Naval Gun Penetration (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message

JWE -> Naval Gun Penetration (10/15/2009 8:54:03 PM)

Gun penetration values are being discussed on the main boards, so it seems worthwhile to describe how they are obtained, but first, the concept. One can always find some internet source that gives his guns a big number and his opponent a small one. [edit] that's why we never even look at it, and ignore posts that cite it.]

Penetration obeys the laws of physics, with respect to the gun parameters, the parameters of the ammunition round fired, the ballistic properties of the round at range, and the properties of the target armor. The ideal is an algorithm that functions consistently for ALL gun/round combinations, no matter the size. And also, ideally, develop a “penetration” value that has validity at a particular range, such that the game algorithm can either increment or decrement the number, depending on the “combat range” variable.

The best available in this regard, is Nathan Okun’s Armor Penetration Formula at http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Hstfrmla.htm it takes some work, especially in terms of tube parameters, and ammunition round characteristics, but develops values that are right in line with the more fundamental sources. http://www.navweaps.com/ has much of the needed data, except for ammunition round metallurgy.

So why are the Brit 8in guns so puny? Just do the math. If you do the math, you will find that the Japanese get a gift in terms of penetration. But since they naturally get screwed in everything else, what the hey. US later war guns are, in fact, dialed back just a skoosh to keep things somewhat fair.

Let the games begin.



JWE -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 5:33:50 AM)

And here's what happens when you turn the crank for an assortment of guns, shooting an assortment of projectiles; uniform conditions; nominal obliquity; at effective/naval limit.


......................5km..10km..20km
8in/50 Mk VIII SAPC:..280..195..105
8”/55 Mk 9-14 SPC:....290..210..110
8”/55 Mk 9-14 AP19:...305..225..120
8”/55 Mk 16 AP21:.....300..225..130
20cm/50 3-YT AP91:....290..210..120

6in/50 Mk XXIII CPBC:.120...85..45
6”/53 Mk 12 SPC:......140...95..45
6”/47 Mk 16 AP35:.....170..110..60
6”/47 Mk 16 AP35-9:...190..125..70
15.5cm/60 3-YT AP91:..220..140..70
15cm/50 41-YT CC:.....85....50..35
14cm/50 3-YT CC:......85....50..33

We'll definitely be dialing these things in for Da Babes.



bklooste -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 9:47:17 AM)

quote:

......................5km..10km..20km
8in/50 Mk VIII SAPC:..280..195..105
8”/55 Mk 9-14 SPC:....290..210..110
8”/55 Mk 9-14 AP19:...305..225..120
8”/55 Mk 16 AP21:.....300..225..130
20cm/50 3-YT AP91:....290..210..120

6in/50 Mk XXIII CPBC:.120...85..45
6”/53 Mk 12 SPC:......140...95..45
6”/47 Mk 16 AP35:.....170..110..60
6”/47 Mk 16 AP35-9:...190..125..70
15.5cm/60 3-YT AP91:..220..140..70
15cm/50 41-YT CC:.....85....50..35
14cm/50 3-YT CC:......85....50..33


These seem fair and i think the Japanese guns are quite respectable why cheat . What about the 5"/38 vs 5"/50 and 100mm/65



CJ Martin -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 12:25:17 PM)

Ummm...say what? [X(]

Am I reading this correctly? Something as fundimental as naval guns have been tweaked to an ahistorical value?

For all scenarios?

Truly, it seems AE is far more of a "game" than a historical simulation. That's fine, but I don't recall the serious JFB bias in the game description -

quote:

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!


This may be the last straw for me. This and other threads, plus the behaviour of the AI are just too much. Sure I can spend hours modding the game, but why should I? I paid for "improve(d) realism, and increase(d) historical accuracy", it seems I didn't get it. "Fraud" may be too strong a word, but I sure would like a refund.

And I know a thing or too about creating realistic simulations, so don't try to lecture me on that subject. This is me

-CJ



treespider -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 12:55:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin



quote:

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!


