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

[o Barão]

16 hours ago, TamaDasha said:

Destroyers (and, to an extent - light cruisers) in general are suffering terribly in that version,...

I changed the arcade version to be a x2 instead of x3 hit rate in this version. Have fun! 😉

 

[o Barão]

4 hours ago, YFH said:

Harbour size of Wilhelmshafen. It is way smaller than most other main harbours of Germany. Even smaller than Pillau. I dont think that is correct.

The port's capacity is hardcoded. You will need to ask the devs for a change.

4 hours ago, YFH said:

I remember from reading on steam that that moduls or hulls becoming obsolete is a running issue.

It is not an issue.

I know that there are some players would like to have the freedom to whatever they like, but hulls become obsolete for very good reasons.

 

For anyone interested in playing with obsolete hulls, the solution is to edit the "technologies" file and remove all the obsolete lines.

As an example:

obsolete(b_1_austria;b1_massena_var1;b1_massena_var2;b1_massena_var3;b1_brennus;b1_bouvet;b1_bouvet2;b_1;b_1_usa;b_2;b_2_usa;b1_russiaold;b1_tsesarevich_france;b1_tsesarevich_russia;b_1_russia;b_2_borodino;b_2_borodino_largedeck;b_2_china_exp;b2_germany;b2_friedrich;b1_germany;b1_germanyexport;b2_germanyexport;b3_britain;b_1;b1_bouvet_semidreadnought;b1_maine_varsides;b1_maine_varsmall;b_1_italian_3mast;b_1_italian_Large_3mast;b_2_austria;b_3_russia;b_1_usa_var;b_2_italy;b_1_usa_var_exp1;b_1_usa_var_exp2;b_1_usa_var_exp3;b_2_usa_semi;b_2_usa_semi2;b_1_largegeneric)

 

4 hours ago, YFH said:

They just scrapped everything. Other countries are often doing the same. Suddenly, they dont have a fleet.

That is something it is possible to be improved. At least increasing the minimum fleet tonnage before the AI is allowed to scrap anything. I will take a look at that in the next version.

 

4 hours ago, YFH said:

Wars between countries are also strange...

Wars in this game are strange. Allies don't work or do anything sometimes. Takes much time for them to join the wars. The issue, IMO, is related to how players were crying in the first versions of the game, how the war could suddenly end because an allied signed a peace treaty. So the devs changed to be what we have atm.

I am just guessing here.

5 hours ago, YFH said:

For example the 12,7cm single turret that I have currently available for my destroyer 3 hull. The turret is a 15cm secondary turret from a 1930s German battleship,,but not a destroyer turret. It might work on the 1936 Mob Destroyer class as a double 15cm turret, but not on the destroyer 3 hull.

I don't have a 3D model for what you are asking. Well, I think not, unless you have some suggestion.

 

5 hours ago, YFH said:

Also I looked up the historical GDP of Germany. The mod puts Germany way below that. I think in legendary mode you should atleast get the historical values, which you probably need as a minimum to build the historical amount of ships.

Historical GDP values, it is not possible. The modifiers are global and applied to all nations. If you are talking about the money value, that is irrelevant. We are not using American dollars, British pounds, German marks. etc... instead it is in game credits are the same for all nations.

What I can edit is the country initial wealth to make them different from the others, but I never saw Germany struggle with money. At least I never had any issues playing with Germany.

[TamaDasha]

7 hours ago, YFH said:

I remember from reading on steam that that moduls or hulls becoming obsolete is a running issue. I want so suggest to change the pre-dreadnought hulls not to become obsolete with the first dreadnought hulls. I know that doesnt make a lot of sense to use the older hull, but for example the Deutschland-class ships were build after the first dreadnoughts and I like to have my fleet historically built in the right order.

The reason it's done is to force the AI to build newer ships, as I understand it. Otherwise they'd just keep building outdated crap forever.

[Fangoriously]

love the shell overhaul. Not only does it make things more realistic, it better balances the game as there is no clear best type, and every shell type has a niche its the strongest at. I never agreed with moders and game devs that say you can have realism or balance, that's a skill issue, this definitely has both.

light shell accuracy is very strong under 10k, due to being practically direct fire but very unlikely to hit past 20k. standard is a good upgrade to a light shell build as tech advances and ranges increase and you don't want to have a gun fight in torp range. Both are good on a ship with subpar stability that have to fight close in. Heavy seems better balanced for pre-radar assisted long range gunnery, and super heavy is great for when your ship is advanced enough to have gun fights at 20k-40k.

