"Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA v11.2 - for UAD v1.5.1.3

[o Barão]

BETA v8.1.0 - "Battle stations update" - N.A.R. changelog:

• Updated to UAD 1.5.0.7

 

Changes to accuracy

• Fixed all the issues with the high accuracy values in late years. This is the most accurate version I made based on real life data.*
• Arcade version is now x3 the hit rate to make the gameplay more enjoyable for the casual type of players.

*Unless you are a masochist, naval history nerd, that understands how the game different mechanics works, DO NOT use the semi realistic accuracy version. You guys are not going to like it.

 

Changes to provinces

• The defense modifier changed for many provinces. It will take into consideration, the terrain, the weather, tropical diseases, and the people and their willing to fight.
• Expect to lose a little more in a tropical country, or a lot if you try to invade Switzerland or decided to cross the Sahara or fight the Russians at Moscow.

 

Armor penetration threshold increased to x3.

• This was a request from some players, and I can't see a reason why not. IMO, is still the shell base fuse mechanic what really matters.
• The AI ammo logic improved to know better when to use HE or AP.

 

Other changes:

• Turbo electric drive cost rebalanced to make it more interesting.
• Crew training values were rebalanced.
• Flash fire and ammo detonation damage x2.
• KGV turrets design language improved for single and double barrels.
• Small improvements to make it easier to place torpedoes in some places.
• Badly damaged AI divisions will try to disengage from battle. Battle AI logic improvement.
• Light lamp is now the signal lamp. English file needs to be updated.
• Radar night stats improved.

 

Note: From my 1940 tests runs, I noticed how bad is still the mines mechanic in this game. So I am considering removing it from the mod.

Edited April 5 by o Barão

[flaviohc16]

29 minutes ago, o Barão said:

BETA v8.1.0 - "Battle stations update" - N.A.R. changelog:

• Updated to UAD 1.5.0.7

 

Changes to accuracy

• Fixed all the issues with the high accuracy values in late years. This is the most accurate version I made based on real life data.*
• Arcade version is now x3 the hit rate to make the gameplay more enjoyable for the casual type of players.

*Unless you are a masochist, naval history nerd, that understands how the game different mechanics works, DO NOT use the semi realistic accuracy version. You guys are not going to like it.

I'm a masochist.

 

Do I need to restart the campaign?

 

 

29 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Changes to provinces

• The defense modifier changed for many provinces. It will take into consideration, the terrain, the weather, tropical diseases, and the people and their willing to fight.
• Expect to lose a little more in a tropical country, or a lot if you try to invade Switzerland or decided to cross the Sahara or fight the Russians at Moscow.

Noice

29 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Armor penetration threshold increased to x3.

• This was a request from some players, and I can't see a reason why not. IMO, is still the shell base fuse mechanic what really matters.
• The AI ammo logic improved to know better when to use HE or AP.

 

Thank you, let's see how it rolls

29 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Other changes:

• Turbo electric drive cost rebalanced to make it more interesting.
• Crew training values were rebalanced.
• Flash fire and ammo detonation damage x2.
• KGV turrets design language improved for single and double barrels.
• Small improvements to make it easier to place torpedoes in some places.
• Badly damaged AI divisions will try to disengage from battle. Battle AI logic improvement.
• Light lamp is now the signal lamp. English file needs to be updated.
• Radar night stats improved.

 

Note: From my 1940 tests runs, I noticed how bad is still the mines mechanic in this game. So I am considering removing it from the mod.

Please do, IMHO they don't add anything to the game right now, unless you make them into a force field that you can't  enter unless you have ships with anti-mine stuff, like it was 6 months ago in vanilla.

Especially because they should damage less ships but do way more damage, but it's totally an rng game that the player can't interact with

[o Barão]

18 minutes ago, flaviohc16 said:

Especially because they should damage less ships but do way more damage....

Exactly what I think about mines.

