"Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA v11.4 - for UAD v1.5.1.6

[MDHansen]

Thank you so much  for this @NathanKell.

Ill have a look after work today, see if I understand and able to do this 🫣

[o Barão]

11 hours ago, basedana said:

I mean, it still doesn't say it would be heavier, it says it would be more expensive which it is, so I don't see why not add the same -10% boiler weight to both Oil 2 and Oil 3 since boilers should be lighter due to lighter and more efficient fuel being used.

That is the point. It isn't. It can be or not, all depends on other modifiers and how you are designing your ship.

Oil I

Oil II

Oil III

[o Barão]

7 hours ago, NathanKell said:

Hi! Very sorry I missed this, I was on vacation for a week and then the last week-plus work has been extremely busy (we're shipping a big game update, well, it's slipped a few days but definitely this week!). I'll take a look at this whenever I have a sec, though it might not be for a few days.

Regarding the path, if memory serves a .resS file is just a regular assets file with the header stripped, my guess is it's used here because unlike the main resource.assets file this one is _just_ a bunch of binary data to be streamed to the GPU?

...so, uh, I took a quick look while I was waiting for a build to complete. The flags are Sprite assets, not Texture2D. If you want to do this without code changes (if it's even possible), you'll need to add sprite assets of the given paths. To do that, you'll need to hook them up to new Texture2D atlases. I'm not sure the extent to which UABEA can actually do that.

The alternate approach is the code approach, which is fairly trivial. Hook postprocess for the Players data to load your flag assets (make a bunch of textures and use standard Unity code to load them as Texture2D) and make sprites out of them. Then harmony-prefix Player.Flag() (the static version of it) and set the return value as your desired sprite if the passed PlayerData is not a major (and then return false, so the base code doesn't run). Done! Shouldn't be more than a dozen or two lines.
EDIT: And to be clear I'm happy to write that if you want to supply the textures! You should be able to compile the dll yourself so you shouldn't be dependent on me, too.  (Basically you just install MelonLoader and run the game once; that generates moddable versions of the DLLs. Then you run MSBuild (from the command line) or VSCode/Visual Studio/whatever to compile code against the game's DLLs and you can ship the resulting DLL to users. The source code shouldn't need to be altered going forward, so at worst you'd have to recompile, but my guess is you wouldn't even need to do that since the bindings aren't going to change, so the initial compiled version I can make should suffice?)

Thank you, much appreciated!! For me what you are saying is still unknown territory since I have no experience in that, but sure your information shared can a make a big difference.👍

@MDHansen  In uabea it is possible to download the flags sprites. The problem is to upload them and create new files. Maybe this little information can help you somehow.

[MDHansen]

yup i have the sprites fropm earlier. but it stopped there. and I misunderstood, and thought it was the texture2d files that was important.

ill have a go later

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

Btw, in real life, did coal + turbine ships have less range compared to coal + triple expansion ships?

[HMS Implosive]

 

20 minutes ago, PalaiologosTheGreat said:

Btw, in real life, did coal + turbine ships have less range compared to coal + triple expansion ships?

It kinda dependts. Early turbines were horribly inefficient and the range thus suffed compared to triple expanison engines. For comparison, Lord Nelson -class pre-dreadnought battleships hade range of some 9000 nm at 10 knt with triple expansion engines, while HMS dreadnought could make only 6600 nm at the same speed and turbine engines, even though the two classes dedicated roughly same percetage of the total displacement for the fuel. On the other hand, tripple expansion engine can run only so long at full power before something brakes, while turbine powered ship can retain almost full power as long as you have coal left and your stokers don't work themselves to death.

However, when reduction gear, double reduction gear and turbo-electric transmisson became available, turbines efficiency rose to such a degree that using tripple expansion engine was pointless in large warships. They were still used in small and/or slow vessels like merchant ships and ASW corvettes upto ww2, as there were significant bottlenecks in production of turbine blades and they reguired less specialized knowledge from their crews to operate.

If you are interested, Drachinifel has excelled video on the subject:

 

Edited April 17 by HMS Implosive

[NiKuTa]

Is mod compatible with v1.5.0.9 Optx3 ?

