XIV did). This really needs to be dealt with, or there's not much point in ever bothering to put torpedoes on a ship. There would be even less point if a player wanted to try to go the Japanese plan and build a torpedo-centric fleet. Such a strategy would be effective suicide in game.
Edit: Now torpedo damage vs. hit location / torpedo belt probably would require some work to the damage model. I'd argue that's work that should have been done in the first place, and if it requires tweaking to the existing damage model, so be it.13 hours ago, Pappystein said:While I agree that tin cans should be at least MOSTLY destroyed by a big torpedo hit. I can't agree with much of the premises of this post.
However it is a well written post, based on more historical fact that many posts that raise concerns about this or that in the game. Your post however forgets that this game makes everything quite abstract... to ALLOW the customization we DO have. If you want a HYPER Accurate game, you are better off playing Computer Harpoon3 or Command Modern Operations. Sure both are strategy games vs this Tac-Strategy game... and are much less LEGO-able but both offer some ways to edit platforms.
Some of your concerns are valid... But others are specific to the history of one or two nations (the whole contact/magnetic fuse failure thing.)
Most of the changes you seek would require an entirely new damage model to replace the existing one in the game. The fact of the matter is, the game designers for good or bad decided to make Torpedoes a lower fidelity than guns... If they were the same detail as guns, in my opinion, the the minutia for Torpedoes would outweigh that for gunfire combat. That means the developers would have to spend a HUGE ammount of time "bringing to Torpedoes up to scratch"
Between the two, the gun and the torpedo, we have much more quantitative and qualitative data on gun vs armor combat. Torpedo combat is much more SUBJECTIVE data instead of quantitative. That means a lot of the data is more anecdotal "Eye of the beholder" and "Blind stupid luck" data rather than empirical repeatable data. There are just too many variables that have to align correctly in the syrup known as the OCEAN for a Torpedo's damage to be able to be quantitatively measured. Air quality matters for guns but no where near as much as water quality does for torpedoes.
Also the whole point of magnetic explosive fuse was for influence explosions below big ships... something you obliquely reference... but you forgot to mention needing another button added to "Run deep" But this also introduces yet another reason the damage model would need to be replaced.
you can literally change the value yourself for torpedo damage (take sapphires mods for example) its not difficult and i agree that the failure rate is way to high for the player and way to low for the ai i mean ive had torpedos not even get to target 90% of the time i fired them in a single battle and then the one that does is magically a dud but if a friendly ship that im not controling at the moment decides to sail in front of the torpedo ship it gets blown to smithereens by the whole salvo.
unfortunately the research really does nothing and i no longer build any ships with torpedos its not worth the pain
we arent asking for a hyper realism simulator we are asking for a reason to use torpedos and to make ships with torpedos
the whole system of where the torpedo hits could possibly be easy too but i dont know as i dont develop games and the custom sizes is another thing that sounds easy but probably isnt
i have also noticed that a lot of the percentages mean nothing in the game unles it is the cost of something then it makes all the difference
-
See below i forgot to do the quotes
-
Just now, Mundus_Dog said:
you arent at flank speed your ship is at cruise speed right now
of course i could be wrong but if you put your throttle up it might make the division max speed go up (if its just a bug and its saying your current speed is max)
-
you arent at flank speed your ship is at cruise speed right now
-
4 hours ago, Shaun said:
Sleekest merchant fleet....
its the best camouflage the enemy wouldnt dare to sink ships that arent finished and just seemed to be drifting in the ocean (especially if some big stink was made about some port losing a bunch of unfinished ships) at most they would try to capture them and find them fully crewed and be fought off then the transports gain an escort ship from the enemy and the enemy has no idea that those ships are actually enemy. lol
-
On 10/27/2022 at 5:55 PM, anonusername said:
You can add an additional focus by editing the resources.assets. The research settings are just entries in a big csv inside the file. e.g. "sed -re 's/(tech_priorities),3,/\1,4,/' -i resources.assets"
You can also see the algorithm the game uses to calculate tech research rates at https://www.desmos.com/calculator/v2kyqokmeb . The specific values seem to be out of date though. The max boost is now 110, a is 3.8, and possibly other differences exist.
what software is required to do that (or better how do you do that?
