"Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA 2.9.1 "Major Powers update"

[Peksern]

10 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Light Cruisers are 6" once I unlock double turrets, but 4-5" prior to that

Why not 6'' in single turrets, like on USS St. Louis? That did happen.

[MuiWyvern]

Hello. Posting this again. I'm new to modding and I'm also unsure of how to enable exceptions to antivirus programs. If you can teach me how to enable these exceptions, I'd be thankful! 

[Peksern]

@o BarãoI have another suggestion. Perhaps that's also something for @NathanKell : Would it be possible to make armor material unchangeable in refittings? It actually doesn't make much sense to transfer compound into krupp, does it?

[SpardaSon21]

@o Barão You should edit the names of Argentina and Chile to "Argentine Republic" and "Chilean Republic".  Argentina should also be a firmly right-wing government from 1890 and slowly moving centrist over the years in line with the Generation of '80 and the massive economic boom it was experiencing before the switch to the center-left government of 1920.

 

And since this is me and I can't resist talking about the USA, the USA should be center-right with a smidge of nationalism until 1940 and the election of FDR given our economic and social policies and laws in place at the time, as well as increasing desires at home for overseas interventions.

[o Barão]

13 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

@o Barão Argentina should also be a firmly right-wing government from 1890 and slowly moving centrist over the years in line with the Generation of '80 and the massive economic boom it was experiencing before the switch to the center-left government of 1920.

I didn't touched the parties, only the historical major government changes, and I also don't understand why you dislike the name Argentina Republic or Chile Republic since both were Republic at that time. But what you don't like, change to what you prefer more.

 

Atm I am very busying in editing important stuff to the mod.

[HMS Implosive]

16 minutes ago, o Barão said:

..I also don't understand why you dislike the name Argentina Republic or Chile Republic since both were Republic at that time...

I also found the choice of these names a bit unconventional. In English language (AFAIK, I am not native) it is useally said either Republic of Argentina or Argentine Republic, or simply Argentina (and similarly to Chile). That is the same thing as, for example, why the colonial era France is usually called French Empire rather than France Empire.

[SpardaSon21]

23 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I also don't understand why you dislike the name Argentina Republic or Chile Republic since both were Republic at that time.

Yes, they're republics, but to go with what the guy above me said they're not using adjectives before the government type as is proper in names.  When you edited a few other names you left them out.

Edited September 12 by SpardaSon21

[admiralsnackbar]

4 hours ago, Peksern said:

Why not 6'' in single turrets, like on USS St. Louis? That did happen.

Those ships had most of their 6 inch guns in casemates. One issue is that 6 inch casemates are, in this game at least, usually reserved for heavy cruisers and some cases don't even fit on the heavy cruisers. 

If your gun model is an actual turret and you don't have casemates then using 6 inch single gun turrets is often an extremely inefficient (also very ugly) design. 

 

[DougToss]

Ideally we get a game update where, just like in Rule the Waves, unshielded, shielded and turreted mounts scaled with armour and not with time. Perhaps even having a fourth class, lightly armoured gunhouses (more than a shield, less than a turret), as on the US treaty cruisers, Tribal Class etc. 

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Yes, they're republics, but to go with what the guy above me said they're not using adjectives before the government type as is proper in names.  When you edited a few other names you left them out.

1 hour ago, HMS Implosive said:

I also found the choice of these names a bit unconventional. In English language (AFAIK, I am not native) it is useally said either Republic of Argentina or Argentine Republic, or simply Argentina

Uploaded players file without the use "Republic of..." or "something Republic."

[BoredViking]

Thanks for the effort put on this mod.

After installing, I cannot upgrade the guns mark. I hit the button to upgrade, the refit shows the new mark, but when the ship is in combat, it shows (and behaves) like the original mark.

What am I doing wrong?  

[Pappystein]

6 hours ago, Peksern said:

Why not 6'' in single turrets, like on USS St. Louis? That did happen.

not enough guns   

THe early hulls have tiny mounting spaces and the 6" turrets are GIANT when compared to 4 or 5"    By the time you unlock dbl turrets the hulls are much bigger and there is room for 6" turrets.     YES I could do six-inch singles but they... have proven not that effective vs.,the many smaller 4 or 5-inchers. My light cruisers are my commerce raiders, and the worst they see is an occasional Heavy cruiser, but everything else is lightly armored Light cruisers, Destroyers,  and TBs with convoys.    The smaller guns bring more ammunition and do more damage overall (mostly due to the number of shells being pumped out generating more hits by mass of fire.)

That being said, as the tech improves, YES I go to 6"  Just not for the early game (the turn is generally around 1910-1920.

 

Often my early cruisers can fit 4-6 6" guns or 8-10 5" guns

Edited September 12 by Pappystein

[Pappystein]

13 hours ago, Maximus Tyberius said:

2 and 3 in guns Should Never be doubles or triples except when anti air arrays  are developed and then they only should be double or quad but never triple. Turreted double 2 or 3 in guns look incredibly goofy...

That is an opinion you can have.  I actually love using triple 3"  weapons as Heavy ship secondary armament late game.

