Propellant and Filler

[SmoCro]

I hesitate to brings this up, but is it just me or are propellant (that which makes the shell fly) and filler (that which makes the shell explode) conflated in UA:D?

I am not one hundred percent sure but Lyddite seems to be a filler while tube powder and poudre blanc are propellants (as far as I can tell at least tube powder propelled shells filled with TNT).

Should this be grouped into two categories or left smushed together?

[Cptbarney]

Personally i would seperate the two for further clarity on what each one does, Which should also help to balance them better since you can then assign proper attributes to both propellants and the fillers in their own sections.

I dont find it confusing but could confuse peeps who think they are one and the same.

Plus for historical accuracy as well.

[Hangar18]

I've brought this up in the past. I think it adds another layer of customization, and an important distinction in general

[Cptbarney]

8 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

I've brought this up in the past. I think it adds another layer of customization, and an important distinction in general

Oh yeah forgot about your thread, Makes me wonder if we should have a dedicated idea section in the forums, something the devs can look at and see if they want to implement anything and if they think its good enough (and makes sense, plus do-able) then they can announce it one of the pinned threads for further feedback and refinement.

[Zak MacKay]

Hopefully it would help balance shells more. Many of them right now are kind of meh with a few being much better then others. Breaking it between propellants and filler would maybe let you choose better between power, accuracy, cost, or stability.

Even if most of the higher tiers where just overall better.

[Shaftoe]

Fillers and propellants definitely should be separate choices for all nations. 

[akd]

I’m not so sure it even makes sense as a design choice, especially when you consider that in a campaign setting these are per ship / per ship class decisions, when ammunition and propellants really should be a fleet-wide development, or at least per gun of a particular type.  I’m also not so sure that history really suggests there was ever much of a trade-off decision in selecting explosive fillers or propellants.  When something better became available, it was generally used. I’d rather see propellants and explosive fillers as a fleet-wide unlock based on technological development level, a doctrine setting that determines how much of various ammo types are carried based on ship class and armament, and leave the individual ship design choice to things that affect the physical storage and handling of ammunition like shell length.

Would much rather see those “slots” used for more choices in configuring fire control and propulsion on ships, which were crucial decisions at the ship design level.

Edited February 4, 2020 by akd

[Skeksis]

 

Command Modern Operations is heavy on AI controlled battles too but they have a huge user interface which gives the player alot of interaction. UAD would do well to go in the same direction, add as much user input as they can.

Along with propellants and filler separation, secondary shell types should be separated too.

(bump)

Edited October 12, 2020 by Skeksis

[IronKaputt]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Along with propellants and filler separation, secondary shell types should be separated too.

Bursting charge percentage slider should also be available. And a tech branch to put more filling in HE.