[o Barão]

34 minutes ago, NiKuTa said:

Is mod compatible with v1.5.0.9 Optx3 ?

I don't know, but if you can wait a little, the next major update should be ready today.

[o Barão]

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

• Updated to UAD 1.5.0.9 Optx3

 

Link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ac6FZM6KTnY3Rhm5GRsEO6Zs6V8Jfasf?usp=drive_link

Note: The english file needs to be updated.

 

-----  Major update  -----

• Ballistics reworked. Light, standard and heavy shells have unique properties at different ranges.
• New shell added, SAPC
• SAP and all HE shells damage was improved.
• SAPBC penetration improved.
• HCHE, CNF and CP fuse are now more sensitive since they were designed to work against light armored ships.
• Min angle and max angle for all shells, reworked taking into account the shell shape or the AP cap design, if present, for ricochet chance calculations.
• Shell weight modifiers from all components reworked to fix the unrealistic values. No more 15" shells with 1.5 tons as an example.
• Realistic accuracy formula reworked to improve the closer it is to the target.
• AI personalities updated. Added vanilla TECH AI instructions.
• Torpedo launchers costs rebalanced. Credits to @NoX for the idea.

 

----- Ballistics rework  -----

All shells have unique properties at different ranges. This offers new tactical options for the Admiral to consider when designing the ships and what will be their role.

Note: In NAR, the long range mechanic starts to have effect at 5500 meters and will get the maximum effect at 40000 meters. This adds a new dynamic to the game, where according to the ranges is expected the ship to fight, the Admiral can take into consideration using one type of shell or another.

 

----- Min angle and max angle  -----

Now every shell shape or AP cap design, if present, will take into consideration the angles of ricochet.

APC shells have a unique cap design that favors penetration at low angles, but is very poor at steep angles.

With the invention of the ballistic cap, new cap designs are now possible to increase the biting angle. The players should notice a better performance from the APCBC variants and SAPBC because of this.

The values used in NAR as reference for the shell modifiers, are:

• Min angle 30º
• Max angle 40º
• Ricochet chance 55%

Min angle is where the ricochet starts to have an effect and the Max angle where it gets the full effect.

There is also a 70% ricochet chance for hitting the main turret.

Note: Only the max angle value is different from vanilla game. I changed to help the player in reading the gun stats.

 

 

 

Typical APCBC shell.

Note the changes to the armor-piercing cap to better improve the chance of penetration at steep angles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----- Realistic accuracy -----

American 16"/50 mk7 performance on trials.

Around 9km.

 

Around 27km.

Changes to the accuracy formula to improve the closer you are to the target give me what is now IMO a very realistic feel. Because of this, the mod two options are now: Realistic accuracy and the Arcade accuracy (3x times the chance of hit)

 

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 20 by o Barão

[Azerostar]

The new patch looks very great, especially the improve of close range accuracy.

[HMS Implosive]

First off, big thanks for reworking shell characteristics! 👍@o Barão

Unless I read something incorrectly, you have removed range modifiers from different weight shells. Do all the shells have same range now or is there some hidden parameters for that? (not complaining, as range vs weight wasn't that stright forward IRL anyway, just askin')

Also, would you maybe revise wording of the tooltip explaining different weight shells' bouncing characteristic? I am now not entirely sure, are light shells more likely or less likely to ricochet, or does it depend on the situation.

 

 

Finally, could somebody kindly enlighten me what the min and max angles actually represent in shell ballistics? That is something the game lacks a tooltip and leaves me quessing.

[o Barão]

11 minutes ago, HMS Implosive said:

you have removed range modifiers from different weight shells.

Not exactly. There are still range differences, but those are being applied by the muzzle velocity mechanic.

The higher the muzzle velocity, the better range you will get.

If you want a different range, then the propellant choice will be your primary source.

 

The reason I removed the range modifiers, is because the way the game is designed, it will affect the gun's accuracy.

More range equals to more accurate guns, and by applying the range modifiers (negative or positive) it makes it impossible for me, at the moment, to create two different shell dynamics. The better accurate at low ranges and the best for long ranges.