As much as we like to call this a historical game it is NOT.   it is decidedly AB-Historical and Historical ADJACENT.  

7 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

I'm with you.  I primarily play USA and using anything that wasn't an actual caliber of ours rubs me the wrong way.  I'll make exceptions for "things we plausibly might have used", like 2.2" (we used some of those early on as anti-TB weapons and so they're a plausible alt-hist weapon) and 3.5" guns (historical US Army caliber, could be potentially navalized).

My reasoning is based only on the math used as the partial caliber changes happen in the game.   EG, Last I checked (a while ago admittedly) Playing British Empire, 13.5" Mk2 tech turrets were heavier than Mk2 14" turrets, did less damage and had a similar range.  So yes the supposed "Super Dreadnoughts" if I built them would be 14" not 13.5" (I might initially build them with 13s with tonnage reserved for an upgrade to 14s latter).

 

For some reason the game does not linearly scale between two known masses, it exponentially scales up weight with partial calibers.    Which IMHO it was probably a bad design choice to base all weapons on an INCH caliber.   Yes it was a common form of measure in 1890, but when most of the world went metric, guns didn't stay at those nice ROUND inch numbers.   Instead being for example 150mm instead of 152/153mm (for 6")

Edited September 12 by Pappystein

[SpardaSon21]

6 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Which IMHO it was probably a bad design choice to base all weapons on an INCH caliber.   Yes it was a common form of measure in 1890, but when most of the world went metric, guns didn't stay at those nice ROUND inch numbers.   Instead being for example 150mm instead of 152/153mm (for 6")

Yeah, they actually did.  The Italians and Russians both used Imperial gun sizes despite adopting metric, the Soviets as late as the 1930's in some cases, and the Italians persisting after WW2 thanks to NATO standardizing around American gun calibers, unless you're going to tell me that the world-famous OTO-Melara is 75mm and not 76.2mm.

[o Barão]

 ---Important option added---

This is to fix a terrible mistake made by me.

 

• Do you even consider why to use historical deck armor values around 1940 when most guns don't have enough penetration at normal combat range?
• Or why should I bother to use 14" belt armor in 1890 when there is no guns capable of penetrating that amount of armor?

Well that is because I made a BIG error. In NAR 1" pen is equal to 1" of iron armour, and all armor tables follow this rule, the problem at the time I forgot and didn't notice for a long time that I also needed to convert the guns penetration table values. 😒

 

Well better late than ever.

 

New options added:

• B-realistic penetration-choose one
• B-less penetration-choose

By default there is no changes atm. The realistic penetration is only for the players interested.

If interested, open the folder; copy the penetration file and paste in your "Mods" folder. Click yes.

 

[RBWTF]

Is there a discord for this mod where questions about the installation can be asked? or could I just ask here?

[RBWTF]

I followed the most up-to-date instructions for the NAR (including accuracy and penetration options) and tweaks&fixes (3.9.0). Why does the campaign loading last indefinitely in the loading world screen? I was trying the 1940 german campaign

[NathanKell]

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

That is an opinion you can have.  I actually love using triple 3"  weapons as Heavy ship secondary armament late game.

As much as we like to call this a historical game it is NOT.   it is decidedly AB-Historical and Historical ADJACENT.  

My reasoning is based only on the math used as the partial caliber changes happen in the game.   EG, Last I checked (a while ago admittedly) Playing British Empire, 13.5" Mk2 tech turrets were heavier than Mk2 14" turrets, did less damage and had a similar range.  So yes the supposed "Super Dreadnoughts" if I built them would be 14" not 13.5" (I might initially build them with 13s with tonnage reserved for an upgrade to 14s latter).

 

For some reason the game does not linearly scale between two known masses, it exponentially scales up weight with partial calibers.    Which IMHO it was probably a bad design choice to base all weapons on an INCH caliber.   Yes it was a common form of measure in 1890, but when most of the world went metric, guns didn't stay at those nice ROUND inch numbers.   Instead being for example 150mm instead of 152/153mm (for 6")

The game does interpolate linearly, with the exception that it multiplies the next size's value by .975 (or did back in 1.4 when I first looked). The issue with the 12", 13", and 14" in particular in NAR is that they unlock at such different times that the interpolation is strange, because the interpolation occurs between guns of the same mark. (I presume this is partly why the devs put that .975x multiplier in there, because even in vanilla this is an issue.) See this post regarding how all the math actually works: 

 

 

Anyway, due to how the math works plus how NAR's data is set up, you're going to get weirdness.

8 hours ago, MuiWyvern said:

Hello. Posting this again. I'm new to modding and I'm also unsure of how to enable exceptions to antivirus programs. If you can teach me how to enable these exceptions, I'd be thankful! 

What exact problem are you running into?

7 hours ago, Peksern said:

@o BarãoI have another suggestion. Perhaps that's also something for @NathanKell : Would it be possible to make armor material unchangeable in refittings? It actually doesn't make much sense to transfer compound into krupp, does it?