This may be the last straw for me. This and other threads, plus the behaviour of the AI are just too much. Sure I can spend hours modding the game, but why should I? I paid for "improve(d) realism, and increase(d) historical accuracy", it seems I didn't get it. "Fraud" may be too strong a word, but I sure would like a refund.

And I know a thing or too about creating realistic simulations, so don't try to lecture me on that subject. This is me

-CJ



So AE is not an improvement of WitP in your opinion?



Terminus -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 1:20:39 PM)

Yawn...



CJ Martin -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 1:39:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yawn...


Nice. Dude, I used to be you. Hundreds if not thousands of hours online answering questions about one of our game. Tech support-ish, design insight, whatever. I could be a real b*stard to the trolls. But I never entered a thread like you just did.

I know what you've done - you tried to turn a hobby into a job, and it has left scars. It was worse for me - to this day, I still don't play combat flight sims anymore. Still burned out NINE years later. So now people are calling your baby ugly, and you'd rather dismiss them instead of answering.

Yeah, nice. Good luck with your future designs. You don't have the temperment to survive. I didn't, but it took me several years to burn out. You are toast after one game.

-CJ



CJ Martin -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 1:52:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So AE is not an improvement of WitP in your opinion?



Tree, I'm hoping you are asking an honest question, so I'll give you my honest opinion.

In some ways it is - the map, the art, OOB, a lot of the little interface tweaks. Lot's of good work here.

The AI, no - I think too much was attempted within the current limitations of the engine, and the results are...odd. Also, the seemingly unlimited AI sorties / fuel / supplies really ruins the feel of the game. IMHO, of course.

The database stuff...well I can't think of a honest reason why tweaking one side away from historical is a good idea in what is billed as a serious simulation. If I pulled that stunt with a Jane's title not only would I have had our customers in an uproar, our producer would have been getting angry calls from the U.K.

Look, there is no reason this couldn't have been done on the level - simply have "JFB" AFB" and "historical" versions of each scenerio. More work for you guys? Sure. So failing that, "Historical" should have been what the game shipped with. Anything else is simply dishonest.

Again, my opinion, although from the perspective of a former game developer. Dismiss me if you want (as some on your team already have), I'm just one customer among many. I suspect I am not alone in my opinion though.

-CJ



JuanG -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 2:46:28 PM)

Woah.

Ok, firstly, AE changed pretty much nothing in terms of gun penetration, ect values from WitP. So any bias that was there (and I disagree that there was any, expect perhaps in terms of underrating the new USN 16in/45s), was already there in WitP and not introduced in AE.

Penetration values in game are unforunately a hazy area, as are the effect values for guns (weight of shell....okaaay, works fine for APC, what about HE?), so I believe that one has to not only look at the raw data (NAaB is a great program combining Okuns penetration data and armour data from FaceHard - http://www.panzer-war.com/Naab/NAaB.html), but also fit that to provide believeable results at the ranges which dominate surface combat in WitP - I personally consider this to be the 5,000 to 15,000yard range band.

When doing my own asessment of the guns, I also tried to fit the values within the same 'bracket' as stock, as I felt moving away from this might break gameplay. In retrospect this was a bad move, and I intend to redo alot of the data for AltWNT so that we no longer have BBs with an IZ that extends to 11,000yards. I will also try to account for the effect of explosive in HE rounds, though I'm a little worried this might break AA fire. I may try to scrap the 'weight' system of effect altogeather and do a composite 'kinetic + chemical energy' system to see how it works.

There are some other factors though, that without knowing how the game uses the penetration value, we cannot resonably account for;
-Formula for deck penetration at long ranges; how is the game calculating this from the penetration value? Is it even doing this at all? How can it account for the difference in a HV low elevation gun and a LV high elevation gun??
-Effect of armour thickness to shell diameter ratio (T/D), and its effects on penetration; does the game estimate shell size from effect? Is this considered at all? Probably not.

To be honest, while the data for naval guns is far from perfect, the entire surface combat model (especially the armour schemes!) is pretty sketchy, so there is only so much we can really do by changing the data.



