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

[Azerostar]

9 hours ago, o Barão said:

Interesting, first time I see this. The HE shells were able to reach your ship?

Can't, as the distance between two ships was 41.4KM and the HE shells range were 40.6KM.

After this bug happened again, I reduced the HE use threshold for a little(1.8 to 1.2),seem enough to fix it.

Edited January 14 by Azerostar

[ZorinW]

On 12/31/2023 at 1:16 AM, SpardaSon21 said:

Thankfully, Nebulous (check them out, its basically UA:D custom battles IN SPACE) has a very good mod scene and as a result some guides on just how to do exactly that!

Let me know if that works out for you!  It will only bundle things that are in a Bundle folder though, so be careful on how your assets are set up in the editor.

Anyone tried this yet? I would be very happy to supply 3D components for the game if anyone with coding experience could gwt them into the game.

[o Barão]

Note: The devs launched a new update, but the mod still works fine. No changes needed.

[Jonovan]

Hey, has anyone ever had an issue where the new options for armor, propelant, charge, etc. were not there. In the menu, it says the mod was installed but when I go into the ship builder they were not available. Does anyone know to fix it? 

Edited January 16 by Jonovan

[o Barão]

11 hours ago, Jonovan said:

Hey, has anyone ever had an issue where the new options for armor, propelant, charge, etc. were not there. In the menu, it says the mod was installed but when I go into the ship builder they were not available. Does anyone know to fix it? 

You forgot to apply the English file from the mod.

[diceman624]

Anyone else lose scout planes with the last update?  Or about half their campaign ships?

For the record, I reinstall the mod after the game updates, even if there aren't any changes.

 

*Edit: turns out research hadn't gotten to scout planes, but I lost about half my plans and ships

Edited January 16 by diceman624

[ZorinW]

4 hours ago, diceman624 said:

Anyone else lose scout planes with the last update?  Or about half their campaign ships?

For the record, I reinstall the mod after the game updates, even if there aren't any changes.

Lost all the changed techs. Armor is back to vanilla, TB are obsolete, etc.

[Fangoriously]

Just becase the current version of the mod doesn't need to be updated, doesn't mean you don't have to put the mod back into the game files after an update. The update of course overrid those moded files.

[ZorinW]

2 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Just becase the current version of the mod doesn't need to be updated, doesn't mean you don't have to put the mod back into the game files after an update. The update of course overrid those moded files.

I replaced them again, but now my campaign save won't load. Guess I screwed it up by starting the campaign after the update but before replacing the files.

[Astor]

Is it just me or does the AI act different since this update?

[o Barão]

54 minutes ago, Astor said:

Is it just me or does the AI act different since this update?

It is you, since I didn't change anything in the last weeks.

[Astor]

No, I mean not the parameters changes you did Barao. It's more like the general behavior of the AI differs now with the last game update. They mentioned some AI logic changes

Probably should have been more specific in my last post.

[Draco]

10 hours ago, Astor said:

No, I mean not the parameters changes you did Barao. It's more like the general behavior of the AI differs now with the last game update. They mentioned some AI logic changes

Probably should have been more specific in my last post.

Still need to be a bit more specific. Are they being more or less aggressive than you expected, or something like that?

[Azerostar]

16 hours ago, Astor said:

No, I mean not the parameters changes you did Barao. It's more like the general behavior of the AI differs now with the last game update. They mentioned some AI logic changes

Probably should have been more specific in my last post.

The AI seems to prefer turn to the same heading as player's battleline,at least in the beginning of battle ,is this what you seen?

[Astor]

Yeah I mostly see just a single line of ships, like all ships staying on one rail. Enemy and player ships on AI.

TB, DD are not affected  that much at all. It's mostly always CAs and BBs.

My BBs on AI control just followed the enemy BBs, bypassed them while beeing as close as 100m next to them and overtook them, while not bothering to circle the enemy at all. Then they kept going on that same line in front of them.

Edited January 18 by Astor

[diceman624]

@Fangloriously

I had re-uploaded the mod, but when I loaded my current campaign, a bunch of plans were gone, even for ships I had active in the fleet, and some (anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2) of the ships where gone (including all those under construction).

[King_Tiger_II]

God damn Free Quota limit. I guess I am not re-installing the mod for now. I am not gonna pay for MEGA. Add a warning that MEGA may may you have to pay to download or wait a obscenely long time to get the download.

Edited January 18 by King_Tiger_II

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, King_Tiger_II said:

Add a warning that MEGA may may you have to pay to download or wait a obscenely long time to get the download.

I had no idea there was a limit.

[King_Tiger_II]

6 hours ago, o Barão said:

I had no idea there was a limit.

