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

[SpardaSon21]

To add to what @Astorsaid above, the US 5" Mark 3 is a L/45 on destroyers but an L/36 on light cruisers.  Is that to represent the 5"/51 versus the 5"/25?  Also, if possible, can be the Mark 5 be the 5"/54, since the Mark 4 already does an admirable job of emulating the 5"/38?  I understand if the 5"/54 is a bit late for the game, though.

[o Barão]

6 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

To add to what @Astorsaid above, the US 5" Mark 3 is a L/45 on destroyers but an L/36 on light cruisers.  Is that to represent the 5"/51 versus the 5"/25? 

Fixed, thx.

6 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Also, if possible, can be the Mark 5 be the 5"/54, since the Mark 4 already does an admirable job of emulating the 5"/38?  I understand if the 5"/54 is a bit late for the game, though.

We don't have that gun model, but you can always use the gun barrel length to get what you want or almost close to.

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by o Barão

[SpardaSon21]

4 minutes ago, o Barão said:

We don't have that gun model in game. But you can always use the barrel length to get what you want or close to.

 

Shame, but oh well.  Also, I miss the mines on PT boats.  They made excellent layers and passive escorts to sit in port with, especially the modern ones.  That said, would it be possible to remove the need for torpedoes on destroyers?  Some DM's like Robert H. Smith didn't have them.

[o Barão]

41 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Shame, but oh well.  Also, I miss the mines on PT boats.  They made excellent layers and passive escorts to sit in port with, especially the modern ones.  That said, would it be possible to remove the need for torpedoes on destroyers?  Some DM's like Robert H. Smith didn't have them.

Mines on torpedos boats was unrealistic. 

I can't remove the need for torpedos since that rule will be global and would allow the AI to do the same. 

[Fangoriously]

Just noticed 12in guns, at every mk, do less damage than 11in guns, barley more than 10in guns. All the other stats look ok. looks like the weight of 11in guns is low also, lighter than 10in.

Also, hows the whole penetrating deck armor overhaul going? Still at between 0.0 and 0.1in of pen potential at most.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Fangoriously

[o Barão]

7 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Also, hows the whole penetrating deck armor overhaul going? Still at between 0.0 and 0.1in of pen potential at most.

Good observation about 12" low damage . Fixed Thx! ✌️

Edited June 5, 2023 by o Barão

[o Barão]

7 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

looks like the weight of 11in guns is low also, lighter than 10in.

What 11" guns you are seeing with low weight?

[Fangoriously]

11 minutes ago, o Barão said:

What 11" guns you are seeing with low weight?

Don't have time to double check if it was an isolated issue or wide spread right now, but I was designing a heavy cruiser with 11in guns for a Chinese 1910 campaign when I noticed how light they where compared to the 10in.

[o Barão]

5 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

Don't have time to double check if it was an isolated issue or wide spread right now, but I was designing a heavy cruiser with 11in guns for a Chinese 1910 campaign when I noticed how light they where compared to the 10in.

I can't find any issue. Maybe you were using a small barrel length for the 11", and that would explain why they were lighter. But if I am wrong, when you have the time, show me if you find any weight issue with the 11".

[Fangoriously]

Checked again, and when each a 10in and 11in are placed on the ship, with the same barrel length and same armor, the 11in was only about 100 tons heavier, wile a 12in was like 700 tones heavier than the 11in. at least when i was looking at Chinese guns in ~1915.

And whats up with Chinese army efficiency always in the single digits no mater how well things are going and how few transports you lose, every provence is extremely local too i don't have a spread thin world wide empire. Every other faction is at around 100% and I'm at 9% for no reason. This might be worth looking at in the mod too.

oh they updated again

[o Barão]

18 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

Checked again, and when each a 10in and 11in are placed on the ship, with the same barrel length and same armor, the 11in was only about 100 tons heavier, wile a 12in was like 700 tones heavier than the 11in. at least when i was looking at Chinese guns in ~1915.

Chinese 1915 guns and I can't find any issue.

20 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

And whats up with Chinese army efficiency always in the single digits no mater how well things are going and how few transports you lose, every provence is extremely local too i don't have a spread thin world wide empire. Every other faction is at around 100% and I'm at 9% for no reason. This might be worth looking at in the mod too.

Send me a screenshot to see what is happening or upload your campaign save file.

[o Barão]

0.9.2 N.A.R. changelog:

• updated to UAD 1.3.7
• Improved the deck pen when using small barrels.
• Fixed the low damage from the 12" guns.
• Some American gun fixes.
• Added 10% bonus to accuracy for daytime and clear weather.
• Some minor changes to HE switch logic and distance AI modifier.

