UAD Rebalancing Mod For [v1.4.0.5 R2]

[neph]

18 minutes ago, TiagoStein said:

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  .

I'm afraid that's not how buoyancy calculations work. Heavy machinery doesn't mean that the segment displaces less water. If you've got heavy machinery, it doesn't matter if it's submerged in water or not--it contributes to the mass of the hull.

As long as the weight (of the mass) of the hull does is exceed by the weight (of the mass) of the displaced water, the ship stays afloat.

I think they're treating each segment as displacing the same amount, when in reality the stern-most sections should displace less than the center sections, and the bow sections displace much less.

Edited January 30, 2023 by neph

[TiagoStein]

44 minutes ago, neph said:

I'm afraid that's not how buoyancy calculations work. Heavy machinery doesn't mean that the segment displaces less water. If you've got heavy machinery, it doesn't matter if it's submerged in water or not--it contributes to the mass of the hull.

As long as the weight (of the mass) of the hull does is exceed by the weight (of the mass) of the displaced water, the ship stays afloat.

I think they're treating each segment as displacing the same amount, when in reality the stern-most sections should displace less than the center sections, and the bow sections displace much less.

Not the buoyancy, but the behavior of the model in screen after combining the buoyancy with the movement. Because the final physics is not only buoyancy and  ships moving into waves and absorbing the energy transfer of those   is a different thing than just buoyancy.

[neph]

<delete>

Edited January 30, 2023 by neph

[o Barão]

11 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.

Seems a good mechanic to force the player to spend some weight in armor in those sections. The question is how much armor is enough. If you place too much armor to protect from HE, you can then create a situation where you have enough to arm the AP shells fuse. It is a delicate balance, but an interesting one.

1 hour ago, Aloeus said:

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

Interesting, I would prefer to increase the torpedo damage for more realism.

23 hours ago, anonusername said:

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.

From the mod description, the author himself wrote and I quote:

"WARNING: ROF for 1-2 inch guns gets very high and may prevent other guns from firing "

Now imagine you applying a Des Moines similar auto reloading mechanism to all the guns. Your CPU will burn the entire Amazon forests, you will boil an egg above your GPU, your FPS will tank, your main guns will never work, but what matters is the pew pew pew pew, right? 😉

Also, you are suggesting to replace a component module values to simulate a feature from only one ship in real life and to be available only in the last years in a campaign. So useless for most of the time, since it is not available for the most part. To suggest removing one important module from the game and a useful one. For one that you said and I quote "...the fire rates are clearly plausible" So normal and plausible that only one ship had that mechanic right? And of course will completely remove any realism from the game, with guns firing like machine guns, but that doens't matter, right? Only the pew pew pew pew...

 

@admiralsnackbar o7. I finally have some time.

Only a few questions to understand the whole situation.

• We have the gun size available table. The reload table, but also a mod table. If we have a reload table, what does the mod table?
• You mention the gun mark year. So you are taking into consideration the year the gun is available to buff the reload, right?
•  And of course there are the nation modifiers that are impossible to know where they are and what they do, right?

 

[admiralsnackbar]

12 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Seems a good mechanic to force the player to spend some weight in armor in those sections. The question is how much armor is enough. If you place too much armor to protect from HE, you can then create a situation where you have enough to arm the AP shells fuse. It is a delicate balance, but an interesting one.

Interesting, I would prefer to increase the torpedo damage for more realism.

From the mod description, the author himself wrote and I quote:

"WARNING: ROF for 1-2 inch guns gets very high and may prevent other guns from firing "

Now imagine you applying a Des Moines similar auto reloading mechanism to all the guns. Your CPU will burn the entire Amazon forests, you will boil an egg above your GPU, your FPS will tank, your main guns will never work, but what matters is the pew pew pew pew, right? 😉

Also, you are suggesting to replace a component module values to simulate a feature from only one ship in real life and to be available only in the last years in a campaign. So useless for most of the time, since it is not available for the most part. To suggest removing one important module from the game and a useful one. For one that you said and I quote "...the fire rates are clearly plausible" So normal and plausible that only one ship had that mechanic right? And of course will completely remove any realism from the game, with guns firing like machine guns, but that doens't matter, right? Only the pew pew pew pew...

