Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Data Modding

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Data Modding Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Data Modding - 3/7/2017 3:39:18 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Question in another thread that sparked thoughts on describing the concepts behind JWE’s data models for AE Babes. A new thread seems a good place.
quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas
Building upon your answer I still find it a bit odd that the 37 mm M3 has a higher anti-soft value than a 81 mm mortar (16 vs. 13). As an armchair general I'd value the mortar higher in an anti-soft role. On the other hand the mortars do get to bombard while the 37 mm can't do the same, so they aren't directly comparable. I don't know how to value the bombardment possibility vs. the higher anti-soft stat.


The difference is due to the 81mm mortar being an indirect fire weapon, while the 37mm is a direct fire weapon. Also, the 37mm is effective up to 200m, while the 81mm cannot engage till the target is (well) beyond 200m. Arty IF weapon stats need to account for things like HE filler brisance, HE %, casing steel, area of effect, AoE shape, variations with shell size, as well as standard fire accuracy and CEP.

The DF calculations are based on weapon ‘effectivity’ studies by the GRU, Army MSA, CPLA, in the Korean War time frame. Notably these include the vast majority of US/Japanese WW2 infantry weapons. The paradigms for IF and DF are different as are the corresponding game calculation algorithms, so all the curves needed to be tilted, or flattened, to both fit together at the transition points and to fit within the numerical constraints of what the code is doing, without undue model discontinuities. It is a manifestation of the old question; what’s better, a hand grenade at 100 feet or a shotgun at 10 feet? Probably it’s fair to reduce the 37mm to 15 and raise the 81mm to 14 (the AE code wants integers, grrrr).

The biggest problem with AE weapon values is that they are relative numbers calculated on the basis of the individual weapon system. The game code lumps everything together. There might be 30 odd 37mm in a unit. The game code will shoot them all (abstraction), whereas there might be only 2, 3, or 4 at the actual point of contact (reality).

The same is true for every other weapon, vehicle, squad, what-have-you. There is a sort of conceptual disconnect between having data for individual weapons and the 45 mile per hex game scale that compels stack-vs-stack combat resolution. This is why we really like having the Army TEM3 as the battlespace simulator. It functions on an individual platform level so having accurate relative weapon stats is not just nice, but necessary.

Nonetheless, AE seems to be fairly good at ultimate outcomes. This is good for modders since values can be tweaked quite a bit to conform with preferences.
Post #: 1
RE: Data Modding - 3/7/2017 7:26:30 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		But 81mm mortars are still around, 37mm AT guns are not. I don't see an heir to 37mm canister so was it really effective except in some very specific situations?

Due to lack of granularity in land combat as you say a following point maybe can be made that weapon flexibility should be accounted in accuracy.

< Message edited by Dili -- 3/7/2017 7:46:01 PM >

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 2
RE: Data Modding - 3/7/2017 7:45:18 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 523
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline 		Now if we could only rebuild the entire game to utilize the CMNAO engine. I hear tell that they are eventually going to have a land combat engine as well!

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 3
RE: Data Modding - 3/8/2017 2:49:49 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili
But 81mm mortars are still around, 37mm AT guns are not. I don't see an heir to 37mm canister so was it really effective except in some very specific situations?

Canister firing weapons have grown exponentially in number, shrunk in size to man-portability, and become more effective and powerful than the classic 37mm M3 ATG. A typical unit will inventory 100 times more canister firing weapons than mortars (of all sizes).

In War-2, Korea, Vietnam, M18 57mm RCL fired the M306 HE Frag and T25E4 Canister rounds. M20 75mm RCL fired the M309/M310 HE Frag and T21/T21E4 Canister rounds. M40 105mm RCL fired the M348 HEAP and M581 APERS (flechette) rounds.

Since 1946, virtually every tank, anti-tank, and artillery piece to 105mm, loads canister (typically flechette) rounds. South African Genel rounds are notable for artillery, IMI and Rheinmetall are notable for HV (tank) flechette rounds.

For infantry support, it gets even better. Mk-19, Mk-47, SB LAG 40, CIS 40, Denel Y3, AGS-30, AGS-40, M75, H&K GMG, Howa 96, RG-6, S&T K11, M79, HK69, GP-25, many others.

M79 and M203 use 40x46mm M381 HE Frag, M397 Airburst Frag, M576 Apers-Canister , etc..
Mk-19 and Mk-47 use 40x53mm M383 HE Frag, M285 HE Pre-Frag, HVCC Hi velocity Canister, etc..

Although caliber may vary slightly, mileage is similar for German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Bulgarian, South African, Brazilian, Spanish, Korean, Singaporean, Israeli, Belgian, Czech, French, Italian, Austrian, Polish, weapons.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 4
RE: Data Modding - 3/9/2017 11:38:40 AM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline 		Okay, good to know some of the basics behind how different values have been chosen. I can't claim to have the extensive sources used by the DBB team, so any devices I add use values based partly on guesswork. For some values I think I have a decent enough understanding of what goes into it, but a big part of it still relies on looking at similar devices for guidance.

When you get special cases such as the 37mm M3 however that have values very different from similar weapons this kind of breaks down. Knowing the how and why these differences are arrived then becomes very useful. As the game engine values are abstractions anyway they can never be "correct", but at least with more information you can try to keep some consistency in the database.


If I may ask, using the good old 37mm M3 as an example still, why is the accuracy so high? Other guns of its class has around 8-9 vs. 16 on the M3. Rate of fire, sectional density etc. doesn't seem to warrant any greater difference.

I've two base assumptions:
1) Accuracy is not a relevant stat in land combat. For a non-AA "Army Weapon" device it's only relevant when dealing with combat against ships.
2) Because of 1) some guns have higher accuracy than their peers simply because they were used by coast artillery formations (or at least in a coast defense role).

So the 37mm M3 has higher accuracy because it was (presumably?) used at least a bit in that role by the marines. Are those accurate assumptions?

< Message edited by cardas -- 3/9/2017 11:45:39 AM >

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 5
RE: Data Modding - 3/10/2017 11:38:04 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Hello cardas,
Assumption #1 is right. The accuracy value is vestigial for these types of devices and is not used. Army weapons, per se, do not participate in Nav combat. So M3 accuracy is not relevant.

Sometimes there are entries in unused data fields because they are holdovers from WiTP-1, or UV, or something else. Sometimes it is because people were playing around with something and didn’t change it back because it just didn’t matter. Once again, so many data fields – so little time.

