UAD Rebalancing Mod For [v1.4.0.5 R2]

[admiralsnackbar]

I would try to get a demoines style reload if the way that reload rates was calculated was a bit more refined. (For example having reload and training technology specific to a particular weapon system and/or separating the phases of reloading) but in the current system, something is either too slow or too fast. 

Worth mentioning that an 8 inch gun MK V with a -25% reload can get 1 shot out every 7.5 seconds, of course the triple guns reload debuff might take that closer to 8.5, again that's a bit slower than demoines but faster than mogami or baltimore classes IIRC. 

[MDHansen]

FYI. added this to the params file under Extra WIP at the bottom (not sure it matters) below major_nation_threat _chance

minor_nation_threat_chance,0.3,,,,,,,,

and I am now invading minor nations. Now, bar anything added to 1.1.4 patch, this seems to be a thing.

 

Also, good mod. Keeping my eye on this thread  

 

PS. Can I still use your "guns" file, or is it outdated with regards to new changes from devs?

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by MDHansen

[admiralsnackbar]

10 minutes ago, MDHansen said:

FYI. added this to the params file under Extra WIP at the bottom (not sure it matters) below major_nation_threat _chance

minor_nation_threat_chance,0.3,,,,,,,,

and I am now invading minor nations. Now, bar anything added to 1.1.4 patch, this seems to be a thing.

 

Also, good mod. Keeping my eye on this thread  

 

PS. Can I still use your "guns" file, or is it outdated with regards to new changes from devs?

Unsure what you mean. Extract guns.txt from the file linked. There are 'aiming' values in both guns and params that have been edited by the devs that I do not touch. I know they are trying to tune the aiming system and so I only alter the shape of the base accuracy and ROF. 

Using a guns.txt file from a previous version of the mod will probably not break your game but it runs the risk of you providing faulty feedback to the current state of the vanilla game. 

[MDHansen]

Yeh im not doing anything to those values. Atleast not before devs says they're done tweaking them. the "Guns" resource Im not touching at all, but I was using yours initially. 

I won't use it for now I think

[neph]

Interesting side effect: god it is hard to kill transports now. Can you say overpens?

[SpardaSon21]

6 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Worth mentioning that an 8 inch gun MK V with a -25% reload can get 1 shot out every 7.5 seconds, of course the triple guns reload debuff might take that closer to 8.5, again that's a bit slower than demoines but faster than mogami or baltimore classes IIRC. 

The turret debuffs are something I've wanted to bring up with you, especially since Game Labs has turrets handled pretty terribly, and IMO they should be next on the list after guns are good enough.

Triple large mounts were in use as early as 1909, when Dante Alighieri was laid down by Italy, and CL and DD twin mounts for main guns as early as 1918, if not sooner.  Both the Omaha-class and HMS Enterprise were laid down in 1918, and Hovey and Long of the Clemson class were laid down that year as well.  Earliest I can find for a CL with triples is the Mogami class laid down in 1931, but due to game constraints they wouldn't be able to be refitted to 8" guns as CL's.

 

Then of course you have the Brooklyns in 1938, but there's not a single thing "light" about those since they were built on a heavy cruiser hull.

[o Barão]

9 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I would try to get a demoines style reload if the way that reload rates was calculated was a bit more refined. (For example having reload and training technology specific to a particular weapon system and/or separating the phases of reloading) but in the current system, something is either too slow or too fast.

Yes exactly. It is impossible to make it work because the same loading mechanism from the Des Moines class will not work properly with the UAD game mechanics.

• The 8"/55 (20.3 cm) RF Mark 16 from the Des Moines class could load the guns at any angle. In UAD, the guns barrels will be lowered to load the guns.
• In a fully automated mechanism, the crew training should have no impact in the reloading time, however in UAD the crew training will always improve the reloading process.

 

About the gun's reload time issues.  France, 1930, dual guns, no components, no training. Only pure base stats for comparison.

