"Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA v11.4 - for UAD v1.5.1.6

[admiralsnackbar]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

In the "partsModel" file you will see this on top.

 

model_1,scale_1,max_scale_1,weight_modifier_1,caliber_length_modifier_1

model_2,scale_2,max_scale_2,weight_modifier_2,caliber_length_modifier_2

model_3,scale_3,max_scale_3,weight_modifier_3,caliber_length_modifier_3

model_4,scale_4,max_scale_4,weight_modifier_4,caliber_length_modifier_4

model_5,scale_5,max_scale_5,weight_modifier_5,caliber_length_modifier_5

 

This is what will set the default barrel length in game for all guns. However, I strongly advise first to set the model scale first and only then change the barrel length. The scale model will have an impact on the barrel length.

seems odd model length would affect barrel length. I feel silly for having worked on that stuff for so  long and missed that column. 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[Fangoriously]

On 7/30/2023 at 6:48 AM, o Barão said:

Test the same thing in a custom battle with a 130k ton BB.  4 turrets with x2 20" barrels.

my main point was that this penalty to accuracy is weighted too heavily, it cuts in line with all the other calculations. On This ship and any other I've tested, when the recoil penalty approaches or exceeds -100, accuracy becomes 0, no mater any other factor. Number of turrets seem to mater more than number of barrels also, an 8 gun quad barrel ship had much less recoil issues than a 4 dual turret ship did.

so, since you cant dig into the real hard codded stuff, toning this recoil penalty down quite a bit would seem appropriate.

The Yamato was 64000 tons and had 9 18.1in guns, my pictured ship was a 70000 ton 8 19.9in gun ship, it shouldn't have been any more befuddled by recoil than Yamato.  A 130000 ton ship should never even see a blip of recoil penalty, ever.

[StrikerDanger]

4 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

The Yamato was 64000 tons and had 9 18.1in guns, my pictured ship was a 70000 ton 8 19.9in gun ship, it shouldn't have been any more befuddled by recoil than Yamato.  A 130000 ton ship should never even see a blip of recoil penalty, ever.

The stability statistics of the hull matters here. The bigger, wider and heavier the hull, the better stability is. Yamato was just shy of 72,000 tons at full load. One cannot completely eliminate recoil, especially when one is 0.1" off the biggest turret size ingame.

[Lucky Kadono]

love your work and been using the mod evrytime i play the game but playing as the brits sunddenly around 1927 my research tree disappeared might be just the game being buggy

[o Barão]

7 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

my main point was that this penalty to accuracy is weighted too heavily, it cuts in line with all the other calculations. On This ship and any other I've tested, when the recoil penalty approaches or exceeds -100, accuracy becomes 0, no mater any other factor. Number of turrets seem to mater more than number of barrels also, an 8 gun quad barrel ship had much less recoil issues than a 4 dual turret ship did.

so, since you cant dig into the real hard codded stuff, toning this recoil penalty down quite a bit would seem appropriate.

The Yamato was 64000 tons and had 9 18.1in guns, my pictured ship was a 70000 ton 8 19.9in gun ship, it shouldn't have been any more befuddled by recoil than Yamato.  A 130000 ton ship should never even see a blip of recoil penalty, ever.

o7!

 

I did mention to test the same setup in a 130k ton BB to see if you would note any difference. Because from my testings I did in the past, the bigger the hull, fewer vibrations the ship will get from the gun's blast. Maybe you didn't notice any difference?

 

Now, you are complaining that vibrations are too much. For me, 8x 20" in a 70k ton hull is just too much. I want to share a little video.

In this video, you see the recordings from some cameras in tripods on decks recording Wisconsin guns exercise. The whole video is a pleasure to watch, but take a special look at 1:53. At this moment, the cameraman at the bow is recording the X turret firing (stern). Look how hard the image shakes for a few seconds. And this is the key word, seconds. Because for me the issue is not the penalty modifier you get from the gun's blast vibrations, it is instead the time it takes to dissipate that vibration, which should be much quicker IMO. Now I will take a look at this at a later stage, but for anyone interested in editing right now.