 

No need to start a new campaign.👍

[Fangoriously]

Haven't said it enough, but every major release of this mod always impresses, always fond of 95% of the changes. 👍

An easier way to perhaps tone down late modern ship accuracy would be to lessen the stability score on some hulls. Rather than tweet the stats of thousands of towers, just hundreds of hulls! More than any other modifier listed on left side of the screen, a ships 'hull stability and towers' score seems like it determines gun accuracy the most. A ship with over +100 pretty much has guided munitions.

[King_Tiger_II]

4 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Are... you sure about that?

Only wood I'm seeing is scaffolding for the construction workers.

The base fuses used for 16"/50 HC rounds had a delay of 0.01 seconds at most, so even at the muzzle with its 2,690 feet per second velocity you're looking at 26.9 feet of travel before detonation.  Fletchers were 39.5 feet at their widest.  Even when you factor in the time for the impact shockwave to travel to the rear of the shell and trigger the fuse the chances of an overpen with HC and a properly set base fuse are extremely small against destroyers at anything resembling combat range.  You'd pretty much need to hit the much narrower bow to have a chance of overpenning.  If you're using a nose fuse, the shell is going to detonate almost immediately after impact, even against thin plate, at which point a destroyer is screwed no matter where it gets hit.

 

For comparison, the base fuses used for AP shells were 0.035 seconds, or 87.5 feet at the barrel and at 20km/21,800 yards 60 feet, or probably enough to detonate inside of a Cleveland class and its 66 foot beam if it hits the armor belt and gets fused as a result, especially when you realize its coming in at an angle.  If the ship isn't flat on the chances of a successful internal detonation go up dramatically.

I don't know how fuse times are handled by the game but they could use a serious examination by @o Barão.

I think I may be confusing them with a different class of cheap cargo ship. There was a entire design of cargo ship that used minimal steel in WW1 and mostly wood constuction so most of the steel can go to wartime naval production in 1917. I think they were part of the Emergency Fleet Corporation ship design, a still incomplete list of cheap cargo ships, most were steel but minimal steel at best. They did have wood designs with even less steel then the minimal steel designs. 

notable examples: Design 1001 ship 

Edited April 5 by King_Tiger_II
dug deep enough in the EFC ships to find it, 10/10 would not recommend.

[Draco]

Hi guys, does anyone know how to make a functional AoN design in the current update?

Had some excellent designs a couple updates ago, now when I try to recreate them they all routinely get their cheeks clapped by ships half their size...

[Azerostar]

The accuracy values at long or medium range felt good,but I think the close range accuracy may even much lower than histroy.

 

Edited April 24 by Azerostar

[o Barão]

53 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

An easier way to perhaps tone down late modern ship accuracy would be to lessen the stability score on some hulls. Rather than tweet the stats of thousands of towers, just hundreds of hulls! More than any other modifier listed on left side of the screen, a ships 'hull stability and towers' score seems like it determines gun accuracy the most. A ship with over +100 pretty much has guided munitions.

I fixed most issues with a simple change to gun mark accuracy bonus. Much quicker than editing the many hulls and towers variants in game. Now is at very good state IMO.

 

12 minutes ago, Draco said:

Hi guys, does anyone know how to make a functional AoN design in the current update?

Had some excellent designs a couple updates ago, now when I try to recreate them they all routinely get their cheeks clapped by ships half their size...

1" or 2" maximum at bow and stern belt. And fight your enemies around 15km range or more to avoid the secondaries. (for BBs) Note, that the game don't have an armored box for the rudder and will use the stern belt armor. Something to consider if it is worth it going with low armor in the rear to battle.

11 minutes ago, Azerostar said:

Battleship duel, 1950

The accuracy values at long or medium range felt good,but I think the close range accuracy may even much lower than histroy.

 

Look at your flooding and damage instability.

[Pappystein]

6 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

The base fuses used for 16"/50 HC rounds had a delay of 0.01 seconds at most, so even at the muzzle with its 2,690 feet per second velocity you're looking at 26.9 feet of travel before detonation.  Fletchers were 39.5 feet at their widest.  Even when you factor in the time for the impact shockwave to travel to the rear of the shell and trigger the fuse the chances of an overpen with HC and a properly set base fuse are extremely small against destroyers at anything resembling combat range.  You'd pretty much need to hit the much narrower bow to have a chance of overpenning.  If you're using a nose fuse, the shell is going to detonate almost immediately after impact, even against thin plate, at which point a destroyer is screwed no matter where it gets hit.