The list:

• 9"/45 mark 4 19.8 sec 
• 10"/46 mark 4 26.9 sec
• 11"/57 mark 4 41.3 sec
• 12"/57 mark 4 44 sec
• 13"/53 mark 3 46.9 sec
• 14"/53 mark 3 42.6 sec (1) !!! should be around 50 seconds
• 15"/52 mark 3 43.6 sec (2)!!! should be around 53 seconds
• 16"/55 mark 3 54.6 sec (3) !! should be around 57 seconds
• 17"/55 mark 3 59.6 sec (4) ! should be around 61 seconds
• 18"/56 mark 3 67.2 sec
• 19"/55 mark 2 98.3 sec
• 20"/55 mark 2 109.2 sec

Issue with reloading, explain in details.

Note: !!! (big issue) !! (average issue) ! (minor issue)

1 - Where the 13-inch guns get a 46.9 sec reload time. The 14-inch gun with the same technology and barrel size gets a much better reload time of only 42.6 sec. This not only doesn't make sense, ruins the progression time for the next guns in the list (15";16";17")

2 - The 15" gun follows the same pattern, deviated from a logical progression initiated by the previous gun. The 14" inch gun. With a reload time of 43.6 seconds, it is still better than the 13" gun.

3 and 4- Are minor changes needed to take into consideration the changes needed to fix the reload times for the 14" and 15" to smooth the progression line in a way that makes sense.

And to show what happens when we apply all the best components and using standard shell size, we get this.

A 15" gun barrel mark 3 from 1930 with a reload time of only 23.1 seconds. A similar performance to the Bismarck 15" guns. A gun with the latest tech available from 1940 being compared to a mark 3 gun from 1930.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by o Barão

[o Barão]

@admiralsnackbar the issue with the gun reloads, it seems, happens to all nations. I didn't check all, but the France, Britain, USA and Germany, all have the same issue. So I suspect to be universal stats being applied in general. However then we have the issue at least in custom battles where have Britain have access to better guns in 1930 if we compare with the French as an example and to make things worse we got this.

Britain, 1925, dual guns, no components, no training, pure stats for comparison.

• 9"/ 46 mark 4 14.6 sec
• 10"/46 mark 4 19.4sec
• 11"/44 mark 3 24.4 sec
• 12"/45 mark 3 28.6 sec
• 13"/45 mark 3 28.6 sec !!! should be around 31 seconds
• 14"/45 mark 3 26sec !!! should be around 34 seconds
• 15"45 mark 3 30.9 sec !!! should be around 37 seconds
• 16"/47 mark 2 34 sec  !!! should be around 41 seconds
• 17"/52 mark 2 44.1 sec
• 18"/53 mark 2 54.1 sec

 

So we can see a similar issue with the previous report. However, this time the issue happens with the 13" guns having the same reload as the 12" inch guns. So a tier lower. This completely ruins the balance for this guns: 13";14";15",16". But if this it was not bad enough now we compare the 1925 British guns to the 1930 french guns stats.

Britain 1925 vs French 1930 (Britain left side vs French right side)

• 9"/ 46 mark 4 14.6 sec vs 9"/45 mark 4 19.8 sec 
• 10"/46 mark 4 19.4sec vs 10"/46 mark 4 26.9 sec
• 11"/44 mark 3 24.4 sec vs 11"/57 mark 4 41.3 sec
• 12"/45 mark 3 28.6 sec vs 12"/57 mark 4 44 sec
• 13"/45 mark 3 28.6 sec vs 13"/53 mark 3 46.9 sec
• 14"/45 mark 3 26sec vs 14"/53 mark 3 42.6 sec
• 15"45 mark 3 30.9 sec vs 15"/52 mark 3 43.6 sec
• 16"/47 mark 2 34 sec  vs 16"/55 mark 3 54.6 sec
• 17"/52 mark 2 44.1 sec vs 17"/55 mark 3 59.6 sec
• 18"/53 mark 2 54.1 sec vs 18"/56 mark 3 67.2 sec

*Note: The british don't have 19" or 20" in 1925, so no comparison data between these two guns.

