UAD Rebalancing Mod For [v1.4.0.5 R2]

[Suribachi]

21 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

• Lowered VP thresholds for triggering peace chance [15000-> 8500] raised the threshold of relative difference. 

Is THAT how peace works?!?  Good god that would have been nice to know when beta testing the campaign

[anonusername]

9 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

Is THAT how peace works?!?  Good god that would have been nice to know when beta testing the campaign

It's a combination of that and other factors. Best I can tell, it works like

If war duration < 5 turns, give up on peace

If combined VP is less 45000, give up on peace

If neither combatant has at least 50% more VP than the other, give up on peace
If the winner doesn't have at least 10000 more VP than the other, give up on peace

Attempt peace with a likelihood of ~1/3, but only once per 5 turns.

[anonusername]

27 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Any idea which section is responsible for deciding what the largest casemates and guns can go on a particular class of warship?

I am 90% sure it is not done by class, but by individual hulls. To add a new turret size to a class of warship, you have to edit the definition of every hull of that class. e.g. The US 1920 BC can mount 18" guns, the 1940 BC hulls are limited to 15". The Japanese 1940 BCs can mount up to 18" except to 1, which can only mount up to 12". The British can mount 20" guns on their super BC.

EDIT: I found it. The max caliber is set immediately after the max tonnage. e.g.

// This has 12 caliber

bc_5_japan_scout,,hull,Experimental Cruiser,,-1,-1,1.5,450,moga_hull_c,1.175,,,japan,"type(bc), BC_Scout_Mogami, Middle_SuperStructure, typical_modern, barbette_need, bc, g4","hsize(3600), hull_form(130), stability(65), floatability(74), endurance(57.5), spot(0), turn(90), vis(4000), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.179,7,9,24000,27600,12,,,,,,,32.5,3,6,,32,,

// This has 18 caliber

bc_4_britain,,hull,Battlecruiser V,,-1,-1,1.1,700,invincible_hull,1.24,,," italy, china, spain, russia","type(bc), BC_BritainSuper, bc, g3","hsize(2000), hull_form(90), stability(77), floatability(75), endurance(60), spot(0), turn(62), vis(7600), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.2354,1,3,33000,45000,18,,,,,,,29.4,3,6,,28.9,,

// This has 15 caliber

bc_4_usa,,hull,Large Cruiser,,-1,-1,1.45,550,iowa_hull_a,0.69,,,usa,"type(bc), CA_Heavy_USA, Middle_SuperStructure, barbette_need, No_Barb, bc, g4, var(Smaller_Barbettes), bc_guns","hsize(1500), hull_form(95), stability(85), floatability(90), endurance(80), spot(0), turn(55), vis(8100), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.22,3,5,29000,37000,15,,,,,,,33.5,3,6,,33,,

// This has 20 caliber

bc_7_britain,,hull,Super Battlecruiser,,-1,-1,1.475,800,hood_hull_a_wide,1.285,,,britain,"type(bc), BC_British_Super, Mixed_Quads, bc, g4","hsize(6000), hull_form(125), stability(80), floatability(95), endurance(73), spot(0), turn(70), vis(8200), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.235,2,4,67500,82500,20,,,,,,,39.5,3,6,,39,,

Edited January 23, 2023 by anonusername

[admiralsnackbar]

7 minutes ago, anonusername said:

I am 90% sure it is not done by class, but by individual hulls. To add a new turret size to a class of warship, you have to edit the definition of every hull of that class. e.g. The US 1920 BC can mount 18" guns, the 1940 BC hulls are limited to 15". The Japanese 1940 BCs can mount up to 18" except to 1, which can only mount up to 12". The British can mount 20" guns on their super BC.

EDIT: I found it. The max caliber is set immediately after the max tonnage. e.g.