[JaM]

Will there be 1.3.7R update or are you waiting for further fixes? (would totally make sense to wait)

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, JaM said:

Will there be 1.3.7R update or are you waiting for further fixes? (would totally make sense to wait)

Today I am busy with important stuff. I expect to have some time to update the mod later this evening.

[mrfox1918]

Been LOVING this mod! Really makes the game 10 times better! The rebalancing of the de-buffs for bow and stern balancing makes historical and good looking ship builds 10 times easier! As well as improves the effectiveness of the AI ships not being 90% bow heavy.

 

111/10 amazing work O Barao! 

Any plans to remove subs? Or waiting to see if the UAD team dose it themselves with an option?

Subs were a cool Idea for UAD but they are such a pain in the ass lol. 

[Hyennavernhya]

I have encountered an issue, germany 1930 start, many of the guns (6,7,9,10in..... or 152,178,229,254mm.... for the metric enjoyers) have some very limited range i'm talking 10 km max after upgrading the range a lot while some 102mm (4in) secondaries git 14km range.... i believe this have to do with this mod and it's rather game breaking when your heavy cruisers (CA) have less range than your destroyers (DD). Thanks in advance for looking that up if it's the same on yyour guys games, it does appear in custom battles btw.

[o Barão]

3 hours ago, mrfox1918 said:

Any plans to remove subs? Or waiting to see if the UAD team dose it themselves with an option?

Thanks!

 

The minelaying subs were already removed from the mod. At least until I find the mines mechanic is working properly.  With the "normal" subs, from my gameplay experience, I don't have any issues. And they are very important for the game IMO. Is the subs that give the player a reason to build DDs and CLs. Without them and also mines, the campaign would be only about building BBs. Also, the scout plane mechanic added in N.A.R. will give you bonus against subs and the subs range were nerfed in the mod to more realistic values.

1 hour ago, Hyennavernhya said:

I have encountered an issue, germany 1930 start, many of the guns (6,7,9,10in..... or 152,178,229,254mm.... for the metric enjoyers) have some very limited range i'm talking 10 km max after upgrading the range a lot while some 102mm (4in) secondaries git 14km range.... i believe this have to do with this mod and it's rather game breaking when your heavy cruisers (CA) have less range than your destroyers (DD). Thanks in advance for looking that up if it's the same on yyour guys games, it does appear in custom battles btw.

That is very strange, because I don't remember ever to edit those guns. But you are right. Thanks, it was already fixed for the new version.✌️

[o Barão]

0.9.2.1 N.A.R. changelog:

• updated to UAD 1.3.7x2
• fixed gun barrel length for the Germans mk4.
• Small tweak to the deck pen when decreasing the barrel length.

Edited June 6, 2023 by o Barão

[Fangoriously]

the problem with subs is how undeveloped they are, its just encounter sub, roll dice, result determined by +/- ASW modifiers.

I can imagine all sorts of rules of engagements you could set for them, and in fighting them actual warships should only be in danger if they go hunting for them, with how slow they move the ship would have to sail into the sub's line of fire.

[o Barão]

9 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

the problem with subs is how undeveloped they are, its just encounter sub, roll dice, result determined by +/- ASW modifiers.

This is not correct. There are 6 modifiers that are important in sub encounters.

From ships:

- ASW

- Defense power vs Subs.

 

From subs:

- Sub attack value

- Sub stealth value

- Sub hull strength

- Sub Wolfpack tech. (that allows multiple subs to be used in one encounter)

9 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

...and in fighting them actual warships should only be in danger if they go hunting for them, with how slow they move the ship would have to sail into the sub's line of fire.

And this is also not correct, and is not only from you. I see this many times from players complaining about subs encounters results. There is a general wrong assumption about their real capabilities in battle that leads to frustration. Or is the fact that ship's speed would not allow subs to get into a firing position, which is true but at the same time  wrong because they are ignoring that the ship fleet could be A ) crossing the sub path or B ) the sub captain already maneuvered the sub to a good firing position based on previous fleet movement reports. Or is also the fact some player have unrealistic expectations about how sonar and radar works, make them to believe that it would be impossible for a sub to get a chance to attack a TF.

 

3 British BBs with a heavy DD escort cross a Uboat path in the middle of the Mediterranean. The Uboat manage to survive the battle.

 

The most successful sub attack from WWII. Wasp carrier sunk, an american DD sunk, and North Carolina heavily damaged. The I-29 commanded by Takakazu Kinashi managed to survive the battle and fight another day.

 

And if you read reports from American sub attacks campaign in the Pacific. There are multiple situations like this.

