clavernever

In my experience it happened more the smaller the ship. The game seems to randomly bug out when a ship is outside legacy spotting range and gets revealed by the new-ish gun spotting mechanic. It happens more often the more times a ship gets revealed and hides after firing. If I had to bet, I'd say it happens the most with small ships cause they're the most prone to spending long periods of time getting continuously revealed and hidden, whilst BBs get quickly spotted and have slow fire rates, so they rarely stay in spotting limbo for more than 2 salvos; CLs and DDs on the other hand can easily get revealed and hidden 20 times within a minute. Even if the bug is unique to your mod, I still wouldn't blame you nor the mod for it. The whole mechanic is a mess. I'm usually all for new stuff but in it's current state it's actively detrimental to the game. If you want an example of the same mechanic done well, look at World of Warships: they get a lingering debuff so they don't instantly hide again after firing. Even if it does let my ships fire back sometimes, I'd rather deal with the old invisible ships than have enemies magically materialise for half a second and then instantly go stealth mode again. All that being said, I haven't seen the bug since you reverted to vanilla values. I'm not doubting the bug is still there, but it most surely isn't as prevalent anymore (since with a smaller spotting debuff, ships spend less time in spotting limbo and the bug gets less chances of showing up). Maybe try setting the modifier to zero so the mechanic isn't used at all? If only as a stop-gap measure until the devs make it actually usable. It's a very nice mechanic in theory, but it sadly falls into the badly implemented basket in it's current state. Aaaaaaaaaaall of that aside, if I were to submit a tested rebalance to government modifiers, would you consider merging the changes to the main mod? I'm open to any guidelines and to spend the time to playtest it. As for why the change: I've said it before, communism for China and the USSR is a death sentence for long campaigns and France/USA play in easy mode. I've played multiple long campaigns with China and I assure you it's not even close. France rofl stomps with infinity money, while if you start with China or the USSR in 1890 you're flat out screwed, since the growth penalty kneecaps you and the unrest "bonus" guarantees you'll never get out of commie hell. It may be somewhat historically accurate but it's extremely bad gameplay-wise. Also the historical thing is mute for long campaigns when the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires can and will be still alive by 1950. They don't get crippling unrest modifiers, so why should the Soviet and Chinese get crippling economy modifiers? Absolutely love your mod, cheers!

Just popping up to report that a component for Japanese CLs has stats that seem misplaced (currently on a campaign so not 100% sure, but it should unlock around 1915~1925) As the screenshots show, "Large Barbette Tower I" has by far the best stats, while being the least advanced/smallest of the three. I blame the rather misleading name, as the large barbette tower is actually the tiniest and lightest of the three and is not, indeed, large at all.

1.3.9.4 broke the mod for me. (I use the resizer version provided in the second link at the top of the post) 1.3.9.3 UAD with the 1.3.9.4 mod file worked fine (seems Steam took it's sweet time to roll the update to me, as even after restarting it I still got it hours later than everyone else) After updating the game, it wouldn't launch with the mod file anymore. I'm 100% sure it's the mod file, as I double checked it's the right one, downloaded it and tested multiple times.. and indeed the game only launches when it's not installed. I'm posting this only cause I saw a dedicated update for the latest version, so I presume it should work fine. Maybe it's cause I'm on Linux and UAD runs on Proton, but I haven't had any issues with UAD mods before so it seems unlikely.

I didn't cut funding, it was at 50%. Furthermore, I tried to play around with the funding meter and it affected research time as one would expect: bringing it up to 100% cut months down to ~800, and bringing it down lower than 50% increased research time accordingly. As for the research stall modifier, it does seem to somehow be the culprit. A few turns later the timer had gone down to ~250 months, and I presume if I kept playing that campaign it would have eventually gone down to a normal amount, as current year got closer to the tech's expected year. Either way there does seem to be something fishy about it, since at game start no techs should be so far ahead as to be stalled that hard.

Is this normal? I just started with Italy in 1900 I know the submarine tech has been postponed indefinitely to remove subs, but there's no mention of Armor Forging being postponed the same way

I do understand the UI spillout issues (and believe me I'm the sort of person that considers UI a very important and often unappreciated aspect of game design) but I object to the "HORRIBLE" part of the comment. You'd be surprised by the amount of people that doesn't have amazing eyesight. Yes, most people don't have a bad case of blurry vision and most people don't need tho have their text displayed in Helvetica 48, but that is FAR from the font size in UAD. I may not have "bad" vision.. but I don't have "perfect" vision like you seem to, and even though I could read the older font without major issues, I do appreciate it being a tad bigger. It's easier on the eyes. If anything we should advocate for a font size option to be added, rather than calling what we have horrible like it were a crime against humanity. Furthermore (and here I'm agreeing with you on the fact that there is a real UI issue that comes directly from the font change) I'd argue that it's not so much the font size that makes text distracting, but the fact that most UI elements are still sized according to the older, narrower font. Making text smaller would probably be the faster solution, but re-scaling the relevant UI elements to fit the new font would give a better result. And yes, that includes things like changing the tech tree layout so it's a bit more compact and requires less scrolling, or remaking the info popup so that it better supports large amounts of info without spilling over the edge of the screen. The one problem with that approach is that it'd take a sizeable amount of time to implement, which may not be an option. If that's the case, then yes maybe making text a nudge smaller would be the best choice.

