"Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA v10.9.3 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - for UAD v1.5.1.1 Opt

[CenturionsofRome]

Could you reimplement the speed limits the mod had earlier (33kn max bb, 36kn max bc, etc) please? The AI just threw a 45kn bc at me, and it was absolute shit. It was annoying to hit, but it couldn't do any damage and once I managed to hit it it died very fast. 

[o Barão]

9 minutes ago, CenturionsofRome said:

Could you reimplement the speed limits the mod had earlier (33kn max bb, 36kn max bc, etc) please? The AI just threw a 45kn bc at me, and it was absolute shit. It was annoying to hit, but it couldn't do any damage and once I managed to hit it it died very fast. 

The BCs are limited to 37 knots. It is impossible for you to see a BC at 45 knots if using NAR since the beginning of the campaign.

[Lorents]

Since some updates ago, i believe the initial Shells and Ballistics rework, choosing diffrent types of HE or AP shells in the ship desiger impacs the accuracy of of both he and ap. 

For example changing HE shells from standards to nose fuse improves the AP shell accuracy.

Is this correct and/or intentional?

[o Barão]

10 hours ago, Lorents said:

Since some updates ago, i believe the initial Shells and Ballistics rework, choosing diffrent types of HE or AP shells in the ship desiger impacs the accuracy of of both he and ap. 

For example changing HE shells from standards to nose fuse improves the AP shell accuracy.

Is this correct and/or intentional?

Oh! Shit. Maybe it is a game engine limitation. I will try to find a solution.

Thank you for the report!! Much appreciated.

 

EDIT: It seems to be a game engine limitation. There is no he_accuracy or ap_accuracy modifier. Only the regular accuracy modifier. 😒

Edited April 27 by o Barão

[SpardaSon21]

On 4/23/2024 at 6:15 AM, Vekken said:

Would it be possible to add a bursting charge size? For example the mk8 super heavy ap only has about a 40lbs bursting charge. The british 14in as found on the kgv has a bursting charge that is only about 1lbs less. Volume wise that is a big difference in bursting charge. Information is from navweps.

That's part of the upgrade from APCBC I to APCBC II: trading filler size and damage for penetration.

 

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

EDIT: It seems to be a game engine limitation. There is no he_accuracy or ap_accuracy modifier. Only the regular accuracy modifier. 😒

Errr... maybe just get rid of it for now, then?

 

Also noticed a bug: Stereoscopic Rangefinder V has +90% tower cost same as Stereoscopic III, with Stereoscopic IV being +110%.  And is the cost difference between stereoscopic and coincidence supposed to be so high?  Stereoscopics are almost double what coincidence ones are.

 

Also, I poked around in params and noticed HE shells (as in the CP Base Fuse shell) gets 20% penetration relative to the Standard uncapped AP, which IMO is far too low.  According to NavWeaps "Common Pointed" was a British term for SAP, and in the case of the USA Common shells were the primary shell for our WWI era destroyers and cruisers, with a dedicated AP shell not even issued.

That is for the 4"/50, and as you can see its from 1942, so presumably they were basing it against modern armors.

This is what the 6"/53 got for SP Common and Common, and again in 1942, so modern armor was probably taken into account, and again no dedicated AP shell issued.

 

Given this, as well as the image in your post where the Common Pointed shell is about twice the filler size of the AP shell but still with a pointed tip for penetration purposes, I'd propose changing that ratio from 0.2 to somewhere around 0.5.  I've done it before myself and Common becomes a major threat to ships with limited armor, which as you can see from above is exactly what it was supposed to be.

Edited April 27 by SpardaSon21

[Fangoriously]

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

Oh! Shit. Maybe it is a game engine limitation. I will try to find a solution.

Thank you for the report!! Much appreciated.

 

EDIT: It seems to be a game engine limitation. There is no he_accuracy or ap_accuracy modifier. Only the regular accuracy modifier. 😒

darn, that's a shame. Maybe swap those out with more boost/penalties in range and muzzle velocity, those primarily result in individual accuracy bonus/maladies, and would realistically be effected by more aerodynamic caps.

