Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

"Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA v10.1 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - for UAD v1.5.0.9 Optx3


o Barão

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, basedana said:

Is it possible to force mission generations, like strike missions, because I am tired of ships doing nothing in front of enemy ports even with the invade setting on

 

I am not aware. You can try increasing your fleet recon and range to generate missions, but I also can't explain in details how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BETA v3.0.3 N.A.R. changelog:

 

----Propellants and explosives rework.----

Part II  explosives.

6wijyUF.jpg

  • Added historical explosives.
  • Stats reworked to make all options interesting to use but at the same time respecting the historical explosive properties.*
  • Added new explosive descriptions.

 

*Please note that I had to take some liberties to make all explosives interesting. I tried to respect the historical explosive characteristics for all options, but at the same time I use the other modifiers to balance them. I don't like to see a situation where the new is always the best but instead, if I have 5 options, I prefer all 5 to be interesting for the player.  The stats are W.I.P. and can be changed to achieve this goal.

Also:

  • Reload bonus removed from the Tube Powder. The explanation I got why it was faster is IMO related to the reloading mechanics, and we already have a component for that, and nothing with the propellant.
  • All shell velocity modifiers removed from HE and AP shells since in some cases didn't make any sense.

English file also updated.

y3zLyUx.jpgQtJWgMs.jpg

7lDZASp.jpg

nqgXGPU.jpg

ZmLzsNB.jpg

EU5CcKJ.jpg

1GYOe8d.jpg

1OuLoq2.jpg

Edited by o Barão
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • o Barão changed the title to "Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA v3.0.3 - for UAD v1.4.0.7 Optx2
  • o Barão changed the title to "Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA v3.0.4 - for UAD v1.4.0.8

So, a quick look at things in the designer... Wet guncotton was actually fairly stable in storage, and it was actually a mix of nitric and sulfuric acids it was soaked in, not hydrochloric.  Second is the fact black powder is incredibly unsafe.  It may be a low explosive but it loves to catch fire so easily that after smokeless powders were introduced it was utilized as a starter charge to initiate the combustion of the main charge.  Its been designated world-wide as a Class A hazard on-par with high explosives thanks to how volatile it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder#Legal_status

image.png.20d163ffe051712e9788d39ffbd4db82.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive#Class_1_Compatibility_Group

image.thumb.png.feddcd7e1456503ae47df965df8cfc76.png

Smokeless powders are a mere Class C hazard as opposed to black powder being a Class A hazard.

As near as I can tell Ballistite was never actually used as naval propellant, only as a rocket propellant and in small arms, and Navweaps explicitly calls it a rocket propellant.  So I'd remove that, move everything else over to the left one slot and then in the empty spot have the 1945 Albanite the USA invented that was a nitroglycerin-free triple base, offering the range and penetration of Cordite N but the safety and accuracy of RP C/38, albeit at increased cost and ammo weight.

http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.php#Flashless_Propellants2

image.thumb.png.2f5464890e00146772b1d8415d174acd.png

Regarding explosives, I have a US Navy document from WW2 that discusses the most common ones.

image.png.e375b2ec79a5caa2f10449ff9b136222.png

image.png.f58085b168a83d3acfb3e96e4566a007.pngimage.png.ec0b4ac5fade1ad9434bfa558420163f.png

"Bullet impact value" was how the USN measured resistance to things like an AP shell flying into the magazines, so Explosive D should be the safest by far at about -35% to ammo detonation/flash fire with Composition B at -30%, TNT at -25%, and then since Tetrytol's in-game description mentions it as more sensitive than TNT set it at -20%, swapping values with TNT.  I'd also make Dunnite never obsolete itself since it was used by the USN even after WW2 as a result of its safety.

 

Aside from that, everything looks great.  Can't wait to start a campaign, assuming Game Labs doesn't patch it again.

Regarding AP/HE ammo types, my only plan was to swap the ricochet chance modifiers so heavier shells had a reduced chance to ricochet but the lighter ones more likely, but to compensate tone down the penetration penalties on the lighter shells.  Even a thin-walled HC round is still going to be able to penetrate some armor, both from the sheer kinetic energy it possess and the explosive within. That, and a surface detonation is still going to cause shattering effects on armor plate, especially if its thin enough relative to the charge where it might be powerful enough to just blow the armor open.  The IRL US 6" HC projectile weighed 105 pounds, and I doubt that's going to penetrate a mere .6" at 1km, nose fuse or not.  I'd tone down the fire chances and overall damage though, since the fact you can burn down even the most heavily armored warship with HE is a constant complaint and bad for gameplay.

image.thumb.png.216ae00f998354137d413936bec0bdf3.png

Edited by SpardaSon21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SpardaSon21

"As near as I can tell Ballistite was never actually used as naval propellant, only as a rocket propellant and in small arms, and Navweaps explicitly calls it a rocket propellant.  So I'd remove that, move everything else over to the left one slot and then in the empty spot have the 1945 Albanite the USA invented that was a nitroglycerin-free triple base, offering the range and penetration of Cordite N but the safety and accuracy of RP C/38, albeit at increased cost and ammo weight. "

 

That is a bad suggestion for the gameplay. Ballistite played a crucial role in the propellant technology, and it is well-balanced in game, and you are suggesting to replace by a rare post WWII propellant, that have no weakness. An OP propellant for the player to rush it and used it against the AI.