 

For comparison, the base fuses used for AP shells were 0.035 seconds, or 87.5 feet at the barrel and at 20km/21,800 yards 60 feet, or probably enough to detonate inside of a Cleveland class and its 66 foot beam if it hits the armor belt and gets fused as a result, especially when you realize its coming in at an angle.  If the ship isn't flat on the chances of a successful internal detonation go up dramatically.

I don't know how fuse times are handled by the game but they could use a serious examination by @o Barão.

Ok I had a HUGE reply all typed up... and my browser crashed

Then I realized we are probably talking about two different definitions for "Over-penetration"

OVER PENETRATION is the act of destroying a component (Room, section of hull etc) with extra damage left over that goes un-spent.   OR the hit is calculated in some way as to be too powerful and the final effect of it is not spent in the location targeted as it "passed through"

This can be a shell flying right through the hull because the hull section randomly chosen for damage was already destroyed (and I have seen over Penetrations on many of those hits) 
OR
The compartment targeted by the warhead (shell in this case) is completely destroyed as a result of being hit.
OR
The Game calculates that there is too much time for the fuse to detonate.

Given the game is trying to "average" all the various datapoints arround the world, and really ISN'T going for full realisim,  A country with a great fuse is going to feel less good, and a country with notoriously bad fuses is going to feel BETTER than it should be.     But that Is just my OPINION.

Edited April 5 by Pappystein

[Pappystein]

5 hours ago, o Barão said:

BETA v8.1.0 - "Battle stations update" - N.A.R. changelog:

Note: From my 1940 tests runs, I noticed how bad is still the mines mechanic in this game. So I am considering removing it from the mod.

Personally I am of two minds on this.   I fully back the removal of smoke due to AI incompetence. 

I think Naval combat, at a strategic level ** IS ** a lot of RNG, things you can't control.   And the Minefields do play into that.  I think the damage model is out of wack, with small ships not getting sunk but big ones getting sunk often (yes they should take more hits but they should also be smart enough NOT TO charge through.

But, OTOH, I don't know what, if anything that N.A.R. could do to alter this algorithm.

Finally, I will add, removing the mines will mean my Light cruiser will be even MOAR Murder-bots than they are currently.  All that freed up tonnage means more armor (I am already maxed for guns on deck in my designs as well as all the torpedo.)   I think adding mass to the Light Cruisers and Destroyers to compensate for mines going away is a bad design choice because there are probably a lot of people out there who make classes of ships without mines currently.  I know I do even with my use of mines, I tend to build 2 classes of Light cruisers at any given times.  1 With max mines and 1 without.

PS up until now, I have played exclusively with the Semi-REalistic version of your mod... Will continue until it gets crazy hard

[Draco]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

1" or 2" maximum at bow and stern belt. And fight your enemies around 15km range or more to avoid the secondaries. (for BBs) Note, that the game don't have an armored box for the rudder and will use the stern belt armor. Something to consider if it is worth it going with low armor in the rear to battle.

I'm doing all the way down at 0.1-0.5" and still getting full pens

Does the inner citadel armor also cover the extended belts in this update?

Cause when I up-armor the inner citadel I get full pens on my extended sections, but when I down-armor them I get full penetrations from 15" guns at 20+ km range on my 20" main belts instead...

[Azerostar]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

Look at your flooding and damage instability.

My conclusion is not depend on this battle, but rather on the many similar battles I had during all patches. Flooding and damage instability never have big influence to accuracy(at the latest years)  since I began to play this game.

Just a feedback, I think as the game use same model to simulate all the technical upgrades and changes between 1890 to 1950, that makes it impossible to get a reasonable sets for all years' game experiences.

[o Barão]

6 minutes ago, Draco said:

I'm doing all the way down at 0.1-0.5" and still getting full pens

That will depend on the gun caliber, the shell being used, your armor quality, the distance, the angle... so many modifiers.

