"Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA v10.9.2 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - for UAD v1.5.1.0 Opt

[Danz_Von_Luck]

Does this require a new campaign? 

[o Barão]

7 minutes ago, Danz_Von_Luck said:

Does this require a new campaign? 

Yes. The changes to the ship weight modifiers are too many.

[Danz_Von_Luck]

Fair enough not gonna lie from my current campaign I've been enjoying this mod loads, worth restarting for 

[SpardaSon21]

8 hours ago, Danz_Von_Luck said:

Fair enough not gonna lie from my current campaign I've been enjoying this mod loads, worth restarting for 

Yeah, same boat here.

 

EDIT: @o Barão One thing I didn't see listed for Bismarck with a proper number was deck armor weight.  I was designing a quasi-Iowa in the custom battle designer to test the changes and the deck armor is heavier than the belt, even when the belt is twice as thick.  What should those numbers look like, historically speaking?

Edited March 27, 2023 by SpardaSon21

[o Barão]

10 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

EDIT: @o Barão One thing I didn't see listed for Bismarck with a proper number was deck armor weight.  I was designing a quasi-Iowa in the custom battle designer to test the changes and the deck armor is heavier than the belt, even when the belt is twice as thick.  What should those numbers look like, historically speaking?

SI Armour plating (decks, inner bulkheads, etc): 9,165 mt

So unfortunately we don't have a specific number only for deck armor weight. But if we look at most armored ship sections, we can see that the deck area is usually larger than the belt area from both sides combined. So in N.A.R we have these values.

w_armor_belt,0.0059,weight multiplier (from tonnage): armor belt
w_armor_belt_extended,0.0061,weight multiplier (from tonnage): armor belt extended
w_armor_deck,0.012,weight multiplier (from tonnage): armor deck
w_armor_deck_extended,0.007,weight multiplier (from tonnage):  armor deck extended

But most important, what you need to know is UAD have some limitations to calculate weights, to make it simple for the game to work I guess. As an example, increasing the draught level, will increase both the belt and deck armor weight in the same proportion. We should expect a bigger gain in weight to the belt armor, but only a minimal for the deck armor. But that is not how it works in UAD. The change % modifier, by changing the hull beam or draught, will be applied to both in the same way. So as an example, lowering the ship beam, to lower the deck area, to save weight and maintain a similar belt armor weight, it will not work. Both will lose weight in the same proportion.

 

Now the way I got this values, was by replicating the Bismarck in game with all the data I have from that ship and comparing with that weight ship list. And by doing this, changing the weight modifiers to get close to what I was reading. However, these modifiers are being applied to all ships, so what can work in one ship, probably will not be the exact same thing in another ship. This being said, there are important things that were changed for the better.

The deck weight was found by looking at that value and comparing to the bulkheads weight, plus the deck weight in game. I used maximum bulkheads, and I know the bulkheads weight. From the difference, I got the deck weight modifier to get a value close to the list. A similar thing was with the armor belt. I know the Bismarck exact armor values, so I apply them in game and compare to the weight list and apply a change to the weight modifier to get a close number.

Fuel as an example was only 2800 tons. And from the list if we see only from Furnace fuel oil we get 6194 tons. So I changed the fuel modifier to be much heavier now to reflect this.

Barbettes and conning tower are also heavier now.

Turrets armor  are lighter.

But now to the crazy part. We can see that the ship body alone is 11.900 tons. In UAD the hull is 12000 tons. So ok, good enough. But the problem is the moment we had both towers and all the modifiers (sonar; rangefinder; radio;radar) we are adding another 6k +/- tons to the ship hull!!! So first thing I did, was to cut by half, all tower's weight in game. Sonar modifiers only to be applied to the main tower (makes sense in comparison with the other tower upgrades) And the crew quarters is also adding more weight when it should be already included to the 11900 tons.

With this in mind, I had to do some adaptation to how the game works and in a way that makes sense.

So, only furnace fuel is counted as fuel weight in game. Still a big increase in weight. So to have ships with a big autonomy will be much more difficult now. *Note increasing the ship range will also affect the crew weight (provisions). All the other weights from that list I counted as being part from the difference from the ship real weight, to UAD hull weight + the towers with the component modifiers.

 

Still not perfect, but more close to reality now.

Also, to note the changes to crew numbers. Here with spacious quarters I have a complement of 1837 men. Before it was 1440 I think. In reality the Bismarck had around 2000. So more close to reality now.

