By fixing the armor issue, this would be massively enhanced.
![mood board template proboards mood board template proboards](https://rhodesiajdesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/mood-board.png)
A key part of the allure of RTWs, both 1 and 2, has been and continues to be the freedom to experiment with your designs. In addition, given that this DLC is also enabling larger AI designs, it would give the AI designs more punch too. It would give the players far better ability to replicate historical designs and devise new things on their own. However, given how massive an overhaul the DLC expansion represents, I would argue that there is no better time to go ahead and fix the issue once and for all. I also do not know if this has already been noted and worked on by the development team during the creation of this upcoming expansion. I do not know how complicated or work-intensive the solution of replacing the armor weight calculation equation is, and I suspect that it will impact many things such as the AI design templates and the penetration curves (which are significantly lower than in real life, seemingly to compensate for the armor weighing too much issue). And indeed, not only 90000-ton warships are affected by this miscalculation, for all designs above 20000 tons run into this problem of their specifications being increasingly divergent from reality due to the aforementioned mistaken equation. First, is the armor problem going to be fixed? By which I mean the fact that as demonstrated here, the armor formula is mistakenly calculating increases in weight based off of the increased volume directly rather than the actual increase in surface area that the armored belt and deck experience, added to which is the oddity that the same amount of armor weighs less when increasing displacement from 12000 to 19000 tons! There was a minor patch in the 1.03 update that restored about 800 tons to 90000-ton displacement warships, but the magnitude of the problem is on the order of weight increasing by 50% more than the increase in armored area actually warrants, which is still true in version 1.25 today, and therefore means that a 90000-ton design in game is far less capable than it should be when compared to reality.
![mood board template proboards mood board template proboards](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/aa/c4/1d/aac41d118ca416ad6bceeca293184521.jpg)
However, I do have two questions about the upcoming DLC. In there you will find a few template.xml files, which you can use to create your personal timers.22:26:03 GMT -6 revan58 said:I am gladdened to see so many new things coming in the expansion DLC (Ship Histories, more Superstructure Drawing Freedom, more Time, and more!), and I am looking forward to purchasing the DLC when it comes out. Go to the HGX Folder -> data -> statusrules.d Gatsu83ita I assume you want to have certain timers to see which buff spell is running etc. I will revisit this thread from time to time and watch out for any bugs. The following link will always point to the latest beta (if there will be another one at all):Īny update/changes to the documentation or HGX will be listed here:
![mood board template proboards mood board template proboards](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/da/17/1f/da171fee0336c0d371aedf5654955e23.jpg)
![mood board template proboards mood board template proboards](https://rhodesiajdesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/mood-board-template2.png)
Last minute change: the option pages General and Modules swapped their contents.KVing opponents casting 'Know Vulnerabilities' or using GI's 'To Reign in Hell' is supposed to work again (see 'How to KV opponents' in the docs).A change broke the old template and no new template is provided. Old python scripts, status rules are supposed to work.Consider to use Paradoom's data files made available here: hgx-monster-data-update The XML files containing opponents data as well as the status rules and area files are taken from the old HGX beta 2.8.5.For your convenience here is the link taken of the documentation (but better have a look at the documentation first):