Edited June 7, 2023 by o Barão

[o Barão]

0.9.2.2 N.A.R. changelog:

• Fixes to equipment: Sonar moved to "special" category and unavailable in custom battles (not needed). Scout plane moved to "equipment" category and available in custom battles (needs secondary tower)

This changes can lead to some issues if not deleting the custom save files or the campaign.

 

Mod description and PDF updated with all the changes made in the recent weeks.

Edited June 7, 2023 by o Barão

[SpardaSon21]

On 6/4/2023 at 2:54 AM, o Barão said:

Mines on torpedos boats was unrealistic. 

I can't remove the need for torpedos since that rule will be global and would allow the AI to do the same. 

Fair on the torpedoes, but as for mines on TB being unrealistic, at least in US service anything that could carry depth charges could carry mines, and in fact we even used auxiliary tugboats as minelayers.  The US Mark 6 we deployed in 1917 weighed 1,400 pounds, or .63 tons, and for the weight of the Adv. Layer V at 170 tons you're looking at 269.8~ mines for that tonnage.

Here's how complicated it was to deploy, too.  That's USS Ute, a 1,200 ton tugboat shoving it off the side.  Navweapons outright mentions it lacked any need for specialized deployment methods.  Yes, the photo was taken in 1978, but I somehow doubt we never developed a means of rail-deploying WW1-era mines until after WW2.  USS Gamble was a 1,000 ton Wickes class of the same displacement as the Modern TB hull and she carried 80 mines in addition to her ASW gear and torpedo armament.

Edited June 7, 2023 by SpardaSon21

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Fair on the torpedoes, but as for mines on TB being unrealistic, at least in US service anything that could carry depth charges could carry mines, and in fact we even used auxiliary tugboats as minelayers.  The US Mark 6 we deployed in 1917 weighed 1,400 pounds, or .63 tons, and for the weight of the Adv. Layer V at 170 tons you're looking at 269.8~ mines for that tonnage.

Here's how complicated it was to deploy, too.  That's USS Ute, a 1,200 ton tugboat shoving it off the side.  Navweapons outright mentions it lacked any need for specialized deployment methods.  Yes, the photo was taken in 1978, but I somehow doubt we never developed a means of rail-deploying WW1-era mines until after WW2.  USS Gamble was a 1,000 ton Wickes class of the same displacement as the Modern TB hull and she carried 80 mines in addition to her ASW gear and torpedo armament.

I should make more clear to avoid any issue. It is a similar issue about your torpedo suggestion on destroyers.

To add or not is a global setting. I can't set the game to use only a specific amount of mines for that hull, or what ships inside that class can carry mines. That is the issue. You can mention specific ships with a specific tonnage category that could carry mines. That is fair and correct. The problem is Torpedo boats class goes from anything around 175 tons to 1000 tons in the modern hulls. And to have a small TB carrying a huge amount of mines is complete unrealistic.

That is the problem when trying to adapt historical facts to the engine game limitations. Sometimes by reading the game files it is possible to find a solution, as an example the 9" guns for the semi-armored cruisers. In this case I didn't find a solution, that is why I decided to remove them.

 

[mrfox1918]

hello o Barão, had a sort of request for you.

Would it be possible to have the information about how you were able to mod the ships Stability characteristics? Having much more reasonable bow, stern and pitch roll characteristics REALLY improves the ships and game overall. Makes Ai designs more useful and makes historic looking builds more possible and viable. I wanted to give this info to admiral snackbar for his mod.

Was also hoping you could let him use the "all ships start battle in line of battle" instead of formations. This makes the battles in general 10 times better on its own.

These 2 components of your mod make UAD 10 times more enjoyable and I believe all UAD mods and players would really apricate it being apart of both mods.

Thanks again for your great work! I have been really enjoying playing both your mod and admiral snackbars.

 

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, mrfox1918 said:

hello o Barão, had a sort of request for you.

Would it be possible to have the information about how you were able to mod the ships Stability characteristics? Having much more reasonable bow, stern and pitch roll characteristics REALLY improves the ships and game overall. Makes Ai designs more useful and makes historic looking builds more possible and viable. I wanted to give this info to admiral snackbar for his mod.

Was also hoping you could let him use the "all ships start battle in line of battle" instead of formations. This makes the battles in general 10 times better on its own.

These 2 components of your mod make UAD 10 times more enjoyable and I believe all UAD mods and players would really apricate it being apart of both mods.

Thanks again for your great work! I have been really enjoying playing both your mod and admiral snackbars.

 

Sure, of course, I am happy to help where I can. I will explain in details inside the rebalancing mod.