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 6
RE: Data Modding - 3/16/2017 5:09:13 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline 		Okay, good to know, thank you US87891. Can't think of any more areas that I don't at least have some grasp on, loose as it may be. I'm a bit curious on you arrived at the accuracy values for naval guns overall, it seems to perhaps be some combination of rate of fire, sectional density, calibre etc. but I'm not sure. Still that's an area where looking at similar weapons and their accuracy is good enough, any minor errors are lost in the noise.

I hear you about those data fields. If they end up unused it's still easier to simply leave the values as is rather than zeroing them out, albeit something that can lead to confusion and misinformation.

P.S. any chance of ever getting a minor bug-fix on the large DBB scenarios?

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 7
RE: Data Modding - 3/23/2017 4:01:05 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Hello cardas,

JWE’s method is conceptually like yours; it expressly depended on the scope and scale of the original data values. Matching to similarities is a valid technique.

Gary Grigsby used rate-of-fire as the basis for the accuracy parameter. His code is written around the range of values that that paradigm generates. JWE plotted the stock values and did an exponential curve fit, bounded by the high and low extremes expected by the code. The generated expression was decomposed into a multivariate. There were two primary variables (the others were de-minimis); one dubbed “rate-of-fire”, the other dubbed “figure of merit”. Together, they described the weapon scale fit to the desired curve very nicely (given the combat algorithm). SD/BC don’t come into play for AE Nav accuracy, but figure prominently in AA.

RoF is not the maximum cyclic rate. The chosen RoF is the practical/effective RoF for each weapon/mount, as far as the data could be acquired. Surprisingly, the data was available for over 85% of all weapons. Inferences had to be made for those weapons that did not have suitable specific data.

Figure of merit is a function of two data elements; mount response (power/manual, polar deflection/slew, etc..), and director/finder index (optical, mechanical, radar, etc..). JWE wanted to differentiate radar directed guns from early war models and require upgrades thereto, but the code was replete with embedded, date specific, algorithmic bonuses that GG used to model annual improvements. It was thought best to obey the law of unintended consequences and leave it alone.

It’s math heavy, but JWE just simplified the schema and calculations from our military work. A formula gets you internal self-consistency for each weapon and a methodology for evaluating a new one. An AE based graphical plot is a simple and very reasonable alternative.

We have been a little busy getting the interface seamless between a 40 mile-per-datum strat/ops system and 10 to 50 meter-per-datum tactical systems but we are looking good for the CY 17 project phase. There should be time available to do some DBB things. Some of the folks probably wouldn't mind playing around with it, but there doesn't seem to be any real community interest. If only a few people care .... In any case, I'll ask around.

Matt

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 8
RE: Data Modding - 3/23/2017 4:26:36 PM   
Skyros


Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline 		More DBB, we care.

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 9
RE: Data Modding - 3/23/2017 4:31:22 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline 		I believe a few of us still care

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Skyros)
Post #: 10
RE: Data Modding - 3/27/2017 4:52:40 AM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline 		Interesting, thanks once again for the answers US87891. I will have to do with the more basic fit as I do not have the resources and/or knowledge to evaluate the "figure of merit" part. Practical rate of fire is a bit easier yet at the same time difficult. You can find sources that gives you a value but you run into the issue as to whose values you trust. There are different interpretations on what is practical after all.

As an example from two different sources I've read with supposed "practical" rate of fire figures for exactly the same weapon. One claimed 0.5 rounds per minute, the other 3 rounds per minute. This in a case where there shouldn't have been much of a difference between the mounts/ammunition handling, although that's certainly an area that can affect practical rate of fire a great deal.

Nonetheless it is illuminating to know the approach taken by the DBB team.


I wasn't suggesting that you'd put a lot of work on a new DBB version, just that some of the (in the big picture minor) issues could be fixed. The Grimsby class upgrades for one along with some of the oddities surrounding the fuel/endurance/maneuver/weapons on some of the Dutch ships.

Certainly there are still new PBEM games started with DBB. Whether that's enough community interest to warrant an updated version is your call though.

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 11
RE: Data Modding - 3/27/2017 10:19:19 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		I surely do care - DBB and nothing else!

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 12
RE: Data Modding - 3/28/2017 12:08:50 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Mike Osterhaut is willing to give it a shot. There are several areas that could use some cleanup. Your Dutchness and the Grimsbys are on the list. Are there any other issues? Any other noted oddities or things causing difficulties?

If so, someone please start a list somewhere. Mike is very detail oriented, so this time I expect there will be a complete changelog.

Matt

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 13
RE: Data Modding - 3/28/2017 1:38:50 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		Does that clean-up include "issues" like wrong starting locations and duplicate entries etc.?

Fresh in my mind because I changed it yesterday evening in my DBB-29C-based mod:

Ship 10559 Victoria starts the war as AO at Sydney with British-type armament. Should be an unarmed TK at Manila (as SS George G. Henry), with conversion option to AO in April 1942 (renamed Victoria). Would be nice to have the renaming option which exists for LCU and air groups for ships as well - but that is for Michael, not Mike.

Ship 5346 Venus is a duplicate of ship 13703 William Williams.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 14
RE: Data Modding - 3/28/2017 8:43:05 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline 		Great news. I'll try to write down the errors I've found. These are from DBB-C (scenario 28).

I've mainly noticed things about strange things about ship classes so that's what I'm going to post about first. I'm completely clueless when it comes to any potential OOB errors or exact positions of ships at the start of the war and things like that. Basically I've gone e.g. "Oh, look, that weapon has exactly the same facing, number and so on as the previous one. That doesn't look right".

I will use a similar format as I did with the RA issues.

Errors
These are simply data entry errors, I haven't made any major research on them as such. When I say "should" here, it just means that logically you'd assume that what I say should be the case. There can of course be cases where what seems logical isn't what is actually true. Please take it with a grain of salt and don't simply accept that I'm right!

Grimsby RAN-I (167): Should upgrade to Grimsby (168). Should have upgrade delay.

Grimsby (168): Should upgrade to itself (168).

Abidel (276): Slot 7 should be facing "Left Side".

Fletcher (532, 533): Slot 12 should be facing "Right Side".

Lexington (679): Slot 10 should be facing "Left Side".

Bogue (699): Slot 3 should be facing "Left Side".

Sangamon (701): Slot 8 should be facing "Left Side".

Casablanca (703): Slot 5 should be facing "Left Side".

Gearing DDR AA (747): Slot 11 should be facing "Rear".