Nikademus -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 2:49:28 PM)

AE was an example of hard choices being made. Everybody wanted to improve everything, and it simply could not be done. As it was the project ended up taking many times longer than originally anticipated. To my knowledge, and JWE can correct me if i'm wrong.....naval gun penetration routines were not seriously tweaked outside of OOB research on device stats. It was preposed, but it didn't make the cut....simply no time and the code rewrite would have required massive effort.

WitP's surface model in regards to accurate penetration vs armor has never been particularily strong. This is because the engine has it's history rooted in Uncommon Valor, and the Pacific in general where much of the surface combat occured at night. "Jutland" type engagements were a remote possibility. My impression of the routine from day one (Uncommon Valor) was that the surface code was written primarily for close range night actions and then simply expanded to include daylight combat. Ver 1.0 had serious flaws in how penetration was calculated, thus you had 8 inch guns penetrating battleship belt armors at 12,000 yards and 5 inch guns penetrating CA deck armor at near point blank range. This was addressed, and pen calcs at night time battle ranges (0-12k) are reasonable now. Daylight remains weak though in terms of pure Armor vs. Pen but the 'overall' effect remains 'reasonable' given that massive long range daylight engagements between Battlewagons aka "Jutland" remain remote in a game where airpower, submarines and logsitical concerns hold sway.






CJ Martin -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 2:57:47 PM)

JuanG, this is what set me off:

quote:

If you do the math, you will find that the Japanese get a gift in terms of penetration. But since they naturally get screwed in everything else, what the hey. US later war guns are, in fact, dialed back just a skoosh to keep things somewhat fair.


From JWE's top post in this thread. Unless I am reading this wrong, not only do IJN guns get a "gift", late war USN guns get "dialed back...to keep things somewhat fair".

What else has been tweaked along these lines?

It seems design decisions have been made that change AE into more of a fantasy what-if, and not historical simulation. And that is not how the game is marketed.

-CJ



JuanG -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 3:00:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

JuanG, this is what set me off:

quote:

If you do the math, you will find that the Japanese get a gift in terms of penetration. But since they naturally get screwed in everything else, what the hey. US later war guns are, in fact, dialed back just a skoosh to keep things somewhat fair.


From JWE's top post in this thread. Unless I am reading this wrong, not only do IJN guns get a "gift", late war USN guns get "dialed back...to keep things somewhat fair".

What else has been tweaked along these lines?

It seems design decisions have been made that change AE into more of a fantasy what-if, and not historical simulation. And that is not how the game is marketed.

-CJ


While I can understand why you read it this way, from having redone the penetration data for all the guns from ground up in my mod, the only USN gun I can see as being underrated in stock is the USN 16in/45 as used on the SoDak and NoCar. I suppose the USN 8in/55 Mk 12 (Baltimore class) is also underrated, but as they did not even distinguish between the mountings as used on the Wichita and other early Cruisers and those on the Baltimores, I considered it simple oversight.

Some data on comparing, for example, the USN 16"/50 Mk7, USN 16"/45 Mk6, IJN 46cm/45 T94, IJN 41cm/45 3YT;

USN 16"/50 Mk7;
Shell 2700lbs (40.9lbs BC)
MV ~760mps (~2500fps)
NAaB Penetration 10 deg = 577mm belt / 83.8mm deck @ 17610yards
Suggested Game Value = 940
Stock Game Value = 825

USN 16"/45 Mk6;
Shell 2700lbs (40.9lbs BC)
MV ~700mps (~2300fps)
NAaB Penetration 10 deg = 544mm belt / 78.7mm deck @ 15280yards
Suggested Game Value = 890
Stock Game Value = 725 (!!!!!!)

IJN 46cm/45 Type 94;
Shell 3219lbs (74.6lbs BC)
MV ~780mps (~2560fps)
NAaB Penetration 10 deg = 594mm belt / 86.4mm deck @ 18160yards
Suggested Game Value = 960
Stock Game Value = 850

IJN 41cm/45 3 Year Type;
Shell 2249lbs (32.8lbs BC)
MV ~790mps (~2590fps)
NAaB Penetration 10 deg = 488mm belt / 73.7mm deck @ 18060yards
Suggested Game Value = 795
Stock Game Value = 800 (!!!!!!)