6 minutes ago, Draco said:

Does the inner citadel armor also cover the extended belts in this update?

Cause when I up-armor the inner citadel I get full pens on my extended sections, but when I down-armor them I get full penetrations from 15" guns at 20+ km range on my 20" main belts instead...

What the citadel does is raising the armor quality above the base value, and I am almost sure that will apply that bonus everywhere. Unrealistic, but a minor issue IMO. Then we have the penetration modifiers for penetrating the 1st inner belt, 2nd inner belt, 3rd inner belt. Something I will need to take a look someday to see if it is possible to have a penetrating hit in the belt without reaching the engines or the magazine.

5 minutes ago, Azerostar said:

My conclusion is not depend on this battle, but rather on the many similar battles I had during all patches.

Well, I can play around with the gun's curve, to see if I can find a value that will increase the gun accuracy at low ranges, but I can't be promising anything.

29 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

But, OTOH, I don't know what, if anything that N.A.R. could do to alter this algorithm.

Probably I can't do much. I spend many hours trying to make it work months ago without any luck. I have a few modifiers to play around, but I don't have much hope.

 

TIP: Use TBs to lay down the mines. One cheap TB for each port. And order them to stay in the ports all the time. A cheap way to have minefields. It is what I do.

 

46 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

OVER PENETRATION is the act of destroying a component (Room, section of hull etc) with extra damage left over that goes un-spent.   OR the hit is calculated in some way as to be too powerful and the final effect of it is not spent in the location targeted as it "passed through"

This can be a shell flying right through the hull because the hull section randomly chosen for damage was already destroyed (and I have seen over Penetrations on many of those hits) 
OR
The compartment targeted by the warhead (shell in this case) is completely destroyed as a result of being hit.
OR
The Game calculates that there is too much time for the fuse to detonate.

Given the game is trying to "average" all the various datapoints arround the world, and really ISN'T going for full realisim,  A country with a great fuse is going to feel less good, and a country with notoriously bad fuses is going to feel BETTER than it should be.     But that Is just my OPINION.

The overpenetration is the situation where the shell have enough power to punch through the armor, but the fuse failed to detonate the shell on time inside the ship. That is why the fuse timer is much more important IMO.

In game, the overpenetration damage value is around 8% if I am not mistaken. Then we also have a random modifier that can make the damage go up or down.

 

And a final note: Playing around 1940 I am noticed the subs to be incredibly weak. Something I was suspecting since I nerf them months ago, since nobody was complaining anymore about them. 😁

I will need to run a Japanese 1940 test campaign only with subs and run tests to make them more realistic. Subs and TBs laying mines. Nothing more. I really don't have much hope related to the mines mechanic, but subs are important.

[o Barão]

Preview

Well, this is promising. Now I need to increase the damage and see how it goes.

A few minutes later...

Oh shit.😁

Edited April 5 by o Barão

[flaviohc16]

Ehhhh a bit too much now 🤣🤣

[Azerostar]

I made a test with the Beta v8.1.0 files and use accuracy sets in Beta v8.0.2's params.txt to replace the current versions' sets,and the accuracy results almost no difference. Then I use Beta v8.0.2's guns.txt to replace the current versions'sets,the difference is significant.

So I really doubted that what in the files that  really have big influences to accuracy in this game? At least the accuracy sets in params.txt seem not very important in my test.

 

Edited April 6 by Azerostar

[DrownedFish]

Is there any way to modify the research rate of technology? After playing a few campaigns it always feels too fast. Also, or is it possible to adjust the research rate of different techs separately?

[CenturionsofRome]

@o BarãoCould you please add the fantasy Bismark tower back to the German super battleship please? It needs that extra funnel slot. Also the 4in Mk5 triple is different from the 4in Mk5 twin and single for some reason.

Edited April 6 by CenturionsofRome

[huntsc]

3 hours ago, CenturionsofRome said:

@o BarãoCould you please add the fantasy Bismark tower back to the German super battleship please? It needs that extra funnel slot. Also the 4in Mk5 triple is different from the 4in Mk5 twin and single for some reason.

