"Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA v11 - for UAD v1.5.1.1 Optx4

[GrantK]

On 12/19/2023 at 12:44 AM, Masonator said:

 The Queen Elizabeths were the first British battleships designed with oil-fired boilers - nobody knew quite how heavy a structure was required to adequately support oil tanks (which, spoiler alert, was equivalent to or less than that needed for coal bunkers - oops!), and they were very heavily overbuilt.  They were more than 300t overweight upon completion and sat very low in the water (the installation of torpedo bulges in the 1920s partially mitigated this, but widened the ship in the process, nullifying any speed dividends), and none of the class ever achieved their design speed of 25kts, topping out at around 23-24kts instead.  After Jutland, where Beatty and his battlecruisers charged off on their own and left 5th BS to the wolves on two separate occasions, Jellicoe ordered that they not be jeopardised on detached operations away from the rest of the Grand Fleet, as the squadron speed was limited by Warspite to only 23kts - not significantly faster than the 21kt main battleline, and far too slow to skirmish with the German battlecruisers in advance of the main fleet action as initially envisioned.

 Warspite was the slowest of the class by about half a knot as built, but ended up roughly a knot faster than her sisters after her 1934 rebuild - she received the same 80,000shp Parsons plant as Queen Elizabeth and Valiant, but her somewhat less extensive above-waterline changes left her several hundred tonnes lighter than the others, raising her waterline by a few feet.  The interwar rebuilds more than halved their machinery weight and gave them an extra 5,000shp to play with, but those savings were almost immediately reinvested into increased protection, meaning they essentially broke even in terms of speed.  Barham and Malaya were much less extensively rebuilt and retained their as-completed 24x Yarrow boilers and single-reduction turbines, and could only make about 22kts by 1940 as a result.

 So, to answer your question:  yes, it was an issue with their basic, fundamental construction principles.  All five were badly overweight for essentially their entire careers and were rebuilt several times in a slew of attempts to correct their myriad of flaws.

Yes they were heavy.   Their main belts were nearly submerged for their service life, that was not intended.   And the extra weight is what I have read was the cause of not making the 25 knots expected.

However I meant something a little different.

Nagato as built was 38000 tons full load.   215 m length overall, 29 m beam. 9.1 draught 80000 hp for 26.5 knots

Length to beam is 7.4

Warspite as built - 32000 full load.  197 length overall, 27.6 beam, 8.8 draught.   75000 hp for 23.5 knots (or 24 arguably)

Length to beam is 7.1.

Just the other day I ran into the scharnhorst speed curve, which had a remarkably steady 4 knot increment for each doubling of horsepower between 10 and 30 knots.   Ballpark lets use it.

You can see even without calculating anything something is a little off.  We have a 5% improvement in length to beam.   And we have a longer waterline length.   Still.   We gain 3 knots plus minus for only 5000 hp on a significantly bigger hull.  3 knots more, given 4 knots costing double the horsepower, is somewhere like 75% percent extra power needed, you would think.   We got improvements in basic length and beam,  so not 75 of course, the Warspite would have a steeper  speed curve.   But the 3 extra knots needed only 8% more power, not the 30-50 I would have guessed.

Lots of assumptions.   But somewhere thereabouts?   And i didnt check the primary source on Scharnhorst speed curve.

Perhaps the Nagato was unusually efficient.   Maybe Im not giving due weight to waterline length, and too much to displacement.  However Revenge as built did 22 knots on a 7.03 length to beam, 31000 tons, and a 190 waterline length with 40000 hp.   So the QEs have to nearly double the horsepower to gain 1.5 or perhaps two knots with mildly better hull parameters (waterline length and length to beam) and a little extra weight, maybe 2k tons or so.    And interestingly, the Nagato has exactly double the power of the Revenge and gains 4.5 knots for that doubling, which is vaguely in line with the Scharnhorst speed curve (4 knots for every doubling).   It SEEMS as if the Revenge and the Nagato prove ‘the rule’ and the QEs are a bit of an outlier?  On the same ratio as Revenge and Nagato they should have made say 25.5?  Even overweight.

 So what I meant was that something in the hull design was bungled, not that they were overweight.      You know, like when for a hull and a speed, the bow waves 'frequency' (distance between those angled spreading waves all hulls show with speed) becomes equal to hull length.  I read that when that happens, drag goes up sharply and makes further speed practically impossible.   Maybe there was something along those lines for the QEs, an error leading to extra drag than expected, given waterline length, displacement, and length to beam ratio, where they should have made 25 knots?