 

These are the values inside the "params" file. Stock game values.

gun_recoil_factor,2.5,gun recoil factor,,,,,,,
gun_recoil_maxfactor,0.5,gun recoil maxfactor,,,,,,,
gun_recoil_dissipating_speed,0.0004,gun recoil dissipating speed,,0.000011,,,,,

Edited August 1, 2023 by o Barão

[Fangoriously]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

o7!

 

I did mention to test the same setup in a 130k ton BB to see if you would note any difference. Because from my testings I did in the past, the bigger the hull, fewer vibrations the ship will get from the gun's blast. Maybe you didn't notice any difference?

 

Now, you are complaining that vibrations are too much. For me, 8x 20" in a 70k ton hull is just too much. I want to share a little video.

In this video, you see the recordings from some cameras in tripods on decks recording Wisconsin guns exercise. The whole video is a pleasure to watch, but take a special look at 1:53. At this moment, the cameraman at the bow is recording the X turret firing (stern). Look how hard the image shakes for a few seconds. And this is the key word, seconds. Because for me the issue is not the penalty modifier you get from the gun's blast vibrations, it is instead the time it takes to dissipate that vibration, which should be much quicker IMO. Now I will take a look at this at a later stage, but for anyone interested in editing right now.

 

These are the values inside the "params" file. Stock game values.

gun_recoil_factor,2.5,gun recoil factor,,,,,,,
gun_recoil_maxfactor,0.5,gun recoil maxfactor,,,,,,,
gun_recoil_dissipating_speed,0.0004,gun recoil dissipating speed,,0.000011,,,,,

I recall hearing the iowas had a bit of staggered firing between the 3 barrels, but that was very pronounced. Would be cool if you could toggle that, like if you set the guns to save it would do that. Considering the topic of recoil, it would help with the abundance of it applied to the ship all at once, those shots were delayed enough so only the lasting reverb remained before the next barrel went off, judging by the camera shake.

With indirect fire from naval artillery, whats recoil vibrations going to do really other than make the dispersion radius grow by a couple of meters? Right now with it so easily dropping accuracy to 0 its like its increasing the dispersion radius by a kilometer for at least half your salvo.

I like the idea of duration reduction though, right now your ship rings like a bell for longer than a reload cycle and it can take so long to dissipate, it looks like every other recoil input doesn't even register sometimes too. But just for the very reason recoil can override every other buff and absolute 0 your accuracy all on it's, I'd nerf it in half as well as slash diration. Its effect is dramatically higher than even the range found bonus, and applies itself almost randomly to main gun salvos. With just a passing glance i've given it, i've found that it seems so jank the devs probably should be the ones to overhaul it really.

[Fangoriously]

Have a radical suggestion, secondary towers merely optional, not required.

On a lot of stepped hulls it can be difficult to fit sometimes, and on plenty of historical ships, it doesn't look like they have any sort of rear lookout at all. Of course, in most cases you would absolutely want to include a rear tower for stats and esthetic reasons, but it just being optional, thats a bunch more freedom for designs.

[o Barão]

11 hours ago, Lucky Kadono said:

love your work and been using the mod evrytime i play the game but playing as the brits sunddenly around 1927 my research tree disappeared might be just the game being buggy

o7!

 

You are the first one reporting that kind of issue to me. I read the changelog from the previous updates, and I don't see any changes to the technologies files, this being said if your save is a very old one, then yes it can have issues with the most recent versions of the mod.

 

Are you using the most recent version of the mod, plus the "english" file and the UAD live version?

Edited August 1, 2023 by o Barão

[Lucky Kadono]

39 minutes ago, o Barão said:

o7!

 

You are the first one reporting that kind of issue to me. I read the changelog from the previous updates, and I don't see any changes to the technologies files, this being said if your save is a very old one, then yes it can have issues with the most recent versions of the mod.

 

Are you using the most recent version of the mod, plus the "english" file and the UAD live version?

the save was a day old I did not notice there was another update while playing so i updated the game and did an integrity check then applied the latest mod update

loaded the save

at first the research tree was still gone and i was just gonna finish the campaign with what ever tech i have but after 3 truns the research tree just came back on its own

problem solved i guess ?

[Fangoriously]

I realized i hadn't actually tried this on the biggest possible ship, with the biggest possible guns, and the highest base stability rating. results were the same, recoil over -140 and accuracy over on the gun tab at absolute 0.