-
On 10/15/2022 at 5:51 AM, Sapphire said:
I'll be creating a modding guide once this 1.9 update comes to the main branch and is out of beta.
Ok fantastic thank you
-
8 hours ago, Sapphire said:
not possible unless I fully redo the gun accuracy file
can you give us a tutorial on how to mod the files ourselves?
-
1
-
-
One more question for you on this mod: can you make a version with 8 inchers that weigh the same since you cant put a lot of them on anyways?
-
11 hours ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:
As far as balancing armor and firepower...there are many methods/theories that you can follow, but it largely comes down to personal preference, how you plan on using/deploying your ships (i.e. your own personal doctrine) and if you are building a ship as a counter to something.
When it comes to armor, I tend to follow one of two practices:
1) Making my ships immune to their own guns.
It's exactly as it sounds. I look at what armor values my guns can penetrate at the ranges I expect to get into fights. Let's just say for example that I'm expecting my CA with 8.5" guns to get into fights at 7500m or longer. I look at how much armor my guns can pen at that range of 7500m (where the shells would have the most pen because that is the shortest distance I would be fighting at), and then add at least that much armor to the main belt (but sometimes, depending on armor quality and citadel choice, you don't have to add that much because the quality bonus will allow you to get the same effective strength using less armor).2) Armoring them to counter a specific AI ship, or be excessively tough
This can sometimes be tricky since you don't always know what the AI is gonna throw at you...but here's how I usually do it (again using a CA as an example): I mount the biggest gun available on the hull or I try to replicate the gun(s) the AI uses and set it up to have the best penetration possible (through gun diameter increases, barrel length, shell weight, propellant, bursting charge, etc) and see how much armor it can pen at what I expect to be normal combat range (this is basically to simulate what would happen if the AI brings their high-velocity super guns). I then either write those numbers down so I remember them, or immediately add on armor, and then remove those guns and build out the rest of the ship. The biggest thing about this approach is that you will almost always have to sacrifice something: whether it be speed, firepower, armor or higher-grade components (like RDF or Aux Engines) to make your ship not be overweight. I usually sacrifice some armor first because, usually, the AI doesn't bring the same exact guns I tested, so I don't necessarily need that much armor. Or, I sacrifice a bit of speed and just keep the armor and make my ships slower, but remarkably tough and resilient. Citadel type and Armor Quality also have an effect here.Now, the great equalizer with both of these methods is research...both yours and the enemy's. Whoever has the greater tech usually has the better ship (I say usually because the AI can still make some weird-ass designs, regardless of what their tech level is). The two methods I use are also just two of probably many design philosophies you can use. It again just comes down to personal preference and what exactly you want to build/do with your ships.
When it comes to firepower...it again comes down to personal preference, tech levels and some hulls/towers that restrict gun sizes. With the upcoming patch introducing "defects" with ship construction/components, it might not necessarily be the best option to go with the "latest and greatest" tech you unlocked since the "defects" aspect is supposed to represent the dangers of using untested or brand new tech (so maybe you want to hold onto those older 14 inchers for just a while until your new 16 inchers are working smoothly).
When it comes to my BBs, I would say that the 14-16" guns are probably your most cost-effective options. Anything smaller than 14 usually doesn't pose much of a threat against BBs (but can annihilate cruisers), and anything bigger than 16 usually has too long of a reload to be very useful, not to mention being very heavy and requiring some of the biggest hulls in the game. I also try to follow a "gun vs time era" design process where after a certain year...I stop using a certain size gun on BBs because they are either obsolete or outmatched (it loosely follows historical examples).
