NAR Alpha 1 for UAD 1.7

[o Barão]

17 minutes ago, Peksern said:

Heavy cruisers will always have 20,3 cm.  So the armors are rather static.

Yes, but the ranges, armor quality, guns, shells and propellants are not.

A fight against a CA in 1890 is not the same as fight against a CA in 1920. Many things change, that is why I am saying to not focus so much in one type of shell but to be open-minded about what can be best for each ship in each era.

[Peksern]

6 minutes ago, o Barão said:

A fight against a CA in 1890 is not the same as fight against a CA in 1920. Many things change, that is why I am saying to not focus so much in one type of shell but to be open-minded about what can be best for each ship in each era.

Yeah, I know what you mean. The distances increase of course... nonetheless, against maxed out inner layers you will need more punch. By the inner layers, effective armor increases far far more than the punch due to propellants and gun marks.

The third inner layer is something like three times the strength of the main belt. So you will need three times the pen in later game. If you want to pen or at least overpen. That is never achieved by propellants and guns and other components alone, without the more punchy shells themselves. Especially, since increasing armor quality more or less compensates the improvements of guns and so on. You know, what I mean? 

In later game you will need capped shells to fulfill the duties (cruiser against cruiser, for example), that you could do with SAP in early game, when there were no inner layers

Edited November 19, 2024 by Peksern

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

For you to release the new update, do we have to wait for the Devs?

[o Barão]

16 minutes ago, PalaiologosTheGreat said:

For you to release the new update, do we have to wait for the Devs?

You need to wait for me to check all the remaining land connections between provinces. I hope to have everything ready by the end of this week. But I can't guarantee that you will not see campaign crashes or if it is possible to fix them at this point.

[Peksern]

27 minutes ago, o Barão said:

You need to wait for me to check all the remaining land connections between provinces. I hope to have everything ready by the end of this week. But I can't guarantee that you will not see campaign crashes or if it is possible to fix them at this point.

Do you have an idea where the campaign crashes come from... or better asked, why it simply stucks at "ships..." when loading? Might it be solved by vanilla patches?

Edited November 19, 2024 by Peksern

[NathanKell]

34 minutes ago, o Barão said:

You need to wait for me to check all the remaining land connections between provinces. I hope to have everything ready by the end of this week. But I can't guarantee that you will not see campaign crashes or if it is possible to fix them at this point.

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.

[o Barão]

41 minutes ago, 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.

Yeah, freezes is the correct word. Thanks, Nathan, for all the support. I know you have been very busy atm with work, but when you have some spare time I want to ask to add small 2 improvements to the game. 

 

46 minutes ago, Peksern said:

Do you have an idea where the campaign crashes come from... or better asked, why it simply stucks at "ships..." when loading? Might it be solved by vanilla patches?

I suspected to be something related to provinces connections, but then why it is happening to me and not vanilla players? Or players using DIP? Brothermunro also added new nations and had to tweaked provinces to make it work. So maybe I am very unlucky or can be anything completely different.

 

If it happens again in the next update, maybe I can find the source of the issue by looking at the ML log or Nathan can find it. At this point, I can't say for sure what will happen, so look at the next update as being an alpha version.

[Peksern]

45 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I suspected to be something related to provinces connections, but then why it is happening to me and not vanilla players? Or players using DIP? Brothermunro also added new nations and had to tweaked provinces to make it work. So maybe I am very unlucky or can be anything completely different.

 

If it happens again in the next update, maybe I can find the source of the issue by looking at the ML log or Nathan can find it. At this point, I can't say for sure what will happen, so look at the next update as being an alpha version.

We will see. It will work eventually, one way or another. 😊 I will send you the ML Log, if there will be problems again. 

[Peksern]

Btw, one question of curiosity: What kind of thoughts are behind the cost/weight stats of the citadel armor schemes?

For example, I would have thought that AoN makes extended armor massively more heavy or expensive to make players following the concept of the armor scheme, when they use this citadel type. But instead it makes deck armor (either extended and citadel) much more heavy and expensive. However, the turtleback armor increases weight of all belt armors. Why?

I don't criticise, I don't demand for a change. I just can't see how the devs or the Baron came to this and I wish I would understand. 😊 

Edited November 20, 2024 by Peksern

[o Barão]

55 minutes ago, Peksern said:

But instead it makes deck armor (either extended and citadel) much more heavy and expensive. However, the turtleback armor increases weight of all belt armors. Why?

Just compare the citadel layout from the Bismarck and the Iowa and you will understand where the devs got that idea.

I am only mentioning the Bismarck and Iowa because it is very easy to find drawings about the armor layout on these ships.