Maybe not.   Its complex.   I did read that it was hoped they would make 26 knots at 30k tons, and that leading up to the first speed trials folks were still hopeful, that the 25 knots had been 'underplayed' and proponents of the fast battleship squadron were hoping they would be equal to the 'conservative' design speed even with the extra weight.  They were disappointed.    Still, given all, I tend to the view that they were on the draggy side given their hp, WL length, and length to beam.   It seems they should have done a little better than it turned out.

Also, I just read (in an old thread, but referenced) that it was Valiant as was power limited at Jutland, she only made 23 knots in the run to the north?   And got passed by perhaps it was Malaya.  I borrowed from a library Roskill's book on the Warspite (years ago), going from memory the speed trials after commissioning were 24.2, and 23.7 after the refit.   And when her and was it the Queen Elizabeth? ran to bombard in '43 she held 23.8 knots for 2 hours.  23.5 operational top end seems fair.

 

  

[StrikerDanger]

In terms of this, the bow shape has a good chunk to deal with designed speed too. The QEs used the old ram-bow type design, whereas Nagato and Mutsu used the newer overhanging bow style (I don't know the term for it). There's also just about a 6-year gap between the launch of Warspite and Nagato, which, for Capital ships, is quite a decent chunk of time (You go from HMS Dreadnought to Warspite in a little over seven years)

[o Barão]

DD 1-4 rework preview W.I.P.

Japanese destroyers.

DD 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikazuchi-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murakumo-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akatsuki-class_destroyer_(1901)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirakumo-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harusame-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze-class_destroyer_(1905)

 

DD 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umikaze-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakura-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urakaze-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaba-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isokaze-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momo-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoki-class_destroyer

 

DD 3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakaze-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momi-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minekaze-class_destroyer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakatake-class_destroyer

 

DD 4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze-class_destroyer_(1922)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutsuki-class_destroyer

[o Barão]

15 hours ago, wwii44 said:

Some of the new hulls from the last major update have these weird boxy things(like in the included picture), you think possibly you could fix those when you have the time?

I already tried. In this example, those "boxes" are there to support the tower's big size. In the flush deck American destroyer, It is possible to change the hull, but there is no need to fix that. There is also an Italian cruiser, I forgot now which one, that could be better, but still not an issue.

[Fangoriously]

I'm 25 years into a 1900 campaign and all the recent auto generated capital ship designs I'm seeing have only main guns and no secondaries, it seems they ran out of tonage to play with, and I think it's becase the ai always has really thick barbette armor, as thick as the turret face. After the last weight and balance changes you made, the most noticeable change was how incredibly heavy thick barbette armor is, since then I haven't run more than 6 inches of it becasue of how drastically it scales up. I don't suppose there's a way to program the ai to opt for thinner barrbet armor so it has tonage to spare to fit out a proper gun layout?

[wwii44]

6 hours ago, o Barão said:

I already tried. In this example, those "boxes" are there to support the tower's big size. In the flush deck American destroyer, It is possible to change the hull, but there is no need to fix that. There is also an Italian cruiser, I forgot now which one, that could be better, but still not an issue.

Is there not a way to make them more aesthetically appealing?

[o Barão]

59 minutes ago, wwii44 said:

Is there not a way to make them more aesthetically appealing?

For me, it is impossible, maybe someone with better skills can dig the resource.assets file and edit the hulls shape in a 3D program.

 

4 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

I don't suppose there's a way to program the ai to opt for thinner barrbet armor so it has tonage to spare to fit out a proper gun layout?

In the params file:

 

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

It is possible to play around with this value to lower the limit. But the limit is strange, the way it works. In small caliber guns can be higher than the turret armor, and in big caliber guns is lower, which is realistic.

w_armor_barbette_turret,0.06,turret barbette weight: percent of base turret weight,,,,,,,

It is also possible for you to lower the barbette weight. I used the Bismarck weight data for comparison and this value gave me a close value. Lowering this will give you unrealistic values.

 

5 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

and I think it's becase the ai always has really thick barbette armor, as thick as the turret face.

Can be. Next month, I can take a closer look at the barbettes values in the AI ships. This year, I am already busy with other stuff.