1890-1900: 10-12" guns
1900-1920: 12-14" guns
Mid-Late 20s: 16" if available, nothing smaller than 14"
1930-1940: Nothing smaller than 16's if I can help itAgain, tech levels will limit your choices and their effectiveness here. And while this is (mostly) arbitrary and just my personal methodology, 10 inch guns are quickly outclassed once you get to actual dreadnought hulls--and by that time, you usually have larger gun options anyways. 12 inchers might be the "most accurate" guns available, but into the mid to late 1910s (so essentially the years WWI was going on), 14 inch guns are usually the new standard. Once you unlock 16 inch guns, you should probably never go back to guns smaller than those...because the AI likely won't go smaller, and will usually have at least one ship class that goes larger than that if you haven't completely bankrupted them. Now, all of what I just said could be rendered null and void by research and tech levels. If your main enemy only has Harvey armor in the late 1910s and you can somehow get good enough penetration values...maybe your 12 inch guns will still be good enough. Your enemy decided to go thin on the armor so your 16 inchers only over-penetrate? Maybe your ships with 14 inch guns are your better option for dealing with them, or maybe just swapping your 16" shells to a lower-penetration option would work (idk why you have to go through and entire refit/retrofit process just to swap shell types but whatever).
With your other ships, it is more or less the same as above...but the choices come down to more of a "what do I want these ships to do" basis rather than a "what is the best gun available" basis. BCs have access to BB size guns on bigger CA hulls and usually hunt cruisers, most CAs will have guns around 8", most CLs will have guns around 6" and most DDs will have guns around 4" or 5".
So, in closing...a lot of this is very arbitrary, varies from person to person, and largely comes down to your own personal preference and how you want to use the ships you build. I've built DDs with 6x2 5.5" guns that wound up being a DD and CL's worst nightmare, and I've built CAs that are high-speed rapid-fire gunboats (the largest gun was 7", then it was packed to the gills with 2-4" secondary guns and it was used to terrorize convoys and DDs).
You can (mostly) build what you want, how you want it...but what would make a "balanced" or "good ship" when it comes to armor and firepower is largely dependent on what exactly your enemy is throwing at you, and what tech you have available to work with.
Thanks thats helped tons
-
On 10/2/2022 at 11:05 AM, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:
There are lots of things that influence shell pen and whether or not you get full or partial pens, the major factors being:
>Raw Shell Pen Values (influenced by shell weight, shell type, propellant, gun size and barrel length)
>Ballistics of the Shell (influenced by shell weight, shell type, propellant, gun size and barrel length)
>Armor of the Enemy Target (strength, thickness, any sloping/rounding)
>Angle of ImpactI don't know the specifics of your situation (what barrel length, propellant, shell weight, etc) but, to explain your 25-30km deck hit resulting in a partial pen with an 18" gun that has anywhere from 60-80" of pen in as simple a way as possible:
Going by the values on paper, yes, it should result in a full penetration. Unfortunately, those values reported in the ship designer are for the ideal penetration conditions: your shell impacting flat armor at an angle of basically 90 degrees. You will rarely get those conditions...that's a fact. So, now we look at all the other factors that are influencing that shell hit.
If you are using long-barreled high-velocity guns with heavy or super heavy shells, the shell trajectory becomes flatter at all ranges. Flatter shell trajectories means you will impact the side of the hull (BELT ARMOR) at angles closer to 90 degrees while your shells hit the top of the hull (DECK ARMOR) at angles much less than 90 degrees. So, in layman's terms: unless you are at extremely long range/max gun range...you will rarely see full deck pens against heavily armored targets, purely down to the angle of impact being too steep/shallow, depending on what side you measure from. So once a shell impacts, the game considers your shell's raw penetration values and power, the fuse timer on your shell, angle of impact, armor thickness (accounting for any bonuses from armor quality, citadel choice, resistance values of the hull, etc) and then calculates whether or not your shell penetrates the armor.
Now, let's say that shell did penetrate the deck armor. You still aren't guaranteed a "full pen" because the enemy ship likely has a citadel of some kind. Again, I don't know the specifics of your situation, but let's just say that the enemy ship has Citadel V "all or nothing" armor scheme. Once you penetrate the main deck, you then have 3 more layers to penetrate before you get to the heart of the ship and score a "full penetration." And after each layer you penetrate, your shell loses some of it's penetrative power (if you hover over the citadel armor values for each section in the ship designer, it will tell you exactly how much power is lost after each layer) which means that your shells might penetrate the main deck, but could be stopped by the first, second or third inner deck (each different citadel has different numbers of inner decks and belts). And if you successfully pen the first armor layer you hit (and your shell's fuse timer hasn't burnt down) the game then repeats the method above for calculating whether or not a penetration is scored against the second layer of armor you hit and the process repeats until your shell detonates, a penetration wasn't scored, or your shell goes through the other side of the ship because you over-penetrated the ship. Overpens usually happen when you hit the superstructure or belt/deck extended, or when you are shooting at ships like CLs and DDs.