Edited March 27, 2023 by o Barão

[Handam]

Could you please let the US and UK use the French destroyer main tower and quad second gun? (Using a translator)

[o Barão]

15 minutes ago, Handam said:

Could you please let the US and UK use the French destroyer main tower and quad second gun? (Using a translator)

Yes of course!!!

Tribal class.

The funny part is this main tower is in fact from the British destroyer's design from WWII period. So I don't understand why they are French in the game and not British.

About the secondary quads. I also like to see the Bofors used by the British and USA, but in this case I don't know if I can do it or not. I will try.

[Handam]

10 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Yes of course!!!

Tribal class.

The funny part is this main tower is in fact from the British destroyer's design from WWII period. So I don't understand why they are French in the game and not British.

About the secondary quads. I also like to see the Bofors used by the British and USA, but in this case I don't know if I can do it or not. I will try.

Korean users say."Modder make complete game"

[o Barão]

10 minutes ago, Handam said:

Korean users say."Modder make complete game"

Still needs the dual funnel components, but yes you will have the Tribal class in the next update.

[SpardaSon21]

3 hours ago, o Barão said:

SI Armour plating (decks, inner bulkheads, etc): 9,165 mt

So unfortunately we don't have a specific number only for deck armor weight. But if we look at most armored ship sections, we can see that the deck area is usually larger than the belt area from both sides combined. So in N.A.R we have these values.

w_armor_belt,0.0059,weight multiplier (from tonnage): armor belt
w_armor_belt_extended,0.0061,weight multiplier (from tonnage): armor belt extended
w_armor_deck,0.012,weight multiplier (from tonnage): armor deck
w_armor_deck_extended,0.007,weight multiplier (from tonnage):  armor deck extended

But most important, what you need to know is UAD have some limitations to calculate weights, to make it simple for the game to work I guess. As an example, increasing the draught level, will increase both the belt and deck armor weight in the same proportion. We should expect a bigger gain in weight to the belt armor, but only a minimal for the deck armor. But that is not how it works in UAD. The change % modifier, by changing the hull beam or draught, will be applied to both in the same way. So as an example, lowering the ship beam, to lower the deck area, to save weight and maintain a similar belt armor weight, it will not work. Both will lose weight in the same proportion.

 

Now the way I got this values, was by replicating the Bismarck in game with all the data I have from that ship and comparing with that weight ship list. And by doing this, changing the weight modifiers to get close to what I was reading. However, these modifiers are being applied to all ships, so what can work in one ship, probably will not be the exact same thing in another ship. This being said, there are important things that were changed for the better.

 

Right, I got most that from looking at things in the designer.  I just struggled with the image you posted since the columns aren't quite lined up for that table, so I thought that 9,165 mt was describing the belt armor.  One qualifier I'd add to the armor is that there is no waterline belt in this game: its from the actual waterline to the top of the top deck.  Its why barbette armor is of dubious value: because the barbettes can't be penned unless your citadel is! 

That said, I've struggled hard to make anything close to the Iowa without being 10k tonnes too heavy, even with your mod.  Its hard to believe that she was only a couple thousand tons heavier than Bismarck was.

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, SpardaSon21 said:

That said, I've struggled hard to make anything close to the Iowa without being 10k tonnes too heavy, even with your mod.  Its hard to believe that she was only a couple thousand tons heavier than Bismarck was.

I tried and is not easy.

Detailed data here: http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/I/o/Iowa_class.htm

33 knots

Range 27.580 km

58460 tons at full load

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two values for the barbettes size. I used the maximum.

I don't know for sure the internal deck and belt values.

Secondaries seems to be 64 mm all around. Which I found very odd. I suspect the secondaries roof to be thinner.

However, there is an aft belt armor for the steering. No good.

Edited March 27, 2023 by o Barão

[StrikerDanger]

I've been wondering: what's the biggest difference between the Class A and Class B armor the USN used on it's ships, (Other than the Class A being better for cruisers) and is it ever possible that we'll see it ingame through the mod?

[o Barão]

20 hours ago, StrikerDanger said:

I've been wondering: what's the biggest difference between the Class A and Class B armor the USN used on it's ships, (Other than the Class A being better for cruisers) and is it ever possible that we'll see it ingame through the mod?