When we think about explosives and propellants gameplay, I like to take this factors in mind:

  • The AI doesn't understand what is good or bad. So if we have at any time 5 available propellants or 5 explosives to use, but all of them are interesting and not exactly inferior or superior, does not matter what the AI will choose, will always be a viable choice in the battlefield.
  • To have all the 5 interesting choices to use, also makes the game more interesting for the player. If I make an "X" type of ship, what propellant or explosive should I use? The game is fun when we have to make choices. Increased weight and cost are not relevant balancing factors for an OP component in game. Yes, I can use and will use them, but the player will always ignore them to build the OP ship for the battlefield.

 

"Regarding explosives, I have a US Navy document from WW2 that discusses the most common ones. "

I have the same sources. I am tired, reading that up and down looking for hints.😁

 

" I'd also make Dunnite never obsolete itself since it was used by the USN even after WW2 as a result of its safety. "

The components are organized by historical dates. A new one entered, and because of that Dunnite was moved to the side, making it obsolete by WWII. But what you are talking about the Dunnite, the same applies to other nations. White Powder as an example was used by the French since late XIX century, all the way to WWII, but is obsolete in game already in 1900. Nothing I can do.

 

"Regarding AP/HE ammo types, my only plan was to swap the ricochet chance modifiers so heavier shells had a reduced chance to ricochet but the lighter ones more likely"

That is interesting. I personally would remove all ricochet chance from the shells weight. IMO is more related to the use of a cap. I will need to research about this first.

 

About your other suggestions about blackpowder, dunnite and tetrytol, I will take a careful look to see what I can change and if it is possible to make all balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

The components are organized by historical dates. A new one entered, and because of that Dunnite was moved to the side, making it obsolete by WWII. But what you are talking about the Dunnite, the same applies to other nations. White Powder as an example was used by the French since late XIX century, all the way to WWII, but is obsolete in game already in 1900. Nothing I can do.

 

The French actually moved over to something similar to SPD around the same time the USA did, and then adopted their own variant of SC during the 1930's.  And if Dunnite is the safest filler, then it performs a role that isn't obsolete, either historically or in gameplay.

 

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

That is interesting. I personally would remove all ricochet chance from the shells weight. IMO is more related to the use of a cap. I will need to research about this first.

 

There is a Drachinifel video on that.  The earliest caps were actually somewhat detrimental to oblique hits since they were soft and would shear off, deflecting the projectile as they did so, but as caps got harder and heavier they were more effective at both flat penetration and angled effects.

As to the weight, the shells being heavier by having a reduced filler volume acts in the same manner as super-heavy shells regarding sectional density and their inertia, if not nearly to the same extent.  The smaller cavity also increases the structural integrity, making them less likely to shatter and deform at the expense of post-penetration damage.

Edited by SpardaSon21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

The French actually moved over to something similar to SPD around the same time the USA did, and then adopted their own variant of SC during the 1930's.  And if Dunnite is the safest filler, then it performs a role that isn't obsolete, either historically or in gameplay.

As I said, I can't change that. But I will add some negative modifiers to the Dunnite, and some positive to others so that you will not miss that much. 😁

22 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

As to the weight, the shells being heavier by having a reduced filler volume acts in the same manner as super-heavy shells, if not nearly to the same extent.  The smaller cavity also increases the structural integrity, making them less likely to shatter and deform at the expense of post-penetration damage.

You are talking about shatter like it was a full direct hit, when what I am interested to know is how a shell weight will have an impact in the ricochet chance when hitting the armor in oblique angles. It is not the same thing.

Edited by o Barão
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, o Barão said:

As I said, I can't change that. But I will add some negative modifiers to the Dunnite, and some positive to others so that you will not miss that much. 😁

You are talking about shatter like it was a full direct hit, when what I am interested to know is how a shell weight will have an impact in the ricochet chance when hitting the armor in oblique angles. It is not the same thing.

Somehow the devs made Dunnite not obsolete at all in the base game.  As to the shell itself, you missed my first sentence where I said the extra weight has a similar to effect to super-heavy shells in that any weight increase will also increase the sectional density and inertia, reducing any deflective effects that would arise from hitting at an angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Somehow the devs made Dunnite not obsolete at all in the base game.

As I said before, the Dunnite changed place with the new explosives implemented. Where in vanilla game is the 6th, in NAR is the 5th. That is why is becoming obsolete atm. I can't control what becomes obsolete or not.

15 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

As to the shell itself, you missed my first sentence where I said the extra weight has a similar to effect to super-heavy shells in that any weight increase will also increase the sectional density and inertia, reducing any deflective effects that would arise from hitting at an angle.