So, then i built what is essentially the lowest tonnage ship i could that can mount 20in guns, and with a pair of 20.9in guns the worst the recoil got was -89. That's basically exactly what that super battleship would see only firing its 2 forward guns.

It doesn't look like stability or tonnage is any defense against recoil at all.

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Fangoriously said:

It doesn't look like stability or tonnage is any defense against recoil at all.

0.9.5.5 N.A.R. changelog:

• Recoil dissipating speed multiplied by 5. Have fun!

Edited August 1, 2023 by o Barão

[Fangoriously]

33 minutes ago, o Barão said:

0.9.5.5 N.A.R. changelog:

• Recoil dissipating speed multiplied by 5. Have fun!

This seemed to help it be a bit more manageable, it doesn't seem to miss whole firing cycles of recoil as much as long as the fire rate is more than 40 seconds. further testing is showing me that the actual size of the gun doesn't mater much, or number of barrels, its much more the number of different turrets. 2 turrets you can keep the recoil below -50, 4 turrets can reach -100, with 6 i can get more that -130. Build ships accordingly.

11 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Have a radical suggestion, secondary towers merely optional, not required.

On a lot of stepped hulls it can be difficult to fit sometimes, and on plenty of historical ships, it doesn't look like they have any sort of rear lookout at all. Of course, in most cases you would absolutely want to include a rear tower for stats and esthetic reasons, but it just being optional, thats a bunch more freedom for designs.

for example

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

This seemed to help it be a bit more manageable, it doesn't seem to miss whole firing cycles of recoil as much as long as the fire rate is more than 40 seconds. further testing is showing me that the actual size of the gun doesn't mater much, or number of barrels, its much more the number of different turrets. 2 turrets you can keep the recoil below -50, 4 turrets can reach -100, with 6 i can get more that -130. Build ships accordingly.

for example

 

19 hours ago, Lucky Kadono said:

love your work and been using the mod evrytime i play the game but playing as the brits sunddenly around 1927 my research tree disappeared might be just the game being buggy

I had this happen before in Vanilla when I had an old campaign and an update didn't force a wipe of the files when it should have.   I don't *THINK* it is the mod but just the campaign wigged out and broke. 

I think you will have to start a new campaign.

[o Barão]

9 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Don't expect to see that in N.A.R.  If I remove the requirement to use secondary towers, then this will also be applied to the AI and I am not interested to see ships in battle without secondary towers in battle, only because there were a few examples in real life that didn't use them.

 

9 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

This seemed to help it be a bit more manageable...

As I said before, I don't have any issues with the penalty from the vibrations, my issue was it took too much time to dissipate. Now it should feel much more natural and enjoyable.

[Fangoriously]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

Don't expect to see that in N.A.R.  If I remove the requirement to use secondary towers, then this will also be applied to the AI and I am not interested to see ships in battle without secondary towers in battle, only because there were a few examples in real life that didn't use them.

I wouldn't be surprised if haveing a secondary tower would be so hard coded into the auto design procedure, it being optional might not effect the AI builds at all.

would this be an easy to access global rule by chance, easy to turn off class wide somewhere? Ive done the most minimal of looking around in the game files and know how to export and import, if i knew were to look and didn't have to edit every single hull in the game, I'd like to tinker with this and see what happens. If all it really accomplishes is even more jank auto designs I'd abandon it, but if the AI still uses sec towers I'll report back.

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

As I said before, I don't have any issues with the penalty from the vibrations, my issue was it took too much time to dissipate. Now it should feel much more natural and enjoyable.

The concept is sound, its just very poorly implemented right now. Number of turrets is what makes 90% of the difference, number or barrels, or size of barrels have minimal impact. And a penalty over -100 turns accuracy completely off, not even a +10000 range found bonus could counter it.

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Fangoriously said:

would this be an easy to access global rule by chance, easy to turn off class wide somewhere? Ive done the most minimal of looking around in the game files and know how to export and import, if i knew were to look and didn't have to edit every single hull in the game, I'd like to tinker with this and see what happens. If all it really accomplishes is even more jank auto designs I'd abandon it, but if the AI still uses sec towers I'll report back.

Sure of course. If you how to edit the files, I can always help you. Well, if I know the answer.

 

Open the "shipTypes" file.

