NAR BETA 3.0.2 "Major Powers update" for UAD 1.6.0.6 opt x3

[NathanKell]

10 hours ago, o Barão said:

Interesting question. @NathanKell?

I mean, sure? Definitely possible. Just be a fair amount of work.

[kittenz]

I'm running into the inexplicable issue of the mod simply not working. It was working before, but it just stopped. The menu is no longer showing NAR is installed. I even uninstalled melonloader, redownloaded all mod files, and extracted them into the automatically created mod folder. I really don't understand what could be going wrong because I'm doing the exact same thing on the same game version I was using previously that worked. Can anyone tell me if I'm missing something obvious? 

[o Barão]

8 hours ago, kittenz said:

I'm running into the inexplicable issue of the mod simply not working. It was working before, but it just stopped. The menu is no longer showing NAR is installed. I even uninstalled melonloader, redownloaded all mod files, and extracted them into the automatically created mod folder. I really don't understand what could be going wrong because I'm doing the exact same thing on the same game version I was using previously that worked. Can anyone tell me if I'm missing something obvious? 

Are you seeing the NAR files inside the "mods" folder?

You installed the melon loader again and applied Taf dll?

[Peksern]

@NathanKell I have another issue with the gun upgrade. I refitted a ship with mark 1 guns (12 inch) and did not upgrade them. In ship designer they are still mark 1, but in battle they were mark 2 anyway. Not sure if that was only a temporary bug or happens always. Gonna keep an eye on it. 

 

Edit: Bug's returning. Added Screenshots.

Edited Thursday at 04:57 PM by Peksern

[Pappystein]

I am curious, we still haven't seen any new ship models in the 1.6 variants so far correct?   Are these a part of the 1.6.0.7 Beta?  Or not included with that as well?

I ask because that also will cause more work for o Barão

 

[o Barão]

47 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I am curious, we still haven't seen any new ship models in the 1.6 variants so far correct?   Are these a part of the 1.6.0.7 Beta?  Or not included with that as well?

I ask because that also will cause more work for o Barão

 

None.

[EvnSknk]

9 hours ago, Peksern said:

@NathanKell I have another issue with the gun upgrade. I refitted a ship with mark 1 guns (12 inch) and did not upgrade them. In ship designer they are still mark 1, but in battle they were mark 2 anyway. Not sure if that was only a temporary bug or happens always. Gonna keep an eye on it. 

I've been having a different though similar problem. I made a refit of every design with various upgrades, including Mk II guns on secondary and main battery. All ships completed dockyard refits, but when I took them to battle main guns on the actual ships were still Mk I.

Here's the (Ottoman) Fettah class pre-dreadnought with Mk II dual 12" and 5" secondary, in the designer.

But here is the Fettah herself in the ship viewer. Everything correctly upgraded in the refit except the main guns. The secondary battery went from 5" Mk I singles to Mk II duals, the casemates from 3" Mk I to 3" Mk II, armor from Compound to Harvey, torpedoes from 16" to 18", everything except the main gun.

I also wanted to make sure that you can see in the ship viewer, not in the designer with refit mode, the Upgrade Mark button is available. If I click it, it will visually change to a Mk II in the viewer, but when I leave the viewer obviously nothing changes. In the Ship Design tab the refit button is red because they've all been upgraded, it just doesn't change the main gun.

This applies to all ship types. As far as I can tell it only affects the main battery, all other systems that I change in refit are upgrading as they should.

[NathanKell]

11 hours ago, Peksern said:

@NathanKell I have another issue with the gun upgrade. I refitted a ship with mark 1 guns (12 inch) and did not upgrade them. In ship designer they are still mark 1, but in battle they were mark 2 anyway. Not sure if that was only a temporary bug or happens always. Gonna keep an eye on it. 

 

Edit: Bug's returning. Added Screenshots.