Class "A" armor is the U.S. designation for cemented armor, which is normal applied when you want a hard surface to shatter the incoming shell coming at almost straight on. This is the type of armor used in the belt area.  The Class "B" armor is the U.S. designation for homogeneous armor. This type of armor is preferred in the situations when you have shells coming at high obliquity angle. So deck area, some turret faces and belt area sections below the waterline.

 

In UAD, we don't have a distinction between this two type of armor. In N.A.R. for the most part I choose face hardened type of armors, the exception to the rule is the "Japanese New Vickers Non-Cemented (NVNC) Armor". I choose this type because it offers a type of armor for the player in game that is not the best, but is a good choice because it is cheaper.

Here are some good links if you want to know more.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php

https://www.naval-history.net/WW0Book-USN-Armour1937.htm

Edited March 28, 2023 by o Barão

[StrikerDanger]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

Class "A" armor is the U.S. designation for cemented armor, which is normal applied when you want a hard surface to shatter the incoming shell coming at almost straight on. This is the type of armor used in the belt area.  The Class "B" armor is the U.S. designation for homogeneous armor. This type of armor is preferred in the situations when you have shells coming at high obliquity angle. So deck area, some turret faces and belt area sections below the waterline.

 

In UAD, in don't have a distinction between this two type of armor. In N.A.R. for the most part I choose face hardened type of armors, the exception to the rule is the "Japanese New Vickers Non-Cemented (NVNC) Armor". I choose this type because it offers a type of armor for the player in game that is not the best, but is a good choice because it is cheaper.

Here are some good links if you want to know more.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php

https://www.naval-history.net/WW0Book-USN-Armour1937.htm

Thanks!

[SpardaSon21]

16 hours ago, o Barão said:

Secondaries seems to be 64 mm all around. Which I found very odd. I suspect the secondaries roof to be thinner.

 

63.5mm, actually, or 2.5 inches of blast and splinter protection.  Not the sort of thing you skimp on, even on the top, especially in an era of aerial bombing where a lucky hit is better off blowing up in the turret where the anti-flash can stop the detonation from traveling down the ammo lifts to the magazines instead of thin armor that won't effectively detonate anything.  We really didn't want to risk a Hood happening to any of them.

 

As to the Iowa itself, you went with Anti-Torp III when IRL it had an Anti-Torp V on account of the bulges traveling all the way down and integrating with the triple hull.  She also had Aux V, with full diesel-electric backups for 500kw of emergency power and an underwater bypass system for power restoration.  The Barbette anti-flash should be maxed as well, since if USS Boise could avoid imitating a T-72 after an ammo cookoff I don't think we had anything less than the max as standard.  Not that this isn't excellent work at getting close, best I've seen, but I am still more than a little frustrated at the devs at how impossible it is to get anything close to historical for US ships, especially when you take into account the protection systems on account of the USN being paranoid about safety to the point they considered the tetryl boosters in shells dangerous for ten years after their introduction.

Edited March 28, 2023 by SpardaSon21

[o Barão]

Changelog:

• All guns accuracy reworked.

 The bigger the gun, the more accurate will be. The bigger the gun, the less accurate it will be at max range. The smaller the gun, the more accurate it will be at max range. This change will make small guns more effective against targets at close quarters, and will also balance the big caliber guns sniping from long distances.

• Tribal main tower and new funnels added to british and american modern destroyer hulls
• Minor changes to weight modifiers.

[Käptn_Flitschauge]

This update would require a new save, I take it?

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, SpardaSon21 said:

As to the Iowa itself, you went with Anti-Torp III when IRL it had an Anti-Torp V on account of the bulges traveling all the way down and integrating with the triple hull.  She also had Aux V, with full diesel-electric backups for 500kw of emergency power and an underwater bypass system for power restoration.  The Barbette anti-flash should be maxed as well, since if USS Boise could avoid imitating a T-72 after an ammo cookoff I don't think we had anything less than the max as standard.  Not that this isn't excellent work at getting close, best I've seen, but I am still more than a little frustrated at the devs at how impossible it is to get anything close to historical for US ships, especially when you take into account the protection systems on account of the USN being paranoid about safety to the point they considered the tetryl boosters in shells dangerous for ten years after their introduction.