 

@admiralsnackbar o7. I finally have some time.

Only a few questions to understand the whole situation.

• We have the gun size available table. The reload table, but also a mod table. If we have a reload table, what does the mod table?
• You mention the gun mark year. So you are taking into consideration the year the gun is available to buff the reload, right?
•  And of course there are the nation modifiers that are impossible to know where they are and what they do, right?

 

1. It's not practical to armor any ships extremities to withstand BB SAP/CPC shells. 
2. I'm not confident I understand the relationship between main battery guns stop firing. Sometimes they stop, sometimes they don't. I do not believe a 6 second 8 inch gun reload would cause bugs but I'm not willing to redo the reload table to make it happen. 
3. I posted  three tables, from top to bottom: 1. The year the gun [marks] are introduced 2. The reload rate 3. The reload rate with the columns compressed Tables 2 and 3 are identical except for the gaps. 

The gaps in the table are a visual aid to see how the guns align time-wise. 

The tables do not consider the multi-gun debuffs, training modifiers, gun length modifiers, modules, or passive tech bonuses. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[neph]

Whoops, I didn't mean to post that in this topic. My bad.

14 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Seems a good mechanic to force the player to spend some weight in armor in those sections. The question is how much armor is enough. If you place too much armor to protect from HE, you can then create a situation where you have enough to arm the AP shells fuse. It is a delicate balance, but an interesting one

No, because nobody is putting 10+" of armor in those sections. My point isn't about protecting the extended parts of the ships--if you choose to armor them, that's your decision.

The issue is that if they're destroyed, the citadel starts to become destroyed. That shouldn't happen. It simultaneously makes realistic sall-or-nothing designs pointless (even the Iowa has ~1.5" of splinter protection) while requiring you to never armor those sections at all, because you'd better have 0" to guarantee an overpen, as any damage will destroy critical protected parts of the ship.

[o Barão]

3 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

1. It's not practical to armor any ships extremities to withstand BB SAP/CPC shells. 
2. I'm not confident I understand the relationship between main battery guns stop firing. Sometimes they stop, sometimes they don't. I do not believe a 6 second 8 inch gun reload would cause bugs but I'm not willing to redo the reload table to make it happen. 
3. I posted  three tables, from top to bottom: 1. The year the gun [marks] are introduced 2. The reload rate 3. The reload rate with the columns compressed 

The gaps in the table are a visual aid to see how the guns align time-wise. 

1) Yes, but that is what make it so interesting. You can protect from HE from smaller calibers, but you can also arm High caliber AP guns. The player can also consider that this specific ship will never be in the frontline and because of that does not need armor in the bow and stern. Interesting decisons,

3) Ok thanks. I will take a look in details.

[o Barão]

6 minutes ago, neph said:

No, because nobody is putting 10+" of armor in those sections. My point isn't about protecting the extended parts of the ships--if you choose to armor them, that's your decision.

The issue is that if they're destroyed, the citadel starts to become destroyed. That shouldn't happen. It simultaneously makes realistic sall-or-nothing designs pointless (even the Iowa has ~1.5" of splinter protection) while requiring you to never armor those sections at all, because you'd better have 0" to guarantee an overpen, as any damage will destroy critical protected parts of the ship.

I don't. If I place any armor in those sections, it is more about to balance the ship pitch. A fine tune. But when I do, I take into consideration the HE pen possibilities.

Edited January 30, 2023 by o Barão

[madham82]

@admiralsnackbar, what did you change in terms of spotting? Looks like it worked. 

[admiralsnackbar]

16 minutes ago, madham82 said:

@admiralsnackbar, what did you change in terms of spotting? Looks like it worked. 