Treasury 327' AGC (755): Slot 6 should be facing "Left Side".

Tacoma (764): Slot 6 should be facing "Left Side".

Loch PF (786): Slot 6 should be facing "Left Side".

Bay PFAA (787): Slot 6 should be facing "Left Side".

Admiralty MMS (809): Can upgrade instantly to APc-1 (810). Should probably upgrade to itself (809).

Myoko (1112, 1113, 1114): Slot 12 should be facing "Left Side", should have ammo: 1.

Asashio (1464, 1465, 1466): Slot 10 should be facing "Right Side".

Fuso (1713, 1714): Slots 11 and 12 should be facing "Left Side".

Bankok Maru AMC (2024): Slot 6 should be facing "Left Side".

Juyusen YO (2126): Should upgrade to itself (2126), not to Kinesaki (2134)

Soya (2174): Slot 6 should be facing "Left Side".

Manoora AMC (2483): Slot 7 should be facing "Left Side".

Pres. Coolidge (2555): Slot 5 should be facing "Left Side", slot 6 should be facing "Right Side", slot 7 should be facing "Left Side"

C2-S Mt. Hood (2625): Slot 7 should be facing "Left Side".

C3 Hamul (2669): Slot 7 should be facing "Left Side".

C1 Acontius (2678, 2679): Slot 5 should be facing "Left Side".

LST Type-II (2688): Slot 8 should be facing "Left Side".


Oddities
This is things that are not clearly wrong, but are odd at least. There isn't necessarily any actual game impact due to these issues.

Frobisher (37): 20 mm Oerlikon in slot 11 has 50 ammo, usually such guns have 36.

Frobisher (38): 20 mm Oerlikon in slot 9 has 50 ammo, usually such guns have 36.

Nevada (303): Have two slots (14, 15) with Brownings with the same ammo count, facing, and guns per "turret". Only the number is different. No idea what reason there would be to use two slots in this case instead of one slot with the number count added together. Issue inherited from stock database. The intention might have been that slot 13 should have been "Left Side" and slot 14 "Right Side"

Pennsylvania (308, 309): Same as previous, Brownings in slots 12 and 13.

West Virgina (336): Same as previous, slots 12 and 13.

Colorado (342): Radar in slot 13 has Num: 4, not 1 as standard (also has ammo).

Atlanta (427): Have two slots (7, 8) with 40 mm Bofors with the same number, ammo count, facing and guns per "turret".

Farragut (448): Has a DC Rack (slot 9) that's facing "All Sides", should probably be "Rear". Has only Num: 1 for the racks, while previous and following upgrades have 2, should probably be 2 here as well.

Admiralty MMS (809): Has "US Navy" nationality, should probably be "British".

Katori (1054, 1055): DCs (slots 13, 14, 15) with ammo: 50? That's a very high amount by the usual ammo count standards of the game when it comes to ASW weapons.

Takao (1125, 1126): Radar in slot 16 has Num: 2 rather than the standard 1 for radars.

Maya (1130, 1131): Radar in slot 14 has Num: 2 rather than the standard 1 for radars.

Mogami (1136): Radar in slot 15 has Num: 2 rather than the standard 1 for radars.

Tone (1145, 1146): Radar in slot 14 has Num: 2 rather than the standard 1 for radars.


Radar facing
Following classes have radars that are not "All Sides" facing. A lot of the Japanese ships has facings other than "All Sides". In some cases, such as e.g. the battleships with one right facing and one left facing Type 22 radar it certainly seem intentional. Either way it looks inconsistent if we compare the Allied ships with the Japanese ships. Whether it actually has any effect at all ingame is unknown to me.
Livermore (508) - slot 10
Sendai (1045) - slot 12
Katori (1055) - slot 17
Agano (1063, 1064) - slot 12
Agano (1065, 1066) - slots 12, 13, 14
Oyodo (1072) - slot 6
Oyodo (1073) - slots 9, 10
Oyodo (1074, 1075) - slots 9, 10, 11
Furutaka (1103, 1104) - slots 11, 12
Aoba (1108, 1109) - slots 11, 12
Myoko (1113) - slot 14
Myoko (1114) - slots 14, 15
Myoko (1115) - slots 12, 13, 14
Takao (1124) - slot 15
Takao (1125) - slots 15, 16
Takao (1126) - slots 15, 16, 19
Maya (1129) - slot 15
Maya (1130) - slots 14, 15
Maya (1131) - slots 14, 15, 16
Mogami (1134, 1135) - slot 11
Mogami (1136) - slots 14, 15
Mogami (1139, 1140) - slot 2
Mogami (1141) - slots 2, 11, 12
Tone (1144) - slot 9
Tone (1145, 1146) - slots 9, 14, 15
Otori (1332) - slot 10
Asashio (1465) - slot 11
Asashio (1466) - slots 11, 12
Kagero (1475) - slot 11
Kagero (1476) - slots 11, 12
Yugumo (1485) - slot 11
Akitsuki (1493) - slot 8
Akitsuki (1494) - slots 11, 12
Akitsuki (1495) - slots 11, 12, 13
Shimakaze (1503, 1504) - slot 9
Shimakaze (1505) - slots 9, 13
Matsu (1512) - slot 8
Matsu (1513) - slots 8, 13
Tachibana (1517) - slots 8, 13
Ch-1 (1604) - slot 5
Kongo (1708) - slot 17, 18
Fuso (1711) - slots 15, 16
Fuso (1714) - slots 16, 17
Fuso (1715) - slots 18, 19
Ise (1717) - slots 15, 16
Ise (1720) - slots 12, 13
Ise (1721) - slots 18, 19
Nagato (1724) - slots 18, 19
Yamato (1728, 1729) - slots 18, 19
Yamato (1730) - slots 15, 16
Ashizuri (2143) - slot 7
Sunosaki (2145) - slot 7
Shiretoko (2148) - slot 9
Jingei (2153) - slot 9
Itsukushima (2158) - slot 10
Okinoshima (2161) - slot 9
Tsungaru (2164) - slot 10
Kanawha (2390) - slot 7


Radar ammo
Following has ammo for a radar. This probably has zero actual impact on anything. But I've noted it so I might as well post it.
Leander (41) - slot 10
Arethusa (45) - slot 9
Colorado (342) - slot 13
Atlanta (427) - slot 11
Repeat Benson (521) - slot 9
Higgins 78ft PT (711, 712) - slot 5
Tenryu (1004) - slot 8
Tenryu (1005) - slots 8, 9
Tenryu (1009) - slot 9
Tenryu (1010) - slots 9, 10
Yubari (1013) - slot 13
Yubari (1014) - slots 13, 14
Kitakami (1025) - slot 12