Before I always defaulted to light shell for better range and accuracy with less volatility, all thing you otherwise would need to spend a lot of tonnage to compensate for, now that's mostly turned on its head!

 

Good call on arcade down to just 2x multiplier, did some 1950 testing and it came down to a mater of rate of fire, constant long range hits were guarantied. Had my ~1920 campaign battleships running light shells that had a literal 100% main gun accuracy at 6k vs another capital ship, was about to drop back down to realistic to see how it was.

all really great changes 👍

[reef75]

Re loaded campaign and played fine second time. I should of tried this first before commenting.

 

[Azerostar]

21 hours ago, TamaDasha said:

Destroyers (and, to an extent - light cruisers) in general are suffering terribly in that version, as between the increased accuracy and lack of smoke screens, getting even barely into torpedo range turns into a suicide run. Considering the game is already heavily biased towards big ships, this makes the "all big gun fleet" problem even worse.

As AI prefer to shoot light armor targets at far to death than to shoot a heavy armor target on their face, the correct ways to use DDs are bring some of them with your capital ships and use them as baits, or you can just use many fast DDs to take a swarm attack.

And the CLs? God blessing those junks so they don't need to show their faces in battlefields.

This problem most blame to the Devs' poor AI targeting programe,it can't work reasonable since vanilla patch v1.4.

[o Barão]

BETA v10.4 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog:

• Scrapping threshold x2. The AI will now need to have at least a minimum 200k fleet before considering scrapping anything.
• Penetration values difference from shell weight modifiers increased. This was by reading and comparing the data from the 16" on the Nelson class (light shells) with the 16" on the Iowa class (super heavy shells). There is a 41% difference, but there is also a generation gap in gun technology. So I increased a little, and the maximum difference is now at 28%. As an example, in vanilla, super heavy shells have 12.5% penetration modifier. I am using 16% for the super heavy shells. A small increase, nothing crazy.
• The negative modifiers about detonation and flash chance were increased by 5% for both the heavy shells and super heavy shells to balance them.

 

Going to take a break from modding for the next days. Have fun!! 😉

 

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.

 

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.

[Azerostar]

I think it seems that you have done v10.4 update based on v10.1 than v10.3,because the changes made in v10.2 seem all be canceled.

Edited April 22 by Azerostar

[o Barão]

35 minutes ago, Azerostar said:

I think it seems that you have done v10.4 update based on v10.1 than v10.3,because the changes made in v10.2 seem all be canceled.

What? I need details. I just checked and I didn't find any issue.

Edited April 22 by o Barão

[Azerostar]

Quote

*Naval Arms Race mod overhaul (N.A.R.), made by the Baron - BETA v10.4  for UAD 1.5.0.9 Optx3- «Shells & ballistics rework» update/Realistic accuracy version»*

I seen this in params.txt, so this is truely the v10.4 file.

Then, in technologies.txt, for example

Quote

projectile_shell_31,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_31,1924,2,40,"ap_fire(-19), ap_damage(-25), ap_penetration(36), ap_weight(-6), ap_cost(-35), ap_ricochet_angle_min(-55), ap_ricochet_angle_max(62.5), ap_ricochet_chance(7), fuze(30), shell_velocity_ap(-2.2), accuracy(-6.5), accuracy_long(30)",ap_5,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_31,,,

You add range() modifies to shell datas in v10.2, then change to he_range() and ap_range() in v10.3, now they were all rollback to v10.1.

This problem happens on projectile_shell_11,13,14 and projectile_shell_20 to 31.

[o Barão]

3 minutes ago, Azerostar said:

I seen this in params.txt, so this is truely the v10.4 file.

Then, in technologies.txt, for example

You add range() modifies to shell datas in v10.2, then change to he_range() and ap_range() in v10.3, now they were all rollback to v10.1.

This problem happens on projectile_shell_11,13,14 and projectile_shell_20 to 31.