I'll look when I get home from my trip. Please upload a save from when the issue is occurring, screenshots don't tell me anything other than what your words are, that you have the issue 😝

[flaviohc16]

Do we have any news of when we can expect the mod to be updated for 1.6.0.7?  I would love the fast loading times with NAR

[o Barão]

4 minutes ago, flaviohc16 said:

Do we have any news of when we can expect the mod to be updated for 1.6.0.7?  I would love the fast loading times with NAR

I will quote Nathan on this:

"This is an excellent idea. Only problem is the PSPACKED_(year) files are binary blobs and thus not moddable, which means that this whole system is incompatible with any mod that touches parts/techs/balance/whatever, because the designs only work for vanilla part weights, vanilla shiptype data, vanilla tech stats and tech<->year mapping, etc. At the very least, please store these in json in the TextAssets so that modders can edit the ships."

 

I don't know when or even if it is possible to make NAR compatible with future UAD updates.

About the fast loading screens, it is possible to get a similar result now by using the shared design mechanic ingame, the problem is I am seeing a major bug in doing that. Designs that were made using this mechanic will work well in custom battles, however in the campaign for some unknow reason to me at this point  (can be a vanilla bug), the moment I return from the shipyard, I will get replicates from the ship designs and the ships that were made using the shared designs will vanish from the game. So until I found what it is the issue here, I can't start working on a ship pack.

[Peksern]

8 hours ago, NathanKell said:

I'll look when I get home from my trip. Please upload a save from when the issue is occurring, screenshots don't tell me anything other than what your words are, that you have the issue 😝

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fHHnsGfiCL6Ihgs34ntfaiHmRFyME3BU?usp=drive_link 

Sorry, forgot. Here you go.  Have a nice trip!

[flaviohc16]

Can we change the color of the neutral/minor powers on the map? It's too blueish and it hard to differentiate between USA and minors.

[o Barão]

NAR BETA 3 "Major Powers update" for UAD 1.6.0.6 opt x3

 

Note: Due to important changes how components are unlocked, I will recommend anyone only to update if starting a new campaign to avoid possible issues.

Major changes to components, not only about when they become obsolete, but much more important because now includes many instructions for the AI to follow when design a ship, taking into consideration the ship type and era, for the AI to build more capable fighting ships and harder to sink.

 

Thanks to Nathan TAF improvements, I can finally add a icon to the scout planes.

I made sure that follows vanilla art style and looks good IMO.

Don't forget to update TAF to see this ingame.

 

-100 gun damage exploit fixed

In UAD, for the players that are aware, it is possible to exploit the game and make the ships invulnerable to gun damage. This is a combination of ships with a incredible high base resistance with components and techs that will increase that value to a point that will neglect gun damage to a ship.

To make things funnier there are components, like torpedo protection or multi bottom hulls, that will increase the hull resistance to gun damage. Also the hulls resistance values seems in many ways random. It is possible to see super BBs with incredible high values, the same way we can see the same things on small ships like DDs or old ironclads. Why that ship have an high value and the other from the same class and era a small value?

 

The solution being applied for this issue:

Remove resistance values from torpedo protection and multi bottom hulls. A buff to torpedo damage reduction was added to compensate.

Rebalanced the armor resistance values.

Standardized all ship classes resistance values:

• Super BB 85
• all-big-guns BB 80
• BC 77
• pre dreadnoughts 75
• CA 70
• Semi armored cruiser 65
• Cl 55
• DD 40
• TB 25
• TR 10

 

Other stuff:

• Small improvements to Chile CL ship names.
• Small improvements to Greece BC, CA and CL ship names.
• A-H in 1940 campaign start, being a speculative nation at this point, will start neutral with the other major powers at war (Germany and Italy vs Britain and France). I added instead a big relation penalty with Turkey so It is easy for anyone interested playing with these nations to go to war quickly.
• Colors updated for USA, France and Portugal to make it easier to see on the map.

Edited Friday at 11:08 PM by o Barão

[o Barão]

41 minutes ago, flaviohc16 said:

Can we change the color of the neutral/minor powers on the map? It's too blueish and it hard to differentiate between USA and minors.

I updated USA, France and Portugal colors to make it easier to see.

Just download the "players" file.

