"Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA v10.9.2 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - for UAD v1.5.1.0 Opt

[o Barão]

BETA v6.0.1 N.A.R. changelog:

• Economy hotfix
• Revert the last changes to GDP to try to prevent the snowball effect.
• Ship maintenance cost lowered by 25% to compensate change.

 

For players interested in sharing your feedback, I am interested to know this:

• Normal difficulty 1890-1910, what is happening after 20 years. (screenshots please)
• What is the normal GDP growth for the countries at peace. If is something around 7%-9% is ok.
• What is the AI fleet sizes.
• What is GDP for countries at war. If it is too aggressive, this can be mitigated, by helping the AI nations to stay alive and the player not feeling too much penalized to go to war.

 

[Pappystein]

8 hours ago, o Barão said:

Could it be because you are always at war? Screenshots would help me a lot.

Yeah, I have been editing the JSON Saves for GDP for a few versions but will start a new test career when I wake up.  No editing, just play and see.

 

And actually I am never really at war early on.   I think I fought 2 wars in my last career of V1.5 by 1910 (Italy)

 

Edited March 22 by Pappystein

[flaviohc16]

so, i arrived at 1914 with the 1.5.03 economy ( the one before the latest nerf)

As usual: USA, 1890 start, normal difficulty.

I'm allied with Persia which has discovered oil since 1905, and I have both Venezuela and Columbia (pre-oil however). I started the war with Spain in 1908, which ended in 1911 with them getting wiped out ( they didn't collapse).

During war I was growing at 8%, during peace I'm at 12-13%.

As I believed, I ended up with 190 billions in GDP, too much, And UK is at 180 billions, France at 150.

I would like to stay between 100 and 140 billions.

I can't have everything active in peace, but money are not really that much of a problem, and I have a 800k tons fleet and I have quite enough money.

As always, here is the folder, with also a sub-folder for the economy at the end of the war ( both during and just after the war)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16EtUbVJISi-Yn-ZPGOc1ossTNHK-qkZK?usp=drive_link

 

For the " limiting of player choice" I would like to be even more limited, I will write more when I have time.

 

Now I will start again with the latest patch and see how it goes

[HMS Implosive]

Just wanted to ask, why you have removed most of the four gun turrets from the game? I understand you don't want to use 3D models that don't fit the nation or caliber in question, but would you consider re-introducing the mid-large caliber quad turrets where appropriate 3D-model is availabele ie. the french turrets at 9-12 inch sized and USA and british turrets at 9-13 size?

This is your mod so you do you, I just really like using quads and thus I got qurious about your thoughs 🙂

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, flaviohc16 said:

During war I was growing at 8%, during peace I'm at 12-13%.

As I believed, I ended up with 190 billions in GDP, too much, And UK is at 180 billions, France at 150.

I would like to stay between 100 and 140 billions.

Just a side note. To have between 100-140 billions is not really important. We are talking about in game credits, not USA dollars, German Marks, British pounds...

What I am really interested is to know how many ships the AI have around 1910 (normal difficulty), if the numbers are ok for the time period, and if the economy is not snowballing for the player to reach a point where he/she can build anything without worrying about the consequences.

I saw your shipyard capacity. It should be different in the latest version when starting a new campiagn.

 

Thank you for the detailed report.

[o Barão]

23 minutes ago, HMS Implosive said:

...but would you consider re-introducing the mid-large caliber quad turrets where appropriate 3D-model is availabele ie. the french turrets at 9-12 inch sized and USA and british turrets at 9-13 size?

This is your mod so you do you, I just really like using quads and thus I got qurious about your thoughs 🙂

Sure ofc, in fact I did just that in the update 6.0 for the British guns.

The Americans and French quad guns for those calibers will come in a future update.

[HMS Implosive]

Just now, o Barão said:

Sure ofc, in fact I did just that in the update 6.0 for the British guns.

The Americans and French quad guns for those calibers will come in a future update.

Thats nice to hear, thanks a lot! 😊

[flaviohc16]

3 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Just a side note. To have between 100-140 billions is not really important. We are talking about in game credits, not USA dollars, German Marks, British pounds...

I know, but I also know how much ships I have and how much they do cost, so I know what GDP is too much and when the economy will snowball.

3 minutes ago, o Barão said:

What I am really interested is to know how many ships the AI have around 1910 (normal difficulty), if the numbers are ok for the time period, and if the economy is not snowballing for the player to reach a point where he/she can build anything without worrying about the consequences.

This is why I say I don't want 190 billions in 1914

3 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I saw your shipyard capacity. It should be different in the latest version when starting a new campiagn.

