NAR Alpha 1 for UAD 1.7

[Peksern]

On 11/12/2024 at 12:14 PM, o Barão said:

And if I don't report, most likely is that you will not see that fixed.

Well, now I see, what you have meant.  ... you gonna show them every single error, that you still have to find?

[o Barão]

11 minutes ago, Peksern said:

Well, now I see, what you have meant.  ... you gonna show them every single error, that you still have to find?

If it is important, yes.

[o Barão]

On 11/12/2024 at 3:22 PM, SpardaSon21 said:

And since the Strait of Messina just doesn't exist, no reason Eastern Sicily and Southern Italy shouldn't be connected.

The reason is that you would need a fleet to control the sea to allow the army to move. I am only touching the land connections that should exist or not in the province's file. Anything that is not connected by land, I am ignoring, as it should IMO.

[Peksern]

@o Barão Minor suggestion - something I could do myself, but perhaps it's for other people also interesting. (Or not necessary, dunno). It's just about some math in ship design.

Would it be possible to slightly change the first layer value to 0.5 and the second layer to 0.33? It would make it much simpler to calculate the armor equivalent of the first and second layer without a pocket calculator. Then it would be simply multiplied by 2 (first layer 0.5) and multiplied by 3 (second layer 0.33). Easy in the head.

I don't think that it would make a major balance change. First layer would be less easy penetrated, but anyway he will be penetrated, since it's max half the main belt. But please correct me, if I'm wrong. I guess you did think about those values before.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Peksern

[o Barão]

3 hours ago, Peksern said:

@o Barão Minor suggestion - something I could do myself, but perhaps it's for other people also interesting. (Or not necessary, dunno). It's just about some math in ship design.

Would it be possible to slightly change the first layer value to 0.5 and the second layer to 0.33? It would make it much simpler to calculate the armor equivalent of the first and second layer without a pocket calculator. Then it would be simply multiplied by 2 (first layer 0.5) and multiplied by 3 (second layer 0.33). Easy in the head.

I don't think that it would make a major balance change. First layer would be less easy penetrated, but anyway he will be penetrated, since it's max half the main belt. But please correct me, if I'm wrong. I guess you did think about those values before.

I dislike those values because it doesn't take into account what would be the shell path after penetrating the first layer. It is a very simplified and fixed way to represent what can be a million possible outcomes.

But to change those values can have negative side effects in battle that I would need to spend hours to know if is ok or not.

So I will suggest changing that only for your mod files.

[Peksern]

28 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I dislike those values because it doesn't take into account what would be the shell path after penetrating the first layer. It is a very simplified and fixed way to represent what can be a million possible outcomes.

But to change those values can have negative side effects in battle that I would need to spend hours to know if is ok or not.

So I will suggest changing that only for your mod files.

Okay. Nevermind then. Thought it might be a good idea. But if you think there might be negative side effects, I keep it that way too. Thanks for your answer!

[MDHansen]

When I see something like this
[19:54:25.838] [UnityExplorer] [Unity] failed to generate random ship of type 'cl', reason 'requirements', hull 'cl_4_omaha', reqs 'tower_main', parts '', try 1
I assume it struggles to place the main tower? I've looked in parts and randparts to find anything obvious, and made my own ship with the hull and techs in ship designer, and let the computer build one for me, and it works fine...

You have more experience than me in this department, do you have any ideas?

Edited November 15, 2024 by MDHansen

[o Barão]

12 minutes ago, MDHansen said:

When I see something like this
[19:54:25.838] [UnityExplorer] [Unity] failed to generate random ship of type 'cl', reason 'requirements', hull 'cl_4_omaha', reqs 'tower_main', parts '', try 1
I assume it struggles to place the main tower? I've looked in parts and randparts to find anything obvious, and made my own ship with the hull and techs in ship designer, and let the computer build one for me, and it works fine...

You have more experience than me in this department, do you have any ideas?

Exactly that. The thing is, you need to see what design language is being used for that hull. If is only one is more simple to fix things.

In this example are 3 which make things more complicated:

barbette_need, Coastal_Ship, Essential_Central_Funnels

You will need to see what design language have a main tower line in the randparts. You can make it easier for the AI by increasing the range-z [-1;+1] for the main tower, and reducing the chance for other components to interfere with the main tower space by making the space for them to not overlapp so much the space you want for the main tower.

Edited November 15, 2024 by o Barão

[MDHansen]

thanks!

[NathanKell]

On 11/11/2024 at 5:04 AM, o Barão said:

Thank you!! There is still an error reported by other player related to "ukraine", but I can't find any error about that in the "provinces" file. 

It is strange why these errors are happening now and never happened before. I will create another "provinces" dump file to see if I can find anything.

 

update: There were some changes to "provinces" neighbors made by the devs. I already updated the file with the new changes, but I still didn't find any strange related to Ukraine.

If you started from a fresh dump of provinces from 1.6.1.3 then my only guess as to why it's causing issues for NAR and not for vanilla is because some of the minors have become majors so there are different minor nation checks? I'll read through the function in question. If the provinces.csv dates from an earlier dump, then perhaps the devs encountered these same issues and fixed them themselves once having these bugs started causing real problems for them (thanks to the new features).