Accuracies

• Detection range modifiers for weather have been “on-leveled” so that the relative differences between them are preserved, but the new “base detection” is 1.5x what the base detection is.

Imagine if there are two weathers, 'clear' and 'cloudy' where the former gives a 0% detection malus and the other a -50% detection malus. I changed it so that 'clear' gives a 50% detection increase and cloudy gives -25% [because 150 * .5 = .75] 

I did not adjust tower values because that would have caused me to go insane. 

[anonusername]

3 hours ago, o Barão said:

Seems a good mechanic to force the player to spend some weight in armor in those sections. The question is how much armor is enough. If you place too much armor to protect from HE, you can then create a situation where you have enough to arm the AP shells fuse. It is a delicate balance, but an interesting one.

Interesting, I would prefer to increase the torpedo damage for more realism.

From the mod description, the author himself wrote and I quote:

"WARNING: ROF for 1-2 inch guns gets very high and may prevent other guns from firing "

Now imagine you applying a Des Moines similar auto reloading mechanism to all the guns. Your CPU will burn the entire Amazon forests, you will boil an egg above your GPU, your FPS will tank, your main guns will never work, but what matters is the pew pew pew pew, right? 😉

Also, you are suggesting to replace a component module values to simulate a feature from only one ship in real life and to be available only in the last years in a campaign. So useless for most of the time, since it is not available for the most part. To suggest removing one important module from the game and a useful one. For one that you said and I quote "...the fire rates are clearly plausible" So normal and plausible that only one ship had that mechanic right? And of course will completely remove any realism from the game, with guns firing like machine guns, but that doens't matter, right? Only the pew pew pew pew...

 

@admiralsnackbar o7. I finally have some time.

Only a few questions to understand the whole situation.

• We have the gun size available table. The reload table, but also a mod table. If we have a reload table, what does the mod table?
• You mention the gun mark year. So you are taking into consideration the year the gun is available to buff the reload, right?
•  And of course there are the nation modifiers that are impossible to know where they are and what they do, right?

 

Only 1 ship class within the game's time frame. Later generations of ships have or have planned guns like the 180rpm 1" or the 2" chain gun.

[neph]

I think there's too much money still.

As France in 1910, I've been able to just slam the slider to the right & have everybody on sea control through war or peace. Haven't sold or scrapped a ship & am only limited by shipyard limits.

Sure, I run a deficit during peace, but with between 1 and 2 billion always on hand, it doesn't matter.

Suggest nerfing the economy by between  ~5-15%.

[neph]

Also, I think autoloaders should be heavier & provide much more of a step-up in firing rate. Going from +15% to +20% is extremely underwhelming, & the light weight means you slap them on everything.

If it was twice as heavy as a normal gun but fired ~2.5x as fast, it'd be absolutely worth it in some cases, but not always.

[admiralsnackbar]

I've been playing some custom battle late game to see what big battleship v big battleship is like, I am inclined to agree with you neph that it's way easier to kill a 30s/40s BB with HE shells to the extremities than it is to try to penetrate the core. 

This is less of an issue at lower tiers, I think what I will probably do:

1. Reduce damage bleeding factor
2. Have an even steeper slope for damage reduction to extremities
3. compress the damage modifiers from different shell types

  

21 minutes ago, neph said:

Also, I think autoloaders should be heavier & provide much more of a step-up in firing rate. Going from +15% to +20% is extremely underwhelming, & the light weight means you slap them on everything.

If it was twice as heavy as a normal gun but fired ~2.5x as fast, it'd be absolutely worth it in some cases, but not always.

I would likely have to reduce the reload reduction bonuses from other sources to Compensate. 

If anyone knows anything about names and years for reloading mechanisms for setting the unlock years about this let me know. The current existing naming convention seems very uh generic. 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[madham82]

2 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Accuracies

• Detection range modifiers for weather have been “on-leveled” so that the relative differences between them are preserved, but the new “base detection” is 1.5x what the base detection is.