If only you could also assign different shells types, propellants and shell weights for secondary guns as well, id want a totally different selection on my secondaries vs what i want on my main guns.

[o Barão]

o7! @Fangoriously & @SpardaSon21

Errr... maybe just get rid of it for now, then?

Most likely, from all HE and AP shells, but the shell weight modifiers will still use them.

Stereoscopics are almost double what coincidence ones are.

In the mod description, in the "source" section, you will find a link for Drachinifel video about rangefinders. Most likely it is a more complex mechanism and that explains why. I will look at stereo cost difference between different versions.

I've done it before myself and Common becomes a major threat to ships with limited armor, which as you can see from above is exactly what it was supposed to be.

I thought about that before. But there will also be HE damage modifiers changes to balance them. To make CPC and CPBC more close to SAP in terms of penetration but also damage. A nice progression curve from incendiary all the way to APBC.

Maybe swap those out with more boost/penalties in range and muzzle velocity, those primarily result in individual accuracy bonus/maladies, and would realistically be effected by more aerodynamic caps.

The problem is how muzzle velocity mechanic works in game, and everything I did was to fix those issues. Everything is connected. I will probably need to remove these modifiers from the HE & AP shells:

• muzzle velocity
• accuracy
• long accuracy
• wind resistance? I have no idea at this point if affects both shells-

And only use them in the shell weight modifiers. The idea will still be present but will be more limited.😒

 

Sometimes we can't win and we need to adapt.

 

 

[Azerostar]

The barbette armor of secondary gun turrent may really need some rework, it's totally insane and cause many trouble to armor system.

If a shell penetration at a 4 inch or bigger secondary gun turrent which has no barbette armor, than its ammo may easily detonation and cause huge structure damage to hull. However,if a secondary turrent has a little barbette armor, for example, 0.2 inch, then it will prevent all this kind secondary guns from ammo detonation,no matter how big the coming shell is.

Is this reasonable? I think not. And what even worse is those secondary turrent barbette armor will also add a lot armor to the citadel. Or to say,it not only some very thin barbette armor, but also a threshold in citadel armor check.

All these problems can be seen in tests easily. Just compare with same ship design with and without secondary turrent barbette armor. I usally think the citadel armor system has some problems, but I'm sure the secondary turrent barbette armor is the worst thing in armor system for now.

And it seems need to be fixed by the Devs,tested and I'm sure barbette_armor_modifier in params.txt file has no influences with these problems.

 

Edited April 27 by Azerostar

[o Barão]

34 minutes ago, Azerostar said:

Is this reasonable? I think not.

To a point, yes. It is preventing splinters or shrapnel from close detonations. The problem is for you to know for sure if the shell penetrated and explode inside the barbette or it was a close detonation. The game tell us if it was inside or close?

[Azerostar]

33 minutes ago, o Barão said:

To a point, yes. It is preventing splinters or shrapnel from close detonations. The problem is for you to know for sure if the shell penetrated and explode inside the barbette or it was a close detonation. The game tell us if it was inside or close?

If 18 inch main belt can't stop a shell at all, why 18 inch main belt with 0.2 inch secondary turrent barbette armor could stop it easily? As I say it performace like a threshold for now, no matter about thick or thin, all depends on its existence or non existence.

Edited April 27 by Azerostar

[TamaDasha]

Well, whatever you did to submarines, they attack TFs now, but are still utterly undetectable.
This is the result of just two 600t submarines attacking a TF with 3 battleships and 8 2300ton sonar-equipped destroyers in it, with another 8 destroyers in the sea region separately. The same thing happened the turn before, and the turn before then a single 780ton sub did the same thing. On another turn, a single submarine attacked 2CLs, also with sonar and depth charges, was not detected. I'm not sure how to fight subs if the most modern ASW equipment available doesn't even let me see them, or how many destroyers I'm supposed to shove into my fleets now.