 

It's also worht mentioning that, if memory serves, much of this data is saved in save games so if there is an existing save, simply fixing the provinces.csv file won't necessarily result in a fix to the save game.

[A.R.Euro XVIII]

@o Barão I hope this isn't too much to ask, but I have an issue with the way some of the main towers are scaled and/or are missing and was wondering if you could fix them? Like the US Modern Battleship II (Iowa Class Hull) Is missing the Rear Modern Tower IV, and the Forward Modern Tower VI is Just Too Big for the Mk.4-5 16-inch guns to look good. so, if you could rescale/or make a new, set of smaller towers that could fit the US 16-inch guns, I would very much appreciate it.

Edit: also, if you could fix the scaling on the US Modern Battleship I (NC & SD-Class) Funnel as they are quite literally too big

Edited November 16, 2024 by A.R.Euro XVIII
Forgot about somthing

[SpardaSon21]

If this helps you narrow down the "Move Ships" bug at all, this is the error I get in the MelonLoader console:

[01:52:07.431] [TweaksAndFixes] [Unity]: ArgumentException: An item with the same key has already been added. Key: Eastern Sweden (Province)
System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2[TKey,TValue].TryInsert (TKey key, TValue value, System.Collections.Generic.InsertionBehavior behavior) (at <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0)
System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2[TKey,TValue].Add (TKey key, TValue value) (at <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0)
CampaignController.CheckMinorNationThreat () (at <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0)
CampaignController+<NextTurn>d__106.MoveNext () (at <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0)
UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine.InvokeMoveNext (System.Collections.IEnumerator enumerator, System.IntPtr returnValueAddress) (at <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0)

 

Its a fresh save using your erm... "testing" folder I downloaded thanks to having the link saved in my history, as well as the latest TAF update and MelonLoader 6.6.  Somehow Sweden took over Norway in my game and yet its two home provinces are ungoverned.  I think Sweden might simultaneously be trying to attack Eastern Sweden from one of its Norwegian provinces at the same time the code is calling for a Swedish uprising inside of the province.

 

EDIT: Err, should Malmo be in Eastern Sweden inside ports.csv when its clearly inside the borders of Western Sweden on the map?

Edited November 16, 2024 by SpardaSon21

[o Barão]

@A.R.Euro XVIII added the tower and scaled down those funnels. I didn't change or created a new tower for those 16". It would take too much time and I have important bugs to fix.

@SpardaSon21 now is Sweden? I simply can't understand why this is happening only to me. I will take a look. Thank you for the log.

[SpardaSon21]

27 minutes ago, o Barão said:

@SpardaSon21 now is Sweden? I simply can't understand why this is happening only to me. I will take a look. Thank you for the log.

Well, I posted up why it might be Sweden and not some other country given the map issues.  Looks like some sort of error in the target selection code, perhaps because you added additional majors and the AI can't handle that?  Sweden is allied with the Dutch in my game, which might be a potential cause for issues, even if the Dutch aren't at war with anyone.

[Peksern]

58 minutes ago, o Barão said:

A.R.Euro XVIII added the tower and scaled down those funnels. I didn't change or created a new tower for those 16". It would take too much time and I have important bugs to fix

Omg, that is so awesome. Always hated that this hull only had that "Baby tower". Thanks very much. And thanks @A.R.Euro XVIIIfor the Suggestion. ❤️

[Atlantic War]

Hello O Barao !

I've been playing this game for a little over 6 months now and yes, it has both its shortcomings and its very good sides. Basically, this is first of all a very good idea for creating a game. I really don't like this game and I can't stand that on the ships on our modern ships that we create the propellers don't spin and because of this they look like just some models that move on some surface and not like modern large ships that float. I wrote to the developers and asked if it was possible to fix this flaw, but they told me that the game was almost finished and they would most likely leave it that way. I see that you have done a great job on this game and created a wonderful mod so I decided to write to you if you also think that the propellers that do not spin on the ships really spoil this game and maybe if you can fix this you will make huge improvements to this game. I'm really looking forward to your reply, thank you !!!

[A.R.Euro XVIII]

6 hours ago, o Barão said:

@A.R.Euro XVIII added the tower and scaled down those funnels. I didn't change or created a new tower for those 16". It would take too much time and I have important bugs to fix.

@SpardaSon21 now is Sweden? I simply can't understand why this is happening only to me. I will take a look. Thank you for the log.

Thanks for that, the funnels especially bothered me because they looked goofy being bigger than the forward spotting tower.

5 hours ago, Peksern said:

Omg, that is so awesome. Always hated that this hull only had that "Baby tower". Thanks very much. And thanks @A.R.Euro XVIIIfor the Suggestion. ❤️

No problem, I'm surprised nobody ever mentioned the MB-II Hull missing it's proper aft-tower.

[Peksern]

Just now, A.R.Euro XVIII said:

No problem, I'm surprised nobody ever mentioned the MB-II Hull missing it's proper aft-tower.