Slot neatness
Following classes have data for slots without a device (e.g. a weapon slot with ID = 0, but with say a facing other than "Front", or ammo or something specified anyway). As far as I'm aware this doesn't really matter except for keeping things neat and tidy.
Admiralty MMS (809) - slot 3, 4
Yugumo (1482) - slot 9
Ch-51 (1607) - slot 3
Aikoku Maru (2030) - slot 9

Tonnage
Following classes may have something other than standard displacement as their tonnage (tonnage = standard displacement is generally true in the database). Because displacement is such a can of worms overall (changing over their lifetime, getting good sources for the values) it's hard to tell when it's actually wrong. Still, just as an example most sources I've seen put the 'C' class "Caledon" cruiser at ~4900 ton full load displacement when laid down. In the database right now it's give a tonnage value of ~5500. If you take "tonnage" as standard displacement that would mean an astonishing 1500 ton increase full load, or 30% more. That's more than I can believe is correct. Issue is inherited from stock and it matters of course because durability is calculated according to tonnage.
I'll simply note which I find odd for now with a short comment. I'll once again point out that I'm very uncertain about these myself. There may also be some design decision involved here to make some ships a bit more durable?
'D' Class - tonnage = full load displacement?
'C' Class - tonnage = full load displacement?
Birmingham - tonnage a bit high
'E' Class - a bit low
Tenryu - tonnage = normal displacement?
Yubari - tonnage a bit high
Kuma - a bit high
Kitakami - a bit high
Nagara - a bit high
Katori - a bit high
Agano - high
Oyodo - very high
Furutaka - tonnage = full load displacement?
Aoba - tonnage = full load displacement?
Myoko - tonnage ~full load displacement?
Takao - high
Maya - a bit high
Mogami - high
Mogami (without rear turrets) - tonnage = ~full load displacement?
Tone - a bit high

Aircraft
PBY-5 Catalina (153, 243) & Catalina I (71, 180): Has armor: 0, should be 1. (As the US PBY-5 Catalina (466), has armor: 1)

Devices
40mm Bofors (980, 1061, 1132, 1325): These land based Bofors guns (Dutch, British, US, Chinese) have different values for some reason. Maybe because of different mountings, but I have a hard time believing that the best mounts were the Chinese ones (1325).

-

That's about it I think. I'm sure I've missed stuff but that's something to work with at least. I will deal with the Soviet and Dutch ships (and their devices) in a separate post later.

< Message edited by cardas -- 3/28/2017 9:22:55 PM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 15
RE: Data Modding - 3/28/2017 9:22:02 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Thank you cardas. That will make things easier. Please feel free to chime in with more.

We always try to check and verify before we change data. MO takes everything with a teaspoon of salt

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 16
RE: Data Modding - 3/28/2017 10:22:24 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

Thank you cardas. That will make things easier. Please feel free to chime in with more.

We always try to check and verify before we change data. MO takes everything with a teaspoon of salt

OK, but these are from an OLD version and might no longer be relevant. I've been meaning to pull down the current version and look before submitting, but here they are just in case so I don't miss your window due my own delays. I suppose it is possible that in the current version some of these errors might still be present but the item moved to a different slot number.

• Slot 1107 USA 44 Para Sq upgrades to slot 1119 USA Amphib Sq. I think should be no upgrade.
• Slot 6541 an "Artillery unit" has wrong TOE. But is it really meant to be artillery or infantry?
• Slot 5943 Torres St Inf Bn is a USA unit but should be Australian unit.
• Mukden garrison requirement should be (I think) 200 but is 2000.
• J7W1 Shinden the top art is backwards. As a result in combat the plane is showing facing its rear to the enemy and firing out its tail.

Sorry that I am not as observant as cardas - holy cow what a great list!

Edit to add: There were others submitted previously that I am sure were fixed.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 3/28/2017 10:23:47 PM >

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 17
RE: Data Modding - 3/29/2017 10:14:41 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

Thank you cardas. That will make things easier. Please feel free to chime in with more.

We always try to check and verify before we change data. MO takes everything with a teaspoon of salt


Wheh, one less thing to worry about then.


Dutch issues. The previous post were mostly minor things, this is the real meat of the issue as far as I'm concerned. No, in the big picture the errors here are not significant, regardless they are still the most severe. These are all inherited from the stock database. As with the previous post I'll copy&past(&modify) from some earlier post I've made about the subject.

This time I will start with Dutch devices and to begin with we got the device 1637: 7.5cm/45 No6 AA. This weapon is used on a lot of Dutch ships and I have no clue as to what gun it is. Though to be fair I haven't got much of an oversight overall as to what kind of 7.5cm gun the Dutch actually had to begin with. The following guns are ones I'm aware of;
7.5cm/35 - Krupp gun, naval gun.
7.5cm/40 - Krupp gun (might have also been made by Bofors, but a Krupp design), naval gun.
7,5cm S. Aut. No.2 - ?, naval gun.
7.5cm/? - Bofors?, AA gun.
12pdr/12cwt HA Mk V - British, AA gun.

I recall reading that the 12pdr was numbered as 7.5cm No. 10, so that imply they had 10 different 7.5cm gun versions from whenever they started numbering them. Probably late 1800s. I don't know if the S. Aut. followed a different numbering scheme though.

There are sources that claim that some of the Gouvernementsmarine ships got either 7.5 cm/40 or maybe 7.5 cm/35 Krupp guns. Unknown if the 7.5 cm/40 are the same as the S.Aut.No.2. The No.2 is found on the plans for Sirius and Wega (Med GM class ships).

The Bofors 7.5 cm AA gun were used on the Admiralen destroyers. Also maybe van Oranje and perhaps Soerabaja. It might also be that e.g. van Oranje had a Siderius gun and the Admiralen destroyers had Bofors guns with at least different breaches.

Some ships that received British 12 pdrs during the conflict. An example ingame is the Jan van Amstel class.

It's a mess at least to me and with what sources I got available to me. The take away point is though that there is probably too many heavy AA capable guns at the moment. Many Dutch auxiliaries should probably only have 7.5cm naval guns, not DP guns. I leave it up to you as to how to deal with it.