So as we can see a similar issue with the reload time is present, but now if we compare the British 1925 tech to the French 1930 tech, we can see there is a BIG advantage for the British in terms of reloading. A nation flavor mechanic it seems. However, what the stats doesn't show here is that the French have an advantage in having better accuracy values in comparison with the British guns. Another nation flavor. But the issue is where in the previous post I could have 15" inch guns mark 3 in 1930 for the French having a similar reload performance as the 1940 late 15" guns found on the Bismarck, now with this British reload flavor we get this in 1925.

A dual 14" gun with 17.6 sec reload in 1925 with a mark 3 gun.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.php

Where the 14" inch guns from the KGV in 1940 could only get 2 rounds per minute. They were quads, but still the best technology available from the time period.

 

So in conclusion, there are some issues with the reload times when we get to the 13" or 14" inch guns. This issue then continues all the way to the 17"inch guns. I hope this can be fixed.

Edited January 29, 2023 by o Barão

[admiralsnackbar]

4 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

The turret debuffs are something I've wanted to bring up with you, especially since Game Labs has turrets handled pretty terribly, and IMO they should be next on the list after guns are good enough.

Triple large mounts were in use as early as 1909, when Dante Alighieri was laid down by Italy, and CL and DD twin mounts for main guns as early as 1918, if not sooner.  Both the Omaha-class and HMS Enterprise were laid down in 1918, and Hovey and Long of the Clemson class were laid down that year as well.  Earliest I can find for a CL with triples is the Mogami class laid down in 1931, but due to game constraints they wouldn't be able to be refitted to 8" guns as CL's.

 

Then of course you have the Brooklyns in 1938, but there's not a single thing "light" about those since they were built on a heavy cruiser hull.

Late game triple debuffs are not that bad. RN it's also a good way to compensate for the fact that triples duals have the same size turret ring. 

 

 

3 hours ago, o Barão said:

Yes exactly. It is impossible to make it work because the same loading mechanism from the Des Moines class will not work properly with the UAD game mechanics.

• The 8"/55 (20.3 cm) RF Mark 16 from the Des Moines class could load the guns at any angle. In UAD, the guns barrels will be lowered to load the guns.
• In a fully automated mechanism, the crew training should have no impact in the reloading time, however in UAD the crew training will always improve the reloading process.

 

About the gun's reload time issues.  France, 1930, dual guns, no components, no training. Only pure base stats for comparison.

The list:

• 9"/45 mark 4 19.8 sec 
• 10"/46 mark 4 26.9 sec
• 11"/57 mark 4 41.3 sec
• 12"/57 mark 4 44 sec
• 13"/53 mark 3 46.9 sec
• 14"/53 mark 3 42.6 sec (1) !!! should be around 50 seconds
• 15"/52 mark 3 43.6 sec (2)!!! should be around 53 seconds
• 16"/55 mark 3 54.6 sec (3) !! should be around 57 seconds
• 17"/55 mark 3 59.6 sec (4) ! should be around 61 seconds
• 18"/56 mark 3 67.2 sec
• 19"/55 mark 2 98.3 sec
• 20"/55 mark 2 109.2 sec

Issue with reloading, explain in details.

Note: !!! (big issue) !! (average issue) ! (minor issue)

1 - Where the 13-inch guns get a 46.9 sec reload time. The 14-inch gun with the same technology and barrel size gets a much better reload time of only 42.6 sec. This not only doesn't make sense, ruins the progression time for the next guns in the list (15";16";17")

2 - The 15" gun follows the same pattern, deviated from a logical progression initiated by the previous gun. The 14" inch gun. With a reload time of 43.6 seconds, it is still better than the 13" gun.

3 and 4- Are minor changes needed to take into consideration the changes needed to fix the reload times for the 14" and 15" to smooth the progression line in a way that makes sense.

And to show what happens when we apply all the best components and using standard shell size, we get this.