There is in fact a limit, and to get more downloads we gotta play 30+ USD for Monthly subscription or 100+ USD for a yearly one, or wait 45 minutes to get a single download.

Edited January 18 by King_Tiger_II

[Draco]

On 1/18/2024 at 3:04 AM, Azerostar said:

The AI seems to prefer turn to the same heading as player's battleline,at least in the beginning of battle ,is this what you seen?

Sounds like the AI is attempting to close the distance with you as fast as possible, maybe you made a design that is more vulnerable to small shell saturation like an AoN design with no extended deck and belt armour, than you do normally?

Although it doesn't always perfectly work as intended, the AI is programmed to respond to different threats with different strategies.

I find that if I build a balanced design, the AI will basically mimic the moves of my ships, since it doesn't think it has a decisive advantage over me at any given range of combat, (sadly) allowing me to dictate the fight.

Is it something similar you are experiencing?

[Masonator]

@o Barão

 Destroyers seem far too fragile in the latest patch.  My DDs use RP C/38 powder, Amatol bursters, Electro-Hydro II traverse gear, Anti-Flash V, Anti-Flood III, Bulkheads II, and triple bottoms (read: maximum resistance and 0% flash fire chance), and are still being completely crippled or detonated outright by single 203mm hits.  Earlier today I had one take 48,000 damage, two floods, and engine and steering gear crits from a single 283mm hit, barely managing to limp away at 5kts with 3% structure and 1% floatability remaining.

 I've now played three campaigns using NAR, and in my experience the changes to DDs (particularly disabling smokescreens which are absolutely critical to their survivability) have rendered them completely ineffective as fleet vessels.  Large Tribal/Porter-style gunboats are now suicidal to use, as the weight of the guns demands that they be both big and slow, resulting in a huge target signature that makes them atrocious at spotting and very easy to hit and leaving them utterly incapable of "speed-tanking" as smaller 40kt destroyers can.  Combined with the substantially increased fragility inherent to NAR means that these ships die en masse when presented with anything larger than another, smaller destroyer.

 The broader changes to HE have also made such gunboats virtually useless as gunboats, since their guns are universally too small to deal effective AP damage despite now also having terrible firestarting ability (unless built as floating bombs with Cordite, Picric, and Super-Heavies), all of which results in destroyers as a class being relegated to disposable one-shot torpedo sleds or small ASW/minesweeping pickets - which isn't particularly fun, engaging, or realistic.  Destroyers were not just big torpedo boats, and were probably the single most important ships of WWII.

 As it stands, the only thing they bring to the table over a small light cruiser is the ability to minesweep.  A flat 25-50% increase in surivability - closer to the vanilla figures - would make them a lot more useful, in my opinion.

Edited January 19 by Masonator

[Pappystein]

20 minutes ago, Masonator said:

@o Barão

 Destroyers seem far too fragile in the latest patch.  My DDs use RP C/38 powder, Amatol bursters, Electro-Hydro II traverse gear, Anti-Flash V, Anti-Flood III, Bulkheads II, and triple bottoms (read: maximum resistance and 0% flash fire chance), and are still being completely crippled or detonated outright by single 203mm hits.  Earlier today I had one take 48,000 damage, two floods, and engine and steering gear crits from a single 283mm hit, barely managing to limp away at 5kts with 3% structure and 1% floatability remaining.

 I've now played three campaigns using NAR, and in my experience the changes to DDs (particularly disabling smokescreens which are absolutely critical to their survivability) have rendered them completely ineffective as fleet vessels.  Large Tribal/Porter-style gunboats are now suicidal to use, as the weight of the guns demands that they be both big and slow, resulting in a huge target signature that makes them atrocious at spotting and very easy to hit and leaving them utterly incapable of "speed-tanking" as smaller 40kt destroyers can.  Combined with the substantially increased fragility inherent to NAR means that these ships die en masse when presented with anything larger than another, smaller destroyer.

 The broader changes to HE have also made such gunboats virtually useless as gunboats, since their guns are universally too small to deal effective AP damage despite now also having terrible firestarting ability (unless built as floating bombs with Cordite, Picric, and Super-Heavies), all of which results in destroyers as a class being relegated to disposable one-shot torpedo sleds or small ASW/minesweeping pickets - which isn't particularly fun, engaging, or realistic.  Destroyers were not just big torpedo boats, and were probably the single most important ships of WWII.  In my opinion, a flat 25-50% increase in surivability - closer to the vanilla figures - would make them a lot more useful.

Wait, they weren't useless EXACTLY as you describe in Vanilla?!?  WHAT!? 

Because, your description is EXACTLY my experience in Vanilla let alone the various versions of this mod.  