I haven't seen the "Submarines detected" event even once so far, despite over 200 destroyers total patrolling my sea regions and escorting every TF with at least 2 destroyers per larger ship.

Edited April 27 by TamaDasha

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Azerostar said:

If 18 inch main belt can't stop a shell at all, why 18 inch main belt with 0.2 inch secondary turrent barbette armor could stop it easily? As I say it performace like a threshold for now, no matter about thick or thin, all depends on its existence or non existence.

And if instead it is a 5"? What is the threshold? What was the real distance to the explosion? The game does not tell you that, right? What is the bursting charge? And if the explosion didn't reach the ammo? So many things, so many possibilities, that there is no right answer and to think there is any game engine that can replicate any possible situation is being too optimistic. The devs from the beginning added a random damage modifier, already taking into account that it is impossible to replicate all possible situations.

 

But if you think you can do better and implement a system that can take all possible situations in a way that makes sense for the player, great. I will be interesting to know what is your solution.

[o Barão]

9 minutes ago, TamaDasha said:

Well, whatever you did to submarines, they attack TFs now, but are still utterly undetectable.
This is the result of just two 600t submarines attacking a TF with 3 battleships and 8 2300ton sonar-equipped destroyers in it, with another 8 destroyers in the sea region separately. The same thing happened the turn before, and the turn before then a single 780ton sub did the same thing. On another turn, a single submarine attacked 2CLs, also with sonar and depth charges, was not detected. I'm not sure how to fight subs if the most modern ASW equipment available doesn't even let me see them, or how many destroyers I'm supposed to shove into my fleets now.

I haven't seen the "Submarines detected" event even once so far, despite over 200 destroyers total patrolling my sea regions and escorting every TF with at least 2 destroyers per larger ship.

Just because you have those ships, you are expecting for the subs to be detected all the time? I run a test campaign with many autoresolve encountes with subs, and sometimes they were spotted, sometimes no, sometimes they sunk some ships, sometimes no, sometimes they were sunk, other times no, etc...

 

" ...with another 8 destroyers in the sea region separately."

What matters is what is in the encounter. The engine will take all modifiers into consideration from the battle and will generate an RNG result. What you can do is improve the odds for you, (ships number and the ASW value, techs researched) and still expect to have losses as any war of the time period. Or do you think the navies were using subs if they were so easy too sunk?

[flaviohc16]

Any love for the 1.5.1 update?

[o Barão]

5 minutes ago, flaviohc16 said:

Any love for the 1.5.1 update?

Still playing Manor Lords

[TamaDasha]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

Just because you have those ships, you are expecting for the subs to be detected all the time?

I said nothing about "all the time" - there's a very large middle ground between "all the time" and "never". I expect the game to reflect the player's investment into ASW. I understand that the mod is attempting to make certain aspects of the game more realistic, however, as you had pointed out to you, and agreed - gameplay considerations still have to be made. The same applies to "so easy to sink" argument - why are tier 1 coastal subs easily evading state of the art destroyers and sinking state of the art battleships? These are tiny subs with at most 4 torpedoes, and a decade behind me technologically, ran by a navy with a combined total of like 12 other ships. Yes, I indeed don't expect to be losing top-tier battleships when I'm overwhelmingly superior in every way to the enemy.

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

What you can do is improve the odds for you

But you can't. Like I said, I have hundreds of destroyers all over the globe, with the best ASW technology in the world. Not once did I get a submarine detection since the AI started using subs and up to 1923.

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

What matters is what is in the encounter.

No shit. They're still there, ostensibly trying to trigger their own spot on the subs and their own battle. That doesn't happen.

I'm not sure why your first reaction is to assume the people giving you feedback are idiots, especially when you usually have to walk it back, as evidenced by several previous pages in the thread. You really ought to tone back the condescension.