Give me a source that explains exactly that. That is what I am trying to find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So not sure if it is your mod or just vanilla

 

Playing easy mod as the Brits.  Going from mk3 I think it was 4 inch on an old cruiser to Mk4 and the amazing monster turrets show up.   Ok.   So I refit with 3 inch taken to 3.9, and a pair of twin 6 inch mounts.  A decent workaround.

 

Then I make like 40 CLs with twin 6 inchers as the primary armament, Mk3.   Fully intending to refit when I get radar.   So I pop up the first group, the old diana's, and whats this?   Some absolutely ginormous twin 6 inch mount, CANNOT work.   OK, Ill fit with 5 inchers and raise the diameter, but NO whats this?   Its that hideous 5.25 twin the Brits stuck on their newer BBs.   But ENORMOUS.

 

????

 

Not clear this is the mod or not.   I just want to put radar on my ships, they are practically brandnew.   And the old ones out of refit options.   

 

I know what will happen I pull up older BB classes, I had 4 inch mounts as the secondaries for many of them, and the new ones will be far too large.   

 

Some scale problem looks like.   The mk 4 twin 6 inch mount is simply enormous, I doubt the gun changed that much? The turret is literally twice the size and 4x by volume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, brothermunro said:

I didn’t have any issues - my campaign seemed to load and play normally for about 2 years in game time

The only issue I think you'd see transitioning between the base game and the new NAR is potential overweight penalties depending on your Propellant/Bursting charge. Outside of that, there really isn't much that it should have issues with.

Minus updating a couple of old designs, it works really smoothly.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I tried posting earlier it is waiting approval a long time?   

 

The MK4 british 6 incher twin is using the twin gun mount for the 14 inch King George BBs.   Which is fine.   However a problem on my install is that the size is ALSO like the KGV 14 inch, simply enormous.

 

Also the mk4 5 inch uses the model from the KGV secondary 5.25, however it too is much too large?

 

I appreciate all the work these mods take.   And also the vanilla 6 in twin mk4 looks like a twin 4 inch or maybe the 4.5, nothing at all like the real twin 6 inch.   So a scaled down KGV turret would be a major improvement if it was scaled down.

 

Also the mk4 4 inch on the destroyer retains the gunshield not turret and therefore fits on the destroyers.   That does not help the old light cruisers where no way a the turreted 4 inch mk4 fits where the mk3 was, ginormous turrets.

 

This post may be a repeat of a prior post which seemed perhaps to be lost in the ether....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

And here you have an issue that will destroy your argument.

 

"In Newtonian mechanics, momentum (pl.: momenta or momentums; more specifically linear momentum or translational momentum) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object. It is a vector quantity, possessing a magnitude and a direction. If m is an object's mass and v is its velocity (also a vector quantity), then the object's momentum p (from Latin pellere "push, drive") is: p = m v . \mathbf{p} = m \mathbf{v}."

 

  • Lighter shells have more muzzle velocity and by consequence more momentum.
  • However, lighter shells will lose speed quicker due to the effect of air drag.
  • That is why lighter shells have higher muzzle velocity, but worse range.
  • So in close ranges the advantage would be for the lighter shells, and in long ranges for heavy shells.

 

Also...

  • Do too higher muzzle velocity, we apply a more flat trajectory to hit a target at close ranges, increasing the chances to hit the ship belt at more favorable angles.
  • So again in close ranges the advantage would be for the lighter shells, and in long ranges for heavy shells.

How can we apply this in game? We can't, is impossible. So for me, the next best thing is to remove the ricochet chance for all shells.

Edited by o Barão
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GrantK said:

So I tried posting earlier it is waiting approval a long time? 

I think is a normal thing on this website. I usually get notifications from new messages that were posted many hours ago. I have no idea why, but that is the way it works here, anyway let's focus on the message.

 

10 hours ago, GrantK said:

The MK4 british 6 incher twin is using the twin gun mount for the 14 inch King George BBs.   Which is fine.   However a problem on my install is that the size is ALSO like the KGV 14 inch, simply enormous.

 

Also the mk4 5 inch uses the model from the KGV secondary 5.25, however it too is much too large?

I already compared old KGV photos with the 3D model size in game, and you are right, a size tweak can be made here to make it more realistic. Consider it done.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BETA v3.0.5 N.A.R. changelog:

  • Improvements to the British 4";5" and 6" to make it more realistic in size.
  • Tweaks made to explosives to keep them balanced and at the same time realistic, taking into consideration the explosive properties. *

Black powder gets a massive discount in price, since it was widely used around the world, and it is the only bonus you will get for using such a terrible explosive in your guns. :D

yWNwfiV.jpg

Note: Don't forget that the quad 3D models are smaller but have longer barrels. That is why those guns are x/60 and not x/50.

 

*I will try to find an away to make Dunnite and TNT to not become obsolete, since both were used all the way to WWII. TNT by the Germans and Dunnite by the Americans.

Edited by o Barão
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...