 

Just prior to using this mod I relegated DD/TBs to escort missions and to Long range TT shots.   Leaving the AI controlling the TB/DD forces on SCREEN seems to keep them alive the best... and they do a good job as AI controlled ships skirmishing with enemy forces at low losses but still manage to sink enemy forces.    Sending them in against far superior forces with 8" Plus Cannons (203+mm) is ALWAYS extremely risky.   The AI does not understand nor is there an easy "evasive" control that the player can use.  

Blaming this mod for what is at it's heart a set of 4 core game mechanic issues that are either very bad (Smoke, how fusing works, how LIMITED armor interacts with fusing) or out right missing (evasive sailing,) seems presumptive to me.  This mod improves so many things in the game that it is well worth the investment.   That being said things have been CHANGED and thus you, the player need to CHANGE the way you play to match said changes.

 

My suggestion is:   Set your Torpedoes to  "Safe shot"   Set the Formation to Loose and wide (not inline), Set the AI to SCREEN your Flagship (or if you have a lot of TB/DDs set them to screen other ships as well)  and ignore them in your main battle formations.  When Building your DDs go for Fletcher types not Tribal types.   But It would be nice to get a "Destroyer Leader" hull at some point.  Unfortunately the best hull I can think of for that role is the Scout cruiser which is a no go due to the stupid FIXED davits with boats.

 

 

RE Smoke Specifically.   If the AI knew how to effectively use Smoke instead of just spamming it all the time and thus running out right when at their most vulnerable, I am pretty certain it would be added back to the mod.   At Least that is how I took the Barron's original statement on the subject to mean.

 

 

[Masonator]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

Wait, they weren't useless EXACTLY as you describe in Vanilla?!?  WHAT!? 

Because, your description is EXACTLY my experience in Vanilla let alone the various versions of this mod. 

[...]

This mod improves so many things in the game that it is well worth the investment.   That being said things have been CHANGED and thus you, the player need to CHANGE the way you play to match said changes.

...What?

 Destroyers are easily the single most useful class of ship in vanilla.  Their balance presents a very engaging choice between the torpedo-sled and gunboat design styles (as was the case historically).  My complaint is that NAR's changes to destroyer durability have utterly destroyed the gunboat concept and made torpedo sleds the only viable design, which is not fun or historical.

 

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

Just prior to using this mod I relegated DD/TBs to escort missions and to Long range TT shots.   Leaving the AI controlling the TB/DD forces on SCREEN seems to keep them alive the best... and they do a good job as AI controlled ships skirmishing with enemy forces at low losses but still manage to sink enemy forces.

 This used to be my strategy too, until NAR's accuracy changes made the "auto-hit vessels directly between shooter and target" bug even worse than in vanilla, which already necessitated micromanaging your screen to avoid taking bullshit losses to "stray" shells.  This in particular is a minor issue, sure, but one badly exacerbated by the lack of smokescreens to add artificial survivability in the face of artificial accuracy.

 

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

Sending them in against far superior forces with 8" Plus Cannons (203+mm) is ALWAYS extremely risky.   The AI does not understand nor is there an easy "evasive" control that the player can use.

 It's risky, yes, but at least that risk comes with rewards in vanilla.  A properly handled line of destroyers can put down a super-battleship, which is both fun and historical.  NAR heavily nerfs speed-tanking, making it far, far too easy to hit maneuvering destroyers - which wouldn't be a problem, if they could either conceal themselves (smoke) or take a hit or two during the run-in (durability).  At present they can do neither, and genuinely suck.

 There's virtually no point to even building them, which is not fun or historical.  Using what should be your most micro-intensive, risk-reward ships as passive firestarters and fleet screens is a colossal waste of tonnage, and not fun or historical.  It takes the very real and historical Jeune Ecole and Risk Fleet strategies out behind the woodshed and shoots them, which is not fun or historical.  These jobs are literally what torpedo boats are made for, and the mod goes out of its' way to keep them relevant into the 1950s.  I just resent that it comes at the expense of destroyers, because it doesn't have to.

 In short, NAR's changes to fundamental aspects of destroyer design make the class as a whole an unhistorical chore to use.  I should not have to explain why this is a bad decision.

 

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

Blaming this mod for what is at it's heart a set of 4 core game mechanic issues that are either very bad [...] or out right missing [...] seems presumptive to me.  This mod improves so many things in the game that it is well worth the investment.

 Nowhere am I "blaming" this mod.  Furthermore, my criticism isn't even directed at any of the broken mechanics you've mentioned, and I completely agree that NAR is a night-and-day improvement on the vanilla game.  That doesn't mean it's somehow perfect, or beyond reproach and criticism, for the very valid problems it creates on its' own.  Just because it genuinely improves many areas of the game doesn't mean it can't make others worse - which yes, it absolutely does, see above.