All the weight modifiers can be improved in future updates, but don't expect to ever be perfect. As I said previous, what it works in one historical ship, probably will not work in another. If I nerfed the weight modifiers to get all you mention, in the Iowa, I would also have a Bismarck hull with too much displacement free to use. Also, I like the design process to be all about hard and intelligent choices. Not like in stock game, that you can have everything you want, or need, without any consequence. To resemble more the real life experience in the design process.

 

"She also had Aux V, with full diesel-electric backups for 500kw of emergency power..."

Well, that is almost nothing in comparison with the Bismarck. Are you sure about that information?

"The electric plant provided power to all the ship's services such as weaponry, steering, lighting, cranes, fans, gyros etc. It had a total output of 7,910 kw at 220 volts, with eight 500 kw Diesel generators, five 690 kw turbo-generators, and one 460 kw turbo-generator. These generators were distributed into four compartments (plants). The starboard electric plant No. 1 and the port electric plant No. 2 (E-Werk 1 und E-Werk 2) were located in section VIII, and had four 500 kw diesel generators each. The starboard electric plant No. 3 and the port electric plant No. 4 (E-Werk 3 und E-Werk 4) were located in section XIV, and included five 690 kw turbo-generators, and one 460 kw turbo-generator.

In addition, in section VII adjacent to the electric plant No. 1 on the starboard side, was the Diesel motor room No. 1 (WE-E-Werk 1). This room included a Type MWM RS 38 S Diesel engine developed by Motorenwerke Mannheim A.G. serial number 170093 (170094 in Tirpitz). It was a 6-cylinder engine that gave a normal output of 460 ehp at a speed of 600 r.p.m.; however, a 20% overload to 550 ehp was possible for 30 minutes if necessary. The 550 kVA AC Diesel generator of the type P23 FA925 10 Spez. B2 (P23 FA925/10+RP 91 sp. in Tirpitz) was manufactured by Garbe-Lahmeyer and numbered 377071 (376848 in Tirpitz). It generated alternating current."

http://www.kbismarck.com/propulsioni.html

 

"As to the Iowa itself, you went with Anti-Torp III when IRL it had an Anti-Torp V on account of the bulges traveling all the way down and integrating with the triple hull."

I don't consider that an "Anti-Torp V". No matter how good it was. And the reason is very simple. In general WWII warships hull design, it was a compromised between high speed without sacrificing too much torpedo protection. So most navies started to develop torpedo protection inside the hulls, so they could still potential get high speeds, more range, etc... and still decent protection.

But, if you want the best torpedo protection, nothing is better than making the torpedo exploding far away from the hull.

This is what I consider an Anti-Torp V in game.

 

"The final innovation occurred in 1937, with the Japanese Yamato Class. In Yamato, the Japanese carried the internal armored belt all the way to the double-bottom to form an armored torpedo bulkhead. Although this armored bulkhead was substantially thinner than the belt armor it was joined to above, it was still very thick and rigid by comparison to the thin elastic bulkheads introduced by the Americans in 1915. Unfortunately, such bulkheads were too rigid and prone to displacement from their mountings, permitting flooding around them. Worse, in the Yamato's case, a poorly designed and constructed joint between the armored belt and the torpedo bulkhead proved prone to failure and drove its supporting structure backward, puncturing the inboard holding bulkhead. The US also employed this variety of TDS in fast battleships of the South Dakota and Iowa classes and came to the conclusion that the heavy bulkhead was too rigid, resulting in a modest down-grading of the system's explosive resistance rating.

There is possibly another hidden flaw in the modern layered TDS systems of the fast battleship era. Given that the TDS paralleled angled internal belts, this placed the upper edge of a bulkhead in the TDS nearer the explosion and the lower edge farther from it. This created the potential for greater stresses to act on the upper edge due to proximity, or on the lower edge due to channeling. Either effect would concentrate the force of the explosion against the weakest areas: the upper and lower attachment points of the bulkheads. By contrast, the 1915 vintage TDS of the Tennessee class placed all bulkheads parallel to the ship's vertical side, possibly ensuring the most even distribution of force across the face of the bulkhead.

Despite all of the design features intended to moderate the effects of a torpedo hit, the single most important factor in the effectiveness of a TDS remained its depth. The greater the distance between the point of impact on the side shell and the holding bulkhead, the more likely the system would protect the interior compartments. The French battleships of the Richelieu Class are often credited with the most effective TDS, but this is largely due to its extreme depth amidships. In other respects the design was very conventional."