More or less capacity? I will start a new campaign now with the latest patch

 

3 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Thank you for the detailed report.

You're welcome

[o Barão]

2 hours ago, flaviohc16 said:

More or less capacity? I will start a new campaign now with the latest patch

Less!

[o Barão]

BETA v6.0.2 N.A.R. changelog:

• Updated to UAD 1.5.0.5 Opt
• Added 10", 11" and 12" french quads.

[Pappystein]

So I am doing a campaign Italy, with V6.0.1,   Am I safe to update to 0.2 for the purposes of economy tracking?  I am taking snapshots every 5 years of the Politics page so you have data on all of them in the same format. 

Currently in 1893 I am at Advanced tech and barely positive in financials.  I have dialed back the Technology acquisition to increase funds.   the game chose Belgium and Greece as my allies (I am Itally) so no Oil countries

 

[o Barão]

16 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

So I am doing a campaign Italy, with V6.0.1,   Am I safe to update to 0.2 for the purposes of economy tracking?

Yes! I will not make any changes to the economy until I get feedback from the players. Screenshots from the politics tab is perfect! 👍

Edited March 22 by o Barão

[Fangoriously]

Already got all the new stuff integrated? That was fast! 

I've got a couple of modding questions, maximum size of light cruiser main guns are 9in in NAR, but only hulls considered protected cruisers can run larger that 7in, how would this be circumvented? 

Also, where are armor limits set exactly? I think the autobuilder could put together decent designs if it didn't waste 20% of its tonage on useless barbett armor, I'd like to go in and limit that.

[o Barão]

25 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

I've got a couple of modding questions, maximum size of light cruiser main guns are 9in in NAR, but only hulls considered protected cruisers can run larger that 7in, how would this be circumvented?

Inside the "parts" file (only in NAR), read any cruiser light line. As an example:

cl_5_brooklyn,,hull,Modern Light Cruiser II,,-1,-1,1.9,300,brooklyn_hull_b,1,,,usa,"type(cl), CL_Brooklyn, Essential_Central_Funnels, Middle_Superstructure, barbette_need, cl, g2, g3","hsize(2950), hull_form(100), stability(75), floatability(65), endurance(60), spot(0), turn(65), vis(4100), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.15,5,7,9900,13900,7,-12.5,5,,,,,30,3,8,,29.5,-1,

 

The "7" is the maximum caliber allowed in that hull. Remove that value and will use the global value set in NAR. 9=9"

 

25 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

Also, where are armor limits set exactly? I think the autobuilder could put together decent designs if it didn't waste 20% of its tonage on useless barbett armor, I'd like to go in and limit that.

I don't remember now what is the correct modifier, but look at *these in the "params" file:

*NAR values.

 

w_armor_barbette_turret,0.03,turret barbette weight: percent of base turret weight,,,,,,,

w_super_barbette,0.0035,increase weight of the barbette from armor A.Barbette,0.00115,,,,,,

armor_limit_multiplier_barbette_guns,3,limit multiplier for barbette guns caliber >= 5 inch.,1,,,,,,

 

 

Edited March 22 by o Barão

[Fangoriously]

3 hours ago, o Barão said:

Inside the "parts" file (only in NAR), read any cruiser light line. As an example:

cl_5_brooklyn,,hull,Modern Light Cruiser II,,-1,-1,1.9,300,brooklyn_hull_b,1,,,usa,"type(cl), CL_Brooklyn, Essential_Central_Funnels, Middle_Superstructure, barbette_need, cl, g2, g3","hsize(2950), hull_form(100), stability(75), floatability(65), endurance(60), spot(0), turn(65), vis(4100), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.15,5,7,9900,13900,7,-12.5,5,,,,,30,3,8,,29.5,-1,

 

The "7" is the maximum caliber allowed in that hull. Remove that value and will use the global value set in NAR. 9=9"

Ya i had a feeling there must be a per hull override of the global value, that must have been a bit tedious to set up, and to take apart lol.

Can different minimums be added into that? like any BB that has the word 'modern' in its title have a minimum main gun of 14in instead of 9in? At least 11in min.

The tweeks I've made for personal use include heavy cruisers having 2-8in secondaries for casemate use, and 8-14in main guns. I think I saw there's a British cruiser in WOWS now that's got 3 duel KGV turrets, so that's the inspiration for that limit. Of course fitting guns that size on a cruiser hull is like trying to fit 20in on battleships, their weight and size are their own limiting factor. For light cruisers I'd also allow 2-8in secondaries for casemate use and 5-10in main guns. I remove torpedo dependencies as well because the AI likes to just run from torp armed ships pathologically. I also removed secondary tower dependency, that has the side effect of allowing you to place multiple secondary towers, which is amusing. The auto design still will always include 1 secondary towers despite this requirement removed, all but in 1 case. A French BB that appeared to have additional weights effecting the design process, to have an all forward main gun setup is the only ship i've seen the AI build without a secondary tower. A good bit of additional freedom in all these changes.