Here theres something clearly off regarding the IJN and USN 16in/45s....maybe someone got the numbers the wrong way around??



JWE -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 3:17:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin
From JWE's top post in this thread. Unless I am reading this wrong, not only do IJN guns get a "gift", late war USN guns get "dialed back...to keep things somewhat fair".

What else has been tweaked along these lines?

It seems design decisions have been made that change AE into more of a fantasy what-if, and not historical simulation. And that is not how the game is marketed.

If you look more closely, you will see that the naval gun penetration values for AE are the same as in stock WiTP. These were initially done back in 2003 or so and, as Nik mentions, were based on UV. The original values were based on considerations that were quite valid at the time. Nothing was "tweaked" for AE; whether in a frenzy or otherwise.

The point of this thread is investigate a more self-consistent set of values that will be used for Da Babes mod, and which might also be useful to other modders in developing other weapon's characteristics in a uniform fashion.

[edit] for example, we're evaluating several baseline ranges (5000, 7500, and 10000 meters) to see which gives the more appropriate result when considered in terms of the 'hit' algorithm.



JuanG -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 3:30:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin
From JWE's top post in this thread. Unless I am reading this wrong, not only do IJN guns get a "gift", late war USN guns get "dialed back...to keep things somewhat fair".

What else has been tweaked along these lines?

It seems design decisions have been made that change AE into more of a fantasy what-if, and not historical simulation. And that is not how the game is marketed.

If you look more closely, you will see that the naval gun penetration values for AE are the same as in stock WiTP. These were initially done back in 2003 or so and, as Nik mentions, were based on UV. The original values were based on considerations that were quite valid at the time. Nothing was "tweaked" for AE; whether in a frenzy or otherwise.

The point of this thread is investigate a more self-consistent set of values that will be used for Da Babes mod, and which might also be useful to other modders in developing other weapon's characteristics in a uniform fashion.

[edit] for example, we're evaluating several baseline ranges (5000, 7500, and 10000 meters) to see which gives the more appropriate result when considered in terms of the 'hit' algorithm.


Considering a short range is fine, but I would very strongly advise to also consider a longer range like 20,000yards to see how the penetration capability develops over range. Otherwise your model will favour high velocity guns (thankfully no german ships in this game [;)]) and while it might be optimal for under 10,000yard engagements, it will not reflect the advantages of a heavier shell at long range. Of course, weather the game actually models this at all via increasing deck penetration ratings is still subject to question.



Shark7 -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 3:33:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yawn...


Nice. Dude, I used to be you. Hundreds if not thousands of hours online answering questions about one of our game. Tech support-ish, design insight, whatever. I could be a real b*stard to the trolls. But I never entered a thread like you just did.

I know what you've done - you tried to turn a hobby into a job, and it has left scars. It was worse for me - to this day, I still don't play combat flight sims anymore. Still burned out NINE years later. So now people are calling your baby ugly, and you'd rather dismiss them instead of answering.

Yeah, nice. Good luck with your future designs. You don't have the temperment to survive. I didn't, but it took me several years to burn out. You are toast after one game.

-CJ


I'm sorry you don't enjoy the game. I hope you get your refund. But coming into a game's forums with an attitude and expecting to be taken seriously is a bit too much. And you didn't just call the baby ugly, you've thrown it away with yesterday's garbage. Its all in presentation, and your's was aggressive.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that the values have been fudged to keep the game playable and interesting for people who play vs the AI, or PBEM players that want the game to actually stay interesting and fun. I'm willing to sacrifice some pure historical fact for a game that is actually fun and engaging.

Yes Terminus whacks the trolls. I've also found Terminus to be very helpful when you don't approach a subject with an agenda or an attitude.

And honestly, I'd get irate to if I had to constantly deal with all the vitriol in the complaints they receive.



CJ Martin -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 4:45:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
I'm sorry you don't enjoy the game. I hope you get your refund. But coming into a game's forums with an attitude and expecting to be taken seriously is a bit too much. And you didn't just call the baby ugly, you've thrown it away with yesterday's garbage. Its all in presentation, and your's was aggressive.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that the values have been fudged to keep the game playable and interesting for people who play vs the AI, or PBEM players that want the game to actually stay interesting and fun. I'm willing to sacrifice some pure historical fact for a game that is actually fun and engaging.