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.php

Edited March 28, 2023 by o Barão

[o Barão]

4 minutes ago, Käptn_Flitschauge said:

This update would require a new save, I take it?

If you had already done that with the alpha build 0.5, maybe not. Should work fine. If you are coming from a version previous to alpha 0.5 then yes.

[Kerbo]

I've been enjoying this mod quite a bit, gives new life to the game and makes designing ships actually challenging, but maybe a bit too challenging? I'm not asking you to change the mod, but I think a guide on the new factors to consider and what does what go a long way to making this mod more approachable. for example, currently CAs are blocking my 13inch guns at close quarter, and I can't help but feel there's something I missed while designing my BBs.

[Kerbo]

Just to add to this, an example of what might be included in the guide, are the types of shells and when to use what, or when to increase gun length, caliber, etc.

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Kerbo said:

I've been enjoying this mod quite a bit, gives new life to the game and makes designing ships actually challenging, but maybe a bit too challenging? I'm not asking you to change the mod, but I think a guide on the new factors to consider and what does what go a long way to making this mod more approachable.

It is a very good question. But with a big answer. I will try to be short and direct as possible. Well first I must say that there are many things I enjoy in UAD, but sadly the design process have two big issues. In one hand, the design process is great. Anyone can build multiple ships in a little time easily. However, for a player to understand where all components modifiers are making an impact and how they interact with the other modifiers, it is only with time the player will learn how the game works. Hell, I have more than 3k hours playing this game and I still learn some new things sometimes. The second part that I dislike, and the one I tackle in N.A.R., is how easy to have everything you need when designing a ship in stock game. There is no challenge, no need to think a lot, to make hard decisions. A naval architect does not have that luxury. It needs to think in weights, the displacement to support that weight, the ship requirements, in volume, in speed, range, in area for that, area for this, etc... so many things. But with this increase in difficulty in the design process also comes a pleasure for when he/she achieves something special, where in stock game is only one more ship because it is so easy.

 

Another important thing to mention is that I tried to be as accurate as possible with armor penetration values and types of armor and their real effective quality. This being said, it is impossible to be 100% accurate, but in comparison with stock game there are big differences which can lead to some confusion for the players. Do I need an 11" deck armor to protect from an Iowa 16" guns at 20 km away from me? In reality, a 6" inch deck should be enough. With this being said,  I will now be as quick and short as possible.

 

N.A.R. tips and tricks list:

•  Look at the ranges the battles are fought in your era, and look at guns deck pen for that ranges. This is very important because the player can use this information to save so much weight. As an example, in 1890, most main guns will have less than 1 cm deck pen at 2.5 km away. So use 0.8 cm or 0.5 cm in all your deck armors and turret roofs to save weight.
• In 1890, short barrels for the main guns can be a great choice. You will save so much weight and money. Yes, you will lose a little accuracy and lose some pen, but the rate of fire will improve greatly and will help you a lot to kill faster the enemy TBs and CLs.
•  In 1890, 12" compound armor should be more than enough for the belt armor, unless your ship is trading shots with another BB around 1 km away. In the case if you feel the need to have something like a 15" inch belt armor, or more, then you will probably need to increase the ship displacement and draught to support that weight.

16" belt armour BB (1890)