Well, I'm annoyed by the miss of this larger block tower, but never considered that it would be a bug or something. Thought that was kinda intended for balance or whatever.

[o Barão]

3 hours ago, Atlantic War said:

I see that you have done a great job on this game and created a wonderful mod so I decided to write to you if you also think that the propellers that do not spin on the ships really spoil this game and maybe if you can fix this you will make huge improvements to this game.

I can't fix it, and to be fair, doesn't bother me. I remember a similar issue when I was modding TTE for war on the sea, but in that game we have underwater view because of the playable subs and to track torpedoes, both are missing in UAD so it doesn't have a big impact. It can be annoying when sailing in storms, then it is common to see the propellers in the air in some situations.

 

As a side note, the issue on War on the sea was the propellers' direction that was wrong in some cases, but the devs gave us the option to fix the issue by simply editing a notepad file, if I am not mistaken.

 

 

[Atlantic War]

7 hours ago, o Barão said:

I can't fix it, and to be fair, doesn't bother me. I remember a similar issue when I was modding TTE for war on the sea, but in that game we have underwater view because of the playable subs and to track torpedoes, both are missing in UAD so it doesn't have a big impact. It can be annoying when sailing in storms, then it is common to see the propellers in the air in some situations.

 

As a side note, the issue on War on the sea was the propellers' direction that was wrong in some cases, but the devs gave us the option to fix the issue by simply editing a notepad file, if I am not mistaken.

 

 

Thank you very much for your answer !

You very accurately noted that it is precisely when the battle in Storm takes place that the propellers appear very often on the surface and when it is visible that they are not spinning, it creates a bad impression. I don’t like it because there are a lot of parts on the ships that spin, turn, release, rotate, like our favorite guns, and when I see propellers that don’t spin, it just really spoils the impression. Then I don’t understand why not make them spin too, so that it would be clear that this modern ship that we are creating is truly alive. Well, maybe this is not meant to be, or as the developers told me, maybe this flaw or improvement will be taken into account in the next game. Thanks again for your reply ! 

[HMS Implosive]

Another minor thing: apparently the Spanish government considered buying Littorio class plans and some technological assistance from Italy to build them domestically. Would be nice if Italian italian battleship III, and maybe Italian Super Battleship, were available for Spain to reflect this.

[o Barão]

14 hours ago, HMS Implosive said:

Another minor thing: apparently the Spanish government considered buying Littorio class plans and some technological assistance from Italy to build them domestically. Would be nice if Italian italian battleship III, and maybe Italian Super Battleship, were available for Spain to reflect this.

I think I saw that from a Drachinifel video. I will add the italian BB III to Spain.👍

[Peksern]

@o Barão

Some times ago, you said something about that beating the same ship types usually does require SAP grenades rather than the capped grenade types. At first I thought you are right. It's absolutely true. In Early game. But it changes later on with the use of the third layer. And now I am wondering wether it's what you intended by the NAR values. I give you an example:

Light Cruiser at about 1930
Main belt: 12.7 cm. (max)
3rd inner layer: 4.1 cm (max) --> armor equivalent of 33 cm (even though it does not help against partial pens)
Guns: 17.8 cm, max caliber extention and caliber length possible
Components: Dunnite, cordite MD, capped ballistics II, Super heavy shells (for maximum pen)

Expected battle range: 7500m (about 2% hit chance)
Pen value at this distance with improved APBC: 38.8cm. 
Pen value with Standard AP shells: 28.5 cm
Pen Value with SAPC: 19.3 cm
Pen Value with SAP: 15.7 cm

So it seems, that it needs definitely the most punchy AP grenade type to fight against the same ship type, when it has maxed out its third layer. Well, partial pens are still possible with less punch, but they are the weakest damage possible in the game and not, what you want. Perhaps that is not exactly what you had in mind?

 

Edited November 19, 2024 by Peksern

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Peksern said:

@o Barão

And now I am wondering wether it's what you intended by the NAR values

NO!!! Don't follow everything I say about guns, shells, propellants as a golden rule that will work all the time because that is not how the game works. Each target is different, and every gun can also be different. If I didn't make it clear at the time, I apologize.

 

I am going to give a simple example for you to understand.

You have a BB with 20" with SAP and another with 10" also with SAP. The ammo is the same, but it is clear that the SAP from the 10" will have troubles against any heavily armored BB. In this case, I would prefer much more for the 10" BB with Capped shells to have more penetration power.

Depends the guns you have on board and against what kind of targets you are fighting. There is no exact answer for every possible situation.

 

[Peksern]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

Depends the guns you have on board and against what kind of targets you are fighting. There is no exact answer for every possible situation.

well, I actually would rather say: In early game, without inner layers, you usually can use semi armor piercing stuff, in the later game you actually will need the most punchy grenades possible to pen through the massive layers. I think, this works because there is this limit of main belt armor for every ship class, that is not changing from 1890 to 1950. Heavy cruisers will always have 20,3 cm.  So the armors are rather static.

Edited November 19, 2024 by Peksern