UAD Rebalancing Mod For [v1.4.0.5 R2]

[admiralsnackbar]

21 minutes ago, TiagoStein said:

It would need to be a chance in the game itself, but ideally each modifier should apply after the previous one. So 10% then another 10% is not 20% but in fact 19% over the original.  That  solves the problem of sudenly reaching zero on some values.

That would help get like 80% of the way there, I would probably make a distinction between reload modifiers due to "drill" (which would probably need to start at the fastest feasible reload and then work down) and then reload modifiers due to a change in the loading technology. You'd have to account for the fact that as the loading process becomes more automated the ability of drill to affect it decreases, hence the minimums and maximums. 

The other problem is that gun length would affect reload insofar as it affected the speed of elevation. But ~20 second reloads at flat elevation for battleships were feasible, but 20 second reloads at realistic battle ranges not so much. 

It's not really worth the devs time to code something that intricate as too few would care. 

Same issue with shell damage and torpedo damage. Overpenetration is just a % of shell damage, implying that 2 shells that fly straight through a hull and out the other end without exploding will do different amounts of damage if one shell has different amounts or types of explosive filler. Damage ideally needs a mass and a detonation component, and the detonation component needs two layers, an explosive filler layer and a explosive type layer that are multiplied together to get your detonation damage. 

[Dutchy]

Hello, do you mind taking a look at cruisers double and triple turrets unlock dates? 
I may be wrong, but i feel they unlock way to late. Even DD's get more turrets early than cruiser do

[TiagoStein]

1 hour ago, admiralsnackbar said:

That would help get like 80% of the way there, I would probably make a distinction between reload modifiers due to "drill" (which would probably need to start at the fastest feasible reload and then work down) and then reload modifiers due to a change in the loading technology. You'd have to account for the fact that as the loading process becomes more automated the ability of drill to affect it decreases, hence the minimums and maximums. 

The other problem is that gun length would affect reload insofar as it affected the speed of elevation. But ~20 second reloads at flat elevation for battleships were feasible, but 20 second reloads at realistic battle ranges not so much. 

It's not really worth the devs time to code something that intricate as too few would care. 

Same issue with shell damage and torpedo damage. Overpenetration is just a % of shell damage, implying that 2 shells that fly straight through a hull and out the other end without exploding will do different amounts of damage if one shell has different amounts or types of explosive filler. Damage ideally needs a mass and a detonation component, and the detonation component needs two layers, an explosive filler layer and a explosive type layer that are multiplied together to get your detonation damage. 

That is why  I think only apply them one after the order would be the best we could expect, at lest the most extreme issues  go away.

[SpardaSon21]

On 1/29/2023 at 5:56 AM, 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. 

Wasn't talking about turret debuffs, even if I did start with that, and I did notice you compressed them down, which is nice.  Mostly I wanted turret size techs to show up earlier than they do if that's possible, especially DD/CL turret sizes.

 

God, that whole Turret Mechanisms branch is the most painful one in the game to research.

[admiralsnackbar]

47 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Wasn't talking about turret debuffs, even if I did start with that, and I did notice you compressed them down, which is nice.  Mostly I wanted turret size techs to show up earlier than they do if that's possible, especially DD/CL turret sizes.

 

God, that whole Turret Mechanisms branch is the most painful one in the game to research.

Triples were a rare thing in WW1 and twin turrets on cruisers also sort of a rarity, so the timing seems historically accurate, but I agree I wish people figured them out sooner.  

[kjg000]

9 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Triples were a rare thing in WW1 and twin turrets on cruisers also sort of a rarity, so the timing seems historically accurate, but I agree I wish people figured them out sooner.  

While it may look easy on the surface, lots of tech advancements or tweaks go into something as simple as adding an extra gun to a turret, not to mention academic or dogmatic inertia. This is why I would have preferred  a "capabilities" based tech tree rather than a "things" based approach. sadly not much help for your excellent mod!

[Dutchy]

New update was launched a couple of hours ago.
Cant wait for the mod to get up to date so i can use it again.
It's painful to play the game with out it now that i used it 

[admiralsnackbar]

Updated for 1.1.5

[neph]

Is there a superstructure spread modifier? It should be super low.

  

Just now, neph said:

I personally like the crew limitation. Maybe per ship would be better.

Anyways, another example of how the damage spread model is bad. I am at a range where my 16" can't penetrate this CA's deck. But whoops! Somehow I got a penetration on the tower! Guess that 0.5" of superstructure armor was too much.

The entire ship went from like 92% structure to zero, instantly.

The damage spread is model is bad for everybody. Damage shouldn't spread from outside the citadel to inside the citadel (without certain calculations).

 

[kagami777]

Will this work with Sapphire's Mega Mod?

[admiralsnackbar]

6 hours ago, neph said:

Is there a superstructure spread modifier? It should be super low.

  

 

Not that i can see. I've missed that stuff before though. 

I mean if there was such a thing I would set it to be zero. I do remember instances in the past of being able to nuke a warship pretty reliably by like hitting the funnels with HE because the damage was spreading. 

 

[TiagoStein]

1 hour ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Not that i can see. I've missed that stuff before though. 

I mean if there was such a thing I would set it to be zero. I do remember instances in the past of being able to nuke a warship pretty reliably by like hitting the funnels with HE because the damage was spreading. 