• Always look at your engine cruise speed. In 1890, it should be around 8 to 13 knots. Each ship is different, but know if you want to get the best accuracy value, you should be sailing in a straight line at cruise speed, without switching targets all the time for no good reason. The longer your ship focus in one target, the better will be the "range found" modifier value, and this is the most important modifier you will get in battle. 
• Always use your funnels and the other components first to lower your pitch value first. In fact, I recommend to start designing a new ship with 0 armor in the bow and aft, extended armor sections. It will make it easier in the end to balance the ship.
• I don't recommend using mix caliber guns for lower caliber guns. There is an issue in game, that quick fire guns can make other guns to not work at all for some time. So if designing a TB, as an example. Use only 2" guns; or only 3" guns; or only 4" guns if possible.
• The techs that I recommend getting are, in this order: the first two rangefinders; induced funnels, then some guns upgrade. There are some techs that save weight, don't ignore them if you are having troubles in designing ships. Double torpedo launchers are also interesting.
• As a general rule, I like to lower my chances of getting a flash fire or an ammo detonation. Unless you are carrying torpedoes in your ship, there are two ways it is possible to get this. A- by using armor to protect your ship vitals from incoming fire, or B- by using the right components for your ship. So as an example, for my CLs, DDs and TBs, since they don't have enough armor to protect them against everything, so I will use the component route to make them safe. So it will be: reduced ammo; light shells; barbettes; tube powder as a propellant; any TNT as bursting charge.
• Torpedo protection can be ignored if you use one ship as bait. The AI will always launch the torpedoes against any enemy who enters inside the torpedo range. So it is possible to use this info against the AI by forcing them to spend all the torpedoes into an area away from your capital ships. One small, fast ship is enough.
• In N.A.R. the spotting ranges are greatly increased, so it should be much more enjoyable to play, however if you are still having issues with being shot by invisible ships, know there is a simple trick to solve all your issues. Send a fast, small, with a low signature, ship to sail ahead of your fleet. This ship should be enough to spot the enemies first before they spot you.
• In stock game, Pricic Acid I is king. In N.A.R. the fire chance is a little lower, and the accuracy is also more challenging, this being said I still recommend using this if available. It is just too powerful.
• About shells is difficult to say. In N.A.R. you will probably need capped ballistic shells to defeat the armor, if we are talking BB vs BB, but when we are talking about HE, things are much more difficult. As an example, a big caliber gun with capped ballistic HE shells can be amazing to kill CLs and CAs, but in CLs, CNF or HCHE is probably better. It depends a lot what is your ship caliber guns and against what type of ship you are expecting to fight. 
• About rangefinders, as a general rule, I use "coincidence RF" for DDs and CLs. Since they're usually changing target a lot, fighting at close quarters and maneuvering a lot. So this is probably the best choice. If you are sailing in a straight line, shooting at medium and long ranges, then "stereoscopic RF" will be my choice.

[Kerbo]

5 hours ago, o Barão said:

It is a very good question. But with a big answer. I will try to be short and direct as possible. Well first I must say that there are many things I enjoy in UAD, but sadly the design process have two big issues. In one hand, the design process is great. Anyone can build multiple ships in a little time easily. However, for a player to understand where all components modifiers are making an impact and how they interact with the other modifiers, it is only with time the player will learn how the game works. Hell, I have more than 3k hours playing this game and I still learn some new things sometimes. The second part that I dislike, and the one I tackle in N.A.R., is how easy to have everything you need when designing a ship in stock game. There is no challenge, no need to think a lot, to make hard decisions. A naval architect does not have that luxury. It needs to think in weights, the displacement to support that weight, the ship requirements, in volume, in speed, range, in area for that, area for this, etc... so many things. But with this increase in difficulty in the design process also comes a pleasure for when he/she achieves something special, where in stock game is only one more ship because it is so easy.

 

Another important thing to mention is that I tried to be as accurate as possible with armor penetration values and types of armor and their real effective quality. This being said, it is impossible to be 100% accurate, but in comparison with stock game there are big differences which can lead to some confusion for the players. Do I need an 11" deck armor to protect from an Iowa 16" guns at 20 km away from me? In reality, a 6" inch deck should be enough. With this being said,  I will now be as quick and short as possible.

 

N.A.R. tips and tricks list:

•  Look at the ranges the battles are fought in your era, and look at guns deck pen for that ranges. This is very important because the player can use this information to save so much weight. As an example, in 1890, most main guns will have less than 1 cm deck pen at 2.5 km away. So use 0.8 cm or 0.5 cm in all your deck armors and turret roofs to save weight.
• In 1890, short barrels for the main guns can be a great choice. You will save so much weight and money. Yes, you will lose a little accuracy and lose some pen, but the rate of fire will improve greatly and will help you a lot to kill faster the enemy TBs and CLs.
•  In 1890, 12" compound armor should be more than enough for the belt armor, unless your ship is trading shots with another BB around 1 km away. In the case if you feel the need to have something like a 15" inch belt armor, or more, then you will probably need to increase the ship displacement and draught to support that weight.