[Fangoriously]

Back home so I can post some pics. Here's my Tillman's own 1924 12x18in gun Maximum battleship, with its relatively light armor compared to its armament. Increasing it much more than that gets super heavy fast, especially main gun barbet armor. Here's the weight at the 6in i've settled on

and here's if I match the thickness to turret face armor, what the AI always likes to do.

before your changes I doubt I'd be able to stick this much gun on this much ship at this early a year, so I like the changes otherwise! Who needs thick barbet armor anyway when its already protected by main belt and citadel layers already? I think that's how it works in game. If only the AI would build ships right, and stop dumping half the tonnage into barbet armor.

[o Barão]

4 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Who needs thick barbet armor anyway when its already protected by main belt and citadel layers already? I think that's how it works in game.

That is the problem, we don't know. What I do know is that the barbette have a bonus to the armor effective value to simulate the circle shape. 6%

 

What is possible to do, is to run a test. A BB with all the main guns on barbettes without any armor against a CL design by the player without torpedoes at close range. Don't shoot, and let's see if the CL can cause a flash fire or ammo detonation.

To have barbette armor or not, it is irrelevant the enemy can't pen the belt armor.

Edited December 23, 2023 by o Barão

[Pappystein]

So I know lots have been going on... Is a new set of shared designs in the works still or are we waiting for something more first?

PS I refuse to play UAD without this mod now   I went back to base game... and it is great... but it isn't NAR Great!

[o Barão]

12 hours ago, Pappystein said:

So I know lots have been going on... Is a new set of shared designs in the works still or are we waiting for something more first?

PS I refuse to play UAD without this mod now   I went back to base game... and it is great... but it isn't NAR Great!

I need to finish the early destroyer rework first. Not only that, but I wish to give the player a few options the moment the mod is ready, but at the moment I can't support different mod versions with the devs still updating the game.

[Nsalez]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:49 PM, o Barão said:

For me, it is impossible, maybe someone with better skills can dig the resource.assets file and edit the hulls shape in a 3D program.

I might try editing some hulls since its winter break, ill post pictures if I have any progress 

praying that we get modding support and able to add our own hulls

Edited December 29, 2023 by Nsalez

[Masonator]

re: the Queen Elizabeths - I think StrikerDanger hit the nail on the head with their bow shape/hullform theory.  The QEs were essentially just slightly stretched Iron Dukes in form, which as a class failed to meet their 21.5kt design speed.  Benbow and Emperor of India were still fitting out when the war began and so did not undergo full sea trials, but both Iron Duke and Marlborough did, and both could only make 21.25kts at trials load and more like 19-20 under wartime conditions, so there's certainly some evidence to the idea that the hull form is a fundamentally inefficient shape.

 Perhaps this was solved during the development of the Rs; smaller powerplant aside, they were somewhat more advanced than the QEs - adopting the all-or-nothing armour scheme vs. distributed protection in the QEs, both fire directors had 15ft rangefinders vs. 1x 15ft and 1x 9ft in the QEs, rearranged casemate battery for improved workability, etc - so maybe part of the improvements included a sleeker, more efficient hull form below the waterline, explaining their better speed curve.

[Fangoriously]

On 12/23/2023 at 1:10 AM, o Barão said:

That is the problem, we don't know. What I do know is that the barbette have a bonus to the armor effective value to simulate the circle shape. 6%

 

What is possible to do, is to run a test. A BB with all the main guns on barbettes without any armor against a CL design by the player without torpedoes at close range. Don't shoot, and let's see if the CL can cause a flash fire or ammo detonation.

To have barbette armor or not, it is irrelevant the enemy can't pen the belt armor.

Its 1928, and just encountered 2 of the UK's latest BC, with 0 armor anywhere but its main gun barbets. Both immediately got all their ammo detonated as soon as their 4in main belt was penetrated, that barbet armor didn't even grant any sort of protection on the powder room, utterly useless.

a few things can be gleamed from looking at this, it appears the order of importance for the auto build goes as followed.

1. towers and funnels

2. relatively modern tech

3. 10-18in of barbet armor, before even settling on the main gun

4. some kind of main gun, even if 12in or less, often using the entirety of the remaining tonnage. All else at this point is optional.

5. speed approximating what the hull can attain easily, most of the time.

6. some secondaries, but is more than willing to go completely without.

7. poorly distributed armor everywhere else.