No, everything is fine. You messed up somewhere.

 

projectile_shell_20,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_20,1920,2,40,"he_fire(150), he_damage(35), he_penetration(-95), he_weight(9), he_cost(-50), fuze(-100), shell_velocity_he(2), accuracy(12.5), accuracy_long(-15), he_range(-3)",he_5,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_20,,,
projectile_shell_21,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_21,1915,2,40,"he_fire(75), he_damage(55), he_penetration(-75), he_weight(6), he_cost(-30), fuze(-90), shell_velocity_he(1.5), accuracy(7.5), accuracy_long(-10), he_range(-2)",he_4,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_21,,,
projectile_shell_22,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_22,1891,,40," he_fire(35), he_damage(30), he_penetration(-55), he_weight(3), he_cost(-15), fuze(-80), shell_velocity_he(0.75), accuracy(3.75), accuracy_long(-5), he_range(-1)",he_1,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_22,,,
projectile_shell_23,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_23,1890,,40,"start, fuze(-70)",he_0,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_23,,,
projectile_shell_24,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_24,1893,2,40,"he_fire(-10), he_damage(-10), he_penetration(25), he_weight(-3), he_cost(-25), fuze(-50), shell_velocity_he(-1.5), accuracy(-7.5), accuracy_long(10), he_range(2)",he_2,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_24,,,
projectile_shell_25,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_25,1903,2,40,"he_fire(-15), he_damage(-15), he_penetration(40), he_weight(-6), he_cost(-45), fuze(-40), shell_velocity_he(-2), accuracy(-12.5), accuracy_long(15), he_range(3)",he_3,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_25,,,
projectile_shell_26,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_26,1895,2,40,"ap_fire(15), ap_damage(70), ap_penetration(-45), ap_weight(6), ap_ricochet_angle_min(-85), ap_ricochet_angle_max(37.5), ap_ricochet_chance(-75), fuze(-60), shell_velocity_ap(2), accuracy(12.5), accuracy_long(-15), ap_range(-3)",ap_3,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_26,,,
projectile_shell_33,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_33,1902,2,40,"ap_fire(10), ap_damage(55), ap_penetration(-32.5), ap_weight(4), ap_cost(-25), ap_ricochet_angle_min(-80), ap_ricochet_angle_max(32.5), ap_ricochet_chance(-50), fuze(-40), shell_velocity_ap(1.5), accuracy(7.5), accuracy_long(-10), ap_range(-2)",ap_6,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_33,,,
projectile_shell_27,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_27,1913,2,40,"ap_fire(10), ap_damage(30), ap_penetration(-20), ap_weight(2), ap_cost(-25), ap_ricochet_angle_min(-60), ap_ricochet_angle_max(50), ap_ricochet_chance(-25), fuze(-20), shell_velocity_ap(1), accuracy(3.75), accuracy_long(-5), ap_range(-1)",ap_4,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_27,,,
projectile_shell_28,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_28,1890,,40,"start, ap_ricochet_angle_min(-85), ap_ricochet_angle_max(37.5) ",ap_0,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_28,,,
projectile_shell_29,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_29,1898,2,40,"ap_fire(-12), ap_damage(-15), ap_penetration(25), ap_weight(-2), ap_cost(-15), ap_ricochet_angle_min(-33), ap_ricochet_angle_max(12.5), ap_ricochet_chance(5), fuze(10), shell_velocity_ap(-1), accuracy(-3.75), accuracy_long(5), ap_range(1)",ap_1,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_29,,,
projectile_shell_30,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_30,1911,2,40,"ap_fire(-17), ap_damage(-20), ap_penetration(31.5), ap_weight(-4), ap_cost(-25), ap_ricochet_angle_min(-60), ap_ricochet_angle_max(50), ap_ricochet_chance(5), fuze(20), shell_velocity_ap(-1.5), accuracy(-7.5), accuracy_long(10), ap_range(2)",ap_2,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_30,,,
projectile_shell_31,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_31,1924,2,40,"ap_fire(-19), ap_damage(-25), ap_penetration(36), ap_weight(-6), ap_cost(-35), ap_ricochet_angle_min(-55), ap_ricochet_angle_max(62.5), ap_ricochet_chance(7), fuze(30), shell_velocity_ap(-2), accuracy(-12.5), accuracy_long(15), ap_range(3)",ap_5,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_31,,,