4 hours ago, o Barão said:

I don't remember now what is the correct modifier, but look at *these in the "params" file:

*NAR values.

 

w_armor_barbette_turret,0.03,turret barbette weight: percent of base turret weight,,,,,,,

w_super_barbette,0.0035,increase weight of the barbette from armor A.Barbette,0.00115,,,,,,

armor_limit_multiplier_barbette_guns,3,limit multiplier for barbette guns caliber >= 5 inch.,1,,,,,,

I was thinking of more like were the limits to the maximum you can armor something, less so adjusting the weight impact. like wherever its set that battlecruisers can have up to a 14in main belt, heavy cruisers 8in main belt, id just change the max barbet thickness on every turret to be like 1.5in, allowing the auto designer to actually make something ungimped for once. Tired of seeing auto designed 90,000 ton super battleships that have 2 triple 16in turrets that have 20in barbet armor and no secondaries.

[o Barão]

4 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Can different minimums be added into that? like any BB that has the word 'modern' in its title have a minimum main gun of 14in instead of 9in? At least 11in min.

If you read the modifiers available in the first line, you will see this that we have only this "maxAllowedCaliber", so no, it is not possible. 🙁

 

4 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

A good bit of additional freedom in all these changes.

It seems I am reading the script from the movie Alice's adventures in the Wonderland. 

Jokes aside, that is the beauty of modding. To express what you would like to see in game, but our visions are completely different.

 

5 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

I was thinking of more like were the limits to the maximum you can armor something, less so adjusting the weight impact. like wherever its set that battlecruisers can have up to a 14in main belt, heavy cruisers 8in main belt, id just change the max barbet thickness on every turret to be like 1.5in, allowing the auto designer to actually make something ungimped for once. Tired of seeing auto designed 90,000 ton super battleships that have 2 triple 16in turrets that have 20in barbet armor and no secondaries.

I am almost sure, that one of the three modifiers I mentioned will give you the result you want. Now, if you want to talk about the maximum armor allowed per ship type, then you need to go to another file.

 

Open "ShipTypes" file and look for these modifiers: "...armor,armorMin,armorMax..."

[flaviohc16]

I would  actually go against what @Fangoriously said, I would limit more the choices for calibers for both the players and AI, and also what you responded me, @o Barão, a couple of posts back, especially considering that NAR is a mod that want to aim for more realism:

1) min caliber for CA, off all ages ( so you can change this already): 8 inch, or at least 7 inch, so we don't have modern CAs with 6 inch guns ( and it happens often), and also sì that the 6 inch secondaries on pre dreadnought CA's are considered secondaries and not primaries ( what happen now with 6inch casemates, and infact you can't give them targhets separately).

 

This would also speed up  the AI.

 

2) Max caliber for modern cruisers 9.9 inches, because I still haven't seen any somewhat realistic proposal in real life about a modern ( post Washington  naval treaty's) shipt hat is less than 25k tons and have guns bigger than 250mms (9.9'). If we want to give more freedom up to 10 inch guns.

Especially because right now when I reach the modern cruiser I just slap 11.9 inch guns on 16k tons design and nuke everything that the Ai throws at me, even 100k tons bbs. I need modern BCs and BBS to have a purpose/meaning.

3) Min caliber for BBs, at least modern ones ( I know you can limit only max caliber and not min caliber on a single ship, I just asked the devs to add the parameter) : 10-11 inch, so we don't see BBs with 9 inch guns. And the bigger BBs should be limited to at least 14 inch guns.

4) the large cruisers ,( cruiser killers in real life), more than 25k tons, ( that are considered bcs by the game) should have the min caliber of at least 10 inch and max of 14 inches, so it would give also a nice continuity with both the CAs on the lower end and modern real BCs and BBs on thw upper end.

5) for modern BCs ( more than 35k tons), same as for modern BBs, they should have guns of at least 12 inches and up to 16 inches.

 

Like, I want big ships to have a purpose, like they had IRL, especially because I can still make the early BCs, the 22k tons ones, have 20 inch guns.