There are also many places referencing 3.7cm guns on the Gouvernementsmarine ships. These might be Gericke or Hotchkiss guns. Link to a forum where there's an image of the Gericke gun:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/330333/thread/1167257231/A+Companion+to+Dutch+light+calibre+guns,+1919-1942
Don't know a whole lot about the gun though. Probably quite a useless weapon going by the WitP mechanics.


Finally actual device fixes. The 15cm guns that the Dutch have at the moment are rather bad, much worse than what I believe is justified.

1630: 15.cm/50 No. 11
Range: 21 -> 28
Accuracy: 47 -> 50
Penetration: 86 -> 128
Anti-armor: 43 -> 64

1631: 15.cm/50 No. 10
Range: 21 -> 28
Accuracy: 47 -> 50 (or ~52, to represent De Ruyter being a superior gun platform compared to Tromp)
Penetration: 86 -> 128
Anti-armor: 43 -> 64

1632: 15.cm/50 No. 9
Range: 21 -> 28
Accuracy: 47 -> 50 (or ~52, to represent De Ruyter being a superior gun platform compared to Tromp)
Penetration: 86 -> 128
Anti-armor: 43 -> 64

1641: 15.cm/50 No. 6
Range: 21 -> 23
Penetration: 86 -> 128
Anti-armor: 43 -> 64

Guessed/made up values for the old 3.7 cm/20 naval gun:
Range: 3
Accuracy: 28
Penetration: 6
Effect: 10
Anti-armor: 3
Anti-soft: 7

Made up values for an old 7.5 cm/40 naval gun:
Range: 12
Accuracy: 30
Penetration: 24
Effect: 15
Anti-armor: 12
Anti-soft: 14


---
Now to the ship classes.

First of all this is a great place to get plans for the Dutch ships if you want to check them out: http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/archief/ead/index/eadid/4.MST

There are several Dutch ships that suffers from having an extremely low maneuver value, clearly in error. Furthermore they for some unimaginable reason have to putter around at 6 knots as their cruise speed. A significant issue due to the hex nature of the game. Pretty much no other nationality is stuck at such low cruise speed either (unless they have a ship class that has a max speed of 6 or less).
Because of the more extensive errors I can't use exactly the same format as in the previous post. In a still hopefully easily read format, here are the ship fixes:


Java (220): Deck armor should be 25. 50 mm is the sloped armor deck behind the belt, the horizontal deck was 25 mm. Unless this is a conscious design decision to make up for the fact that the slope isn't otherwise represented in the game. 40mm Bofors guns should be in twin mounts, not singles.

De Ruyter (221, 222): Turret armor should be 100. 40mm Bofors guns should be 4 facing "Right Side", 4 facing "Left Side", 2 facing "Rear".

Tromp (223, 224): Turret armor should be 25.

KXIV Class (234): Slot 3 should be facing "Center". Slot 5 and 6 should be 2 pdrs.

O16 Class (237): Slot 3 should be facing "Center". Slot 5 and 6 should be 2 pdrs.

O19 Class (238): Slot 3 should be facing "Center". Slot 6 and 7 should be 2 pdrs.

P17 Mot. Launch (263): Original plans at least seems to have been for a 20 mm Hispano gun on the front. What they actually were equipped with is unknown to me.


Following is the more verbose fixes.

227: Admiralen Batch I: Modify weapons
12 cm No.4 - Front 2(1)
12 cm No.4 - Rear 2(1)
7.5 cm AA - Right 1(1)
7.5 cm AA - Left 1(1)
12.7 mm MG - Right 2(1)
12.7 mm MG - Left 2(1)
53.3 cm W1 Torp - Center 6(3)
DC Rack - Rear 2(1)



228: Admiralen Batch II: Modify weapons
12 cm No.5 - Front 2(1)
12 cm No.5 - Rear 2(1)
7.5 cm AA - Center 1(1)
2 pdr AA - Right 2(1)
2 pdr AA - Left 2(1)
12.7 mm MG - Right 2(1)
12.7 mm MG - Left 2(1)
53.3 cm W1 Torp - Center 6(3)
DC Rack - Rear 2(1)


Endurance: 2500 -> 2750

Technically both Admiralen batches were designed with four DCTs (2 right, 2 left). On the other hand there was only one DC rack on the Batch I per the original plans and none(?) on the Batch II. Both had mine rails though and adding DC racks isn't exactly a major addition.

As I'm unsure as to exactly what kind of DCs they were originally made for and as it had probably changed by the time of the Pacific war I simply left it as 2 rear racks. How many ASW weapons you actually add is ultimately a balance matter anyway due to how the game functions.

They might have had torpedo reloads, or at least room for it. The Batch II plans shows room for 4 reserve torpedoes as an example.



250, 289, 290: Sm GM
Generic class representing a few different ships. Most very somewhat standardized but they weren't carbon copies. This is the length data for one of them, Bellatrix, if you want to calculate the maneuver value;
Length overall: 56,5 m
Length waterline: 53,4 m

Cruise speed: 6 -> 8 cruise speed
Endurance: 1600 -> 3000 endurance
Fuel: 120 -> 180 fuel
Maneuver: 30 -> 45 maneuver

Armament data is hard to come by for these ships but most seem to somewhat agree that they were very poorly armed. In fact they probably had no AA weapons at all (not even an MG) even by the time they were sunk. Potentially carrying a pair of 3.7 cm Gericke or Hotchkiss guns. Nothing I've found at least suggest that they ever carried any 7.5 cm AA gun.

I suggest removing the current 7.5 cm and maybe adding a pair of (new device) 3.7 cm guns, although it's questionable if it's worth adding those as devices. If you don't want to bother with making a fictional upgrade for the class then you might consider throwing them a bone and giving them an MG or two as AA, else they'll be stuck without any AA for the rest of the game. Otherwise you could simply give them a fictional upgrade that gives them some kind of AA but start them off with nothing.

This is a extremely minor thing, but about the art. Most ships of this generic class looked more or less like the Med GM ships (and thus the Med GM art). In fact I got no clue as to which ship the current art is supposed to represent, the closest I can think of is Zeeman, but it's still different. On the other hand this is the only class that uses this art so I'd assume it was custom made for it so I'm a bit lost there.