[Lorents]

What is the function of "taf_scrap_enable" in the params.csv and shuld it be set to "0"?

[Peksern]

7 hours ago, o Barão said:

• Super BB 85
• Modern BB 80
• BC 77
• pre dreadnoughts 75
• CA 70
• Semi armored cruiser 65
• Cl 55
• DD 40
• TB 25
• TR 10

what about Dreadnoughts?

[StrikerDanger]

11 hours ago, o Barão said:

Standardized all ship classes resistance values:

• Super BB 85
• Modern BB 80
• BC 77
• pre dreadnoughts 75
• CA 70
• Semi armored cruiser 65
• Cl 55
• DD 40
• TB 25
• TR 10

I like this. No more obscenely high damage reductions! On a separate note, you forgot dreadnought hulls (as @Peksern pointed out). I'm also of the opinion that BCs should be a bit lower (pre dread levels with pre dread at 72/73 and dreads filling at 77) given the historical variety (but general lower armour quantity) of Battlecruisers

[EvnSknk]

13 hours ago, Peksern said:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fHHnsGfiCL6Ihgs34ntfaiHmRFyME3BU?usp=drive_link 

Sorry, forgot. Here you go.  Have a nice trip!

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vuwH73ejMsZNJUNBILdS20M6dGjZi1KT?usp=drive_link

Here is the save from my Ottoman campaign where I had the similar issue

[slayerslaine]

I've been a long fan of your mod but I disagree with your fix for the -100% gun damage exploit. This was introduced, idk when, but because now the amount of tonnage of the ship effects hull resistance. More specifically, the closer the ship is to is to its tonnageMax the more resistance it gets. Vice versa for tonnageMin. As far as I know, there isn't a modifier that we currently have access to that can adjust/remove this effect.

I don't agree with the standardization of hull resistances at all. I believe that standardizing hull resistances would remove a lot of the uniqueness of hulls. Specifically between nations.

11 hours ago, o Barão said:

Why that ship have an high value and the other from the same class and era a small value?

This makes total sense. There were many instances during the two world wars that ships would suffer damage to their hull when firing their guns, among other structural weaknesses. Not to mention things like lee helm and such. For example:

Königsberg-class light cruisers suffered lee helm, structural damage when firing main guns and had the potential to capsize when if internal store where improperly loaded.
Courageous-class suffered structural stress when firing their guns, later converted to light carriers where its light construction made less of an issue

La Galissonnière-class would suffer cracking of their hull when firing their guns at full salvo weight

Mogami-class Also suffered damage when fire her guns, even when they were 155mm before her refit.

I know that a lot of this could be explained by light armor, but the concept that these were made to be as light as possible to increase speed and operational range as much as possible. Thus, sacrifices had to be made. This is partially emulated by the game in the form of Hull Form. That's why a lot of the really high resistance hulls tend to trade Hull Form for Resistance and Vice Versa. Among other things like like floatability, speed and such.
Currently as you fix works, since all the hulls have standardized resistance value, hulls that previously sacrificed a bunch of other stats for Resistance are completely inferior now to hulls that sacrificed Resistance.
Quick example;

Germany's Advanced Armored Cruiser I has (Hull Form 87, Stability 73, Floatability 69, Resistance  98, sustained speed while turning 40) Speed 29kn, Crew 500, 14900-18900 tons

USA's Modern Heavy Cruiser III has (Hull Form 101, Stability 79, Floatability 80, Resistance  65, sustained speed while turning 60) Speed 31kn, Crew 500, 11900-16400 tons

If I wanted to make a 16000 ton CA, and they both had their resistances tuned to 70, the Modern Heavy Cruiser III would be the the far superior choice. There really wouldn't ever be a reason to use the German Spee Hull at all. Not to mention that Germany also gets Modern Heavy Cruiser hulls that are similar to the USA's. All of these hulls are the same tech year unlock 1926


Personally, for my fix for the -100% gun damage exploit, I changed the parameter in the Stats file,
[endurance,,,sum,,Hull,$Stats_name_endurance,"gun_damage(+35;-35),...] to [endurance,,,sum,,Hull,$Stats_name_endurance,"gun_damage(+35;-30)...,]

This makes the max total amount of gun damage reduction to -95%.