So, to recap what I would do and that you can do already:

1) min caliber for all CAs: 8 inches ( or at least 7)

2)max caliber for pre dreadnought CA's: 11 inch ( like now)

3) max caliber for all modern CAs 9 inches (9.9)

4) min caliber for the BCs, both modern and the 1st ones: 10 inches

5) max caliber for the "cruiser killers" , one of the last hulls between 25 and 35k tons, 14 inches.

6) max caliber for the BC 1, 2, 3 hull: 14 inch

7) max caliber for the modern battle cruisers and BC 4-5: 16 inch

😎8 )Max caliber for the fast Battleship ( last BC design) 18 inch

9)min calibers for all BBs: 11 inch.

10)max caliber for the first 3 dreadnought hulls: 14 inch

11) max caliber for the modernized dreadnought: 16 or 18 inch.

I hope that I was clear in the explanation.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 23 by flaviohc16

[o Barão]

2 hours ago, flaviohc16 said:

1) min caliber for CA, off all ages ( so you can change this already): 8 inch, or at least 7 inch, so we don't have modern CAs with 6 inch guns ( and it happens often), and also sì that the 6 inch secondaries on pre dreadnought CA's are considered secondaries and not primaries ( what happen now with 6inch casemates, and infact you can't give them targhets separately).

That is a good point, but it needs to be a minimum of 7". I will add this change for the next major update.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_cruiser_Dupuy_de_Lôme

 

2 hours ago, flaviohc16 said:

2) Max caliber for modern cruisers 9.9 inches, because I still haven't seen any somewhat realistic proposal in real life about a modern ( post Washington  naval treaty's) shipt hat is less than 25k tons and have guns bigger than 250mms (9.9'). If we want to give more freedom up to 10 inch guns.

I am surprised that you never heard about the Graf Spee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Graf_Spee

16k tons, 6x11"

 

2 hours ago, flaviohc16 said:

 

3) Min caliber for BBs, at least modern ones ( I know you can limit only max caliber and not min caliber on a single ship, I just asked the devs to add the parameter) : 10-11 inch, so we don't see BBs with 9 inch guns. And the bigger BBs should be limited to at least 14 inch guns.

 

German pre dreadnoughts, armed with 9.4"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittelsbach-class_battleship

And there is no way to set a minimum per hull. It is a global parameter. And because of this the same rule is applied to BC's.

 

[5) max caliber for the "cruiser killers" , one of the last hulls between 25 and 35k tons, 14 inches.

6) max caliber for the BC 1, 2, 3 hull: 14 inch

7) max caliber for the modern battle cruisers and BC 4-5: 16 inch

😎8 )Max caliber for the fast Battleship ( last BC design) 18 inch

....

10)max caliber for the first 3 dreadnought hulls: 14 inch

11) max caliber for the modernized dreadnought: 16 or 18 inch.]

 

You are thinking that is the hull displacement that will determine what guns can be available, but that is not the case in the examples you gave. There are many other factors. Just to give a few examples why your rules doesn't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Furious_(47)

22k, 2x18" guns.

 

This one is much older.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_ironclad_Italia

13k tons, 4x17"

 

 

 

 

[flaviohc16]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

 

I am surprised that you never heard about the Graf Spee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Graf_Spee

16k tons, 6x11"

Ofc I heard about Graf speed, but this is a ship that is straddling the line between CA and Bc, and limiting the caliber to 10 inch (10.9) would give you basically the same results, especially because you can limit the max caliber on a per-ship basis 

 

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

German pre dreadnoughts, armed with 9.4"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittelsbach-class_battleship

And there is no way to set a minimum per hull. It is a global parameter. And because of this the same rule is applied to BC's.

Ok, fine, but to me it's really limiting, especially  for one-two one-off ships we have to open up a lot of possibilities that flatten the gameplay. ( The limit is not nation specific?). Even if it is not nation specific, you can limit it on a per-hull basis ( it is a lot of work though, this I can understand)

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

[5) max caliber for the "cruiser killers" , one of the last hulls between 25 and 35k tons, 14 inches.

6) max caliber for the BC 1, 2, 3 hull: 14 inch

7) max caliber for the modern battle cruisers and BC 4-5: 16 inch

😎8 )Max caliber for the fast Battleship ( last BC design) 18 inch

....

10)max caliber for the first 3 dreadnought hulls: 14 inch

11) max caliber for the modernized dreadnought: 16 or 18 inch.]

 

You are thinking that is the hull displacement that will determine what guns can be available, but that is not the case in the examples you gave. There are many other factors. Just to give a few examples why your rules doesn't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Furious_(47)

22k, 2x18" guns.

I'm saying that there should be a limitation.