A 15" gun barrel mark 3 from 1930 with a reload time of only 23.1 seconds. A similar performance to the Bismarck 15" guns. A gun with the latest tech available from 1940 being compared to a mark 3 gun from 1930.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The campaign adds 2 passive 6 percent reload reductions which I recently nerfed to 2.5 percent. 
2. Gun models passively affect reload rates in ways I don't know how to adjust (I don't know where the mods come from) This is I think because certain models have base barrel lengths longer than others (This is also true for arcs and velocities, a decision I do not agree with but do not how to fix)
3.  When you say 'should' do you mean what it should have according to the charts I shared previously or your own opinion. 

  

5 hours ago, neph said:

Interesting side effect: god it is hard to kill transports now. Can you say overpens?

Sorry, default armor was reduced to half an inch and until HCHE even nose fuse shells have quite a bit of pen. I will try to bring NF/HCHE and HEI closer together in terms of 

But I will try to balance it around penetrating .5 to 1.5 inches with lighter guns, so heavy battleship guns may still overpen. 

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[o Barão]

2 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

2. Gun models passively affect reload rates in ways I don't know how to adjust (I don't know where the mods come from) This is I think because certain models have base barrel lengths longer than others (This is also true for arcs and velocities, a decision I do not agree with but do not how to fix)

I am typing from the smartphone now, so I apologize in advance for any mistake.

Yes, base barrel length makes a big difference, however from the list I posted

12"/45 mark 3 28.6 sec

13"/45 mark 3 28.6 sec !!! should be around 31 seconds

14"/45 mark 3 26sec !!! should be around 34 seconds

15"45 mark 3 30.9 sec !!! should be around 37 seconds

We can see that all this guns have the same gun caliber / barrel length proportion, the same tech level, the only change is the shell caliber. However the 13" inch gun have the same reload speed as the 12" inch gun. If everything is the same but the shell is bigger, then the reload speed cannot be the same. Makes sense right?

Then the 14" gun, the same issue. Everything is the same, however the 14" inch gun reloads faster in comparison with the 12" inch gun. How is this possible? Is not. 

2 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

 

3.  When you say 'should' do you mean what it should have according to the charts I shared previously or your own opinion. 

Is according to the charts of course. To make a progression in the reload speeds that makes sense according to the gun caliber and tech level. 

Where in vanilla game the 12 inch is OP, here the 13",14",15",16" and the 17" are op because the reload speeds don't follow a logical progression. And because of that we also see some fantasy situations like the dual 14 inch guns with 17.6 sec. 

[admiralsnackbar]

9 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I am typing from the smartphone now, so I apologize in advance for any mistake.

Yes, base barrel length makes a big difference, however from the list I posted

12"/45 mark 3 28.6 sec

13"/45 mark 3 28.6 sec !!! should be around 31 seconds

14"/45 mark 3 26sec !!! should be around 34 seconds

15"45 mark 3 30.9 sec !!! should be around 37 seconds

We can see that all this guns have the same gun caliber / barrel length proportion, the same tech level, the only change is the shell caliber. However the 13" inch gun have the same reload speed as the 12" inch gun. If everything is the same but the shell is bigger, then the reload speed cannot be the same. Makes sense right?

Then the 14" gun, the same issue. Everything is the same, however the 14" inch gun reloads faster in comparison with the 12" inch gun. How is this possible? Is not. 

Is according to the charts of course. To make a progression in the reload speeds that makes sense according to the gun caliber and tech level. 

Where in vanilla game the 12 inch is OP, here the 13",14",15",16" and the 17" are op because the reload speeds don't follow a logical progression. And because of that we also see some fantasy situations like the dual 14 inch guns with 17.6 sec. 

12" MK III - 1904
13" MK III - 1909
14 '' MK III - 1924
15 " MK III - 1924

12" MK IV - 1930

Idk why the British guns are so fast by default. I don't know where those reload modifiers come from, but I don't trust standardizing two different gun models at the same caliber rating, it didn't work when I tried it but then again it's difficult to check precisely because of the rounding. 