So a resistance of about 100 would receive -30% gun damage from resistance. A resistance of 200 would receive 95%.
Personally, I don't like the curve on this scale but I'd prefer this fix overall.

Note that for whatever reason at 200 resistance you get the max amount of  stats from resistance. Anything past wouldn't do anything. 

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, StrikerDanger said:

On a separate note, you forgot dreadnought hulls (as @Peksern pointed out

I didn't. They are all included in the modern BB.

I will change that to all-big-guns Battleships to avoid possible confusion.

[o Barão]

2 hours ago, slayerslaine said:

This was introduced, idk when, but because now the amount of tonnage of the ship effects hull resistance. More specifically, the closer the ship is to is to its tonnageMax the more resistance it gets. Vice versa for tonnageMin. As far as I know, there isn't a modifier that we currently have access to that can adjust/remove this effect.

Not now, maybe since the beginning? Always has been like that? I can't say for sure, but it is there for a long time.

The difference is that now in NAR, in comparison with vanilla, no matter how big you can go with the hull, you will never get close to -100 gun damage.

 

2 hours ago, slayerslaine said:

This makes total sense.

That is not how it is implemented in vanilla game. Let me share you a quick example from the stock game just so you understand what I am talking about.

 

dd_8_france_dd,,hull,Flotilla Leader,,-1,-1,8.5,165,akizuki_hull_b,1.375,,,france,"type(dd), DD_german_big, dd, g4, var(nose_long)","hsize(2000), hull_form(98), stability(77), floatability(83), endurance(95), spot(0), turn(81), vis(4950), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.415,3,4,5250,6550,,,,,,,,38,4,6,0.475,40,-1,

 

A DD with 95 endurance, which is the resistance value in the "parts" file.

 

bb_7_austria,,hull,Super Battleship,,-1,-1,1.65,1150,kgeorge_hull_a,1.175,,,austria,"type(bb), BB_Austria_Super, Mixed_Quads, Middle_Big, bb, g4, Typical_Modern2_BB, Typical_Modern_BB","hsize(4100), hull_form(98), stability(92), floatability(95), endurance(90), spot(0), turn(40), vis(9000), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.15,4,6,92500,101500,,-10,14,-22.5,23.5,0.75,0.65,32.5,3,6,,32,-1,

 

Yes, this is a super battleship in vanilla game. The resistance value is smaller than in that DD. This makes any sense to you? For me it doens't.

[slayerslaine]

8 minutes ago, o Barão said:

That is not how it is implemented in vanilla game. Let me share you a quick example from the stock game just so you understand what I am talking about.

 

dd_8_france_dd,,hull,Flotilla Leader,,-1,-1,8.5,165,akizuki_hull_b,1.375,,,france,"type(dd), DD_german_big, dd, g4, var(nose_long)","hsize(2000), hull_form(98), stability(77), floatability(83), endurance(95), spot(0), turn(81), vis(4950), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.415,3,4,5250,6550,,,,,,,,38,4,6,0.475,40,-1,

 

A DD with 95 endurance, which is the resistance value in the "parts" file.

 

bb_7_austria,,hull,Super Battleship,,-1,-1,1.65,1150,kgeorge_hull_a,1.175,,,austria,"type(bb), BB_Austria_Super, Mixed_Quads, Middle_Big, bb, g4, Typical_Modern2_BB, Typical_Modern_BB","hsize(4100), hull_form(98), stability(92), floatability(95), endurance(90), spot(0), turn(40), vis(9000), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.15,4,6,92500,101500,,-10,14,-22.5,23.5,0.75,0.65,32.5,3,6,,32,-1,

 

Yes, this is a super battleship in vanilla game. The resistance value is smaller than in that DD. This makes any sense to you? For me it doens't.

I agree with your point here, that on a surface level, that a DD and a BB sharing the same endurance stat in vanilla is wild. However, I wasn't referring to the dichotomy of the endurance stat between two different vanilla class. I was specifically referring to your quote;

15 hours ago, o Barão said:

Why that ship have an high value and the other from the same class and era a small value?