Edited November 20, 2024 by o Barão

[HMS Implosive]

Talking about AoN and armor weights, would it be possible to implement artificial maximum for extended armour thicknesses for AoN scheme. Having, say 2" maximum for these regions would make it truely all or nothing.

[o Barão]

8 minutes ago, HMS Implosive said:

Talking about AoN and armor weights, would it be possible to implement artificial maximum for extended armour thicknesses for AoN scheme. Having, say 2" maximum for these regions would make it truely all or nothing.

Even if it is possible, it is not worth it. We would need to set the armor limit per year and the AI already follows armor values set by me, so you are only limiting the player freedom.

[Peksern]

5 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Even if it is possible, it is not worth it. We would need to set the armor limit per year and the AI already follows armor values set by me, so you are only limiting the player freedom.

Since the latest UAD Patch reduced the effect of floodings in the extensions, it makes even more sense to follow an AoN principle anyway. 

[Fyredrake]

Just a small aside or discussion I wanted to have, what are the thoughts of reducing or limiting gun sizes on cruisers especially going into the modern era.  Its a bit laughable that I can mount 10-11" guns on a 15000 ton cruiser hull.  Completely unrealistic to real life displacement of ships in that area.  Im thinking perhaps modern CAs being limited to 7-9" and CLs 5-7"?  I know the game is supposed to allow some amount of customization, but unless we can scale the hulls better I suppose to match the displacement required for such armament, it doesn't feel right, but if I'm being too much of a "fun police" then just knock this idea out I suppose xD. 

[HMS Implosive]

 

4 hours ago, Fyredrake said:

Just a small aside or discussion I wanted to have, what are the thoughts of reducing or limiting gun sizes on cruisers especially going into the modern era.  Its a bit laughable that I can mount 10-11" guns on a 15000 ton cruiser hull.  Completely unrealistic to real life displacement of ships in that area.  Im thinking perhaps modern CAs being limited to 7-9" and CLs 5-7"?  I know the game is supposed to allow some amount of customization, but unless we can scale the hulls better I suppose to match the displacement required for such armament, it doesn't feel right, but if I'm being too much of a "fun police" then just knock this idea out I suppose xD. 

There is an argument to be made that without naval treatises heavy cruisers would have grown much larger and mounted more powerfull guns. Before London naval treaty there wasn't even formal distinction between light and heavy cruiser, many ships (portlands, hawkings) we would now call heavy cruiser being called light cruisers or scout cruisers due to their thin armor or intended role. If construction of large cruisers had continued after ww1 those hyphothetical ships might very well have carried 9.2", 9.4" or 10" guns.

I would love to have naval treatises mechanic that would limit size and/or tonnage of ships in campaign, but until that is implemented there is little reason to limit gun size, other than making it more difficolt to make balanced ships with extremely large guns. After all, Deutchlands had 11.1" guns on around 14000t hull, but it is a completely different question if it was a wise gun choice.

Edit: Second thought, mounting 10"+ gun on a cruiser sized ship still requires quite a deliberate hull design with sacrifices to be made in other areas. Maybe the very biggest guns should be available only on the very biggest and/or specialized cruiser hulls. You are right than one does not really put 11" guns on a hull intended for guns half the size and 35 knots speed.

Edited November 22, 2024 by HMS Implosive

[SpardaSon21]

4 hours ago, Fyredrake said:

Its a bit laughable that I can mount 10-11" guns on a 15000 ton cruiser hull.  Completely unrealistic to real life displacement of ships in that area.

On the contrary!

Just under 16,000 tons at full load, 2x2 10" guns, and a stereotypically massive American secondary armament of both 6" and 3" guns.  Armor was a bit thin in places when you have such a massive firepower advantage against your opponents that's less of an issue.

[Peksern]

5 hours ago, Fyredrake said:

Its a bit laughable that I can mount 10-11" guns on a 15000 ton cruiser hull.

Japanese Pre-dreadnoughts  of the Katori class was built in the first decade of the 20th century. They had twin 10 inch guns and a maximum displacement of 16000 tons. So I don't see why it should be a problem to have similar guns on similar sized ships in a later era. 

The problem with 9, 10, 11 inch guns on heavy cruisers are the historical naval treaties: Most sea powers, especially in later eras, sticked to the washington naval treaty, which was limiting the caliber of heavy cruisers to 8 inch. Therefore increasing caliber size made no sense until the beginning of the missile age after WW2, and then it was over anyway.

In this game however, there are no naval treaties. UAD assumes that - just like it happened to battleships - the caliber size of cruisers would also evolve, just as their counterpart's armor does.

[o Barão]

5 hours ago, Fyredrake said:

 Its a bit laughable that I can mount 10-11" guns on a 15000 ton cruiser hull.  Completely unrealistic to real life displacement of ships in that area.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Graf_Spee

 

One of the most famous ships from WW2, strange you never heard of it. 