// This has 12 caliber

bc_5_japan_scout,,hull,Experimental Cruiser,,-1,-1,1.5,450,moga_hull_c,1.175,,,japan,"type(bc), BC_Scout_Mogami, Middle_SuperStructure, typical_modern, barbette_need, bc, g4","hsize(3600), hull_form(130), stability(65), floatability(74), endurance(57.5), spot(0), turn(90), vis(4000), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.179,7,9,24000,27600,12,,,,,,,32.5,3,6,,32,,

// This has 18 caliber

bc_4_britain,,hull,Battlecruiser V,,-1,-1,1.1,700,invincible_hull,1.24,,," italy, china, spain, russia","type(bc), BC_BritainSuper, bc, g3","hsize(2000), hull_form(90), stability(77), floatability(75), endurance(60), spot(0), turn(62), vis(7600), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.2354,1,3,33000,45000,18,,,,,,,29.4,3,6,,28.9,,

// This has 15 caliber

bc_4_usa,,hull,Large Cruiser,,-1,-1,1.45,550,iowa_hull_a,0.69,,,usa,"type(bc), CA_Heavy_USA, Middle_SuperStructure, barbette_need, No_Barb, bc, g4, var(Smaller_Barbettes), bc_guns","hsize(1500), hull_form(95), stability(85), floatability(90), endurance(80), spot(0), turn(55), vis(8100), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.22,3,5,29000,37000,15,,,,,,,33.5,3,6,,33,,

// This has 20 caliber

bc_7_britain,,hull,Super Battlecruiser,,-1,-1,1.475,800,hood_hull_a_wide,1.285,,,britain,"type(bc), BC_British_Super, Mixed_Quads, bc, g4","hsize(6000), hull_form(125), stability(80), floatability(95), endurance(73), spot(0), turn(70), vis(8200), beam(0), draught(0)",,,,0.235,2,4,67500,82500,20,,,,,,,39.5,3,6,,39,,

oddly though for light cruisers there is no value specified. perhaps it is an overwrite? I want to edit the values for light cruisers. 

[anonusername]

Just now, admiralsnackbar said:

oddly though for light cruisers there is no value specified. perhaps it is an overwrite? I want to edit the values for light cruisers. 

If it works like most parameters, there is a hardcoded default.

[admiralsnackbar]

9 minutes ago, anonusername said:

If it works like most parameters, there is a hardcoded default.

interesting, well  that begs the question of what decides the split for max secondaries, because light cruisers are by default limited to 3 inch secondaries, which flows through into the casemates.

[anonusername]

1 minute ago, admiralsnackbar said:

interesting, well  that begs the question of what decides the split for max secondaries, because light cruisers are by default limited to 3 inch secondaries, which flows through into the casemates.

The fields for the hulls are 

name,enabled,type,nameUi,order,weight,cost,costMod,crew,model,scale,group,mountPoints,countries,param,stats,caliber,#caliberInch,barrels,hullWeightRatio,sectionsMin,sectionsMax,tonnageMin,tonnageMax,maxAllowedCaliber,beamMin,beamMax,draughtMin,draughtMax,beamCoef,draughtCoef,speedLimiter,minMainTurrets,minMainBarrels,#comment,#comment2,#comment3,#comment4
maxAllowedCaliber is for mains, maybe caliber or #caliberInch is secondaries. Or maybe secondary size is controlled entirely by the "param" field via the "type(ca)" etc.

[admiralsnackbar]

2 minutes ago, anonusername said:

The fields for the hulls are 

name,enabled,type,nameUi,order,weight,cost,costMod,crew,model,scale,group,mountPoints,countries,param,stats,caliber,#caliberInch,barrels,hullWeightRatio,sectionsMin,sectionsMax,tonnageMin,tonnageMax,maxAllowedCaliber,beamMin,beamMax,draughtMin,draughtMax,beamCoef,draughtCoef,speedLimiter,minMainTurrets,minMainBarrels,#comment,#comment2,#comment3,#comment4
maxAllowedCaliber is for mains, maybe caliber or #caliberInch is secondaries. Or maybe secondary size is controlled entirely by the "param" field via the "type(ca)" etc.

well caliber and caliber inch are, if the weapon is a gun, the caliber it is associated with. type(ca) seems to only come into play for hulls. [it's easier if you take this stuff and turn it into a CSV]

[SpardaSon21]

12 hours ago, anonusername said:

The correct answer here is to properly model the armored bulkhead at the rear of the citadel and allow sufficiently powerful shells to go through the destroyed stern and penetrate it from behind. Instead we get shells fired at broadsides magically doing a 90* turn into the citadel and ignoring the armor.