I say it is impossible now, but maybe I can still find a way.

 

I thought in adding a positive range modifier to shells using a ballistic cap, for obvious reasons, or light shells and a negative for heavy shells, but then it becomes a nightmare trying to create distinctive shell behaviors for different ranges as mentioned previous, without creating, without intention, one type of shell that it is better in most situations. A balancing issue.

 

I will still be going to try to add a small range modifier to light, heavy and super heavy shells. If I find a solution, I will implement in a future update.

 

One possible solution, is to halve the accuracy modifiers from the shell weight and add the range modifier to compensate. The problem is to find the right numbers that, when being applied to the AP or HE shell choice, the player can see a clear difference when looking at options available at the extremes. Improved APCBC vs SAP as an example. The problem is that ideas like this most of the time becomes a little nightmare, with many hours spending testing values and open the game to see how it is working.

 

34 minutes ago, HMS Implosive said:

Also, would you maybe revise wording of the tooltip explaining different weight shells' bouncing characteristic? I am now not entirely sure, are light shells more likely or less likely to ricochet, or does it depend on the situation.

The choices are more for gameplay reasons and to give the player choices. They are not unrealistic in any way, but it is impossible for me to say exactly how each shell could work in a specific situation.

For light shells:

Less Momentum Transfer: Lighter shells have less mass, which means they carry less momentum. When a projectile with less momentum hits a surface, it's more likely to bounce off rather than penetrate or deform the surface.
Higher Velocity Relative to Impact Surface: Lighter shells, especially those fired at high velocities, can retain more of their initial speed upon impact with a surface. This higher velocity relative to the surface can increase the likelihood of a ricochet.
Less Energy Absorption: Lighter shells may not absorb as much energy upon impact with a surface compared to heavier shells. This can result in a more energetic rebound, contributing to ricochet.

 

For heavy shells at steep angles:

Greater Momentum: Heavier shells possess more mass, resulting in higher momentum. When a heavier shell impacts a surface at a steep angle, it transfers more momentum to the surface. This increased momentum can lead to the shell bouncing off the surface rather than penetrating it.
Greater Penetration Resistance: Lighter shells are often more prone to deformation upon impact due to their lower mass. Heavier shells, on the other hand, may maintain their structural integrity better when striking a surface at a steep angle. This resistance to deformation can contribute to a greater likelihood of bouncing.
Increased Energy Dissipation: Heavier shells may not absorb as much energy upon impact as lighter shells do. Instead, they can retain more of their kinetic energy, which can result in a more energetic rebound off the surface.
Material Composition: Heavier shells are typically made of denser materials, such as lead, which are less likely to deform upon impact. This property can enhance their ability to bounce off surfaces, especially at steep angles.

 

43 minutes ago, HMS Implosive said:

Finally, could somebody kindly enlighten me what the min and max angles actually represent in shell ballistics? That is something the game lacks a tooltip and leaves me quessing.

The game does not explain this very well to the player, and without looking at the game files, I think it is impossible to know. And this is only my interpretation of the mechanic.

There is the min angle and the max angle.

The min angle is where the ricochet chance effect starts to being applied.

The max angle is where the ricochet chance effect will be applied at maximum.

The ricochet chance is 55%.

There is also another 70% ricochet chance by a shell hitting a main turret.

 

By tweaking these modifiers for each AP shell, I can take into consideration the shell design or cap design to work in different way at different angles.

 

To make it simple to remember, all AP shells with an AP cap and a ballistic cap have improved chance of getting a penetration at steep angles.

The APC have improved penetration chance at low angles, but terrible at steep angles.

The AP, SAP and SAPC have a wide angle where it can suffer a ricochet, however the semi piercing shells have a reduced chance of ricochet already, as a middle ground from AP to HE shells.

[o Barão]

BETA v10.1 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog:

Improvements to shell ballistics:

By reading the data available from navweaps and comparing different shells, it is clear that the heavy shells, even with lower muzzle velocity, can reach a better range 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.  Range modifiers were applied to all shells because of this.