And Furious would be basically a fast monitor, 2 guns wouldn't really classify it as a warship ( and this is also the reason it was concerted to a CV, because also the British did understand that it would be a stupid idea).

 

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

This one is much older.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_ironclad_Italia

13k tons, 4x17"

 

This is 15-10 years before the scope of the game.

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

 

 

[o Barão]

@flaviohc16 the same thing I spoke to Fangoriously, I will tell you. It's normal for players to have different views of how it should work in different things in game. That it is normal. I focus on historical accuracy, and I am not interested in limiting the player freedom without a good reason. That is why you don't see triple main guns on DDs inside NAR as an example.

 

Your ideas about limiting the guns per hull, have many issues:

First and most important. I tried to demonstrate with a few examples why it doesn't work, but you ignored them.   I can have a ship with 20k tons and 2x 18" guns and a 50k tons ships with 6"x18" guns. Why should I cap the 18" guns only for the big ships if the smaller one can also carry the same gun, but fewer? As I said before, if the ship have the displacement and beam to support them, then it should be able to carry them. Simple as that.

 

Second, imagine for a moment, that I would follow your idea, and limiting the player freedom what can use or not without a good reason. What would happen next?

 

Why is my BB "X" can't use this guns "Y"?

I would hear this question every week.

 

Try to imagine how is your idea would be received by the other players before implementing. If it follows the mod vision, if it is trying to improve the gameplay or if instead to restrict something without a good argument to support it. In this case would not work.

Edited March 23 by o Barão

[Pappystein]

6 hours ago, flaviohc16 said:

2) Max caliber for modern cruisers 9.9 inches, because I still haven't seen any somewhat realistic proposal in real life about a modern ( post Washington  naval treaty's) shipt hat is less than 25k tons and have guns bigger than 250mms (9.9'). If we want to give more freedom up to 10 inch guns.

 

That is because one of the core "Laws" of the Washington Treaty is No cruiser could have a caliber of weapon greater than 8"/20.3cm/203mm that not less than 10.9 inches in diameter.   At the time the treaty was drafted no one thought you could put an 11"+ weapon on a cruiser and be effective...    Then Marine Diesels became more efficient mass-wise, and Armor became less important.  And this combination of loopholes allows the Graff Spees to exist with 6 11" cannons.  

No one else did it because they could build replacement Battleships under the treaty with the bigger guns in a limited way: the Replacement and latter escalator clauses.
 

 

 

Why did the Washington Treaty have such weird Cruiser armament wording?    In part (from reading my various Friedman books on the subjects as well as my own research), there seems to be an undercurrent of wanting bigger guns on cruisers and it was a bargaining chip that various (I believe Britain and Japan,) used to force compromises in their favor during the Treaty Negotiations.    Likewise, as the British economy collapsed after World War I, they pushed for smaller and smaller ships to be cruisers.   At the point of this, the earlier threats for a new lighter 9.2" BL cannon for the RN's cruiser force seem to be farcical at best.

[killjoy1941]

7 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Then Marine Diesels became more efficient mass-wise, and Armor became less important.  And this combination of loopholes allows the Graff Spees to exist with 6 11" cannons.  

No one else did it because they could build replacement Battleships under the treaty with the bigger guns in a limited way: the Replacement and latter escalator clauses.

As well, specifically considering the Deutschlands, their construction was made attractive because of limitations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Versailles cruisers designed to replace pre-dreadnaughts were always going to be weird.

[o Barão]

BETA v6.0.3 N.A.R. changelog:

• Updated to UAD 1.5.0.5 Opt x2

[o Barão]

4 hours ago, killjoy1941 said:

As well, specifically considering the Deutschlands, their construction was made attractive because of limitations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Versailles cruisers designed to replace pre-dreadnaughts were always going to be weird.

Weird, yes, but if we take into consideration the role they were designed to fulfill, it seems the Germans took the best they could get from the treaty limitations. They knew it would be impossible to have those ships in the battle line against capital ships, but as lonely raiders in the South Atlantic or the Indian Ocean, they were almost perfect. The English needed to keep the capital ships near key points most of the time, and so they relied mainly on cruisers to patrols the vastness of the sea in those theaters. The Battle of the River Plate show us that the British had to work hard that day to win the engagement.

 

The weakness I see on them was the speed. In theory, when they were build, it should be enough to run away from any threat and chase anything valuable, unless they were being chased by the Hood or a similar capital ships. Maybe the Germans were thinking, the British would never use them to chase a ghost.

[King_Tiger_II]

Bruhhhhh I just download it and installed it and seconds later the damn game updates again to Opt. x3