The other thing that can be gleamed is that barbet armor probably only really reduces magazine detonation chance when a turret takes a direct hit, offering no protection at all otherwise.

 

If this is a global variable and easy to adjust, I'd hard cap what can be put into main gun barbet armor, for battleships a max of 6in, and decreasing from there. the AI maxing that out is ruining every design i'm seeing in my campaign, those BCs probably put at least 25% of their displacement into barbet armor alone.

 

another sample of the AI's design priorities, next battle its France's newest 55k ton super dreadnaught, this time sporting very strong armor throughout, but only 8 12in guns and that's it.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Fangoriously

[o Barão]

6 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

that barbet armor didn't even grant any sort of protection on the powder room, utterly useless.

To be fair, the barbette is not responsible to protect the magazines or the citadel, so this is not the best example.

 

6 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

The other thing that can be gleamed is that barbet armor probably only really reduces magazine detonation chance when a turret takes a direct hit, offering no protection at all otherwise.

Is not. For that, you use the component barbette Anti flash. I run several tests and until this day I have no idea what the barbette armor does in game and if it is worth it. Probably not.

[Fangoriously]

4 hours ago, o Barão said:

To be fair, the barbette is not responsible to protect the magazines or the citadel, so this is not the best example.

 

Is not. For that, you use the component barbette Anti flash. I run several tests and until this day I have no idea what the barbette armor does in game and if it is worth it. Probably not.

True enough, I don't see much evidence that damage modeling is so intricate that a hit directly underneath a turret to the belt armor has to take the barbet thickness into consideration. If it does, it sure would be nice if the damage log would mention what layers of armor are penatrated on any given pen, or partial pen. Seems it's more of a dice role, and all the different types and thickness of protection contribute to a ship AC that the shell has to role to try and beat.

Think my next round of refits will see barbet armor zeroed out, or maybe just 1.5in splinter protection. With a bit better armor on everything else.

[Nsalez]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:49 PM, o Barão said:

For me, it is impossible, maybe someone with better skills can dig the resource.assets file and edit the hulls shape in a 3D program.

 

 

I managed to get the models into blender, but its not very easy.

If anyone else wants to know edit models I can show you guys how

Edited December 29, 2023 by Nsalez

[Pappystein]

12 hours ago, o Barão said:

To be fair, the barbette is not responsible to protect the magazines or the citadel, so this is not the best example.

 

Is not. For that, you use the component barbette Anti flash. I run several tests and until this day I have no idea what the barbette armor does in game and if it is worth it. Probably not.

Barbette armor seems to only apply to the appropriate Barbette structure to raise turrets in my experience.   It is NOT a scientific conclusion but rather one based on, Oops I didn't have THAT armor set high enough and lost a turret and magazine from a shell that should not have penetrated either

 

[brothermunro]

19 hours ago, Nsalez said:

I managed to get the models into blender, but its not very easy.

If anyone else wants to know edit models I can show you guys how

I’d be very curious to know how you managed that!

[o Barão]

BETA v4.0.9 N.A.R. changelog:

• Updated to UAD 1.4.1.0

 

---VERY IMPORTANT!!!!---

Thanks to the devs latest updated, I can now offer more options to the player to choose how he/she wants to play the game.

The player have now 4 options:

• Semi realistic-Traditional formations
• Semi realistic-Swarm AI tactics
• Arcade-Traditional formations
• Arcade-Swarm AI Tactics

Semi realistic: Semi realistic accuracy values based on real life reports.

Arcade: Arcade game experience for players that just want to shoot things.

Traditional formations: Scout; follow and Screen formations are enabled from the start and the AI will use them. AI is also ordered to keep a battle formation.

Swarm AI tactics: Any AI ship with torpedoes is ordered to rush the player at close quarters.

 

Note: Because of this new options, I was forced to use a different cloud service due to space limitations in the previous one.

 

Now will be on MEGA. Link: https://mega.nz/folder/WkN2kCjZ#pEzwbqlq31BLP5pjp1WmDA

 

[Nsalez]

4 hours ago, brothermunro said:

I’d be very curious to know how you managed that!

Editing UAD Models (Incomplete)

While I've figured out how to extract and edit the game models, I haven't figured out how to put them back In the game yet. If any of yall can figure that part out, we'll have a full way to edit hulls and 3d models for the game, which opens up a ton of new possibilities for modding.

