NAR Alpha 1 for UAD 1.7

[o Barão]

58 minutes ago, Fyredrake said:

No, it throws an error and doesn't let me design.  I'm saying that it's really upset if you have center or wing mounted main guns and try to put secondaries anywhere close to them on the side that impinges on what it thinks it's full arc of fire is.  So you can't reduce the arc with secondaries on the main deck essentially.  

Ok, so it's working properly. As I said before, this rule applies to both the AI and the player and is needed to force the AI to design good ships. And now is only half the value I was using before.

[Fyredrake]

2 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Ok, so it's working properly. As I said before, this rule applies to both the AI and the player and is needed to force the AI to design good ships. And now is only half the value I was using before.

It's too high then imo, I'll send screenshots in a bit but it feels far too conservative.  

[Peksern]

Did something changed in the Mod or Vanilla with the war? I got pretty much kicked in my a** by austrian fleet. And they got so many points by sinking my battleships, far more than I got by sinking theirs - even though they were only about 20 Millions cheaper. That's insane and way harder than before.

 

[Fyredrake]

16 minutes ago, Peksern said:

Did something changed in the Mod or Vanilla with the war? I got pretty much kicked in my a** by austrian fleet. And they got so many points by sinking my battleships, far more than I got by sinking theirs - even though they were only about 20 Millions cheaper. That's insane and way harder than before.

 

My experience is the AI is far more aggressive now than it used to, I have austria 4 years into my save pushing into russia and japan coming in 2 years later to take that territory lol

Edited November 7, 2024 by Fyredrake
updated with pic

[o Barão]

3 minutes ago, Peksern said:

Did something changed in the Mod or Vanilla with the war? I got pretty much kicked in my a** by austrian fleet. And they got so many points by sinking my battleships, far more than I got by sinking theirs - even though they were only about 20 Millions cheaper. That's insane and way harder than before.

That is gold to my ears.

 

And ofc, the AI does not have any unfair advantage, unless of course you are playing at higher difficulty, then it will have a money income buff.

 

8 minutes ago, Fyredrake said:

It's too high then imo, I'll send screenshots in a bit but it feels far too conservative.  

I can guarantee that it is not, and I can show you why with two screenshots.

This is the current state 0.3 value

See the firing arcs being limited by the secondaries? I can sure you that it is exactly what the AI will do.

 

Now with 0.6.

The secondary above was placed when it was 0.3, that is why is now red. The secondary below is in the 0.6 limit and still have a small impact on the main gun firing arc.

 

So you can decide what you wish to see in your game. You want the AI to design better ships, or you prefer to have more freedom?

Simply open the "params" file and search for this line:

length_expand_lowcal,0.3,expanding Z collider for lower caliber guns,0.0505,,,,,,

If you want more freedom, change to 0.05 or something like that. Save and have fun

 

 

[Fyredrake]

2 minutes ago, o Barão said:

That is gold to my ears.

 

And ofc, the AI does not have any unfair advantage, unless of course you are playing at higher difficulty, then it will have a money income buff.

 

I can guarantee that it is not, and I can show you why with two screenshots.

This is the current state 0.3 value

See the firing arcs being limited by the secondaries? I can sure you that it is exactly what the AI will do.

 

Now with 0.6.

The secondary above was placed when it was 0.3, that is why is now red. The secondary below is in the 0.6 limit and still have a small impact on the main gun firing arc.

 

So you can decide what you wish to see in your game. You want the AI to design better ships, or you prefer to have more freedom?

Simply open the "params" file and search for this line:

length_expand_lowcal,0.3,expanding Z collider for lower caliber guns,0.0505,,,,,,

If you want more freedom, change to 0.05 or something like that. Save and have fun

 

 

As pictured here, this feels far too conservative in terms of where I can and cannot place the turret, I don't see a reason as to why irl they couldn't have placed a turret there and just simply not traversed it further over.  Restrictions are good so you arent just overlapping them or basically limiting arcs of fire to like 5 degrees over the side because you crowded secondaries, but to basically require the entire arc to be usable when in that first image where the error is thrown with virtually no impingement on either turrets AOF, it feels a bit restrictive.  

[o Barão]

9 minutes ago, Fyredrake said:

As pictured here, this feels far too conservative in terms of where I can and cannot place the turret, I don't see a reason as to why irl they couldn't have placed a turret there and just simply not traversed it further over.