 

bc,Battlecruiser,"bb, ca",179125000,6.5,6,15,23,49,5,-1,0.999,,1.01,2.53,0.00052,1,9,20,2,8,35,1.5,1.25,"tower_main(1;1), tower_sec(1;1), funnel(1), gun_main(1)","avoid_barrels(1), armor_min_hint(1.57), range_min(Medium), gun_damage(-92.5), max_range(12000), range_min_modifier(0.5)",0.7416,0.77868
ca,Heavy Cruiser,"bb, bc, cl",33825000,6,4,10,15.5,48,23,4000,0.999,,0.13,4.5,0.0053,0.755,6,11,2,5,33,2,1.1,"tower_main(1;1), tower_sec(1;1), funnel(1), gun_main(1)","armor_min_hint(1.1), range_min(low), gun_damage(-92.5), max_range(12000), range_min_modifier(0.5)",0.7416,0.77868
cl,Light Cruiser,"dd, ca",16912500,2,0,5,17,49,29,3000,0.999,,0.13,4.484,0.0053,0.755,4,9,2,5,30,3.3,1.2,"tower_main(1;1), tower_sec(1;1), funnel(1), gun_main(1)","range_min(medium), gun_damage(-92.5), max_range(11000), range_min_modifier(0.5), armor_min_hint(1)",0.2369,0.248745
dd,Destroyer,"cl, tb",5637500,1,0,1.5,26,51,34,850,0.999,,1,4,0.00001,0.28,3,5,2,3,27,1.5,1.05,"tower_main(1;1), tower_sec(1;1), funnel(1), gun_main(1), torpedo(1)"," torpedo_damage(-10), gun_damage(-85), max_range(10000), range_min_modifier(0.5), armor_min_hint(1.05)",0.180765,0.18980325
tb,Torpedo Boat,"dd, cl",3946250,0,0,0,21,38,34,275,0.999,,0.7,2.61,0.012,0.22,2,4,,,20,0.5,0.5,"tower_main(1;1), funnel(1), gun_main(1), torpedo(1)","torpedo_damage(-10), gun_damage(-80), max_range(6500), range_min_modifier(0.5)",0,0
amc,Auxiliary Cruiser,,3946250,0,0,2,11,14,0,,,,,,,0,2,6,,,0,0,0,,no_build,0.941484375,0.9885585938

 

And remove the tower_sec(1;1) from the ship classes.

Note: Torpedo Boats don't have this variable.

[Lucky Kadono]

is it possible to change the jap big ship mk4 4-5 inch  secondaries to the DD/CL mk4 4-5 inch turret models

if i can where do i look?

Edited August 2, 2023 by Lucky Kadono
to be more specific

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Lucky Kadono said:

is it possible to change the jap big ship mk4 4-5 inch  secondaries to the DD/CL mk4 4-5 inch turret models

if i can where do i look?

In the "parts model" file.

[Lucky Kadono]

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

In the "parts model" file.

 

i was able to change the 5 inch guns

but for some reason the 4 inch guns changed to there mk3 models

dont know what went wrong here

Edited August 2, 2023 by Lucky Kadono

[admiralsnackbar]

Do you have any recommended approach to making it so that, say, a 12.9 inch guns performance isn't noticably better or worse than a 13 inch gun [and so forth] 

[o Barão]

30 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Do you have any recommended approach to making it so that, say, a 12.9 inch guns performance isn't noticably better or worse than a 13 inch gun [and so forth] 

Well in N.A.R. I reworked the guns' accuracy to be more accurate the bigger the caliber, but is a smooth progression, nothing crazy.

Then I applied the reload rework, which I know you have implemented a similar method in your mod.

The last part was when I rework all game guns. By applying historical gun barrel lengths for all guns, I removed the huge differences a player can see in stock game by increasing the gun caliber.

 

As an example, if I can choose from 9" to 14" but the gun model is the same, then the barrel length will also be the same for all guns.

 

Add all together, and we have a balanced progression system where all guns are important.

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

On 8/1/2023 at 7:05 AM, Fangoriously said:

Have a radical suggestion, secondary towers merely optional, not required.