251, 291, 292: Med GM
Generic class once again. Using Sirius as standard.
Length overall: 58,60 m
Length waterline: 55,64 m

Cruise speed: 6 -> 8 cruise speed
Endurance: 3100 -> 3500 endurance
Fuel: 323 -> 235 fuel
Maneuver: 30 -> 43 maneuver

Same as previous, armament data is hard to come by. In fact, that's true for all of these so I'll just skip mentioning that from now on. Original plans has a "7,5 cm S. Aut. No.2" gun, front facing. No idea of any stats about that gun but it was certainly not an AA gun (max mount elevation: 15 degrees).

I'd suggest using a naval gun for these, 7.5 cm/40 perhaps. This would be the only weapon, front facing. Once again they may have completely lacked any AA when they were sunk.

If you make a fictional upgrade then you could have all of them get some AA weapons, while the "PC" version gets as extra either some depth charges or/and a British 12pdr/12cwt.



252: A Class
Length overall: 42,8 m
Length waterline: 41-42 m?

Cruise speed: 7 -> 8 cruise speed
Endurance: 700 -> 1200 endurance
Maneuver: 30 -> 67 maneuver


258: Arend
Length overall: 72 m
Length waterline: 70 m

Max speed: 12 -> 18 max speed
Cruise speed: 6 -> 12 cruise speed
Endurance: 3100 -> 4000 endurance
Fuel: 323 -> 275 fuel
Maneuver: 30 -> 51 maneuver



I don't have any good info on the following ships.
253: Merbaboe
Length waterline: 22,7 m?
Diesel engine?

Cruise speed: 6 -> 8 or 10
Endurance: 600 -> 625
Fuel: 120 -> 15
Maneuver: 30 -> 71


254: Alor
Length waterline: 29,3 m?
Diesel engine?

Cruise speed: 6 -> 8 or 10
Endurance: 1600 -> 1200
Fuel: 120 -> 33
Maneuver: 30 -> 71


255: Soemenep
Length waterline: 35,9 m?
Oil (VTE)?
Max speed: 12 -> 10
Cruise speed: 6 -> 8
Endurance: 600 -> 1200
Fuel: 120 -> 45
Maneuver: 30 -> 53


256: Djember
Length waterline: 32,5 m?
Diesel engine?

Cruise speed: 6 -> 10
Endurance: 600 -> 1360
Fuel: 120 -> 45
Maneuver: 30 -> 70


257: Ardjoeno
Length waterline: 21 m?
Diesel engine?

Max speed: 15 -> 10 max speed
Cruise speed: 6 -> 8 cruise speed
Fuel: 120 -> 20 fuel
Maneuver: 30 -> 71 maneuver



Finally several Dutch classes suffer from low ammo levels as standard. Because I don't know how you will change the armament I will refrain from pointing them out one by one, but many of the Dutch auxiliaries in the 250-292 slot range have much lower ammo than comparable classes from other nations. As an example the 26 ton HDML S1 Mot. Launch (259) get 8 ammo for its Browning MGs while 18 is a rather standard amount for such a weapon and that class of ship. In fact 8 might be the lowest any ship gets with an MG, even the 8 ton 14m Type LB Daihatsu (1279) gets 12 for its MG.

---

That's it for now. I'm sure there are things I forgot about, but that's at least a good chunk of it. Only the Soviets left now which I'll leave for later. If you want to start on them before that then basically some ship classes are wrongly equipped and some penetration values are suspiciously low.

< Message edited by cardas -- 3/29/2017 10:30:55 PM >

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 18
RE: Data Modding - 3/30/2017 12:02:04 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		Impressive list, cardas! Thanks for posting, I'm going over my files to modify if necessary.

One thing:

quote:

Nevada (303): Have two slots (14, 15) with Brownings with the same ammo count, facing, and guns per "turret". Only the number is different. No idea what reason there would be to use two slots in this case instead of one slot with the number count added together. Issue inherited from stock database. The intention might have been that slot 13 should have been "Left Side" and slot 14 "Right Side"

Pennsylvania (308, 309): Same as previous, Brownings in slots 12 and 13.

West Virgina (336): Same as previous, slots 12 and 13.


I believe this is intentional. The old BBs carried AA machine guns in the "fighting tops" or "bird baths" on top of the masts. Two masts and clear field of fire all around > two slots and "all sides" in the editor.


_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 19
RE: Data Modding - 3/30/2017 5:31:16 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		MO began life as Dutch. He likes this stuff. His recent email -

Dutch guns have model numbers of their own. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, are for different mounts and different sources but ballistically the same gun . Krupp built some, Bofors built some Krupp under license, Bofors built their own designs, HIH Siderius and Wilton-Fijenoord built Bofors under license. A Bofors 12cm/L50 Model 1924 became a Ducth 12cm/50 W-F No.6 or a 12cm/50 No.4 if it was early from Sweden and like that. I say the hell with the numbers just call them Bofors, or whatever they were. That is what I will do and run the ballistics. You want all the Dutch naval guns right? 75, 120, 150? The 8.8cm is our friend Siderius/Rheinmetall built by W-F from acquired parts after S went belly up. Or do you want the Bofors naval 88?

We’ll clean up the Dutch 150mm guns. MO has already run the ballistics based on the Bofors 15.2cm/L55 Model 1930, assuming Bofors ogival, propellant, shell and body weight are the same in Netherlands service. We’ll check the others as well.

We'll see about LST's and witpqs' too. Won't change any art, though. Do not want to be different from the standard installation. There is lots of art out there anyway.

Matt

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 20
RE: Data Modding - 3/30/2017 10:42:48 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline 		I was aware that they changed the numbering when they got new mounts, yes, still a mess for someone without the proper sources though. Well, so is everything Dutch actually . Though seriously, I've had a hard time getting much definitive about the Dutch forces/arms at that time. Good thing I'm not the one doing the actual corrections then!

quote:

We'll see about LST's and witpqs' too. Won't change any art, though. Do not want to be different from the standard installation. There is lots of art out there anyway.

Yep, I wasn't really suggesting that you'd change any art. I was just musing as to what ship it was supposed to depict out loud.


So finally the Soviet ships, ships that seldom see action in WitP. That doesn't mean they have to be incorrectly modelled though. There's of course the issue of there being no upgrades for them so you have to decide which year to model them on.


Ship classes

Kirov (2901): The ships in the Pacific weren't of the original Kirov design and displaced a bit more. Belt armor should be 70. Turret armor should maybe be 70. AA armament incorrect. Could maybe be given radars.

Leningrad (2902): Tblisi, the ships in the Pacific, probably had replaced the 45 mm AA guns with a larger quantity of 37 mm guns. Should have two quad torpedo launchers 8(4), not two twins 4(2).

