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

[StrikerDanger]

1 hour ago, HMS Implosive said:

 

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

 

 

 

Ah yes, the Ship history man himself. Watched that video at least a dozen times. I can very much agree to restrictions via refit.

[Pappystein]

4 hours 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.

The only armor "Upgrades" are not really upgrades but completely rebuilt ships.

The Kongo et al for Japan. 
HMS Victorious for the Royal Navy (The Aircraft carrier)

Several Russian Battleships had their armor altered (more added, some taken away etc)

With the exception of the Russian Battleships (and the changes were pretty small scale for them) every one of those "Upgrades" can be considered a completely new ship.     It is too bad there isn't a major reconstruction feature in UAD.   One that takes 2 years... Well wait,  Instead of straight locking it, is there a way that changing armor could be set to 50% of the original ship construction time?   That might be a reasonable compromise.

The Re-Hulling of the HMS Victorious should not be taken as a FACT for how long ships take to rebuild.  There was mission creep, Funding shortages and I believe 2? major labor disputes during her Reconstruction (which caused the rest of the carriers to be reconstructed to be canceled instead.)  

I am dropping this data off the cuff with no reputable sources quick at hand (no wikipedia is not a reputable source but a reasonable guide post only!)    I would have to break out my Norman Friedman books to verify Victorious as well as some of the US BB reconstructions.

 

To be clear, I agree LOCKING the armor is a good choice.

I realized I might not have been clear.   I am not saying the Kongos got NEW armor, but the armor was completely re-done (it may have been the same standard of armor as regional and some pieces may have remained from construction but with the significant hull changes new armor HAD to happen.


Also I am pretty certain the Russian dreadnoughts when they received their "reconstructions" there were no major changes to the armor at all

 

Edited September 13 by Pappystein

[NathanKell]

9 hours 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.

Yes, leaving the option for an engine upgrade is better than not IMO, but given the choice between "swapping out a VTE engine for turbo-electric takes 1 month" and "swapping out a VTE for turbo-electric is not allowed", I would choose the second.

But the better solution is indeed to treat that as a full rebuild, rather than either a short or a regular refit.

Because to do that you pretty much have to rip the ship down to the engine rooms to fit the turbines through the armor deck.

I can definitely punt on that and just do armor stuff though.

 

[Peksern]

Not Sure if everyone here thinks the same as me:

What indeed happened in history are changes on armor values. For instance increasing the Thickness of deck armor or belts. Therefore changing the values should be possible ingame.

But they never change the type of armor (Krupp, cemented, compound etc.) at a whole Ship. That would pretty much be a complete rebuild, which doesn't make sense.

 

Edited September 13 by Peksern

[MuiWyvern]

@NathanKell 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.

[Peksern]

And another question to both of you @NathanKell @o Barão

 

Would it be possible to change the System of modernized dreadnoughts? Currently we have to build them from scratch. Does not seem logical to me. Instead... could there be perhaps a technology that allows the modern towers to be built on the normal dreadnought hulls via refit? Or something like that, allowing the Player to truly modernize his dreadnoughts?

[NathanKell]

21 minutes ago, Peksern said:

And another question to both of you @NathanKell @o Barão

 

Would it be possible to change the System of modernized dreadnoughts? Currently we have to build them from scratch. Does not seem logical to me. Instead... could there be perhaps a technology that allows the modern towers to be built on the normal dreadnought hulls via refit? Or something like that, allowing the Player to truly modernize his dreadnoughts?

I mean, that only needs csv editing, no code required.

The trickier bit is where the actual hull stats differ; there you'd have to do some fancy work, probably duplicating parts per-hull so you can override the hull characteristics (or add a new component and component type to handle this?)

[o Barão]

1 minute ago, NathanKell said:

I mean, that only needs csv editing, no code required.

The trickier bit is where the actual hull stats differ; there you'd have to do some fancy work, probably duplicating parts per-hull so you can override the hull characteristics (or add a new component and component type to handle this?)

Maybe add g1,g2, etc... and copy and paste some towers for a late generation? This way the towers would become available in later years.

 

Could work, but not an important thing for the moment.