 

projectile_shell_11,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_11,1890,,40,"start, shell_damage(-10), he_damage(-10), he_fire(-15), penetration(-12), reload(7.5), shell_weight(15), detonation(20), flash(15), flash_explosion(15), flash_spread(20), ap_ricochet_angle_min(-5), ap_ricochet_angle_max(-7), ap_ricochet_chance(8), multi_targeting_self(-6), cost(gun;15), shell_velocity(3.75), accuracy(15), accuracy_long(-18), range(-7), gun_rotation(3), weight(gun;1.5)",shell_light,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_11,,,
projectile_shell_12,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_12,1890,,40,"start, default_component, multi_targeting_self(-10)",shell_normal,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_12,,,
projectile_shell_13,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_13,1890,,40,"start, shell_damage(10), he_damage(10), he_fire(15), penetration(10.4), reload(-5), shell_weight(-13), detonation(-30), flash(-25), flash_explosion(-15), flash_spread(-20), ap_ricochet_angle_min(4), ap_ricochet_angle_max(6), ap_ricochet_chance(-7), multi_targeting_self(-14), cost(gun;-13), shell_velocity(-3.25), accuracy(-12.5), accuracy_long(15), range(6.5), gun_rotation(-2), weight(gun;-1.3)",shell_heavy,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_13,,,
projectile_shell_14,projectile_shell,,$technology_name_projectile_shell_14,1920,,40,"shell_damage(15), he_damage(15), he_fire(22.5), penetration(16), reload(-7.5), shell_weight(-20), detonation(-40), flash(-35), flash_explosion(-25), flash_spread(-30), ap_ricochet_angle_min(6), ap_ricochet_angle_max(8), ap_ricochet_chance(-9), multi_targeting_self(-20), cost(gun;-18), shell_velocity(-5), accuracy(-18.25), accuracy_long(22.5), range(10), gun_rotation(-4), weight(gun;-2)",shell_S.heavy,,$technology_desc_projectile_shell_14,,,

 

In black is some new modifiers I am testing atm, but the rest it how is supposed to be.

[Azerostar]

3 minutes ago, o Barão said:

No, everything is fine. You messed up somewhere.

In black is some new modifiers I am testing atm, but the rest it how is supposed to be.

Maybe you need to check the files you uploaded, I download again and still seen the shell datas from v10.1 .

[o Barão]

Just now, Azerostar said:

Maybe you need to check the files you uploaded, I download again and still seen the shell datas from v10.1 .

I already saw the error. Thanks!!!👍

[Azerostar]

Just now, o Barão said:

I already saw the error. Thanks!!!👍

You're welcome. I always need to modify something to fit my game style so easier to find these bugs.😁

[o Barão]

BETA v10.5 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog:

• Fixed a file version error mentioned by @Azerostar
• Added guns weight and rotation modifiers for the shell weight components. The loading mechanism weight is taking into account the shell weight. This will have a small impact on the gun's overall weight and turret rotation.

 

Going to take a break from modding for the next days. Have fun!! 😉

 

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.

 

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 22 by o Barão

[o Barão]

BETA v10.6 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog:

• Wind resistance modifiers added to all shells. The lighter the shell, the bigger the effect, specially on stormy weather.
• Some shells descriptions were updated. The English file needs to be updated.

 

With this concludes the update about shells & ballistics. Summary of all changes in the past days:

 

Lighter shells have better accuracy at low ranges due to higher muzzle velocity, trajectory flattening and reduced time to target, where heavy shells have better range and are more accurate at long ranges due to better ballistic coefficient, that is a measure of how well a projectile retains its velocity and resists drag as it travels through the air. Note: In NAR , the long range accuracy effect starts at 5.5 km and gets the maximum effect at 40 km. This offers new tactical options for the Admiral to consider when designing the ships.

Wind resistance modifiers added to all shells. The lighter the shell, the bigger the effect, specially on stormy weather.

Penetration values difference from shell weight modifiers increased to 28%. This was by reading and comparing the data from the 16" on the Nelson class (light shells) with the 16" on the Iowa class (super heavy shells). There is around 41% difference, but there is also a generation gap in gun technology.