Alright so if I understand correctly you're adding a new part but not a new model/asset... ...say you add NewShip by copying ShipX and changing it's ID to NewShip. You modify stuff in the parts file (say make it smaller and slimmer and change corresponding tags from English BB to Chinese CA) However NewShip still uses the ship_x_model asset and thus shares both the 3D model itself and all of it's children (mount points, shaders etc). Therefore, if ship_x_model were to be changed by a mod or a game update, the change would affect both ShipX and NewShip. ..right?

I discovered a while ago that you can simply name your A1-C copy "A1" and it will be treated by the game the same as the original A1 design. In UAD ship names are not unique, and all ships that share the same root name will be treated as a single ship class for refit purposes. As an example my design flow in a campaign would go as follows: > [1900] - Design new Ex class and add it to my design list. > [1902] - Right before a war, refit Ex to Ex (1902) to benefit from the latest tech. > -------- Copy the Ex (1902) refit and rename it " Ex " > -------- Look at the ship list. There will be two identically named Ex ship classes. Identify the old one by looking at the stats and delete it (you know what changes you made from the original to the refit, so telling one from the other isn't too hard; intentionally having a small tonnage difference helps speed this part up). > -------- [Optional] After you're finished refitting your old ships to the new 1902 model, you can delete it and keep only the updated Ex design. > [1905] - Refit Ex to Ex (1905) like you normally would with a newly created design. Notice all previous Ex class ships, no matter their refit name or year of creation will be updated to Ex (1905). You can simply repeat the steps I mentioned whenever you want to create an updated design, you can even skip the process for a refit cycle and re-unify the class later down the line. You don't even have to create the Ex class by copying an existing design, so long as it's the same hull you can name it Ex and create a refit, and it will let you update all ships of that class to the new design. Furthermore, if you made two different designs that share a hull (say for example two DD classes, one focused on guns and the other one on torps) you can copy the refit of class A, name it B and apply it to all ships of class B. You'll still have classes A and B afterwards, but they will both have the design from A (refit). Hope this helps. If anything, I think it speaks to the untapped potential there is in the currently implemented class system. If the already available naming shenanigans were integrated into the UI, we could have significantly more ship design flexibility without requiring a rewrite of how classes work under the hood.

@o Barão Question: (if it isn't too complicated to answer) how do you add new models to the game? I've been looking into adding things like you do but haven't found a solution, and afaik neither has Sapphire Do you reuse/re-purpose existing assets, duplicate and modify them in UABE or straight-up add new ones?

I politely request that transport loss chance be brought down to 0% when the enemy has zero ships. I know it's an edge case, but shadow ninja pirates sinking my transports in full view of my 43CL fleet is not quite what I would consider "expected behaviour"

Yeah I understand.. I got a bit too excited and went ahead of myself. I removed it and won't be posting again until you finish it, so there's no version confusion. In the meantime, you can count on me for help if you need something investigated or tested, as I said I'm a big fan of your work!

-

Hereby I proudly present: the 10" casemate Battleship "How many barrels?" "Porcupine"

Found three duplicated rows in the Parts file. Is this intentional, or did they get duplicated on accident? I checked the vanilla file and yes they're duplicated there too. They're absolutely exact copies of eachother so, unless it's a workaround for spaghetti code somewhere, I really don't see a reason to not delete them.

Suggestion/request to have the mod's folder structure changed to facilitate a drag and drop install: This has the benefit of preventing user error and standardising mod installation, meaning you can simply tell everyone to "drag and drop the contents of the folder to your UAD install in Steam/steamapps/common and click yes to the overwrite dialog", and it would work the same for both NAR and NewHorizonsII. Also it wouldn't be hard to make Snackbar's Balance Mod follow the same folder structure, to unify the current UAD modding scene in one single install method. Add to that a bit of nagging on Munro to make an update for his modding video, and we could vastly increase modding accessibility for the average UAD player overnight. Even without any support from Munro or Snackbar, I still think at least replicating the folder structure shown for NAR and offering the main folder as a zip in the Google Docs page would be a big plus for your mod. Hopefully I'm not too annoying. I only say it cause I think it'd help.