[o Barão]

2 hours ago, NathanKell said:

Yes, leaving the option for an engine upgrade is better than not IMO, but given the choice between "swapping out a VTE engine for turbo-electric takes 1 month" and "swapping out a VTE for turbo-electric is not allowed", I would choose the second.

But the better solution is indeed to treat that as a full rebuild, rather than either a short or a regular refit.

Because to do that you pretty much have to rip the ship down to the engine rooms to fit the turbines through the armor deck.

I can definitely punt on that and just do armor stuff though.

 

To implement a long time refit to do an engine swapp would be perfect!

[NathanKell]

5 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Maybe add g1,g2, etc... and copy and paste some towers for a late generation? This way the towers would become available in later years.

 

Could work, but not an important thing for the moment.

No need to copy-paste, you can just add to the needs() for the tower, and then make the towers in question not actually unlock until they should (rather than being available as soon as any hull they fit on is unlocked). But I agree it's not at all a priority.

 

[o Barão]

BETA 2.4 "Major Powers update"- N.A.R. changelog:

• land invasions bug fixed, thanks to @NathanKell!
• Updated to UAD 1.6.0.6
• Improved AI ship building for the french Ironclad III, II and I *
• Realistic penetration is now enabled by default.

 

*From my latest test I manage to start 1940 campaign in less than 30 minutes, so a big improvement to an hour one week ago. I should expect to lower the time needed to start a new campaign  even further by helping the AI designing ships in the next weeks.

 

Files edited:

• params
• provinces
• parts
• penetration

Edited September 13 by o Barão

[Patriot-d-H]

Hello @o Barão

I have uploaded the German translation here.

[URL=https://dfiles.com/files/zzj15jt0k]German-NAR-Beta-2-3.zip[/URL]

I will keep it up to date when updates are made to the language file
Greetings

[spinaker]

Diplomacy is working! Now you can make peace the first time!))) And the arrows appeared!!! Thanks!!!!

[o Barão]

BETA 2.5 "Major Powers update"- N.A.R. changelog:

• Fixes and AI improvements to all russian pre dreadnoughts to get a good design and quick. (1890-1900)
• Changed the weight modifier when chaging the barrell lenght. It was incredible unrealistic the weight loss by going -20% before.

Files edited:

• params
• parts

Some examples (AI designs)

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

17 hours ago, o Barão said:

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

There were deck armour and turret armour upgrades but not belt armour.

 

Case in point: Nagato

[Maximus Tyberius]

On 9/11/2024 at 5:30 PM, Pappystein said:

I tend to run my ships as follows

I try to run battleships with realistic scales.  That means you will never see me use more than a 17" Cannon.  But I typically keep Battleships to 10,12,13,14,15,16"  Depending on era. 

Battlecruisers, I TRY to run the same caliber as my current tech battleships (if there is an eqv class)  BUT I am willing to roll back ONE INCH in diameter if mass issues abound.

Heavy cruisers are all 9.0 inches main.  <--This is a good game gimic mostly because of how quickly 9 is updated and 8 is NOT updated early on.... seems retrograde to go down to 8 after that.

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

Destroyers start at 4.5" and work their way to 5"

Torpedo Boats/Gunboats   are exclusively 4" unless I can not fit 4" (deck space)

I probably should mention, most of the time, I stick with whole number, Imperial calibers (3" 4" 16" etc)  I do not like how the game had scaled "upsizing" the shells in the past and I haven't tried in recent history.   Unless a weapon I am making specifically replicates a REAL weapon (eg 5.25" for Royal Navy) I stay with the whole inch sizes.

Well, that sounds great for the UK and USA, but France, Germany and Italy never used Inches. they used Milimetres so a lot of German battleships used 280 mm which is 11.0236 inches, Bismarck used 380 mm which  is 14.96 inches, Most Italian destroyers used 120 mm which is 4.7 inches, French Secondaries are usually 155 and 105 mm which is 6.1 and 4.1 inches and so on... the game should show both measures at the same time, because the other way around is also ankward (9 in are 229mm, 14 in are 356 mm, 18 in are 457 mm)

Edited September 13 by Maximus Tyberius

[Maximus Tyberius]

23 hours ago, Pappystein said:

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

Well that's an opinion you also can have. 

historically all smaller guns (20 to 100mm) armament was always single when placed in small ships. Even in ww2. except when in anti air array.

