Peksern Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, Fyredrake said: 2x2 12" guns was not a layout that was normal or used by the era I'm discussing. Modern hulls have different armor layouts, building techniques, more weight for a bigger powerplant/boilers, more structure for protection, etc etc. a 1905 semi-dreadnought with old building techniques is not equivalent to that of the cruisers built in the 1920s and 30s. Okay. One thing ahead: I am not a ship's engineer. I know that there might be some important for designing a ship. But I presume, that these details do not matter here. Why? Because we are talking about displacement, which is a rather simple physical size. This is how a ship floats. Why does it depend of the density even in this example? Because the ship can be seen as one solid object. And that's why it does not matter if the mass of the ship comes from thick armor or modern, heavy engines. If a ship has similar size (and therefore volume) and is supposed to have a similar draught, it needs a similar mass. That's right. That's why its only a lightly armored cruiser which has the same size, displacement and guns and not a modern battleship. Because you can't have the same size, the same heavy armor, the same guns and a much heavier interior. In other words: The old pre dreadnought would sink, if it would have the engines of the modern cruiser. Because its mass would increase too much while the volume remains the same. And the modern cruiser would sink if it had the same armor as the old pre dreadnought. But it does not. It has heavier engines, but by far less heavy armor. And therefore it can have the same size and the same guns. Do you understand? Gave me a bit trouble how to explain. Edited November 22, 2024 by Peksern
Fyredrake Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 Yes I understand how that works, im simply saying that a modern ships because they were more complex and had more mass allocated to different systems, it now means that a CA with 8" guns now weighs the same as a predread from 30 years prior would. Its why a battleship from the 30s displaced 35000 tons or in the case of the Iowas, displaced far more than a contemporary ship from WW1, they simply had more protection, more systems, more overall complexity. Hence why again it doesn't make sense that a WW2 era CA hull that is limited to 15-17Ktons, can mount 11" guns without severe compromises to protection and other internal systems. I should not for example below, be able to build a 4x3 10" gun heavy cruiser with 8" belt armor, 33 knot top speed, etc, for 15250 tons of total displacement lol. For example the Alaska class CBs with 3x3 12" guns were upward of ~30000 tons standard. The limitation is simply that the hulls in game are not meant to scale with armament, they are more so aligned with what was done in real life, IE 8" CAs and 6" CLs. So we either need armament limitations for these ships or we need the hull weight and systems to be more attributed to the armament added to them instead of it already being somewhat predetermined. 2 hours ago, Peksern said: Okay. One thing ahead: I am not a ship's engineer. I know that there might be some important for designing a ship. But I presume, that these details do not matter here. Why? Because we are talking about displacement, which is a rather simple physical size. This is how a ship floats. Why does it depend of the density even in this example? Because the ship can be seen as one solid object. And that's why it does not matter if the mass of the ship comes from thick armor or modern, heavy engines. If a ship has similar size (and therefore volume) and is supposed to have a similar draught, it needs a similar mass. That's right. That's why its only a lightly armored cruiser which has the same size, displacement and guns and not a modern battleship. Because you can't have the same size, the same heavy armor, the same guns and a much heavier interior. In other words: The old pre dreadnought would sink, if it would have the engines of the modern cruiser. Because its mass would increase too much while the volume remains the same. And the modern cruiser would sink if it had the same armor as the old pre dreadnought. But it does not. It has heavier engines, but by far less heavy armor. And therefore it can have the same size and the same guns. Do you understand? Gave me a bit trouble how to explain. 1
Peksern Posted November 23, 2024 Posted November 23, 2024 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Fyredrake said: Hence why again it doesn't make sense that a WW2 era CA hull that is limited to 15-17Ktons, can mount 11" guns without severe compromises to protection and other internal systems. I should not for example below, be able to build a 4x3 10" gun heavy cruiser with 8" belt armor, 33 knot top speed, etc, for 15250 tons of total displacement lol. Okay, now I understand your point. Yet I don't exactly follow you. I tried a shared design and compared it to USS Louisville: USS Louisville (1930) Displacement: 14000 Tons Speed: 32 kts Main belt: 76-95mm Armor deck: 25-51mm Main Armament: 3x3 203-mm-L/55 Turret Armor: 63 mm Result: historical Shared design (1930) Displacement: 14000 tons Speed: 32 kts Belt: 76-203 mm Deck: 25-51 mm Main Armament: 3x3 254-mm-L/55, (3x3 203 mm L/55) Turret Armor: 180-254mm Result with 254mm guns: far