From what I understand, you where mentioning the differences of the endurance(resistance) between the same class in the same era of technology. From that point of view, yes it does make since. Not all ships of the same class, of the same era, had the exact same structural integrity and the exact same ability to resist damage. For example, Atlanta-class light cruisers vs Cleveland-class light cruisers. Both designed during the same period and laid down during the same year, vastly different hull design schemes.

On the side note, I think the game kinda balances the endurance stat in the comparison of the DD and the Super BB by having the DD have less total hp (effective health?). Ships with more tonnage/displacement can take more damage and/or absorb more damage. So having a DD with 95 endurance stat wasn't too obscene. Definitely not perfect.

Plus, the Advanced Destroyer for Austria-Hungary has a endurance of 94 and I build them for max resistance and still have them one shotted by 16inch shells even with -53% gun damage on them 😭

Essentially, I kinda think of the endurance stat as of how structurally sound/strong a hull is. Though this isn't entirely apt.

23 minutes ago, o Barão said:

3 hours ago, slayerslaine said:

This was introduced, idk when, but because now the amount of tonnage of the ship effects hull resistance. More specifically, the closer the ship is to is to its tonnageMax the more resistance it gets. Vice versa for tonnageMin. As far as I know, there isn't a modifier that we currently have access to that can adjust/remove this effect.

Not now, maybe since the beginning? Always has been like that? I can't say for sure, but it is there for a long time.

Maybe I was unclear. It is a recent change that displacement amount effects the resistance stat. Note: that displacement increased by increasing either beam or draught does not effect the resistance stat. Here is an example made by Panzergraf in his video recently;

It was impossible to get (-100%) gun damage reduction in previous versions of Vanilla UAD as well until recently. I'm not saying that the resistance stance was balanced before but I feel that a blanket standardization of resistances(endurance) over reaches in scope if your goal was just to fix the -100% gun damage exploit.
If your goal was to just fix the exploit, I believe just reducing the maximum amount of gun damage reduction you from resistance(endurance) below 100 should be sufficient.

 

To be honest, I've never played vanilla UAD. I only got interested into UAD after I discovered your mod, NAR. I've only ever played the game with your mod, so all I've known is NAR balancing 😅. I've played only like 500 or so hours so far of your mod.

Previously, I've mained Austria-Hungary since I like the distinct play style that your mod gave to AH. Specifically the hull identity of (Tanky but slow) with your custom hulls you gave them like the Advanced Small Battleship, Large Armored cruiser, Advanced Armored cruiser, Advanced compact cruiser and Advanced Destroyer. Now though, they are just slow and overall worse than every other nation atm.

[Северная]

20 hours ago, o Barão said:

NAR BETA 3 "Major Powers update" for UAD 1.6.0.6 opt x3

 

Note: Due to important changes how components are unlocked, I will recommend anyone only to update if starting a new campaign to avoid possible issues.

Major changes to components, not only about when they become obsolete, but much more important because now includes many instructions for the AI to follow when design a ship, taking into consideration the ship type and era, for the AI to build more capable fighting ships and harder to sink.

 

Thanks to Nathan TAF improvements, I can finally add a icon to the scout planes.

I made sure that follows vanilla art style and looks good IMO.

Don't forget to update TAF to see this ingame.

 

-100 gun damage exploit fixed

In UAD, for the players that are aware, it is possible to exploit the game and make the ships invulnerable to gun damage. This is a combination of ships with a incredible high base resistance with components and techs that will increase that value to a point that will neglect gun damage to a ship.

To make things funnier there are components, like torpedo protection or multi bottom hulls, that will increase the hull resistance to gun damage. Also the hulls resistance values seems in many ways random. It is possible to see super BBs with incredible high values, the same way we can see the same things on small ships like DDs or old ironclads. Why that ship have an high value and the other from the same class and era a small value?

 

The solution being applied for this issue:

Remove resistance values from torpedo protection and multi bottom hulls. A buff to torpedo damage reduction was added to compensate.