 

Careful. that is not unrealsitic  with tiny ships. If you hit the tower of  a 800 ton DD with a 16 inch HE shell it is not unreasonable to  blow up the ship.

[admiralsnackbar]

22 minutes ago, TiagoStein said:

Careful. that is not unrealsitic  with tiny ships. If you hit the tower of  a 800 ton DD with a 16 inch HE shell it is not unreasonable to  blow up the ship.

Not categorically. Explosions that hit the superstructure shouldn't spread to adjacent sections [i.e. through an armored deck] before some check is run, just as explosions in the fore and aft part of the ship shouldn't pass through the bulkheads of the ship unless some check is run. 

 

[TiagoStein]

11 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Not categorically. Explosions that hit the superstructure shouldn't spread to adjacent sections [i.e. through an armored deck] before some check is run, just as explosions in the fore and aft part of the ship shouldn't pass through the bulkheads of the ship unless some check is run. 

 

Explosions can and do go trough  steel plates as long as the plates are not thick enough. On the case of small ships  we have  usually 0.1 inch  plate and that would NOT stop the fragments of a 16 in ch shell. I just say that to not overly keep the mental focus on the battleships and forget that other scales also exist.  I do not think  explosions shoudl not propagate from super structures, I think that  the bulkheads  are the problem that they do not absorb enough

[admiralsnackbar]

2 minutes ago, TiagoStein said:

Explosions can and do go trough  steel plates as long as the plates are not thick enough. On the case of small ships  we have  usually 0.1 inch  plate and that would NOT stop the fragments of a 16 in ch shell. I just say that to not overly keep the mental focus on the battleships and forget that other scales also exist.  I do not think  explosions shoudl not propagate from super structures, I think that  the bulkheads  are the problem that they do not absorb enough

i.e. "Unless some check is run" 

 

[kagami777]

Also does this do anything about the moronic increase in weight provided by the late game repeating tech? My gun equipment and conning tower should NOT get heavier as they improve.

[admiralsnackbar]

53 minutes ago, kagami777 said:

Also does this do anything about the moronic increase in weight provided by the late game repeating tech? My gun equipment and conning tower should NOT get heavier as they improve.

I don't adjust the weight changes to equipment, no. 

I think it's reasonable for the same piece of equipment to potentially get heavier as it improves. Radar, fire control, power train, all of these things can get quite heavy. Some of them though, should have been calculated as increasing weight by a number rather than by a percentage. 

The problem is a lot of this stuff gets double-counted, once in the gun-mark and again from the module selection. 

[o Barão]

@admiralsnackbar o7. Sorry to bother you. Only a little info to see if I understand how this works.

You use UABEA to open the resource.asset. Export the raw data to edit in a text editor and then import back to the file and save. Correct, or there is an easier way?

[admiralsnackbar]

29 minutes ago, o Barão said:

@admiralsnackbar o7. Sorry to bother you. Only a little info to see if I understand how this works.

You use UABEA to open the resource.asset. Export the raw data to edit in a text editor and then import back to the file and save. Correct, or there is an easier way?

save the file as .csv, perform the edits in excel or another spreadsheet program that can read CSV, then re-import. 

Alternatively get csvlint plugin for np++ which will make interpreting the columns easier. 

note that range adjustments must be performed manually in a text editor to prevent bugging out your game.

[SpardaSon21]

On 1/31/2023 at 11:59 AM, admiralsnackbar said:

Triples were a rare thing in WW1 and twin turrets on cruisers also sort of a rarity, so the timing seems historically accurate, but I agree I wish people figured them out sooner.  

1918 is the year doubles made their introduction for cruisers and destroyers.  I don't know what the year on them is in-game but regardless I doubt it will come at the historical time thanks to how over-crowded the Turret Mechanisms tree is, especially for the AI.

I still don't know why they put gun length there and not in the gun techs...

[admiralsnackbar]

Just now, SpardaSon21 said:

1918 is the year doubles made their introduction for cruisers and destroyers.  I don't know what the year on them is in-game but regardless I doubt it will come at the historical time thanks to how over-crowded the Turret Mechanisms tree is, especially for the AI.

I still don't know why they put gun length there and not in the gun techs...

If you play the rebalnace mod and struggle to unlock techs at the proper time that's something i would want to know about. I think i got mine at around 1917 IIRC

 

[SpardaSon21]

4 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

If you play the rebalnace mod and struggle to unlock techs at the proper time that's something i would want to know about. I think i got mine at around 1917 IIRC

 

Alright, I'll give it a shot.  I was tech-cheating my last campaign because I wasn't sure if or when GL would force a deletion of the save, so we'll see how it works with a more honest one.

 

Tech tree aside, I absolutely loved every single one of your battle changes.  Everything felt far more natural.  Was using 0.04, I think.

[admiralsnackbar]

14 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Alright, I'll give it a shot.  I was tech-cheating my last campaign because I wasn't sure if or when GL would force a deletion of the save, so we'll see how it works with a more honest one.

 

Tech tree aside, I absolutely loved every single one of your battle changes.  Everything felt far more natural.  Was using 0.04, I think.

Well you'll have to wait i don't have a 1.1.6 compatible version out yet. probably some time tomorrow. 

[SpardaSon21]

4 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Well you'll have to wait i don't have a 1.1.6 compatible version out yet. probably some time tomorrow. 

Assuming GL doesn't drop an update.  Not that that would be a bad thing, to be honest.

[admiralsnackbar]

updated for 1.1.6