too heavy (about 15790 tons, 113% displacement) Result with 203mm guns: too heavy (about 14500 tons, 104%) Result with 203mm AND 102mm main belt (minimum): about 13600 tons (97% displacement) So, in conclusion: In the very same year as the USS Louisville was built, my shared designs with NAR come to similar results. If the speed of 32kts is maintained, even with 203mm guns I can't max out the main belt. With ten inch guns, it's even not possible by using minimal main belt of 102mm. I'm still more than a thousand tons above the limit. Well, I must admit I considered myself "victorious" here... but then... @o BarãoI reduced speed from 32 to 31 kts. And it did work, seems that the critical point of exponential growth is exactly between these two speeds (on US Heavy cruiser III) So.. yes. In 1930, it's possible to build the following ship: Shared design (1930) Displacement: 14000 tons Speed: 31 kts Belt: 76-203 mm Deck: 25-51 mm Main Armament: 3x3 254-mm-L/55 Turret Armor: 254 mm Barbette: 178 mm Inner layers and conning tower: All maxed out Torpedo protection, citadel, barbette protection, bottom, bulkheads etc: Everything on max Compared to the USS Lousville as an historical counterpart for a heavy cruiser with the same displacement, this is indeed very... much. Edited November 23, 2024 by Peksern
Fyredrake Posted November 23, 2024 Posted November 23, 2024 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Peksern said: Okay, now I understand your point. Yet I don't exactly follow you. I tried a shared design and compared it to USS Louisville: USS Louisville (1930) Displacement: 14000 Tons Speed: 32 kts Main belt: 76-95mm Armor deck: 25-51mm Main Armament: 3x3 203-mm-L/55 Turret Armor: 63 mm Result: historical Shared design (1930) Displacement: 14000 tons Speed: 32 kts Belt: 76-203 mm Deck: 25-51 mm Main Armament: 3x3 254-mm-L/55, (3x3 203 mm L/55) Turret Armor: 180-254mm Result with 254mm guns: far too heavy (about 15790 tons, 113% displacement) Result with 203mm guns: too heavy (about 14500 tons, 104%) Result with 203mm AND 102mm main belt (minimum): about 13600 tons (97% displacement) So, in conclusion: In the very same year as the USS Louisville was built, my shared designs with NAR come to similar results. If the speed of 32kts is maintained, even with 203mm guns I can't max out the main belt. With ten inch guns, it's even not possible by using minimal main belt of 102mm. I'm still more than a thousand tons above the limit. Well, I must admit I considered myself "victorious" here... but then... @o BarãoI reduced speed from 32 to 31 kts. And it did work, seems that the critical point of exponential growth is exactly between these two speeds (on US Heavy cruiser III) So.. yes. In 1930, it's possible to build the following ship: Shared design (1930) Displacement: 14000 tons Speed: 31 kts Belt: 76-203 mm Deck: 25-51 mm Main Armament: 3x3 254-mm-L/55 Turret Armor: 254 mm Barbette: 178 mm Inner layers and conning tower: All maxed out Torpedo protection, citadel, barbette protection, bottom, bulkheads etc: Everything on max Compared to the USS Lousville as an historical counterpart for a heavy cruiser with the same displacement, this is indeed very... much. Im not understanding what the effort here was to do, since again, my design of 15500 tons for a 4x3 turret design with 10" guns and accompanying armor with those turrets, when in reality a 3x3 8" gun cruiser from the same era(Look at Baltimore and Des Moines class CAs) was 15000-17000 tons, with modern armor layout, fire control, torpedo protection, etc etc. Doesnt seem right, I'm getting 1 extra turret, 2" increase in gun diameter, more armor on the turrets to protect them, and of course whilst maintaining the same speed doesn't seem right here, I think you can agree. If I may add, your design above basically matches mine in terms of what you did, going from 14000 tons to 15700 tons for all of the above changes, IE a net 1700 ton increase in displacement, is far too light. Edited November 23, 2024 by Fyredrake
o Barão Posted November 24, 2024 Author Posted November 24, 2024 Just a quick note: As you may probably be aware, TAF is not updated to the latest UAD version, and I also didn't finish checking all provinces land connection errors. To be completely honest, it is a pain in the ass and I struggle to find motivation to fix those issues. Anyway, there will be no update for the moment. 3
Peksern Posted November 24, 2024 Posted November 24, 2024 (edited) 31 minutes ago, o Barão said: Just a quick note: As you may probably be aware, TAF is not updated to the latest UAD version, and I also didn't finish checking all provinces land connection errors. To be completely honest, it is a pain in the ass and I struggle to find motivation to fix those issues. Anyway, there will be no update for the moment. Is there any way to help you out? Yet you said this is a Vanilla error, but vanilla and DIP seem to work. So do you think it's really necessary to fix the provinces? Edited November 24, 2024 by Peksern 2
A.R.Euro XVIII Posted November 25, 2024 Posted November 25, 2024 Does Have a Download Link to the NAR English.Lng File? I Seem to have lost mine and now Portugal, Netherlands, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Greece, Ottoman Empire, are missing their Description, and a lot of other stuff is missing making it hard to play.