Note that 17.6 second reload is almost exactly what the 14 Inch MK III should reload at, if the base reload rate is reduced by 35 percent. And when I say should I mean 60/(2.2rpm / (1-.35)) is approximately 17.6 You don't get exact numbers because of rounding I suspect. 

If you want a relevant comparison create a custom battle in 1916, you should have:

12 inch MK III 1904
13" MK III 1909
14" MK II 1909
15" MK II 1914 
16" MK I [1913 or possibly MK II in 1916]
17 " MK I

I can also just give you my spreadsheet and you can play around with it, you input the numbers you THINK should be there and make a case for it. 

Maybe make 12" MK II 1903, 12" MK III 1908, and adjust reload rates accordingly. It's an extremely minor thing IMO. 
 

		Adjusted Tier
		Early	1890s	1900s	10-'15	14-'20	20-'29	1931-1935	1935-1939	1940-45	46+
Gun Size	2	1890	1892	1902			1930		1937
	3	1890	1895	1904			1917	1935
	4	1890	1895	1905			1918	1932
	5	1890	1897	1907			1919	1934
	6	1890	1894	1903			1920	1932
	7	1890	1898	1908			1921	1935
	8	1890	1893	1900			1922	1934
	9	1890	1896	1901			1923	1933
	10	1890	1897	1902			1925	1934
	11	1890	1898	1903			1928	1935
	12	1890	1899	1904			1930		1938
	13	1891		1907	1909			1931	1939
	14			1908	1909		1924	1934		1940
	15				1912	1914	1924	1935		1941
	16				1913	1916	1927		1936	1942
	17				1914	1919	1929		1937	1943
	18				1915	1920	1930		1938	1944
	19					1917	1921	1935		1940	1945
	20					1918	1922		1938	1942	1946

 

	Target
	Early	1890s	1900s	10-'14	14-'20	20-'29	1930-1935	1935-1939	1940-45	46+
1	22.000	25.00	30.00				60	120
2	15.000	18.00	20.00				40	60
3	12.000	15.00	15.00			18	20
4	6.000	8.41	10.00			12	15
5	3.686	4.64	6.00			10	13.5
6	2.911	3.74	5.00			8	10
7	2.495	2.99	4.50			6	7.5
8	1.995	2.50	3.00			5	6
9	1.838	2.35	2.75			4	5
10	1.000	1.50	2.50			3	4
11	0.856	1.35	2.30			2.5		3.5
12	0.676	1.13	2.00			2.35		3.3
13	0.558		1.75	2.00			2.4		3
14			1.65	1.95		2.20	2.35		2.7
15				1.60	1.85	2.10	2.3		2.6
16				1.50	1.75	2.00		2.2	2.5
17				1.25	1.50	1.65		2.1	2.25
18				1.00	1.25	1.40		1.75	2
19					0.75	1.00	1.25		1.5	1.75
20					0.65	0.90		1.15	1.4	1.6
21					0.50	0.75		1.00	1.25	1.33

 

 

	Mod
	I	II	III	IV	V
1	22.00	25.00	30.00	60.00	120.00
2	15.00	18.00	20.00	40.00	60.00
3	12.00	15.00	15.00	18.00	20.00
4	6.00	8.41	10.00	12.00	15.00
5	3.69	4.64	6.00	10.00	13.50
6	2.91	3.74	5.00	8.00	10.00
7	2.49	2.99	4.50	6.00	7.50
8	2.00	2.50	3.00	5.00	6.00
9	1.84	2.35	2.75	4.00	5.00
10	1.00	1.50	2.50	3.00	4.00
11	0.86	1.35	2.30	2.50	3.50
12	0.68	1.13	2.00	2.35	3.30
13	0.56	1.75	2.00	2.40	3.00
14	1.65	1.95	2.20	2.35	2.70
15	1.60	1.85	2.10	2.30	2.60
16	1.50	1.75	1.80	2.20	2.50
17	1.25	1.50	1.65	2.10	2.25
18	1.00	1.25	1.50	1.75	2.00
19	0.75	1.00	1.30	1.50	1.75
20	0.65	0.90	1.15	1.40	1.60
21	0.50	0.75	1.00	1.25	1.33

Edited January 29, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[admiralsnackbar]

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[neph]

4 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Late game triple debuffs are not that bad. RN it's also a good way to compensate for the fact that triples duals have the same size turret ring. 