I know, right?  But this is Game Labs we're talking about.  And speaking about the transverse bulkhead...

12 hours ago, anonusername said:

I wonder if it is possible to make AoN citadel reduce the penalties from stern/bow damage.

We'd need a proper AoN first.  The way ships are set up the citadel goes from the waterline to the top of the hull.  There is no discrete magazine to it nor is there a separate upper hull or casemate belt section, and AoN reduces the chances of an engine, flash fire, or ammo crit from a penetrating hit, so it is perversely to your advantage to make the citadel as large as you can if you have the weight to maximize your defense against any hit, even HE, especially since that extra armor weight lowers the center of gravity, reducing pitch and roll.

[o Barão]

14 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

We'd need a proper AoN first.  

I suggest to ignore the citadel names. I say this because for the most part they don't make sense or don't behave the way they should be. 

AoN is probably the most ironic. I can have a BB with 10 inch armor belt, 10 inch armor belt extended in both sides and still be using the AoN citadel. Is my ship using a AoN armor scheme? No. So why should I have a citadel component that mentions the AoN armor scheme? Doesn't make any sense. 

[spinaker]

If there is an opportunity to interfere in diplomacy, it would be nice to make countries declare war on the player again no earlier than 5-6 months and provided that they have a decent fleet.

[anonusername]

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

I suggest to ignore the citadel names. I say this because for the most part they don't make sense or don't behave the way they should be. 

AoN is probably the most ironic. I can have a BB with 10 inch armor belt, 10 inch armor belt extended in both sides and still be using the AoN citadel. Is my ship using a AoN armor scheme? No. So why should I have a citadel component that mentions the AoN armor scheme? Doesn't make any sense. 

Maybe AoN actually means you attach 3 large shell magnets to each side of the shit and put all the armor behind them.

[admiralsnackbar]

2 hours ago, spinaker said:

If there is an opportunity to interfere in diplomacy, it would be nice to make countries declare war on the player again no earlier than 5-6 months and provided that they have a decent fleet.

No way to do this atm

[Sobakaa]

17 hours ago, o Barão said:

I suggest to ignore the citadel names. I say this because for the most part they don't make sense or don't behave the way they should be. 

AoN is probably the most ironic. I can have a BB with 10 inch armor belt, 10 inch armor belt extended in both sides and still be using the AoN citadel. Is my ship using a AoN armor scheme? No. So why should I have a citadel component that mentions the AoN armor scheme? Doesn't make any sense. 

Did anyone actually test what citadels of different types actually do? Since they're numbered from 1 to 5 someone not versed in naval history would always go for a higher number, especially since 1-3 are, even by description, straight upgrades.

You'd expect that at least turtleback and AoN would place some kind of constraint to where and how much armour you can place, but, at least from pure ship building perspective, all they do is provide additional layers of internal armour you can then reinforce.

[Plazma]

On 1/21/2023 at 4:05 AM, admiralsnackbar said:

Damage to already destroyed components reduced to .1 from .25

Components, you mean also bulkheads? I mean a part of the ship that is not a gun/tower/funnel. 

In my opinion that could be bad, because still the shells/torps are hitting something and because of that change the ships could very hard to sunk, especially in battles 1 vs 1, when they will show you all the time aft belt. Right now, the ships looks very resilient. Especially this is HUGE change, you need 2,5x more damage on the broken component and when the ship will be mostly damaged most of the shells will hit the destroyed components, so this will ended in very long dull battle. 

I would like test it first to reduced from 0.25 to 0.20. 

 

On 1/21/2023 at 4:05 AM, admiralsnackbar said:

Damage spread to other sections changed from .975 to .9 (effect unknown will require testing and feedback)

Also this ^^ this correlate with this above, I would like to suggest only changing one parameter at one time to better know what is what. Plus I feel like we ended to make a ghost ship, where the half ship not existing, low damage received, but still can absorbed the shells protect more vital part of the ship. 

 

On 1/21/2023 at 4:05 AM, admiralsnackbar said:

Changed the War naval budget multiplier to 1.25 [from 2] I was finding against legendary enemies with perpetual states of war that I was amassing a huge amount of money, as China. I honestly couldn't build a fleet large enough to bankrupt myself  because my shipyards were always at full capacity. 