DougToss Posted November 25, 2024 Posted November 25, 2024 16 hours ago, o Barão said: Just a quick note: As you may probably be aware, TAF is not updated to the latest UAD version, and I also didn't finish checking all provinces land connection errors. To be completely honest, it is a pain in the ass and I struggle to find motivation to fix those issues. Anyway, there will be no update for the moment. It might be best to wait for a "plateau" in development, so the patches aren't coming fast and furious and requiring you to constantly play catch up. I believe you also mod for Sea Power and War on the Sea, correct? Maybe focus on enjoying those rather than getting burnt out on this title?
o Barão Posted November 25, 2024 Author Posted November 25, 2024 19 hours ago, Peksern said: ...but vanilla and DIP seem to work. So do you think it's really necessary to fix the provinces? The land connections errors I am seeing affects all versions. It is not about possible game crashes, but it is instead related to armies movements on land, or to be more precise, why there are no land invasions in some situations when it is clear that there is a land connection. 4 hours ago, DougToss said: It might be best to wait for a "plateau" in development, so the patches aren't coming fast and furious and requiring you to constantly play catch up. I believe you also mod for Sea Power and War on the Sea, correct? Maybe focus on enjoying those rather than getting burnt out on this title? You are correct. I really need to take a break from this for a while and just enjoy playing the games I like to restore my energies. 4 hours ago, A.R.Euro XVIII said: Does Have a Download Link to the NAR English.Lng File? I Seem to have lost mine and now Portugal, Netherlands, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Greece, Ottoman Empire, are missing their Description, and a lot of other stuff is missing making it hard to play. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13j4QFsQJ3upWofl_6EEV8y_wABwE4s9X?usp=sharing You have all the files there, but not updated with the latest changes. 7
Peksern Posted November 25, 2024 Posted November 25, 2024 15 minutes ago, o Barão said: I really need to take a break from this for a while and just enjoy playing the games I like to restore my energies. Enjoy the free time then. 4
Birendra Posted November 27, 2024 Posted November 27, 2024 On 11/25/2024 at 5:21 PM, o Barão said: The land connections errors I am seeing affects all versions. It is not about possible game crashes, but it is instead related to armies movements on land, or to be more precise, why there are no land invasions in some situations when it is clear that there is a land connection. You are correct. I really need to take a break from this for a while and just enjoy playing the games I like to restore my energies. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13j4QFsQJ3upWofl_6EEV8y_wABwE4s9X?usp=sharing You have all the files there, but not updated with the latest changes. Could I use this to run the mod? This is like the complete files right? I'd like to play the mod with the UAD version it was made for
Peksern Posted November 30, 2024 Posted November 30, 2024 On 11/20/2024 at 12:44 AM, NathanKell said: If folks encounter further crashes (well, freezes--as far as I can tell no one has actually reported a crash, just the game freezing up) after that update, I should be able to debug them by locally reimplementing the function that is causing the problem and spewing debug information. Hi nathan! Had the "moving vessels" freeze again today. This time with DIP (UAD 1.6.1.4) and melonloader said something about romania. 1
NathanKell Posted December 2, 2024 Posted December 2, 2024 On 11/30/2024 at 3:31 PM, Peksern said: Hi nathan! Had the "moving vessels" freeze again today. This time with DIP (UAD 1.6.1.4) and melonloader said something about romania. Thanks, my major update at work shipped and while I was dumb enough to sign up for a bunch of work on the next one, it's not as bad, so I hope to have more time. There's definitely something hosed with that method. I need to figure out exactly what the stock method is doing, and maybe I have to just rewrite it with checks in place to be sure things don't keep blowing up. 4
Peksern Posted December 2, 2024 Posted December 2, 2024 5 hours ago, NathanKell said: Thanks, my major update at work shipped and while I was dumb enough to sign up for a bunch of work on the next one, it's not as bad, so I hope to have more time. There's definitely something hosed with that method. I need to figure out exactly what the stock method is doing, and maybe I have to just rewrite it with checks in place to be sure things don't keep blowing up. Sounds great. ❤️ I fear all of us need your help. Keeps freezing no matter the mod. And that is saaaad. 2