Heavier shells are more likely to penetrate surfaces rather than bouncing off, due to their greater mass and momentum.

Splash modifiers applied to all shells. The heavier the shell, the worse will be the impact on accuracy. The moment radar and long range finders technology are unlocked and used, this penalty becomes irrelevant.

Added guns weight and rotation modifiers for the shell weight components. The loading mechanism weight is taking into account the shell weight. This will have a small impact on the gun's overall weight and turret rotation.

New shell added, SAPC.

SAPBC penetration improved.

SAP and all HE shells damage was improved to better represent the difference in weight from the bursting charges-

HCHE, CNF and CP fuse are now more sensitive since they were designed to work against light armored ships.

Min angle and max angle of ricochet for all shells reworked, taking into account the shell shape or the AP cap design, if present, for ricochet chance calculations:

• APBC & SAPBC The addition of a ballistic cap that allows the cap underneath to have a less aerodynamic shape often with sharp edges, which allows it to grip into armour even at high impact angles.
• APC shells have a unique hard cap design that favors penetration at low angles, but is very poor at steep angles.
• SAPC Use a soft cap to spread the radial shock outward from the impact along the radius of the now flattened soft cap, keeping the shock from travelling into the body of the shell itself. Soft caps, however, do not function at high impact angles.

 

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.

 

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.

[Azerostar]

A suggest, if you need to improve the balance between heavy shells and light shells, move heavy shell tech to 1909 and super heavy shell tech to 1930 maybe a good and histroy-based choice.

Light shells(used with big guns) in histroy are evidences of poor technologies or false ideas , even both with some examples,so the more realistic you are, the more useless they become.

[o Barão]

4 hours ago, Azerostar said:

A suggest, if you need to improve the balance between heavy shells and light shells, move heavy shell tech to 1909 and super heavy shell tech to 1930 maybe a good and histroy-based choice.

Light shells(used with big guns) in histroy are evidences of poor technologies or false ideas , even both with some examples,so the more realistic you are, the more useless they become.

That is a good suggestion. 👍

There is also the possibility to increase the splash modifier. Small impact during a battle atm, almost irrelevant unless there are many guns shooting the same target and still when that happens the influence is little.

 

 

 

 

[Vekken]

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.

[YFH]

On 4/22/2024 at 2:14 AM, o Barão said:

I don't have a 3D model for what you are asking. Well, I think not, unless you have a suggestion.

My suggestion would be to use the older turret. It fits far better from the size and also from the realism it is the best tradeoff in my opinion:

Looking at a 1936 Mob class DD that would mean 3 fairly realistic single turrets vs one visually incorrect double turret. Keeping the current model would mean one correct double turret and 3 totally oversized single turrets.

Just my opinion, your mod, your rules.

If possible, and excuse my lack of knowledge, I would also suggest as the perfect compromise to keep for the single turret the older model and use for the same caliber double turret the newer model. If that is even possible. Like it is done with the 5.1cm gun model.

[o Barão]

2 hours ago, YFH said:

My suggestion would be to use the older turret. It fits far better from the size and also from the realism it is the best tradeoff in my opinion:

Looking at a 1936 Mob class DD that would mean 3 fairly realistic single turrets vs one visually incorrect double turret. Keeping the current model would mean one correct double turret and 3 totally oversized single turrets.

Just my opinion, your mod, your rules.

If possible, and excuse my lack of knowledge, I would also suggest as the perfect compromise to keep for the single turret the older model and use for the same caliber double turret the newer model. If that is even possible. Like it is done with the 5.1cm gun model.

I think I understood what you are saying. To use the old single barrel 5" for late versions, right? It is a good suggestion. 👍

 

4 hours ago, 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.

From a gameplay point of view, maybe it could be possible by editing the tech tree to add a new branch, similar to what MDHansen did here:

But I also would need to add negative penetration modifiers and would be a little of a pain to balance out without creating situations where players could find exploits and abused the mechanic.

 

If it is possible? Maybe. If it is worth it? Probably not.