And it is not unrealistic. You are thinking in typical heavy cruisers that were limited in caliber from naval treaties and that doesn't exist in UAD. 

[Peksern]

1 minute ago, o Barão said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Graf_Spee

 

One of the most famous ships from WW2, strange you never heard of it. 

Well, your example is better. 😂

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

8 hours ago, Fyredrake said:

Just a small aside or discussion I wanted to have, what are the thoughts of reducing or limiting gun sizes on cruisers especially going into the modern era.  Its a bit laughable that I can mount 10-11" guns on a 15000 ton cruiser hull.  Completely unrealistic to real life displacement of ships in that area

 

Unlike real-life, there were no naval treaties that limited the building of capital ships (WNT) or the size of cruisers (LNT). It makes no sense to limit the gun type if your enemies are still building battle cruisers.

 

In fact, I think Barao should increase armour limits bc you can make a 16k tonne CA with a lot of displacement left over. If he could increase the armour limits, it can be proof against 'cruiser-killer' battlecruisers and escape.

[Fyredrake]

5 hours ago, HMS Implosive said:

 

There is an argument to be made that without naval treatises heavy cruisers would have grown much larger and mounted more powerfull guns. Before London naval treaty there wasn't even formal distinction between light and heavy cruiser, many ships (portlands, hawkings) we would now call heavy cruiser being called light cruisers or scout cruisers due to their thin armor or intended role. If construction of large cruisers had continued after ww1 those hyphothetical ships might very well have carried 9.2", 9.4" or 10" guns.

I would love to have naval treatises mechanic that would limit size and/or tonnage of ships in campaign, but until that is implemented there is little reason to limit gun size, other than making it more difficolt to make balanced ships with extremely large guns. After all, Deutchlands had 11.1" guns on around 14000t hull, but it is a completely different question if it was a wise gun choice.

Edit: Second thought, mounting 10"+ gun on a cruiser sized ship still requires quite a deliberate hull design with sacrifices to be made in other areas. Maybe the very biggest guns should be available only on the very biggest and/or specialized cruiser hulls. You are right than one does not really put 11" guns on a hull intended for guns half the size and 35 knots speed.

My issue again isnt that the larger guns are available, its the size of the hull which they are mounted on.  The Deutchlands were often called pocket battleships for their armament, but their protection was incredibly limited, not to mention the somewhat "odd" 2x3 11" main battery.  They were solely built as commerce raiders.  Their turrets had nowhere near the protection they should have for a battery that size, and their belt was smaller than that of some modern light cruisers of the era.  Which is what all enabled it to have such a low displacement for its main battery size.  

[Peksern]

7 minutes ago, Fyredrake said:

My issue again isnt that the larger guns are available, its the size of the hull which they are mounted on.  The Deutchlands were often called pocket battleships for their armament, but their protection was incredibly limited, not to mention the somewhat "odd" 2x3 11" main battery.  They were solely built as commerce raiders.  Their turrets had nowhere near the protection they should have for a battery that size, and their belt was smaller than that of some modern light cruisers of the era.  Which is what all enabled it to have such a low displacement for its main battery size.

Then take the Katori Class for an example, I mentioned before. They had 2x2 12 inch guns, 4x1 10 inch guns, and a main belt of 229mm. And yet they only had 16000 tons displacement. It did work. You might argue, that Katori could only drive 18 kts. But she was built about 1905. Twenty, thirty years earlier than the modern cruisers, we are currently talking about.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Peksern

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

2 hours ago, Peksern said:

Then take the Katori Class for an example, I mentioned before. They had 2x2 12 inch guns, 4x1 10 inch guns, and a main belt of 229mm. And yet they only had 16000 tons displacement. It did work. You might argue, that Katori could only drive 18 kts. But she was built about 1905. Twenty, thirty years earlier than the modern cruisers, we are currently talking about

 

In fairness, they are semidreads and UAD would put them in the 'semidread' hull rather than the CA hull.

[Peksern]

9 minutes ago, PalaiologosTheGreat said:

In fairness, they are semidreads and UAD would put them in the 'semidread' hull rather than the CA hull.

Sure, they were differently classified. But I don't think that displacement physics take care about that.

Displacement is a matter of volume and weight, therefore the density. Actually I don't think that the ship's class does matter in this case.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Peksern

[Fyredrake]

Im talking about modern CA/CLs, not pre WW1 Armored Cruisers and Dreadnought BBs.  1905 is not in the preview of what I'm trying to discuss here, I'm discussing modern CA/CL hulls in game  which become available in the 1920s and 30s.  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.