Imagine if there are two weathers, 'clear' and 'cloudy' where the former gives a 0% detection malus and the other a -50% detection malus. I changed it so that 'clear' gives a 50% detection increase and cloudy gives -25% [because 150 * .5 = .75] 

I did not adjust tower values because that would have caused me to go insane. 

Awesome, so you have proven it is a simple fix in reality. Hopefully that makes into their next patch. Thanks again for taking a stab at the problem!

[admiralsnackbar]

2 hours ago, neph said:

I think there's too much money still.

As France in 1910, I've been able to just slam the slider to the right & have everybody on sea control through war or peace. Haven't sold or scrapped a ship & am only limited by shipyard limits.

Sure, I run a deficit during peace, but with between 1 and 2 billion always on hand, it doesn't matter.

Suggest nerfing the economy by between  ~5-15%.

What do you feel is unsufficiently strict or overly generous, suppose there was no change in naval budget during war, what affect would that have? Is it because of the size of reparations? etc. 

[neph]

1 hour ago, admiralsnackbar said:

What do you feel is unsufficiently strict or overly generous, suppose there was no change in naval budget during war, what affect would that have? Is it because of the size of reparations? etc. 

Exactly what I mentioned. Just lower the overall money at the start.

We simply amass money during war with no regard to cost & cannot spend it all during peace.

Personally, I quite liked the vanilla economy balance, and appreciated having to juggle active navy & ship mothballing during peace.

[admiralsnackbar]

2 minutes ago, neph said:

Exactly what I mentioned. Just lower the overall money at the start.

We simply amass money during war with no regard to cost & cannot spend it all during peace.

Personally, I quite liked the vanilla economy balance, and appreciated having to juggle active navy & ship mothballing during peace.

my mod doesn't give people increased money, it decreases the magnitude of the government bonuses/maluses

if you played a country with a hefty naval budget malus in vanilla then it would be comparatively stronger naval-wise. [and visa versa]

I also reduced the factor that doubles the naval budget % from 2 to 1.5 

[neph]

20 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

my mod doesn't give people increased money, it decreases the magnitude of the government bonuses/maluses

if you played a country with a hefty naval budget malus in vanilla then it would be comparatively stronger naval-wise. [and visa versa]

I also reduced the factor that doubles the naval budget % from 2 to 1.5 

Ah, got it. I'm comparing the pre 1.0.9 (?) economy with the current one, then.

[admiralsnackbar]

32 minutes ago, neph said:

Ah, got it. I'm comparing the pre 1.0.9 (?) economy with the current one, then.

The only other thing I did in v0.1-0.3 was change the 'war inflation' [a type of ticking gdp-growth malus i think] value to be very small, because early 1.10 iterations had long and continuous war cycles that were devouring the AI GDP. I've brought that value closer to vanilla as the AI seems better at surviving economically. 


 

Edited January 31, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[o Barão]

@admiralsnackbar o7.

Ok, I think I got a possible solution. See if my suggestion makes sense.

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 With a quick look, we can see the mark 5 guns have a natural progression. Balanced, all good. (numbers in light blue)     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 The issue is in those purple numbers that I will explain below in details: In the mark I gun, we notice a massive drop in the reload speed when using the 10-inch guns. This will impact the next guns until we get a huge improvement in the reload when using the 14-inch and the next guns. So with the mark I guns, the 14-inch and bigger are much better, not because of the caliber of the gun, but because they have a massive reload boost in comparison to the smaller guns. In the mark II gun, we can see a similar situation to the mark I. The difference is the issue now happens with the 13-inch guns and will impact all the guns around. The mark III gun have a different issue. It is not a massive gain or drop in performance, but where the natural progression is lost with the 13-inch gun and followed by an improvement in reload to the 14-inch. Note this 14-inch guns are the same that get that 17.5 sec reload speed in 1925 if playing with the British. In the mark IV we see a very similar issue to the mark III guns. Note: All the numbers in purple is where the changes suggested are going to be applied.     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 1.65 2.09 2.50 3.00 4.00 11 1.55 1.88 2.30 2.50 3.50 12 1.45 1.77 2.10 2.35 3.30 13 1.35 1.66 1.96 2.25 3.00 14 1.25 1.55 1.87 2.15 2.70 15 1.15 1.44 1.78 2.05 2.60 16 1.05 1.33 1.69 1.95 2.50 17 0.95 1.22 1.60 1.85 2.25 18 0.85 1.11 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   The numbers in red show the changes suggested. Now we can see that all tiers follow a natural progression and respect the other tiers around them in a logic way. As a side note, that 14-inch dual 1925 mark 3 british gun, now have a 1.87 value instead the previous 2.20. This should fixed most issues IMO.   Anyway, is only a suggestion for an improvement.