atome Posted December 3, 2024 Posted December 3, 2024 On 11/25/2024 at 10:21 AM, o Barão said: You are correct. I really need to take a break from this for a while and just enjoy playing the games I like to restore my energies. HI i don't want to be a bother i'm just curious about the development plateau are gonna for the next major update (1.7)? If yes to update NAR to 1.7 even though it might be development hell again with an update every week or update it to last 1.6 version to have a stable NAR version until 1.7 becomes stable ? Anyways whatever you decide to do take a break as long as you need and keep up the good work (love this mod )
o Barão Posted December 5, 2024 Author Posted December 5, 2024 On 12/3/2024 at 8:11 PM, atome said: HI i don't want to be a bother i'm just curious about the development plateau are gonna for the next major update (1.7)? If yes to update NAR to 1.7 even though it might be development hell again with an update every week or update it to last 1.6 version to have a stable NAR version until 1.7 becomes stable ? Anyways whatever you decide to do take a break as long as you need and keep up the good work (love this mod ) I need to wait for the moment until Nathan get some time to check the code to see if he can find the issue why the campaigns are crashing when the ships are moving. 3
krakenus600 Posted December 10, 2024 Posted December 10, 2024 Is there any possibility to download this mod for older versions ? For example 1.6.0.9 ? the new one is giving me problems so I'm going back until they fix it ... thank you
SpardaSon21 Posted December 10, 2024 Posted December 10, 2024 On 12/4/2024 at 4:03 PM, o Barão said: I need to wait for the moment until Nathan get some time to check the code to see if he can find the issue why the campaigns are crashing when the ships are moving. New patch notes are up, with a fix for the campaign freeze during the movement phase of a turn: https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/500558980530046913 3
A.R.Euro XVIII Posted December 12, 2024 Posted December 12, 2024 @o Barão there is a minor issue that I have with this mod. The "Fix" of Secondary guns and barbettes is most likely to blame. That being it's impossible to make the Yamato class because the "Fix" for Ai to not place Barbettes too close to the Main turrets affects this, even holding shift does not work because it comes up with the Text: "Mount 1" and despite not interfering with the turret or Secondary tower and showing up Green, I cannot place it down.
o Barão Posted December 12, 2024 Author Posted December 12, 2024 On 12/10/2024 at 6:43 PM, SpardaSon21 said: New patch notes are up, with a fix for the campaign freeze during the movement phase of a turn: https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/500558980530046913 So it was a vanilla bug? Damn. Thanks! 3
o Barão Posted December 12, 2024 Author Posted December 12, 2024 On 12/10/2024 at 5:22 PM, krakenus600 said: Is there any possibility to download this mod for older versions ? For example 1.6.0.9 ? the new one is giving me problems so I'm going back until they fix it ... thank you I don't support or keep old versions with me, and with moving vessels bug I also don't recommend you to try. You could lose the campaign progress, so not worth it. Wait for nathan to update TAF and I will update the mod. 3
o Barão Posted December 12, 2024 Author Posted December 12, 2024 8 hours ago, A.R.Euro XVIII said: @o Barão there is a minor issue that I have with this mod. The "Fix" of Secondary guns and barbettes is most likely to blame. That being it's impossible to make the Yamato class because the "Fix" for Ai to not place Barbettes too close to the Main turrets affects this, even holding shift does not work because it comes up with the Text: "Mount 1" and despite not interfering with the turret or Secondary tower and showing up Green, I cannot place it down. I can't at the moment open the game with the mod enable, and I don't remember exactly now what is the modifier, but you can try open the "params" file and lower this values. length_expand_lowcal,0.3,expanding Z collider for lower caliber guns,0.0505,,,,,, gun_expand_barbette,1.5,"gun obstruction on the sides of barbettes, disallowing shooting interference",,,,,,, I am almost sure it is one of these modifiers. I recommend trying the first one. Try 0.05 for the 1st modifier and see if notice a difference. Ofc lowering that value also allows the AI to get the secondaries closer to the main guns when designing new ships.
Peksern Posted December 12, 2024 Posted December 12, 2024 1 hour ago, o Barão said: I don't support or keep old versions with me, and with moving vessels bug I also don't recommend you to try. You could lose the campaign progress, so not worth it. Wait for nathan to update TAF and I will update the mod. Woop woop!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now