On a lot of stepped hulls it can be difficult to fit sometimes, and on plenty of historical ships, it doesn't look like they have any sort of rear lookout at all. Of course, in most cases you would absolutely want to include a rear tower for stats and esthetic reasons, but it just being optional, thats a bunch more freedom for designs.

Sadly, the AI would not be able to handle this lol 

[Fangoriously]

9 hours ago, o Barão said:

Sure of course. If you how to edit the files, I can always help you. Well, if I know the answer.

 

Open the "shipTypes" file.

 

bc,Battlecruiser,"bb, ca",179125000,6.5,6,15,23,49,5,-1,0.999,,1.01,2.53,0.00052,1,9,20,2,8,35,1.5,1.25,"tower_main(1;1), tower_sec(1;1), funnel(1), gun_main(1)","avoid_barrels(1), armor_min_hint(1.57), range_min(Medium), gun_damage(-92.5), max_range(12000), range_min_modifier(0.5)",0.7416,0.77868
ca,Heavy Cruiser,"bb, bc, cl",33825000,6,4,10,15.5,48,23,4000,0.999,,0.13,4.5,0.0053,0.755,6,11,2,5,33,2,1.1,"tower_main(1;1), tower_sec(1;1), funnel(1), gun_main(1)","armor_min_hint(1.1), range_min(low), gun_damage(-92.5), max_range(12000), range_min_modifier(0.5)",0.7416,0.77868
cl,Light Cruiser,"dd, ca",16912500,2,0,5,17,49,29,3000,0.999,,0.13,4.484,0.0053,0.755,4,9,2,5,30,3.3,1.2,"tower_main(1;1), tower_sec(1;1), funnel(1), gun_main(1)","range_min(medium), gun_damage(-92.5), max_range(11000), range_min_modifier(0.5), armor_min_hint(1)",0.2369,0.248745
dd,Destroyer,"cl, tb",5637500,1,0,1.5,26,51,34,850,0.999,,1,4,0.00001,0.28,3,5,2,3,27,1.5,1.05,"tower_main(1;1), tower_sec(1;1), funnel(1), gun_main(1), torpedo(1)"," torpedo_damage(-10), gun_damage(-85), max_range(10000), range_min_modifier(0.5), armor_min_hint(1.05)",0.180765,0.18980325
tb,Torpedo Boat,"dd, cl",3946250,0,0,0,21,38,34,275,0.999,,0.7,2.61,0.012,0.22,2,4,,,20,0.5,0.5,"tower_main(1;1), funnel(1), gun_main(1), torpedo(1)","torpedo_damage(-10), gun_damage(-80), max_range(6500), range_min_modifier(0.5)",0,0
amc,Auxiliary Cruiser,,3946250,0,0,2,11,14,0,,,,,,,0,2,6,,,0,0,0,,no_build,0.941484375,0.9885585938

 

And remove the tower_sec(1;1) from the ship classes.

Note: Torpedo Boats don't have this variable.

shipTypes of course, thats like the one file i ever tinkered with.

early results are promising, after generating abut a dozen designs for each ship type, Ive found the auto build is compelled to ALWAYS include a secondary tower like i had hoped, it appears this is a harmless change. Played several custom battles with ships lacking a secondary tower, no issues other than a bit lower stats of course, and no spotter plane option.

Take it or leave it i guess, but this will probably be something I add back in every update for personal use.

 

12 minutes ago, PalaiologosTheGreat said:

Sadly, the AI would not be able to handle this lol 

i'm pleased to report that it can!

 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Fangoriously

[o Barão]

7 hours ago, Lucky Kadono said:

but for some reason the 4 inch guns changed to there mk3 models

dont know what went wrong here

Can be three things.

1) It is a glitch in Matrix. Not joking, only happens when editing the "partsModels" Your changes to the guns will not be applied in game. When that happens, I found what would solve the issue was to replace those lines (in this case 4_x1;4_x2;4_3x) by the original data, and save. Check in game if everything is ok, and then go back and edit again the file. Deleting the custom file can also help. It is a new design, right?

2) You didn't change the order of the lines, correct?

3) You don't have another line below editing the same 4" guns for the Japanese BB, right?

[o Barão]

0.9.5.6 N.A.R. changelog:

• Updated to UAD 1.3.9.9.
• Important: update the English file! from the mod.

Edited August 3, 2023 by o Barão