Edited April 23 by o Barão

[Pappystein]

22 hours ago, o Barão said:

BETA v10.6 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog:

• Wind resistance modifiers added to all shells. The lighter the shell, the bigger the effect, specially on stormy weather.
• Some shells descriptions were updated. The English file needs to be updated.

 

With this concludes the update about shells & ballistics. Summary of all changes in the past days:

 

 

So I am using the Accurate gun model, not the arcade model.  I came to report on the patch previous to this...  

In a Word....    AMAZING!    My ship losses seem correct, and my ability to do damage down-range seems also correct.     I think the Rangefinders could use a little more Tender-loving-care as the discrepancy between the types is too big... but I think what really needs to happen is a complete re-write there (I haven't paid attention if you have already made major changes on this front...

I admit I have been stuck in a rut of only using Coincidence range finders for many iterations of UAD and NAR, because the stereoscopic ones were just BAD in the past.  With the new ballistic changes, I tried the stereoscopic rangefinders again.   It seems the stereoscopic RFs are  better than I remember (I am using them on all my CA/BC/BB/CB hulls currently  at the point of unlocking Coincidence 4 (so stereo 4 is already fitted to my flag force)   

 

[Pappystein]

15 minutes ago, o Barão said:

From a gameplay point of view, maybe it could be possible by editing the tech tree to add a new branch, similar to what MDHansen did here:

 

I just skimmed through this mod's forum thread.    Looks interesting.  Some of the technology in UAD's vanilla experience doesn't quite line up with game-play.   For example on the campaign, prior to the introduction of ESM/HFDF/RDF I have to either auto all the battles or have an extremely FAST, for the time period, set of ships reducing their survivablity.   With the re-emergence of JSON editable saves, I have cranked the tech up on Communications to 100.0 until RDF is unlocked.  Then I go back and crank it all back to 0.6 (to slow communication progression down to not run into the ever increasing "add weight for no real gain" repeating tech.

I think the changes to how the AI behaves in the latest few rounds of NAR have reduced the need for this... but it isn't eliminated.  

I say all of this in honesty, not because I want to hear how I cheat (it is a single player game, everyone should have a right to play it their own way.)  But rather to point out the possibilities that re-working the tech-tree could bring.  
 

As I see it,   the combined tech tree is cluttered with things that should "Not be here" and, could, with some work, be altered into a much more intuitive experience.   If at some point, someone would re-design the tech tree from the bottom up I think it would behoove all of us to embrace it.    No, @o Barão, I am not suggesting this is something you should do.  You have stated multiple times you are trying to step back and take a break from constantly updating this WONDERFUL mod.   I am more just "wishing."  

[YFH]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

I think I understood what you are saying. To use the old single barrel 5" for late versions, right? It is a good suggestion. 👍

That is correct. 

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

...I haven't paid attention if you have already made major changes on this front...

I admit I have been stuck in a rut of only using Coincidence range finders for many iterations of UAD and NAR, because the stereoscopic ones were just BAD in the past.  With the new ballistic changes, I tried the stereoscopic rangefinders again.   It seems the stereoscopic RFs are  better than I remember (I am using them on all my CA/BC/BB/CB hulls currently  at the point of unlocking Coincidence 4 (so stereo 4 is already fitted to my flag force)  

I didn't make any change to them, and IMO, they work well. Interesting to what you are saying, I always prefer to use the stereoscopic. Now, with the changes to shells accuracy, I think coincidence will be the best until around 1910. After that, stereoscopic for the big capital ships and coincidence for DDs and TBs.

 

I am considering increasing the splash modifiers, this will indirectly make the stereoscopic more interesting in the first years (1890-1900), specially in the situation when there are many ships shooting at the same target. Something to consider.

 

53 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I have cranked the tech up on Communications to 100.0 until RDF is unlocked.  Then I go back and crank it all back to 0.6 (to slow communication progression down to not run into the ever increasing "add weight for no real gain" repeating tech.

The idea is for the game to tell you where is the enemy? It is interesting, the issue is that RDF will always work. So for me to implement an arrow telling the player where is the smoke in the horizon and the ships are sailing in the dark of the night is unrealistic. Interesting idea, good for the gameplay, but a fantasy. I would prefer the devs to implement some feature that would help players understand better where is the "smoke in the horizon".