Gnevnyi (2903): Most of the ships of this class in the Pacific seems to have had 3 or more 37 mm AA single mounts, not 1 twin mount.

Novik (2904): Should have 102mm/60 naval guns, not DP guns. Should have 450 mm torpedoes. Might be a device slot thing though where it's thought that it isn't worth adding the devices as there are only two ships that'd use them.

Fugas (2906): May have replaced the 45 mm AA gun with some 37 mm AA guns soon after the start of the war in the Pacific.

Fugas (2906), OTK Vepr (2907), S Type (2908), L Type (2909), Sk Cargo (2914): It's very unclear to me whether any of these classes carried the 100mm/56 P1940 DP mount. At least the submarines probably carried the 100mm/51 P1936 gun. With the surface ships some might have had 100mm/56 P1939 guns, but many did in the Pacific theatre? Also were the P1936 and P1939 guns actually on DP mounts? The 100mm/56 P1940 device is also used by the naval forts, just as a note.


Devices
180mm B-1-K CD Gun (896): Penetration very low and so is the effect value.

180mm/57 P1932 Gun (1740): Penetration should probably be higher.

130mm/55 P1936 Gun (1741): Penetration should probably be higher.


180mm CD Gun (984): A Dutch device that I overlooked. Isn't this the same gun as 7in Mk 2 CD Gun (1151)? Then it should probably have similar stats. Although the Dutch may of course have modified the mounting for longer range and/or accepted lower barrel life and increased the muzzle velocity.
-

That's it, can't think of any other oddities right now but I'll post again if I do. You could do a once over of all the Soviet ship mounted devices to see if they are correct though.

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 21
RE: Data Modding - 3/30/2017 11:22:47 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

We'll see about LST's and witpqs' too. Won't change any art, though. Do not want to be different from the standard installation. There is lots of art out there anyway.

Matt

I had the impression that the art in question was not from stock at the time we started our game. At any rate a backward plane fixed is likely something no one would complain. But no big deal if it doesn't get fixed, it just looks like alien fighter! Doesn't hurt game play at all, obviously,

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 22
RE: Data Modding - 4/4/2017 4:42:16 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline 		This is perhaps not an error and I should perhaps have made a different thread for it but I'll put it here anyway. Is the TO&E correct for the British X Corps? I find it somewhat amazing that the infantry division would have so many heavy AA guns.
3rd British Div: 80 x 90mm M1A1 AA
1st Royal Marine Div: 60 x 90mm M1A1 AA
6th Canadian Div: 80 x 90mm M1A1 AA

In fact the support weapons overall are curious as they make use of the same heavy weapons as the USA formations. Maybe that's how it was to be? I've tried finding the TO&E online without success.


quote:

I believe this is intentional. The old BBs carried AA machine guns in the "fighting tops" or "bird baths" on top of the masts. Two masts and clear field of fire all around > two slots and "all sides" in the editor.


I don't understand what reason there would be to use two slots either way. All other weapons are grouped together according to facing as long as they have the same amount of guns per turret, why would "All Sides" be any different?

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 23
RE: Data Modding - 4/12/2017 5:51:13 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Hello,

MO gave yeoman service on the GM ships. Trust a Dutchman to come up with good Dutch references. JWE sent me a link to where the Dutch GM, KPM, etc.. were discussed back in the beginning. Harald Velemans provided valuable input. The discussion has some concept explanations.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2179183&mpage=32&key=?

Got full specs on almost all the Gouvernements Marine. You are right about the art. JWE used Castor as the basis, but should have used Merel for Sm GM, which is similar to Gemma/Eridanus Med GM but smaller.

Some (listed Bellatrix and ABC class) had 37mm. Strangely, those might well be AAC 37mm. MO is strongly inclined to agree with Hans Heesakkers on this.

“25 september 1940 the Royal Dutch Navy ordered 40 37 mm guns and 80.000 rouns ammo. Costprice $848.000,=.
The guns were called "3,7 cm Semi Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun on Naval Pedestal Mounts". All guns reached Java in time (the last approx June 1941). The guns were produced in the Rahway factory and the ammo in the Derry factory. Most if not all the guns survived the war and were re used during 1945-1950 as the main armament of the "R.P." (Regionale Patrouille)-boats.
The R.P. boats were formed by several types e.g. British Harbor Defence Motor Launches (RP 101 - 118), U.S. Higgins (RP 119-130 and 134-137).
Finally 8 Higgins and 10 H.D.M.L. were handed over to the new Indonesian Navy, most or all had the old A.A.C. 37 mm guns.
The guns were also adapted for the Marmon Herrington 3 and 4 men tanks, however none of these reached Indonesia.

All the best Hans Heesakkers”
Top picture of AAC 37mm on GM ship, NEI 1941:
Bottom same but date unknown.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 24
RE: Data Modding - 4/12/2017 7:37:15 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Revisiting everybody’s calculations. Most are good, some oddballs. Fixing quite a few. Working the auxiliaries, and have the finals for the Dutch. This is full/econ speed and maneuver fur the ships cardas wanted.
A Class____14/12kn, 40
Arend_____18/15kn, 40
Merbaboe__10/8kn, 39
Alor______12/10kn, 41
Soemenep__10/8kn, 31
Djember___12/10kn, 39
Ardjoeno___10/8kn, 42
Sm GM____12/10kn, 31
Med GM___12/10kn, 32

Fuel and endurance are mutually dependent complicated by diesel/recip/turbine and oil/coal. SNAME has the fuel rates (lbs/hp/hr) for diesel/reciprocating/turbine engines for 1929 through 1946. Has Admiralty coefficients for the same period so an easy calculation to fill in the holes, assuming a relative relationship between IHP/SHP and kW. Relationships are known between oil and coal and diesel, so everything is expressed in equivalent metric tons of “fuel”, i.e., oil. The number relates bunkerage to mileage. So if you know bunkerage, you can get mileage and vice versa. If both are unknown, just pick a reasonable one and the other plops out. Maybe not perfectly accurate, but always consistent.

Matt

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 25
RE: Data Modding - 4/13/2017 3:30:58 AM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline
quote:

MO gave yeoman service on the GM ships. Trust a Dutchman to come up with good Dutch references. JWE sent me a link to where the Dutch GM, KPM, etc.. were discussed back in the beginning. Harald Velemans provided valuable input. The discussion has some concept explanations.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2179183&mpage=32&key=?