Edited April 27 by TamaDasha

[o Barão]

9 minutes ago, TamaDasha said:

I'm not sure why your first reaction is to assume the people giving you feedback are idiots, especially when you usually have to walk it back, as evidenced by several previous pages in the thread. You really ought to tone back the condescension.

If you really think that is the case, then please stop everything here. Really stop. There are other mods, or the vanilla experience, and I wish you farewell.

For me, that is too much. I am doing this for more than a year, in my free time, without charging anything and I still need to deal with this comment? Not worth it.

[SpardaSon21]

8 hours ago, o Barão said:

Still playing Manor Lords

Its a surprisingly neat game for still being Early Access.

 

14 hours ago, o Barão said:

I thought about that before. But there will also be HE damage modifiers changes to balance them. To make CPC and CPBC more close to SAP in terms of penetration but also damage. A nice progression curve from incendiary all the way to APBC.

 

I'd love that.  The way the devs set them up was mostly arbitrary to have a clear delineation for gameplay reasons when in reality... things only went their separate ways as a result of tech advancements, AP shells becoming more and more specialized and better steel making thin walls practical.

[Azerostar]

10 hours ago, o Barão said:

And if instead it is a 5"? What is the threshold? What was the real distance to the explosion? The game does not tell you that, right? What is the bursting charge? And if the explosion didn't reach the ammo? So many things, so many possibilities, that there is no right answer and to think there is any game engine that can replicate any possible situation is being too optimistic. The devs from the beginning added a random damage modifier, already taking into account that it is impossible to replicate all possible situations.

 

But if you think you can do better and implement a system that can take all possible situations in a way that makes sense for the player, great. I will be interesting to know what is your solution.

My solution is reduce w_armor_barbette_turret in params.txt so most secondary guns can't have any barbette armor, totally remove the whole broken thing out of this game.

What is the threshold? The point is 0.2 inch or 5 inch or 10 inch barbette armor all have same effects, but if there is 0 inch barbette armor, BOOM.

Just design a battleship, use some 5 inch secondary guns with no barbette armor to run a close range battleship duel test, than put a little barbette armor to those guns and test again, all possibilities will be gone and there will be no doubt. The fact is the game engine only use some simple check than 'so many possibilities' at this part.

Edited April 28 by Azerostar

[Fangoriously]

Face armor, citidels and barbette armor, what overlaps what and what exactly is implied by a main belt/deck pen or overpen is all a bit of a mystery. Did the main belt pen breach just the belt but not the citidel? Is that what is counted as a partal pen? Then what do you call a partal pen of just the exterior belt?

Ammo can be detonated by a hit to a turret, and I wouldn't be surprised if secondary turret barbetts just aren't ever counted as behind the protection of a citidel even when they physicly are, becase some secondary barbetts COULD be located outside of it. That would make a bit of barbette armor always useful. I've found that main gun barbette armor is TOTALY useless though, main guns dictates the size and placement of the citidel and by definition is protected by it's layers. Put only a maximum of 1.5in on that and grant yourself a huge amount of extra tonage to play with, at the cost of a maybe a 1% extra chance of being hood'ed.

The biggest problem with the auto designer is that it always makes this useless and espesually heavy main gun barbett armor it's thickest, often at the expense of the rest of the armor scheme. Sorry ai, the entire powder room isn't inside that 20in thick barbette, it's behind your 8in main belt and 0in citidel.

[Azerostar]

1 hour ago, Fangoriously said:

Face armor, citidels and barbette armor, what overlaps what and what exactly is implied by a main belt/deck pen or overpen is all a bit of a mystery. Did the main belt pen breach just the belt but not the citidel? Is that what is counted as a partal pen? Then what do you call a partal pen of just the exterior belt?

The armor system in UAD work like this:

First, if shell can't penetrate the generic armor, then we get a partial pen or a blocked hit.

Second, if shell can penetrate the generic armor(at main belt or deck), then check the citadel armor box. If all three layers been penetrated, then we get a over-pen or a penetration hit.