Another issue that might arise is your shell type. When using semi-armor piercing, you are shortening your fuse timer and sacrificing penetration power for more damage. So in practice, this means there is a potential for the fuse of the shell to burn out before fully penetrating the first armor layer it hits, thus leading to a partial pen. And when the game says there is something like a "-40% ricochet chance" with the semi-armor piercing...that is because the shell doesn't have enough time to ricochet because it explodes to quickly (the opposite is true of "standard" or higher AP shells: the game says they have a "+XX% ricochet chance" but that's just because it has time to ricochet off the armor because the fuse is longer). In general SAP or Semi-Ballistic (maybe even the standard AP shells if your guns aren't too big or too powerful) are best against BCs and CAs when fired from battleships, but of course, if you chose to go with the SAP option on your BB...you might struggle against enemy BBs.
TL; DR Deck pens usually only happen at extremely long range/max gun range, or against lightly armored targets at close range. Regardless of what the numbers/values in the ship designer say...those number are for the best possible conditions, which you will almost never have. Trying to explain everything about the gunnery/penetration mechanics and models takes time and is complex, trying to actually calculate values takes even more time.
can i get the graphs and powerpoint slides that came with this lesson? i was late to class i apologise. jk jk i appreciate this response because it give me some points to think about when putting weapons systems on my ship other than just oh hey this is new so im going to put this on thanks! do you happen to have any advice/ tips on how to make a ship that is a good balance of armour and punch?
-
1
-
-
On 10/5/2022 at 9:04 PM, Dave P. said:
This is hilarious. Love it!
Is there a way to make the Mk1-4 2" guns the original weight and just have the Mk5 be massive/balanced? At earlier tech levels they're still my preferred secondary, especially for CAs.
This was exactly my question because i use 2 inchers to balance my ship out sometimes if my weight offset is just a little to far one side.
ALSO: do you think you will at some point make mods that make certain items almost weightless god destroyers and upload them for s&gs? just asking becase i would like to see a campaign with ai and player duking it out with universe destroying weapons systems.
-
you can also purposefully bankrupt yourself or lose wars and provinces and piss off england by putting sea control ships in their territory (itll be slow and youll lose but oh well, every success story needs a horrible failure after right?). i know you probably dont want to lose but other than just starting a new campaign you are stuck with that campaign until your current admiral lives till 1950 (somehow well past 100 years old im sure)
-
If this interests you maybe some mods that boost research by 200% normally and if you are behind by 700%, or maybe make upgrades to the shipyard bigger, cost less and take less time (i know you already did this but i'm talking even bigger cheaper and shorter), another idea would be the ability to make all ships bigger than normal and heavier than normal. My last thought was making the modifications that go on your ship cheaper and lighter (not all of them but the heaviest ones if you know how to do that).
Those are just some of my ideas. ill probably have more later but this is just what a few hours of thinking gets me.
I love the mods in your mega pack by the way they have made the game interesting to me again.
I can also help with the ai thing i dont have anything else to do
>>>Beta v1.1 Feedback<<< [RC 6]
in General Discussions
Posted
that is the same exact thing lol the zero is assumed to be there because thats how decimals work. if i told you i have 12.50 fleets built it would be the same thing as me saying i have 12.5 fleets built. this is version 1.1 or ver. 1.10 the zero does not change anything except for making it longer. i know we dont really do that with money but we arent trading versions of the game and you still can its just that $57.9 doesnt look right to us because we are used to the zero. This isnt meant to be rude just informative sorry if it came across as rude. you are a lovely human keep your head up.