[admiralsnackbar]

14 inch MK III doesn't need a slower reload than 13 inch MK III, unless you adjust the year of introduction of all the MK III guns they are separated by nearly two decades. I kept making that point and you seem to be acting like it's irrelevant. Like, you are more or less handing me back reload rates that very closely resemble what vanilla did. Like paste those values for MK II-V into the adjusted table with the offsets and year labels and see if they make sense. 

It's not even about your POV being wrong. I'm hot and bothered about it because I pasted the graph of the year these guns were introduced not once, not twice, but three times on this thread. You don't even show the years or talk about them. 

However I'm not sure why I made such a dramatic change in reload rates between the 9 and 10 inch guns, since MK I 1-13 inch guns are all supposed to be roughly 1880s-1890. I think both weapons of that size in that era could only manage about [within a few percentage points of] 1 round a minute. 
 

Edited January 31, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[o Barão]

34 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

14 inch MK III doesn't need a slower reload than 13 inch MK III, unless you adjust the year of introduction of all the MK III guns they are separated by nearly two decades.

If you don't see the issue with dual 14-inch guns with a 17.5 sec reload at 1925 well... at least you recon the strange values in 1890. I am not saying that your method with using years is wrong. It is a different way, and can work very well if it makes sense.

Anyway, it is your mod, your work. Sorry if I bothered you.

[admiralsnackbar]

44 minutes ago, o Barão said:

If you don't see the issue with dual 14-inch guns with a 17.5 sec reload at 1925 well... at least you recon the strange values in 1890. I am not saying that your method with using years is wrong. It is a different way, and can work very well if it makes sense.

Anyway, it is your mod, your work. Sorry if I bothered you.

The 17.5 seconds comes from the modifiers to reload rates, the sum of which can be too generous. But it's not possible to be incredibly delicate with reload rates. As the sum of the modifiers [and all modifiers are summed] approaches -100% the reload rate approaches infinity, and this is true whether the base reload rate is 10 rounds a minute or 10 rounds per hour.  There are passive tech modifiers, modifiers from powder selection, modifiers from crew training, modifiers from shell size, modifiers from barrel length. All of these things make sense by themselves to some extent but together they make something that doesn't make much sense because there's a great deal of double or even triple-counting. 

In an ideal world you layer the effects of technology and crew experience separately [multiply the factors] with maximums and minimums. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[TiagoStein]

1 hour ago, admiralsnackbar said:

The 17.5 seconds comes from the modifiers to reload rates, the sum of which can be too generous. But it's not possible to be incredibly delicate with reload rates. As the sum of the modifiers [and all modifiers are summed] approaches -100% the reload rate approaches infinity, and this is true whether the base reload rate is 10 rounds a minute or 10 rounds per hour.  There are passive tech modifiers, modifiers from powder selection, modifiers from crew training, modifiers from shell size, modifiers from barrel length. All of these things make sense by themselves to some extent but together they make something that doesn't make much sense because there's a great deal of double or even triple-counting. 

In an ideal world you layer the effects of technology and crew experience separately [multiply the factors] with maximums and minimums. 

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.