An interesting read. With a list presented like that you can easily see that the Dutch merchant marine wasn't having a great time during 1942.


quote:

Got full specs on almost all the Gouvernements Marine. You are right about the art. JWE used Castor as the basis, but should have used Merel for Sm GM, which is similar to Gemma/Eridanus Med GM but smaller.

Okay, that explains it.


quote:

Some (listed Bellatrix and ABC class) had 37mm. Strangely, those might well be AAC 37mm. MO is strongly inclined to agree with Hans Heesakkers on this.

I was aware of the 37 mm AAC gun but I didn't know any of the larger ships were outfitted with them during the war. Because of the accounts I've read about the lack of AA weapons on the GM ships I had assumed that the 3.7 cm guns would be some old vintage weapons. Not exactly uncommon that old turn of the century equipment was still in use during WW2 after all.


quote:

Revisiting everybody’s calculations. Most are good, some oddballs. Fixing quite a few. Working the auxiliaries, and have the finals for the Dutch. This is full/econ speed and maneuver fur the ships cardas wanted.

A bit suprised that they ended up which so much lower maneuver values than I'd anticipated. That's what I get for calculating the maneuver value with a more simplistic formula that has lower granularity I guess.

It does bring into mind as to whether the current maneuver value for the Chimo ACM (817) and Chimo YMS (818) is correct in that case. They are about the same size as the Sm GM but have a maneuver value of 48. The same with USAMP Bell (816). It might be worth taking a look at these classes anyway as the older USAMP Bell is given the same durability as Chimo despite having a 550 ton lighter tonnage value in the database.

Either way getting reasonable cruise speeds on these Dutch auxiliaries will be a welcome change. The slow cruise speed made them mostly useless within the context of the game.


quote:

Fuel and endurance are mutually dependent complicated by diesel/recip/turbine and oil/coal. SNAME has the fuel rates (lbs/hp/hr) for diesel/reciprocating/turbine engines for 1929 through 1946. Has Admiralty coefficients for the same period so an easy calculation to fill in the holes, assuming a relative relationship between IHP/SHP and kW. Relationships are known between oil and coal and diesel, so everything is expressed in equivalent metric tons of “fuel”, i.e., oil. The number relates bunkerage to mileage. So if you know bunkerage, you can get mileage and vice versa. If both are unknown, just pick a reasonable one and the other plops out. Maybe not perfectly accurate, but always consistent.

A very reasonable approach. I do the same for my fantasy mod, but of course I'm not held to your standards so my calculations are rather rough and primitive.

It does remind me of some fuel oddities I hadn't mentioned; the Bird (705, 706) and Bird AVP (779, 780) class to start with. Old ships with reciprocating engines having 6500 endurance at 12 knots with 200 fuel. I assume they ran on coal? Probably shouldn't have such high endurance at that speed.

Le Fantasque (774, 775) should probably have less endurance. France seems to have had some trouble getting decent range at slower cruising speeds. Interestingly they might actually start beating the US destroyers in fuel efficiency at 30+ knot speeds despite being so far behind at lower speeds. Too bad that's not something you can model in the game.

-

Also I'm afraid I forgot to respond to this last time, but...
quote:

MO began life as Dutch. He likes this stuff. His recent email -

Dutch guns have model numbers of their own. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, are for different mounts and different sources but ballistically the same gun . Krupp built some, Bofors built some Krupp under license, Bofors built their own designs, HIH Siderius and Wilton-Fijenoord built Bofors under license. A Bofors 12cm/L50 Model 1924 became a Ducth 12cm/50 W-F No.6 or a 12cm/50 No.4 if it was early from Sweden and like that. I say the hell with the numbers just call them Bofors, or whatever they were. That is what I will do and run the ballistics. You want all the Dutch naval guns right? 75, 120, 150? The 8.8cm is our friend Siderius/Rheinmetall built by W-F from acquired parts after S went belly up. Or do you want the Bofors naval 88?

We’ll clean up the Dutch 150mm guns. MO has already run the ballistics based on the Bofors 15.2cm/L55 Model 1930, assuming Bofors ogival, propellant, shell and body weight are the same in Netherlands service. We’ll check the others as well.

How related the Swedish guns are to the Dutch ones seems like a very a tricky subject. The Swedish 12cm M24 guns used on the Ehrensköld -> Visby series of destroyers are often claimed to be of the same type as the ones on the Dutch Admiralen destroyers. However what little I know about them has me questioning whether that's actually true. A the very least the Swedish destroyer might have had a L/45 gun rather than a L/50.

Same story with the 15 cm guns. There's an old thread with photographs of the breeches of several of the Dutch 15 cm guns here:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/330333/thread/1127665400
Looks quite different to the Swedish 15.2 cm gun ogival screw breech to me.

As always my knowledge about these things are ultimately limited so I'll accept your word on it one way or another.

< Message edited by cardas -- 4/13/2017 4:28:20 AM >

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 26
RE: Data Modding - 5/8/2017 6:27:42 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline 		Fletcher and Battle has the exact same tonnage, yet Fletcher has a durability of 10 while Battle only gets 9. Odd in a dataset which generally determines the durability value using tonnage.

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 27
RE: Data Modding - 5/8/2017 8:52:13 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Reputation?

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 28
RE: Data Modding - 5/8/2017 8:59:49 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas

Fletcher and Battle has the exact same tonnage, yet Fletcher has a durability of 10 while Battle only gets 9. Odd in a dataset which generally determines the durability value using tonnage.


Yes well, I found the opposite - seen here.
Download the Ship Durability Excel Spreadsheet...


_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 29
RE: Data Modding - 5/8/2017 9:35:34 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Yes well, I found the opposite - seen here.
Download the Ship Durability Excel Spreadsheet...

Right, you have the opposite to what DBB has. In your mod a Battle has a higher durability than a Fletcher because a Battle is heavier at full load. In DBB, which uses standard displacement, the Fletcher has a higher durability despite both Battle and Fletcher having the exact same standard displacement. If you calculate durability from standard displacement then they ought to have the same displacement. This is inherited from the stock database.

Am I misunderstanding you somehow? I know about and already have your durability spreadsheet and I do find it intriguing (I disagree with your armor scheme modifier however :p). I'm not sure why it's relevant here.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili
Reputation?

Maybe, although I'd find that a bit silly. This is something that DBB inherits from the stock scenario either way so the DBB team might have other thoughts.

< Message edited by cardas -- 5/8/2017 10:16:35 PM >

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Data Modding Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.985