 

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

That being said things have been CHANGED and thus you, the player need to CHANGE the way you play to match said changes.

 Needlessly hostile and condescending as hell, check your tone please.  I have over 1,200 hours on this game and have been playing since the initial Xsolla beta release.  In my humble opinion the game has actively gotten worse since then as more and more new features get piled on top of an underdeveloped, buggy-ass foundation, and while NAR certainly goes a long way towards rectifying this, as I said, it's far from perfect, and is actively a step backwards in certain areas - like destroyers.

 

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

RE Smoke Specifically.   If the AI knew how to effectively use Smoke instead of just spamming it all the time and thus running out right when at their most vulnerable, I am pretty certain it would be added back to the mod.

 I too have read the changelog and wholeheartedly disagree with this concept.  Smokescreens are a core part of the game, and absolutely critical to overcome the unreal amounts of jank within the gunnery, target-selection, and torpedo-firing mechanics without losing ships that otherwise would've survived were it not for that jank.  On a game-theory level, I think taking a tool away from the player just because the AI can't use it efficiently is a fundamentally bad decision that actively hurts the gameplay, and is the single most ahistorical change in a mod whose entire concept is to increase historical accuracy.  It's a flawed decision following flawed logic, and I'd reverse it myself if I knew how. 

 If Baron had rewritten the entire gunnery system to remove the random guaranteed-hit guided missile shell dispersion, or hadn't nerfed both destroyer durability and the Target Fast Speed penalty into the ground, I'd agree with removing smoke.  As things stand, it's a necessary band-aid solution to nearly a decade of unaddressed technical debt in the core gunplay mechanics, which seems to be a monumental task for even the actual developers, let alone a solo community modder.

 

 Anyway, I refuse to derail this thread any further by continuing to entertain such obvious bait, but suffice to say I found your entire reply unnecessarily provocative and frankly childish.  At least present an opinion of your own if you're going to come out swinging like that.

Edited January 19 by Masonator

[o Barão]

3 hours ago, Masonator said:

particularly disabling smokescreens which are absolutely critical to their survivability

Didn't I explained in the mod description why? I am almost sure. Well, I can tell you again. The reason is very simple. The AI does not know when to use it, simple as that.

Do you remember playing vanilla game and seeing clouds of smoke from invisible ships, telling you where they were? Yeah, terrible.

Then we have the two other issues with smoke. Smoke is not a circle cloud that magically surrounds the ship. And then we have the arcade time mechanic for a time limit to use it, and again the AI does not know when to use it. So in conclusion, is a terrible mechanic and unfair against the AI.

 

I suggested, many months ago, to smoke be used exclusively when the ships retreat from the battlefield. That would make sure the AI would use them when it is needed and would be fair for the AI and the player. Didn't happen, so no smoke to anyone.

 

3 hours ago, Masonator said:

 Destroyers seem far too fragile in the latest patch.

I didn't change anything about DDs health for the past 7 months, maybe. The only thing I did, that will indirectly affect the DDs, was to allow the player to use an arcade accuracy. So if you are using that, you will see that is a lot easier to land hits on ships in general. DDs are fragile ships against medium caliber or higher guns, so use them with cautions.

 

3 hours ago, Masonator said:

A flat 25-50% increase in surivability - closer to the vanilla figures - would make them a lot more useful, in my opinion.

I suggest you go to the steam forums and search posts about players complaining about the DDs being too survival against torpedo hits or guns in general. Unrealistic, and you will not see that here.

Edited January 19 by o Barão

[Fangoriously]

I haven't noticed any difference in general survivability between vanilla and modded, NAR havening more realistic accuracy protects small targets if anything. a while back though I noticed destroyers having exponentially higher hitpoints than they should, if all their size, beam and draft sliders were maxed out, they could raw hitpoint and resistance tank hits like a battleship, especially if they were at least 4k tons. That got toned down some but is still observable to a degree. 

I never bother taking anything smaller than a light cruiser into combat though, and they are always gun boats because torps cannot be relied on at all. Also, light cruisers seem best for anti sub defense, my battle groups generally consist of a whole class of 6 capital ships escorted by 6 light cruisers, they fend off subs 90% of the time without incident, and their extra 6/7in gun fire chews up escorts and can burn down larger ships while the big guns on my capital ships snipe the large threats.

10-12in gun heavy cruisers I leave to fend for themselves but seem to rarely attract sub attention, and if you have them at one of your ports near an enemy, they will generate endless convoy assault missions wile my capital ship battlegroups conduct naval invasions and attack other battlegroups.