This was literally the thing that got me into modding UAD. I got sidetracked though. And also, that's a gameplay change, something I was going to do in my (more-realism-focused) mod rather than in TAF itself. But if @o Barão wants it for NAR (along with other lockouts for refit, like not changing engines or whatever) I'm happy to do that, I know how.

[MuiWyvern]

1 hour ago, NathanKell said:

The game does interpolate linearly, with the exception that it multiplies the next size's value by .975 (or did back in 1.4 when I first looked). The issue with the 12", 13", and 14" in particular in NAR is that they unlock at such different times that the interpolation is strange, because the interpolation occurs between guns of the same mark. (I presume this is partly why the devs put that .975x multiplier in there, because even in vanilla this is an issue.) See this post regarding how all the math actually works: 

 

 

Anyway, due to how the math works plus how NAR's data is set up, you're going to get weirdness.

What exact problem are you running into?

This was literally the thing that got me into modding UAD. I got sidetracked though. And also, that's a gameplay change, something I was going to do in my (more-realism-focused) mod rather than in TAF itself. But if @o Barão wants it for NAR (along with other lockouts for refit, like not changing engines or whatever) I'm happy to do that, I know how.

I've downloaded all the necessary programs to run the mod but whenever I open UAD, it still opens the base version instead of the mod.

[o Barão]

@NathanKell o7.

 

Warships going for a refit and get an engine upgrade happened many times.

Now an armor upgrade? I never read anything about that. Most likely the time and cost is so high that never become an interesting thing to consider. Blocking armor upgrade when doing a refit sounds a reasonable thing to do.

[Peksern]

@o Barão @NathanKellDo you know if the AI does upgrade the gun marks when refitting?

Since if they upgrade their guns, it would be a big advantage against players like me who love that historical way without upgrading.

And btw: Enemy has light cruisers with guns about 22 inch pen. Is that because I added the patch for the historical values after beginning the campaign? Or is it intended the AI has such devastating guns on light cruisers?

 

Edited September 12 by Peksern

[Fyredrake]

55 minutes ago, o Barão said:

@NathanKell o7.

 

Warships going for a refit and get an engine upgrade happened many times.

Now an armor upgrade? I never read anything about that. Most likely the time and cost is so high that never become an interesting thing to consider. Blocking armor upgrade when doing a refit sounds a reasonable thing to do.

Engine refits occurred yes, but large refits that had that happen versus just refurbishing it, or main battery changing, took *years* in many cases.  

However cases adding armor or changing main battery were fewer and far between.  2 examples that come to mind are the Furutakas which went from 6x1 ,6" gun turrets to 3x2 6" guns with a very small caliber change, 200 mm to 203 mm.  This was rather expensive and took 1.5 years on average for the two ships in the class.  The other example, this being armor, is the Admiral class battlecruisers with HMS Hood, which had deck armor thickened somewhat in the inter-war period, which caused her drought to increase and made her rear deck wet in essentially all weather conditions beyond a flat calm.  Again this refit took some time.  

Id be incredibly in favor of certain aspects of ship design such as bulkheads, citadel, barbette anti-flash, belt armor, etc, being locked at design, and stuff like deck armor, turret changes, main gun changes, being rather expensive and time consuming, IE over 1 year in time.  Also should cause a decent amount more of instability if you alter weight distribution, since the original ship when launched only had its original weight in mind for distribution of armor and engineering spaces to make it even.  If that makes sense.  

[o Barão]

32 minutes ago, Peksern said:

Or is it intended the AI has such devastating guns on light cruisers?

 If you don't want to upgrade your ships guns and go in disadvantage for the battlefield well it is your choice, but the AI follow the same rules as you.

[Peksern]

5 minutes ago, o Barão said:

If you don't want to upgrade your ships guns and go in disadvantage for the battlefield well it is your choice, but the AI follow the same rules as you.

So you would advice to upgrade guns? In which situations would you suggest not to? The option must have a use somewhere, I guess?

[HMS Implosive]

52 minutes ago, Fyredrake said:

Engine refits occurred yes, but large refits that had that happen versus just refurbishing it, or main battery changing, took *years* in many cases.  

However cases adding armor or changing main battery were fewer and far between.  2 examples that come to mind are the Furutakas which went from 6x1 ,6" gun turrets to 3x2 6" guns with a very small caliber change, 200 mm to 203 mm.  This was rather expensive and took 1.5 years on average for the two ships in the class.  The other example, this being armor, is the Admiral class battlecruisers with HMS Hood, which had deck armor thickened somewhat in the inter-war period, which caused her drought to increase and made her rear deck wet in essentially all weather conditions beyond a flat calm.  Again this refit took some time.  

Id be incredibly in favor of certain aspects of ship design such as bulkheads, citadel, barbette anti-flash, belt armor, etc, being locked at design, and stuff like deck armor, turret changes, main gun changes, being rather expensive and time consuming, IE over 1 year in time.  Also should cause a decent amount more of instability if you alter weight distribution, since the original ship when launched only had its original weight in mind for distribution of armor and engineering spaces to make it even.  If that makes sense.  

 

For those interested, Drachinifel again has this excellent video about refitting old battleships