 

[Maximus Tyberius]

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

 

 

Can something be done with this hull? like allowing to place the main and secondary towers IN the central grey strip? normally the designs on this hull end up having a huge empty space with 2 funnels... leaving the main turrets hanging from the prow and bow ...

 

[Pappystein]

35 minutes ago, Maximus Tyberius said:

Well, that sounds great for the UK and USA, but France, Germany and Italy never used Inches. they used Milimetres so a lot of German battleships used 280 mm which is 11.0236 inches, Bismarck used 380 mm which  is 14.96 inches, Most Italian destroyers used 120 mm which is 4.7 inches, French Secondaries are usually 155 and 105 mm which is 6.1 and 4.1 inches and so on... the game should show both measures at the same time, because the other way around is also ankward (9 in are 229mm, 14 in are 356 mm, 18 in are 457 mm)

Yep I agree,  My comment was utilizing inch size was an issue not an advantage.   I also stated I had not done recent tests to see if they scale linearly (apparently they do now?) 

 

[o Barão]

2 hours ago, Maximus Tyberius said:

Can something be done with this hull? like allowing to place the main and secondary towers IN the central grey strip? normally the designs on this hull end up having a huge empty space with 2 funnels... leaving the main turrets hanging from the prow and bow ...

 

That would be 100% fantasy nonsense for the time period.

But yes you can if you wish by exploiting the game engine.

Note: The AI will never going to do this.

[o Barão]

preview

The AI embraced the american spirit. "Always more dakka"

This is just a random example and I expect to be rare happen. Well I hope.

[NathanKell]

4 hours ago, Maximus Tyberius said:

Well, that sounds great for the UK and USA, but France, Germany and Italy never used Inches. they used Milimetres so a lot of German battleships used 280 mm which is 11.0236 inches, Bismarck used 380 mm which  is 14.96 inches, Most Italian destroyers used 120 mm which is 4.7 inches, French Secondaries are usually 155 and 105 mm which is 6.1 and 4.1 inches and so on... the game should show both measures at the same time, because the other way around is also ankward (9 in are 229mm, 14 in are 356 mm, 18 in are 457 mm)

120mm (4.7in) is actually a UK caliber (an Elswick gun rather than a government-sponsored design). If memory serves it was the first large (i.e. not just a Hotchkiss) QF gun in the world. It was adopted by many navies precisely because they bought ships from Armstrong's Elswick yard, the Italians and Russians for example.

I never understood why, when you change measurement, only the armor measurement changes not the gun caliber measurement. It really should.

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Yep I agree,  My comment was utilizing inch size was an issue not an advantage.   I also stated I had not done recent tests to see if they scale linearly (apparently they do now?) 

 

It's always been linear, or at any rate I would be beyond shocked if late in development the devs rewrote a basic system like "how guns interpolate". Like I said I think the issue is more that the change from main caliber to main caliber is exponential, so increasing extra-diameter on a given gun has large effects very quickly.

[Peksern]

Is the battle performance somehow worse than before? I actually don't understand why, neither my CPU nor GPU nor RAM are even close to their limits. Yet the game's sometimes reduced to 10 FPS. Even with "only" about 20 Ships in a fight.

Could that happened because I continued my campaign over the past three or four NAR patches and now he's overcalculating something? 

[Maximus Tyberius]

7 hours ago, o Barão said:

That would be 100% fantasy nonsense for the time period.

But yes you can if you wish by exploiting the game engine.

Note: The AI will never going to do this.

Well, I wasn't thinking about something that extreme, just to place the main tower a bit  back and the rear one a bit forward. So the Funnels are not so lonely...😅

On a different topic... I've figured that you can actually use the small square barbette (even when barbettes are not allowed by date or by hull). Also,  as a "side effect" placing that barbette "unlocks" the usage of all the other barbettes illegally...Is that a bug? An exploit? Or a feature?...

Edited Saturday at 12:22 AM by Maximus Tyberius
Add info.

[Maximus Tyberius]

6 hours ago, NathanKell said:

I never understood why, when you change measurement, only the armor measurement changes not the gun caliber measurement. It really should.

They both change...you must check the checkbox for armor and a different one for guns.

I play my game fully in Millimetres.