Also because of this, it is not needed anymore to have huge long rang accuracy bonus to achieve the same.

http://www.navweaps.com/

 

[Azerostar]

The APBC and Improved APBC shells in this game deal less shell damage than the APC, I doubt that is this from histroy,or it just a game balance?

For example, http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.php , based on 15-inch Mark I of the United Kingdom, compared with the APC Mark Va(post WWI) and the APC Mark XXIIb(this will be a Improved APBC in game),it's obviously that Mark XXIIb have more bursting charges and could deal more damage, but in game we have the opposite.

Edited April 20 by Azerostar

[o Barão]

3 hours ago, Azerostar said:

The APBC and Improved APBC shells in this game deal less shell damage than the APC, I doubt that is this from histroy,or it just a game balance?

For example, http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.php , based on 15-inch Mark I of the United Kingdom, compared with the APC Mark Va(post WWI) and the APC Mark XXIIb(this will be a Improved APBC in game),it's obviously that Mark XXIIb have more bursting charges and could deal more damage, but in game we have the opposite.

 A game balance that makes sense. In general, APCBC shells were designed to have more penetration power and that leaves less room for a bursting charge.

The example you gave, both have an APC designation and I don't have the design scheme from both shells to compare. The data only shows that the APC Mark XXIIb is a heavier shell.

 

[Azerostar]

11 hours ago, o Barão said:

 A game balance that makes sense. In general, APCBC shells were designed to have more penetration power and that leaves less room for a bursting charge.

The example you gave, both have an APC designation and I don't have the design scheme from both shells to compare. The data only shows that the APC Mark XXIIb is a heavier shell.

 

In fact, the APBC shells always been called APC or AP in the NavWeaps, for example, http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php call the USA 16-inch Mark 8 shells as AP. However, as you can see in the picture above, the 16-inch Mark8 can be used as an AP, an APC, but if it is assembled, then it of coursely is an APBC.

The AP shells designed to use in long range battles may have less room for a bursting charge, however, the AP shells are bigger and heavier in the later years, those changes already gave them more rooms,so I think the simulate of bursting charges in UAD maybe should set as AP=APC >Improved APBC > APBC. This sets as accord with the datas from http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.php , as the Mark Ia( standard APC used in Jutland) has more bursting charges than all the other improved AP shells, and the later APBC have more bursting charges than those before them.

 

17 hours ago, o Barão said:

Range modifiers were applied to all shells because of this.

Also because of this, it is not needed anymore to have huge long rang accuracy bonus to achieve the same.

And a feedback, I think the fire ranges in recnt BETA v10 are very very great, especially at the later tech years custom battles. In the past, if not modified the shells data, those MK5 big caliber guns easier have more than 50km fire ranges so the battle may begin immediately when player enter maps. So this patch felt so good in this parts.

Edited April 21 by Azerostar

[TamaDasha]

Not sure what's going on there numerically, but I feel like the "Arcade" accuracy is a little... excessive. It certainly seems to make guns even more accurate than vanilla. If the split between versions is meant to be "This is extra for naval nerds" and "This is for average players" - I think the Arcade version should be closer to the base game experience. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the intent behind it.

The reason I'm saying this is I'm noticing armed transports reliably hitting maneuvering destroyers at 5km+ in 1908. Seems questionable for single 4in guns without so much as a proper rangefinder. Obviously, proper warships do even better - I've had several "ambush" battles start at ranges of 5-6km, at which point an enemy heavy cruiser would sink two of my destroyers before they even accelerated to full speed.

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.

[o Barão]

4 hours ago, Azerostar said:

however, the AP shells are bigger and heavier in the later years, those changes already gave them more rooms,so I think the simulate of bursting charges in UAD maybe should set as AP=APC >Improved APBC > APBC.

You can get the same result, by changing the bursting charge, propellant or the shell weight, that are being unlocked with time.

 

From a gameplay point of view, it is much better IMO, to have a system where all projectiles can be relevant and interesting to use, instead of using only the most recent unlocked, because it is better. This gives the player choices to think about, and makes the ship designing process more interesting.

 

I use the same methodology for propellants, bursting charges and armor, in NAR.