 

 

1. The campaign adds 2 passive 6 percent reload reductions which I recently nerfed to 2.5 percent. 
2. Gun models passively affect reload rates in ways I don't know how to adjust (I don't know where the mods come from) This is I think because certain models have base barrel lengths longer than others (This is also true for arcs and velocities, a decision I do not agree with but do not how to fix)
3.  When you say 'should' do you mean what it should have according to the charts I shared previously or your own opinion. 

  

Sorry, default armor was reduced to half an inch and until HCHE even nose fuse shells have quite a bit of pen. I will try to bring NF/HCHE and HEI closer together in terms of 

But I will try to balance it around penetrating .5 to 1.5 inches with lighter guns, so heavy battleship guns may still overpen. 

 

Battleship guns should overpen! That's fine. I just can't even get a pen with a 2" firing nose fuse

[anonusername]

18 hours ago, o Barão said:

This doesn't change the fact that the component will not give the same reload time performance as the mechanism used in the Des Moines. They are not the same. And this started because I noticed an unrealistic reload time for a dual 14-inch gun. If we were to consider buffing the reload bonus to get a similar performance to the mechanism used in the Des Moines cruiser, well in that case it is better to say goodbye to any realism because you are going to play a 100% fantasy game in late years and with guns firing so quickly that you will have many issues in battle if used this component with QF small caliber guns. And from what I read, is the mod author intention to keep this balanced, with focus in historical facts for the most part, which I agree 100%.

"The general purpose of this mod is to tune some of the features of the research, campaign and ship builder to give an experience that tries to balance historical realism with reasonable trade-offs."

The reload bonus would need to be boosted in line with the changed unlock date and weight cost. I don't see a huge issue with smaller guns firing very faster since we know that the mid 1940s tech allowed for even relatively large guns to fire at quite a fast rate. For instance, the XM913 chain gun is approximately 2", and the 1" equivalent (The Mark 38), fires at 180rpm. Obviously a mid 1940s version would likely fire somewhat slower, but the fire rates are clearly plausible.

[neph]

This isn't this-mod-specific, but it is a lot more relevant with the overpen changes. Packing punchy HE (S-B) is insanely powerful for killing battleships. Throw it at them until you get an extended pen or two. Massive HP damage & at least 2-3 compartments flooding. The excess damage bleeds over to the main belt. Now your AP can punch through.

Long story short: don't bring too much armor to a brawl. The AI will start throwing HP, and they will win.

We really need a model for the front & back of the citadel. It's bonkers that HP that would pop harmlessly on the belt ruins the machinery spaces just because it went through the bow first.

[admiralsnackbar]

9 minutes ago, neph said:

This isn't this-mod-specific, but it is a lot more relevant with the overpen changes. Packing punchy HE (S-B) is insanely powerful for killing battleships. Throw it at them until you get an extended pen or two. Massive HP damage & at least 2-3 compartments flooding. The excess damage bleeds over to the main belt. Now your AP can punch through.

Long story short: don't bring too much armor to a brawl. The AI will start throwing HP, and they will win.

We really need a model for the front & back of the citadel. It's bonkers that HP that would pop harmlessly on the belt ruins the machinery spaces just because it went through the bow first.

If you know anything about the parameters that exist in the game and have suggestions on how I could try to mitigate it let me know. I know there's stuff that's hard coded. For example HE pens should be stronger but not clear why an HE overpen should be. Can't really fix that. 

[Aloeus]

First off, love this mod, its basically gotten me back into this game. I can finally use a gun larger than 12" and still hit something. 