I see a very good reason. Why, you are limiting the main battery firing arc because of a secondary? That is why I am using that to force the AI to design good ships.

But as I said in the previous post, you have the freedom to have what you wish in your game.

Edited November 7, 2024 by o Barão

[Peksern]

12 minutes ago, o Barão said:

That is gold to my ears.

 

And ofc, the AI does not have any unfair advantage, unless of course you are playing at higher difficulty, then it will have a money income buff.

yeah, my mistake was to send my main fleet into automatic battles, because I thought, the technological advantage (that I in fact had), would be enough to outrun them even automatically... was a mistake. That calculation is much harder, I believe. Yet the tech advantage only resulted in much more points for the enemy. 

Yet I think there is some problem with divisions in manual battles. They somehow sometimes change their order, not caring that they just run into the torpedo broadsides of ships two kilometers away. And that not only the division leader, but... every ship, as I think.

Edited November 7, 2024 by Peksern

[o Barão]

Just now, Peksern said:

yeah, my mistake was to send my main fleet into automatic battles

Ouch, that hurts.

[Peksern]

Just now, o Barão said:

Ouch, that hurts.

It worked before. Actually don't know what exactly it is, that makes the results far more hurting than before. Basically automatic battles aren't a option anymore, even with technological advantage.

Edited November 7, 2024 by Peksern

[Peksern]

18 minutes ago, Fyredrake said:

My experience is the AI is far more aggressive now than it used to, I have austria 4 years into my save pushing into russia and japan coming in 2 years later to take that territory lol

that is also true. But would be fine, if you still beat their fleets. Which is no longer possible with automatic battles, it seems. Not even on normal.

[Fyredrake]

Uncertain if this is a TAF or NAR thing that's upsetting TAF, but I have gotten this a few times, atm its acting like the turn is complete but when it does, I still have a moving vessels screen covering the map.  Here is the log   @NathanKell @o Barão

[Peksern]

Is NAR still fine for Opt 2x?

[o Barão]

6 minutes ago, Peksern said:

Is NAR still fine for Opt 2x?

Yes!

[Peksern]

Just now, o Barão said:

Yes!

Okay! _pushing the update button!_

[o Barão]

NAR  "let's make UAD great again", part 1.0.2

Changelog: Updated to UAD Opt x2

Edited November 8, 2024 by o Barão

[Peksern]

@o Barão (and everyone else using NAR)

Can you perhaps give an advice about the chosing of HE and AP shell types, or rather adjustment of pen values in ship design?

Usually, I want my ships to fight their counterparts and hunt the next smaller type. So CA shall be able to fight CA and CL, CL should be able to fight CL and DD and so on. Sometimes, I just let the enemy sink due to flooding by max out pen shell types at all my ships. But now I want a more different... or sophisticated design, which cares more about their purposes and the related armor.

For example, about 1900, heavy cruisers (AX double turret main gun layout), I do use Mark2 9 '' double turrets. and 5'' casemate guns with following stats (on proper common distance):

9 Inch guns (2x2). My thoughts: AP for heavy cruisers (which have max 20cm main belt)


5 inch casemates. My thoughts: AP for light cruisers (which have maximum 12,7cm armor). HE for Destroyers (max. 1,9cm armor)


But... it just does not work out. By in statistics actually pretty much equal Heavy cruisers, the enemy damage is far higher. So I think there's a major mistake in how I understand how this all works at all... or at least in how I calculate. 

Could you or anyone else here give some advice, why these stats seem to be rather bad for a CA in about 1900? And why it seems that "all max pen shell types" somehow work better than my trys to adjust in regard of the enemy armor?

Thanks very much!

Edited November 8, 2024 by Peksern

[o Barão]

8 minutes ago, Peksern said:

...the enemy damage is far higher.

The AI is now following my personal choices about ammo, torpedoes and rangefinder, so yeah, expect to have a much harder time in comparison to vanilla game.

 

One golden rule I always follow, and the AI is also using, is about protection and chance to ammo detonation or flash fire. So if you look, as an example, the AI destroyer's design components list, most likely you will see them to have light shells, reduced ammo weight and few torpedoes.