I agree, we need that back to make something like the H class.

[o Barão]

7 hours ago, Azerostar said:

I made a test with the Beta v8.1.0 files and use accuracy sets in Beta v8.0.2's params.txt to replace the current versions' sets,and the accuracy results almost no difference. Then I use Beta v8.0.2's guns.txt to replace the current versions'sets,the difference is significant.

So I really doubted that what in the files that  really have big influences to accuracy in this game? At least the accuracy sets in params.txt seem not very important in my test.

 

Open "guns" file.

accuracy_1,accuracy_2,accuracy_3,accuracy_4,accuracy_5

These are the modifiers that fixed my issues.

 

@CenturionsofRome not going to happen. My eyes are tired of bleeding every time I saw that in game. It is the devs' responsibility to add the H-series aft superstructure that allows to use another funnel, not mine. A similar thing happened with the Rodney BB. We had the hull, but not the iconic tower.  And there are other secondary towers fantasy, that are ruining the ship looks, that I will remove from the game in a later stage.

About your E.E being low, the problem is your components choice and hull stats. (Beam/draught)

And if you need more funnels, well you have a big deck area to use.

Not bad. Something that could be built by the Germans. The same we cannot say about that ugly tower.

 

Thank you about the 4" gun model issue. It was fixed. 👍

[Fangoriously]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

@CenturionsofRome not going to happen. My eyes are tired of bleeding every time I saw that in game. It is the devs' responsibility to add the H-series aft superstructure that allows to use another funnel, not mine. A similar thing happened with the Rodney BB. We had the hull, but not the iconic tower.  And there are other secondary towers fantasy, that are ruining the ship looks, that I will remove from the game in a later stage.

I don't suppose there is a way to mirror the front tower and use it as an aft tower? Like, In the files that can be moded, Is there a model reference that can be changed for any particular tower entry?

[HMS Implosive]

14 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

I don't suppose there is a way to mirror the front tower and use it as an aft tower? Like, In the files that can be moded, Is there a model reference that can be changed for any particular tower entry?

That can be done, just by changing parameters that tell that a given part is a front tower to rear tower. This can be done other parts as well: In my own game I tried and managed to make a funnel out of an American lattice mast, for example.

However, doing that would just replace one weird looking rear tower with another weird lookin rear tower.

[o Barão]

BETA v9.0 - "Silent hunter" update - N.A.R. changelog:

• Updated to UAD 1.5.0.7 opt

 

Changes to submarines:

• Added escorts to all convoys. They will be used if available. *
• Increased the sub stealth, stealth power and the escort's ASW power. Dangerous if undetected, vulnerable if spotted.

*This is highly experimental. If you see the game stuck between turns with the message "updating missions", report to me. I think I solved the issue, but I am not sure.

 

Changes to mines:

• Vastly increased the mine sweep power.
• Decrease the chance to have ship being damaged by mines events.
• Increased the mine damage. It is now possible to see some ships being sunk.
• Minefields will take more time to reach the maximum size.

Note: I still don't like the mines mechanic. 😒

 

Other:

• Fixed the German 4" x3 mk5 gun model.

 

 

 

[Liondrome]

There seems to be an issue with the British ships.

Dreadnought IV 23,600t - 32,500t

Dreadnought V 22,700t - 31,500t using the von_der_tan_hull_b_long2 hull

Dreadnought VI 25,500t - 35,500t

Dreadnought VI 33,000t - 45,000t

It seems that there has been a mix up with the hulls.

[Fangoriously]

On 4/5/2024 at 2:34 AM, o Barão said:

Changes to accuracy

• Fixed all the issues with the high accuracy values in late years. This is the most accurate version I made based on real life data.*
• Arcade version is now x3 the hit rate to make the gameplay more enjoyable for the casual type of players.

*Unless you are a masochist, naval history nerd, that understands how the game different mechanics works, DO NOT use the semi realistic accuracy version. You guys are not going to like it.

Well, I've been filtered. Oh man is accuracy terrible now in my 1913 campaign, after a capital ship has all but depleted its magazines, its has a 1.3-1.9% hit rate to show for it.