Would there be a way to reduce the maximum thickness of inner deck/belt plates? It seems like I keep running into ships with absurd levels of armor when you add them all up. I'm looking at a 1920 german BB right now with 30" of total belt armor (15" belt+7"1st+6"2nd+1.5" third). AFAIK these inner belts are pretty ahistorical too, most ships might have 1.5" inside of the armor belt for spall protection, and the turtleback would have the sloped armor layer, but the way the game handles this gets a bit ridiculous. 

[admiralsnackbar]

3 minutes ago, Aloeus said:

First off, love this mod, its basically gotten me back into this game. I can finally use a gun larger than 12" and still hit something. 

Would there be a way to reduce the maximum thickness of inner deck/belt plates? It seems like I keep running into ships with absurd levels of armor when you add them all up. I'm looking at a 1920 german BB right now with 30" of total belt armor (15" belt+7"1st+6"2nd+1.5" third). AFAIK these inner belts are pretty ahistorical too, most ships might have 1.5" inside of the armor belt for spall protection, and the turtleback would have the sloped armor layer, but the way the game handles this gets a bit ridiculous. 

Not that I know of. Citadel armor size seems to be a function of the outer belt/deck. (1st inner<=.5*outer) etc.

Don't see anything to suggest it's not hard coded. 

And thanks. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[anonusername]

On 1/28/2023 at 10:06 PM, MDHansen said:

FYI. added this to the params file under Extra WIP at the bottom (not sure it matters) below major_nation_threat _chance

minor_nation_threat_chance,0.3,,,,,,,,

and I am now invading minor nations. Now, bar anything added to 1.1.4 patch, this seems to be a thing.

 

Also, good mod. Keeping my eye on this thread  

 

PS. Can I still use your "guns" file, or is it outdated with regards to new changes from devs?

The chance of minor invasions should be controlled by major_nation_threat_chance. I cannot find any references to minor_nation_threat_chance when decompiling the game code.

[anonusername]

10 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

If you know anything about the parameters that exist in the game and have suggestions on how I could try to mitigate it let me know. I know there's stuff that's hard coded. For example HE pens should be stronger but not clear why an HE overpen should be. Can't really fix that. 

Basically the only option is to nerf damage flow, but this has the downside of nerfing torpedos. I am currently experimenting with reducing damage flow but increasing the overall torpedo damage multiplier, which seems to work decently. It doesn't entirely solve the problem, but it is somewhat improved.

[neph]

I am consistently getting wrecked by ships that can't punch through my armor & end up blowing my ship to bits with HE through the bow/stern.

[kjg000]

• Just wondering if you can see a way to setting an end date for a campaign. So, say I selected to start 1910 but wanted the campaign to end 1930? even better if i could select the start/end year, not just decade.

Looks like an excellent mod. I look forwarded to playing it when I come back to UA:D

Edited January 30, 2023 by kjg000

[Aloeus]

9 hours ago, neph said:

I am consistently getting wrecked by ships that can't punch through my armor & end up blowing my ship to bits with HE through the bow/stern.

I almost lost a (1920s) CA because it took exactly 2 8" hits, one bow one stern, and went down to 11% flotation (with AF3). I'm not sure if damage flow and flooding flow are covered by the same stat, but it feels like flooding in particular needs to have less spread. 

 

10 hours ago, anonusername said:

Basically the only option is to nerf damage flow, but this has the downside of nerfing torpedos. I am currently experimenting with reducing damage flow but increasing the overall torpedo damage multiplier, which seems to work decently. It doesn't entirely solve the problem, but it is somewhat improved.

At this point I would take a reduction in torpedo damage for better survivability for my own ships.

 

[neph]

One thing that doesn't seem to be entirely modeled is that the width of the hull varies. The majority of the buoyancy is in the widest part of the hull, but the game seems to treat every segment as equivalent.

[TiagoStein]

18 minutes ago, neph said:

One thing that doesn't seem to be entirely modeled is that the width of the hull varies. The majority of the buoyancy is in the widest part of the hull, but the game seems to treat every segment as equivalent.

I am not sure how much this is true. The center is wider but is usually where heaviest machinery is so the resulting balance in motion would  not look far from the simplification  .