They should also be equipped most of the time with coincidence rangefinder I. This should guarantee a higher chance of survival, to fight longer and connect more hits the longer the battle endures.

Now, if you want your ships to be effective against similar ships and also smaller vessels, then 90% of the time you will want to use SAP. If you want to fight above your weight, then capped shells are the answer or since you are in 1900, simply use pricic acid and burn everything.

[Peksern]

6 minutes ago, o Barão said:

The AI is now following my personal choices about ammo, torpedoes and rangefinder, so yeah, expect to have a much harder time in comparison to vanilla game.

First things first: Thanks for your answer. ❤️ Then. In mind of your improving of the AI, that's totally fine, but actually should be about balanced. 

6 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Now, if you want your ships to be effective against similar ships and also smaller vessels, then 90% of the time you will want to use SAP. If you want to fight above your weight, then capped shells are the answer or since you are in 1900, simply use pricic acid and burn everything.

 I hate picrid acid because ship goes boom.  I like to avoid flash fire and detonations too.  But from your answers I assume, that - in theory - my calculation isn't as wrong as I thought? So the stats I showed above are fine for a CA, that is supposed to fight CAs?

Edited November 8, 2024 by Peksern

[o Barão]

40 minutes ago, Peksern said:

I like to avoid flash fire and detonations too.

• Light shells
• Reduced ammo
• Barbettes
• Reinforced bulkheads
• Citadel
• Maybe hydraulic turrets

Add all together and you should keep the risk low. CAs are better at this because they have armor that can save your ass in more situations, so in those ships I will increase the ammo count. Don't forget that the fires were nerfed in NAR in comparison with vanilla game but can still be dangerous.

But as I said before, if I want my ships to be deadly against similar ships, then SAP and a more safe propellant should be more interesting. In 1900, you don't have many options anyway. Around 1910 is when we start to have interesting options to choose.

[Peksern]

31 minutes ago, o Barão said:

• Light shells
• Reduced ammo
• Barbettes
• Reinforced bulkheads
• Citadel
• Maybe hydraulic turrets

Add all together and you should keep the risk low. CAs are better at this because they have armor that can save your ass in more situations, so in those ships I will increase the ammo count. Don't forget that the fires were nerfed in NAR in comparison with vanilla game but can still be dangerous.

But as I said before, if I want my ships to be deadly against similar ships, then SAP and a more safe propellant should be more interesting. In 1900, you don't have many options anyway. Around 1910 is when we start to have interesting options to choose.

Thanks very much.

Yet, I do have another suggestion. Would it be possible or at least interesting to make something against the AI torpedo suicide tactic with battleships? It's pretty annoying and weird, that the AI sends its predreadnought battleships with torpedo tubes to the one kilometer range, just to put some torpedos. 

[o Barão]

3 minutes ago, Peksern said:

Thanks very much.

Yet, I do have another suggestion. Would it be possible or at least interesting to make something against the AI torpedo suicide tactic with battleships? It's pretty annoying and weird, that the AI sends its predreadnought battleships with torpedo tubes to the one kilometer range, just to put some torpedos. 

I suggested the same thing to the devs many months ago, and I didn't get an answer. In short, I have a modifier responsible for the AI to follow when is armed with torpedoes, but is applied to all ships. It doesn't make any distinction. So, in early years, you will see most ships coming to fight in close quarters.

Later, we will see long range torpedoes and so the AI should keep more normal battle distances. I also set other different parameters to give AI more freedom of movements, so it can chase you, run away if the losses are too much, keep distance etc. But around 1890-1900 most battles will be in close quarters.

[dadiman260]

Hmmmmm, is argentina in 1890 suppose to start with 100k tons? Considering me and Chille combined are not even pushing 30k ;D

[HMS Implosive]

Just a minor aesthetics thing again: Left is German 9" gun compared to 13" gun on the right. I think German guns 9"-12" range are a bit oversized, would you agree?

Edited November 8, 2024 by HMS Implosive

[Peksern]

@o BarãoSorry, you won't get rid of me today. Found another issue, though I'm not sure if it's NAR or Vanilla.

Sometimes single ships from division are "blown" away from the rest of the fleet in the start of battles. Just like they are pushed away by an invisible hand. That's obviously some tactical problem.  On the screenshot you can see the result.