o Barão

Just because you have those ships, you are expecting for the subs to be detected all the time? I run a test campaign with many autoresolve encountes with subs, and sometimes they were spotted, sometimes no, sometimes they sunk some ships, sometimes no, sometimes they were sunk, other times no, etc... " ...with another 8 destroyers in the sea region separately." What matters is what is in the encounter. The engine will take all modifiers into consideration from the battle and will generate an RNG result. What you can do is improve the odds for you, (ships number and the ASW value, techs researched) and still expect to have losses as any war of the time period. Or do you think the navies were using subs if they were so easy too sunk?

And if instead it is a 5"? What is the threshold? What was the real distance to the explosion? The game does not tell you that, right? What is the bursting charge? And if the explosion didn't reach the ammo? So many things, so many possibilities, that there is no right answer and to think there is any game engine that can replicate any possible situation is being too optimistic. The devs from the beginning added a random damage modifier, already taking into account that it is impossible to replicate all possible situations. But if you think you can do better and implement a system that can take all possible situations in a way that makes sense for the player, great. I will be interesting to know what is your solution.

To a point, yes. It is preventing splinters or shrapnel from close detonations. The problem is for you to know for sure if the shell penetrated and explode inside the barbette or it was a close detonation. The game tell us if it was inside or close?

o7! @Fangoriously & @SpardaSon21 Errr... maybe just get rid of it for now, then? Most likely, from all HE and AP shells, but the shell weight modifiers will still use them. Stereoscopics are almost double what coincidence ones are. In the mod description, in the "source" section, you will find a link for Drachinifel video about rangefinders. Most likely it is a more complex mechanism and that explains why. I will look at stereo cost difference between different versions. I've done it before myself and Common becomes a major threat to ships with limited armor, which as you can see from above is exactly what it was supposed to be. I thought about that before. But there will also be HE damage modifiers changes to balance them. To make CPC and CPBC more close to SAP in terms of penetration but also damage. A nice progression curve from incendiary all the way to APBC. Maybe swap those out with more boost/penalties in range and muzzle velocity, those primarily result in individual accuracy bonus/maladies, and would realistically be effected by more aerodynamic caps. The problem is how muzzle velocity mechanic works in game, and everything I did was to fix those issues. Everything is connected. I will probably need to remove these modifiers from the HE & AP shells: muzzle velocity accuracy long accuracy wind resistance? I have no idea at this point if affects both shells- And only use them in the shell weight modifiers. The idea will still be present but will be more limited.😒 Sometimes we can't win and we need to adapt.

Oh! Shit. Maybe it is a game engine limitation. I will try to find a solution. Thank you for the report!! Much appreciated. EDIT: It seems to be a game engine limitation. There is no he_accuracy or ap_accuracy modifier. Only the regular accuracy modifier. 😒

The BCs are limited to 37 knots. It is impossible for you to see a BC at 45 knots if using NAR since the beginning of the campaign.

BETA v10.9 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog: AI building program changed. Multiplied by x2 or more, in some cases, the chance of building BBs and BCs for all nations. I was noticing what should be powerful navies with few capital ships. Now most likely it should be much better. There is still the possibility of seeing a nation without BBs, but that is most likely the AI that failed to get a ship design when starting the campaign. In that case, I suspect the AI will start a building program to fix that issue in the first years. Note: I also noticed a limit for subs the AI gets when starting a campaign. Maybe a coincidence, or maybe it was limited by the devs. As a result, I think it is not possible to see Germany controlled by the AI with many subs. Initial shipyard size for later increase. This should help the AI to get capital ships designs. Japan as an example went from 48k tons to 64k in 1940. So it should be able to built Yamato class BBs from the start. I think I found the solution for convoys vs subs, and it should be using escorts more often if available in the area. I also add the chance if a big convoy is being attacked by subs for a CA, BC or BB to be present. Mine laying subs technology removed from the tech tree. Wolfpack subs progression moved to later years. Some of the more powerful subs unlocked also moved to later years. English file updated with the changes to subs. Auto resolve parameters updated. It is now 10 armor, 5 firepower, 1 speed, 0 crew, 0 ammo. In general, I like the results I got from these values, but I can't promise anyone that will work the way you want all the time. To get all the benefits, a new start is recommended. Manor Lords is coming tomorrow, so I am now retired for the next weeks. 😁

Most subs missions are against transports. Subs attacking TFs in transit are rare events. Your DDs being on ports are doing nothing against them. Subs don't attack ports. If your DDs are on sea control status maybe they can participate in events against subs. I am not sure. And don't expect miracles about the auto resolve. It is probably better for me to remove that feature from the mod and use the vanilla values instead. I am not going to waste more hours generating battles just to see if I can make it work reasonably most of the time just for a player to report me that it happen this or that in that occasion. Not worth it.

BETA v10.8 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog: Updated to UAD 1.5.0.9 Optx4 Updated the single German single barrel 5" mk4 & mk5 for all ships to be open turret version. A little size tweak and barrel length to be the same as the x2 and x3 versions.

Good suggestion! 😉

For me all 3 are big problems 😂

Did you tried Imgur? Is very simple.

The first problem is that you are suggesting for small invisible ships to be able to fire against larger targets without being spotted unless they come very close to the capital ships. The second problem is if you delete the spotting range you will need to edit hundreds of towers stats and to compensate that you will need to edit all the hulls visibility in the "parts" file. The third problem is that it is perfectly normal for big tower to have better spotting range value and you want to remove that. Your suggestion comes with many red flags, and with new and more problems. It is a big NO-NO IMO.

BETA v10.7 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog: Changes about the splash modifiers. In 1890, I noticed that also with a positive modifier there would be always a negative value present, so I changed the modifiers to be a direct relation with the shell weight. The values now are very close to vanilla. The negative modifiers for the heavy shells seem to be already big enough and should indirectly make stereo range finders a good option if the Admiral likes to focus the firepower of many ships against a single target. Added main quad guns for light cruisers. Changed the German 5" single barrel for late years on German CL and DDs to be open turret. Fixed grammar errors in the english file.

It is the same for the Portuguese language. I will fix it. @Azerostar your suggestion adds other problems. The AI needs to focus on the nearest targets, and that only the devs can do. I just don't know why is taking so much time for them to realize that. It is hampering the AI capability to win battles. 😒

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. 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".

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

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.

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.

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.

I already saw the error. Thanks!!!👍

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.

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

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.

The port's capacity is hardcoded. You will need to ask the devs for a change. 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) 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. 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. I don't have a 3D model for what you are asking. Well, I think not, unless you have some suggestion. 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.