The main steps are:

• Pulling the Models from Resources.assets
• Using Unity and Unity Plugins to Convert models from .assets to .fbx
• Importing the newly converted .fbx models into a software like blender
• reconverting the models back into their .asset form (Havent been able to do) 

Pulling the Models From Resources.assets

 First, using AssetRipper to open UAD.exe and find the Meshes.

Export them to a new folder and Asset Ripper will organize everything fairly neatly. 

     This makes a new folder with all the meshes in .asset format and their associated metadata. After that, you can open up Unity and drag the meshes you want into your project. I Selected the gun turret from the HMS Hood and simply dragged it into the "Assets" folder in Unity (1). To see the model in the scene and prepare for the next part, drag the file into the "Sample Scene" box (2). 

gConverting Models from .Asset to .FBX

To get the models we pulled into a 3d Software like Blender, we need to change the file format from .asset (which only Unity can read) into a format that our 3d software can use. The best way I've found to do this is by using a plugin called FBX Exporter , which you can install In-App. 

Right Click the model from the scenes box,  then select "Export to FBX..." which will pull up an options menu. 

  

 

In this Options menu, you can set the export path to a new folder for the .fbx models. 

Make sure to set the export format to Binary instead of ASCII or blender wont open it!!

Getting the Models into a 3d Software

The most complicated part is finally done, so we can just open Blender and Import the .fbx model into blender.

You can edit the mesh as you like and save it. 

As of right now, I haven't figured a way to turn the .Fbx files into a .Asset file and load them back into the game. I have no clue how to convert .fbx files back into .Assets, but I might figure something out by the end of winter break. 

(love the vids btw munro)

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Nsalez

[Nsalez]

If any of you guys know how to make AssetBundles or create a .asset file it would help a lot 

Heres a more accurate version of the KG5 Turret I made: 

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Nsalez

[Lucky Kadono]

3 hours ago, Nsalez said:

Editing UAD Models (Incomplete)

While I've figured out how to extract and edit the game models, I haven't figured out how to put them back In the game yet. If any of yall can figure that part out, we'll have a full way to edit hulls and 3d models for the game, which opens up a ton of new possibilities for modding.

The main steps are:

• Pulling the Models from Resources.assets
• Using Unity and Unity Plugins to Convert models from .assets to .fbx
• Importing the newly converted .fbx models into a software like blender
• reconverting the models back into their .asset form (Havent been able to do) 

Pulling the Models From Resources.assets

 First, using AssetRipper to open the resources.assets file and find the Meshes.

Export them to a new folder and Asset Ripper will organize everything fairly neatly. 

     This makes a new folder with all the meshes in .asset format and their associated metadata. After that, you can open up Unity and drag the meshes you want into your project. I Selected the gun turret from the HMS Hood and simply dragged it into the "Assets" folder in Unity (1). To see the model in the scene and prepare for the next part, drag the file into the "Sample Scene" box (2). 

gConverting Models from .Asset to .FBX

To get the models we pulled into a 3d Software like Blender, we need to change the file format from .asset (which only Unity can read) into a format that our 3d software can use. The best way I've found to do this is by using a plugin called FBX Exporter , which you can install In-App. 

Right Click the model from the scenes box,  then select "Export to FBX..." which will pull up an options menu. 

  

 

In this Options menu, you can set the export path to a new folder for the .fbx models. 

Make sure to set the export format to Binary instead of ASCII or blender wont open it!!

Getting the Models into a 3d Software

The most complicated part is finally done, so we can just open Blender and Import the .fbx model into blender.

You can edit the mesh as you like and save it. 

As of right now, I haven't figured a way to turn the .Fbx files into a .Asset file and load them back into the game. I have no clue how to convert .fbx files back into .Assets, but I might figure something out by the end of winter break. 

(love the vids btw munro)

 

 

 

 

man i hope this gets figured out soon im willing to learn 3d modeling to just put canvas or cloth covers on the barrel haha

[Nsalez]

55 minutes ago, Lucky Kadono said:

man i hope this gets figured out soon im willing to learn 3d modeling to just put canvas or cloth covers on the barrel haha

It seems like this is a pretty general problem with unity games, especially ones that have their resources in compressed folders

[SpardaSon21]

1 hour ago, Nsalez said:

It seems like this is a pretty general problem with unity games, especially ones that have their resources in compressed folders

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.

Edited December 31, 2023 by SpardaSon21