Rebalanced the armor resistance values.

Standardized all ship classes resistance values:

• Super BB 85
• all-big-guns BB 80
• BC 77
• pre dreadnoughts 75
• CA 70
• Semi armored cruiser 65
• Cl 55
• DD 40
• TB 25
• TR 10

 

Other stuff:

• Small improvements to Chile CL ship names.
• Small improvements to Greece BC, CA and CL ship names.
• A-H in 1940 campaign start, being a speculative nation at this point, will start neutral with the other major powers at war (Germany and Italy vs Britain and France). I added instead a big relation penalty with Turkey so It is easy for anyone interested playing with these nations to go to war quickly.
• Colors updated for USA, France and Portugal to make it easier to see on the map.

If you standardize resistance values, aren’t you nerfing nations that otherwise had high base resistance hulls at the expense of hull form and buffing nations that had lower resistance and better hull form?  This seems very weird.  What’s the point of those hulls now if they’re flatly inferior because their main design philosophy was invalidated?

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Северная said:

This seems very weird.

What is the most or less weird thing?

 

1.  To have specific hulls in game that you can use to exploit the game?
2.  To know that now it is impossible to exploit the resistance modifier?

 

I just show above an example that in vanilla a 4000 tons DD can have an higher resistance value than a super 100000 tons BB. Is this not weird enough for you?

[o Barão]

8 hours ago, slayerslaine said:

From what I understand, you where mentioning the differences of the endurance(resistance) between the same class in the same era of technology. From that point of view, yes it does make since. Not all ships of the same class, of the same era, had the exact same structural integrity and the exact same ability to resist damage. For example, Atlanta-class light cruisers vs Cleveland-class light cruisers. Both designed during the same period and laid down during the same year, vastly different hull design schemes.

In that regard, your are 100% correct. The issue would be how I apply that in game with 507 hulls stats to edit?

I should give the smaller hulls from each ship class a minus few points in the resistance just so all of them feel unique, taking into account their tonnage? It is worth the trouble I will have to look at each ship data and compare with the others, and also to make sure that the penalty range will not cross the limit of others ship classes? For a few points difference?

 

Or maybe better is to standardized all others values? Because I did this to the resistance values to fix an exploit and feel more natural the difference between ship classes, but if the players start to compare the other values they will see many weird things. Why many BBs have better Hull form stats than DDs or TBs? How it is possible for a small ship to have a better stability value than a BB?

 

8 hours ago, slayerslaine said:

Maybe I was unclear. It is a recent change that displacement amount effects the resistance stat. Note: that displacement increased by increasing either beam or draught does not effect the resistance stat. Here is an example made by Panzergraf in his video recently;

Another % modifier being added up to all the others which only make it easier to get the exploit working in vanilla. That will not work anymore in NAR. I am not saying that there is something wrong with a bigger ship to be more durable in combat, that makes sense to me, the problem is how being applied in vanilla with all the other modifiers already being used cause situations where is possible to "cheat".

 

8 hours ago, slayerslaine said:

It was impossible to get (-100%) gun damage reduction in previous versions of Vanilla UAD as well until recently. I'm not saying that the resistance stance was balanced before but I feel that a blanket standardization of resistances(endurance) over reaches in scope if your goal was just to fix the -100% gun damage exploit.
If your goal was to just fix the exploit, I believe just reducing the maximum amount of gun damage reduction you from resistance(endurance) below 100 should be sufficient.

 

Here is the interesting part. I standardized the value per class, to fix the exploit ofc, but in a way that would feel more natural the resistance difference between them. Now as you said before, about the Cleveland and Atlanta hull differences, there are clear differences. But because of the effect of the ship tonnage now in play, the player can choose. You want a more durable CL? Make it bigger and more expensive and vice versa. Now for me to edit 507 hull stats to give them a few points difference to feel unique is not worth my time.

 

My only tool I have to fix the gun damage reduction exploit is to limit the resistance value any ship can get. I have not any other way, at least I am not aware at this point.