 

As an example. In vanilla game, the recent armor component unlocked will always be better. In NAR, if you look at the latest 4 armor components available, you will notice that all of them have a unique advantage in some area.

Edited April 21 by o Barão

[Draco]

loving the new update, all my AoN ships are competitive again because of the boost to long range accuracy if you use the right shells, thx baron, think it will be a while before I change away from this version ^^

[Azerostar]

26 minutes ago, o Barão said:

You can get the same result, by changing the bursting charge, propellant or the shell weight, that are being unlocked with time.

 

From a gameplay point of view, it is much better IMO, to have a system where all projectiles can be relevant and interesting to use, instead of using only the most recent unlocked, because it is better. This gives the player choices to think about, and makes the ship designing process more interesting.

 

I use the same methodology for propellants, bursting charges and armor, in NAR.

 

As an example. In vanilla game, the recent armor component unlocked will always be better. In NAR, if you look at the latest 4 armor components available, you will notice that all of them have a unique advantage in some area.

Yeah, I agree with you,as it's a game,more choices are always welcomed.

[o Barão]

BETA v10.2 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog:

Improvements to shell ballistics:

• Changed the ricochet chance and ricochet angles modifiers logic from the shell weights options. The initial idea was confusing for the players, so I made it simpler. Now, heavier shells have a clear an advantage in this regard.
• Light shells have improved safety modifiers to balance them.
• Shell weight descriptions updated. If there are errors in my grammar, please report. Note: The English file needs to be updated.
• Negative splash modifiers applied to all shells. Didn't make any sense, IMO, for standard shell to have a neutral behavior related to this and light shells a positive. All have an impact in the battlefield, buf ofc, the smaller it is the better. The moment radar, and better long range finders becomes available and used, this penalty becomes irrelevant.

 

And with this I conclude the "Shells & ballistics rework" update. I hope you guys like the changes.

In a few days, Manor Lords is going to be release, and I will sure spend some time with that.

Don't forget to block steam updates!!!

 

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]

BETA v10.2 has a serious bug, the types of HE or AP shells will effect the other sides' fire ranges.

You are using 'range()' to modify the fire ranges of HE and AP shells at projectile_shell_20 to projectile_shell_31(technologies.txt), compared with the vanilla file, I'm sure this parts need to use ap_range() or he_range() instead of range().

Edited April 21 by Azerostar

[reef75]

First battle with Japan v China i've had 1896. Enemy CA at first had no UI marking, also are not moving or firing. They have design speed 15 kts and rest of fleet is fighting. Red CA marking popped up eventually but still not doing anything. Also looking forward to Manor Lords

 

[YFH]

Hi everybody, I am quite new to this game. Currently I am in 1916 in the Germany campaign with this mod. I find several topics strange but I cant tell if thats caused by the mod.

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. Also the total harbour capacity is quite low. I like to build ships and ship classes like they were build in reality. Strangely I find it impossible to put all ships of the high sea fleet of Germany in to the harbours. Due to capacity issues.

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.

What is really strange though is that most of the other countries refuse to build up a battlefleet. Crazy example is Britain: Its 1915 fleet consists of 5 submarines. France doesnt have a  BB, just one BC. Both countries didnt loose the ships at war. They just scrapped everything. Other countries are often doing the same. Suddenly, they dont have a fleet.

In 1915 my fleet is at over 800000t (with almost all predreadnoughts scrapped) , more than double the size of the closest competitor. 

Wars between countries are also strange, because the just never end. Sometimes there are even no battles. They are just sitting and destroying their economy. At most times I have to reset the diplomatic relations in the save game, so the game doesnt get too boring  with everybody living with a wrecked economy.

Since the modder said all guns have been reworked I want to ask if there is interest on input what could be improved. 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. 

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. 

@o Barão I thank you very much for what you already did for the game and the community. I cant imagine how many hours that mod must have cost you. If you even find the time to reply I will be very happy.

 

Kind regards!

[o Barão]

BETA v10.3 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog:

• Improvements to shells range modifier to fixing a possible issue, mentioned by @Azerostar 😉
• Arcade version is now x2 the hit rate.

Edited April 21 by o Barão