The 1st layer has *1.6 multiplier of thick based on the number in design mode, the 2nd layer has *3.33,and the 3rd layer has *8. The 1st layer's max thick is *0.5 of the main belt and *0.6 of the main deck, the 2nd layer limits to *0.8 of the 1st layer,the 3rd layer limits to *0.8 of the 2rd layer.

So, the conclusion is though we have three layers of citadel armor, but only the third layer is useful and worthy, the 1st and 2nd layer only produce extra thick limit to the 3rd layer. If you don't have the 3rd layer, than the citadel armor is totally useless, just build thicker generic armor and will get better effects.

The armor system works like this since long long ago, and the conclusion is no doubt.

Third, if hit at positions where there are secondary gun turrents with barbette armor, the citadel armor box will get a huge buff, maybe extra *2 to the 3rd layer(not sure), make it almost impossible to be penetrated if 3rd layer already very thick.

 

Not sure how the main gun barbette armor works, but for sure it doesn't works like the secondary gun barbette armor. I agree that the main gun barbette armor maybe no use at all, as the main gun could keep working while its turrent been destroyed.

 

Edited April 28 by Azerostar

[Draco]

overpens consistently do as much damage as full pens now and it is kind of ruining the game for me.

I don't understand how a shell that penetrates non-essential areas designed to be penetrated and passes more or less harmlessly through can do the same amount of damage as getting hit in your citadel and having your engines and magazines blown up.

None of my designs work anymore in any combination of configurations and I'm just wasting hours and hours making ships that used to work wonderfully well and seeing them lose thousands of hp to hits they are designed to take...

Taking a break from this game.

Can't even enjoy the arcade mode anymore.

[o Barão]

53 minutes ago, Draco said:

overpens consistently do as much damage as full pens now and it is kind of ruining the game for me.

The overpen damage is the same as vanilla game.

over_penetration,0.085,damage multiplier due to over-penetration

But if you are seeing that, you can check the damage log or the ship damage log, take a screenshot and share with me.

[o Barão]

BETA v10.9.1 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog:

• Updated to UAD 1.5.1.0R
• Shell velocity, accuracy, accuracy long modifiers and wind modifiers removed from HE and AP shells because they were causing an impact to the other shells stats. HE ««»» AP. An engine limitation. Shell weight modifiers are not affected by this change.
• CPC and CPBC penetration, HE damage and HE fire chance stats changed to close the gap to SAP performance. There is a linear progression now from incendiary shell all the way to APBC.
• SAPBC and APC range stats change taking into consideration the fact that one is lighter but have a ballistic cap and the other is heavier but have an AP cap design that adds too much drag.

 

VERY IMPORTANT:

I don't know when I am going to update the mod again, so to avoid any issues, block the auto updates from steam:

• Set game to update when start game. Do this in game setting(properties)-> update.
• Don't start game by steam or steam shortcut. Make a shortcut on desktop from the main game .exe  in this location: "....\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts.exe"
• Start a game from this shortcut. Game will run without update.

-----   Important   -----

Do not report any bug to the devs if you are using this mod. They are not responsible for the changes I made to the game.

Edited April 29 by o Barão

[Fangoriously]

17 hours ago, o Barão said:

BETA v10.9.1 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog:

• Updated to UAD 1.5.1.0R
• Shell velocity, accuracy, accuracy long modifiers and wind modifiers removed from HE and AP shells because they were causing an impact to the other shells stats. HE ««»» AP. An engine limitation. Shell weight modifiers are not affected by this change.
• CPC and CPBC penetration, HE damage and HE fire chance stats changed to close the gap to SAP performance. There is a linear progression now from incendiary shell all the way to APBC.
• SAPBC and APC range stats change taking into consideration the fact that one is lighter but have a ballistic cap and the other is heavier but have an AP cap design that adds too much drag.

Would it be possible, or even a good idea, to put every shell type, both AP and HE in both the shell selection tabs? So you could pick any 2 shell types you wanted?