16" belt armour BB (1890)

• Always look at your engine cruise speed. In 1890, it should be around 8 to 13 knots. Each ship is different, but know if you want to get the best accuracy value, you should be sailing in a straight line at cruise speed, without switching targets all the time for no good reason. The longer your ship focus in one target, the better will be the "range found" modifier value, and this is the most important modifier you will get in battle. 
• Always use your funnels and the other components first to lower your pitch value first. In fact, I recommend to start designing a new ship with 0 armor in the bow and aft, extended armor sections. It will make it easier in the end to balance the ship.
• I don't recommend using mix caliber guns for lower caliber guns. There is an issue in game, that quick fire guns can make other guns to not work at all for some time. So if designing a TB, as an example. Use only 2" guns; or only 3" guns; or only 4" guns if possible.
• The techs that I recommend getting are, in this order: the first two rangefinders; induced funnels, then some guns upgrade. There are some techs that save weight, don't ignore them if you are having troubles in designing ships. Double torpedo launchers are also interesting.
• As a general rule, I like to lower my chances of getting a flash fire or an ammo detonation. Unless you are carrying torpedoes in your ship, there are two ways it is possible to get this. A- by using armor to protect your ship vitals from incoming fire, or B- by using the right components for your ship. So as an example, for my CLs, DDs and TBs, since they don't have enough armor to protect them against everything, so I will use the component route to make them safe. So it will be: reduced ammo; light shells; barbettes; tube powder as a propellant; any TNT as bursting charge.
• Torpedo protection can be ignored if you use one ship as bait. The AI will always launch the torpedoes against any enemy who enters inside the torpedo range. So it is possible to use this info against the AI by forcing them to spend all the torpedoes into an area away from your capital ships. One small, fast ship is enough.
• In N.A.R. the spotting ranges are greatly increased, so it should be much more enjoyable to play, however if you are still having issues with being shot by invisible ships, know there is a simple trick to solve all your issues. Send a fast, small, with a low signature, ship to sail ahead of your fleet. This ship should be enough to spot the enemies first before they spot you.
• In stock game, Pricic Acid I is king. In N.A.R. the fire chance is a little lower, and the accuracy is also more challenging, this being said I still recommend using this if available. It is just too powerful.
• About shells is difficult to say. In N.A.R. you will probably need capped ballistic shells to defeat the armor, if we are talking BB vs BB, but when we are talking about HE, things are much more difficult. As an example, a big caliber gun with capped ballistic HE shells can be amazing to kill CLs and CAs, but in CLs, CNF or HCHE is probably better. It depends a lot what is your ship caliber guns and against what type of ship you are expecting to fight. 
• About rangefinders, as a general rule, I use "coincidence RF" for DDs and CLs. Since they're usually changing target a lot, fighting at close quarters and maneuvering a lot. So this is probably the best choice. If you are sailing in a straight line, shooting at medium and long ranges, then "stereoscopic RF" will be my choice.

Thanks for all the tips! I agree that NAR definitely makes the design aspect more challenging, which I adore! One aspect I don't quite understand is the "Immunity zone" you mentioned. also I generally tend to decrease drought and increase beam to maximize accuracy in my designs, that usually worked well in vanilla, is there a reason not to do it with N.A.R?

[MiWe]

Imunity zone is historicly the range(es) where a ships armor is immune to penetration by its own guns.

So you have a range where your Belt is immune and one where your Deck is immune to pens by eg. 16 inch guns. For 14,15,18.... inch guns that range is different.   

[o Barão]

2 hours ago, Kerbo said:

Thanks for all the tips! I agree that NAR definitely makes the design aspect more challenging, which I adore! One aspect I don't quite understand is the "Immunity zone" you mentioned.

The zone of immunity (or immunity zone) around a warship is an area from which both plunging fire and direct enemy fire is less effective. The concept was a factor in battleship design and in tactics during engagements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_immunity

In UAD, it is very simple to know if your ship is inside the zone of immunity.  Just teleport the camera to an enemy unit and hover the mouse above our ship. If the belt armor and deck armor are all red. Then you are inside the zone. Tip: You can always angle your armor to improve the belt armor effectiveness.

2 hours ago, Kerbo said:

Thanks for all the tips! I agree that NAR definitely makes the design aspect more challenging, which I adore! One aspect I don't quite understand is the "Immunity zone" you mentioned. also I generally tend to decrease drought and increase beam to maximize accuracy in my designs, that usually worked well in vanilla, is there a reason not to do it with N.A.R?

Yes. Weight and range. What you are saying is the most effective way to get a stable platform for your guns, however, if you're struggling with excessive weight or lack of range in your ships then you will need to increase the ship displacement, so it can support all the weight you need. For fuel, armor, etc.