Good! I wanted to highlight it on the main thread with patch 1.1. 

 

Anyway... I will test it later, because of block/pen bug that we have now in main branch of the game :C 
 

AMAZING JOB!

I love this mod <3

[Plazma]

nvm

Edited January 24, 2023 by Plazma

[o Barão]

3 hours ago, Sobakaa said:

Did anyone actually test what citadels of different types actually do? Since they're numbered from 1 to 5 someone not versed in naval history would always go for a higher number, especially since 1-3 are, even by description, straight upgrades.

You'd expect that at least turtleback and AoN would place some kind of constraint to where and how much armour you can place, but, at least from pure ship building perspective, all they do is provide additional layers of internal armour you can then reinforce.

It is not only to provide additional layers of armor, there are other differences. The issue is the game does a terrible job in explaining to the player how it works. We could argue that turtleback armor can be better, the issue is we don't know how it works. As an example...

"...which is especially effective at close encounters."

This is historical correct, however how it works in game? No one knows. And the same applies to the AoN variant.

"...especially effective at long range fights."

This is clear an inspiration from the "V" citadels that were used in the american BBs. However, how it works in game? Do we have a sloped inwards citadel belt armor? Maybe we have a hidden negative% damage modifier against shells coming far away? The game does not tell us anything how it works.

This version is clear inspired in the citadel box found in most if not all protected cruisers. The issue here, this is also a turtleback armor scheme however this time we don't have any reference to increase protection in close quarters fight.

 

Citadel components in UAD are a mystery to me. They have benefits, but they also fail to explain some of the advantages.

[brothermunro]

I have to say @admiralsnackbarI’ve been using your mod on my videos (I mention & credit you in them) for 1.10 and it feels much more fun. The design choices feel more like choices again, and battles feel impactful and decisive just like they should do. You’ve done a fantastic job with this!

[Guest]

It's a good set of tweaks indeed 👍

[o Barão]

@admiralsnackbar I must say that I am impressed. I started a new campaign and until now I didn't see any issues related to your mod. The changes to the guns are great in my humble opinion. The game feels good. 😉✌️

"Rebalance damage values of torpedoes "

If possible, that would be great. But I want to ask if it is possible to fix the torpedoes range. Unless the devs already fixed, and I am not aware, there is an issue with most torpedoes in game. From my previous test, as an example, a 24-inch oxygen torpedo with 22 km range could go in a straight line for 38 km. And this issue happens to most torpedoes in game. Seems strange for me to ask you to fix this,  but until now we got nothing from the devs, so yeah...

Anyway great mod.

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

Can you decrease flaw chance in techs? Like, 60% base flaw chance makes sense in 1890 but by 1920 it should be at the most 5%

[madham82]

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

"...especially effective at long range fights."

This is clear an inspiration from the "V" citadels that were used in the american BBs. However, how it works in game? Do we have a sloped inwards citadel belt armor? Maybe we have a hidden negative% damage modifier against shells coming far away? The game does not tell us anything how it works.

Funny enough there is a tech tree item that increases armor strength due to slope. So they are treating the sloped armor as something that is applied to every new ship/refit (once you get the tech). 

[Lima]

Just brilliant work.

[admiralsnackbar]

Version 0.4 for 1.1.1 [shouldn't it be 1.10.1??!!] has been released. See first post for details.  Some small changes to params to bring the campaign parameters closer to the new vanilla values (B/c mine were designed to try to prevent AI economy collapse)

I had wanted to make changes to available gun models and alter the scaling of certain guns, but the effect on campaign saves is likely too significant. I will work on it but with a goal towards releasing that whole feature set at once, ideally after the next beta cycle has started (so that 1.10 is unlikely to change) I'm willing to bust my own campaigns to test that out but not anybody elses. 

Alert me immediately if the resources file causes issues. 
 

[o Barão]

15 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Alert me immediately if the resources file causes issues. 
 

Not an issue, but new campaign 1890 Germany and my shipyard is 12k, I read the changelog and noticed that you increased to 20k the shipyard. Well is too much IMO but still is not working.