Yes Terminus whacks the trolls. I've also found Terminus to be very helpful when you don't approach a subject with an agenda or an attitude.

And honestly, I'd get irate to if I had to constantly deal with all the vitriol in the complaints they receive.


You think I come across as "aggressive"? puh-leaze - go ask someone about a usenet poster named "Smut"...I've mellowed a great deal.

I've also worked as a game developer, and dealt with the press, fanbois and trolls. There are no more rabid fans than combat flight sim ones.

So I didn't start posting on this subject as a troll. Nor am I new to posting here. And in fact I'd have been fine with the "fudging" HAD I KNOW ABOUT IT BEFORE I BOUGHT THE GAME. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20. And some fudges / design decisions can't be modded out (IJN submarines, anyone?).

Consider this - I earned the right to have my voice heard when I bought the game. YOU may be happy with the changes, perhaps you helped implement them...in which case you are biased.

-CJ



Dili -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 4:56:20 PM)

People should use Nathan Okun Facehard application. It is easy to use, has most projectiles, also has steel quality. It can be done in one or two days for all guns.



JWE -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 4:59:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Considering a short range is fine, but I would very strongly advise to also consider a longer range like 20,000yards to see how the penetration capability develops over range. Otherwise your model will favour high velocity guns (thankfully no german ships in this game [;)]) and while it might be optimal for under 10,000yard engagements, it will not reflect the advantages of a heavier shell at long range. Of course, weather the game actually models this at all via increasing deck penetration ratings is still subject to question.

We do consider all ranges. Thing is we cannot modify the coded algorithm, and so must do our best to "fit" things.

First, we have to model the code itself, and generate a normalized penetration response curve, and calc a the polynomial.

Then crank through Nathan's routine and generate a penetration curve, and calc a the polynomial.

Then calc a "best fit" offset, that gives the largest sweet spot, and appropriate range should drop right out.

I do believe shell weight is accounted for through the effect parameter, but need to set up the code model to make sure what's going on. Hate to be so vague. I didn't do any of the naval devices, so never dug deeply into this. I just did the artillery anti-soft consistency thing.

And before anyone even asks - No!! - I cannot and will not expose the algorithm.



Nikademus -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 5:21:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

We do consider all ranges. Thing is we cannot modify the coded algorithm, and so must do our best to "fit" things.



And therin lies the rub. Its not simply a matter of getting the most "correct" data into the OOB. its how the algorithm works that data into the routine that generates the armor vs. pen. Sometimes its easier to manipultae the OOB data to get the desired effect vs. trying to rewrite the algorithm. I did this sort of thing in my old Nikmod series. The OOB data was not "correct" in places per paper stats....but the effect it generated improved results (for the most part. [:D] )



Shark7 -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 5:44:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
I'm sorry you don't enjoy the game. I hope you get your refund. But coming into a game's forums with an attitude and expecting to be taken seriously is a bit too much. And you didn't just call the baby ugly, you've thrown it away with yesterday's garbage. Its all in presentation, and your's was aggressive.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that the values have been fudged to keep the game playable and interesting for people who play vs the AI, or PBEM players that want the game to actually stay interesting and fun. I'm willing to sacrifice some pure historical fact for a game that is actually fun and engaging.

Yes Terminus whacks the trolls. I've also found Terminus to be very helpful when you don't approach a subject with an agenda or an attitude.

And honestly, I'd get irate to if I had to constantly deal with all the vitriol in the complaints they receive.


You think I come across as "aggressive"? puh-leaze - go ask someone about a usenet poster named "Smut"...I've mellowed a great deal.

I've also worked as a game developer, and dealt with the press, fanbois and trolls. There are no more rabid fans than combat flight sim ones.

So I didn't start posting on this subject as a troll. Nor am I new to posting here. And in fact I'd have been fine with the "fudging" HAD I KNOW ABOUT IT BEFORE I BOUGHT THE GAME. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20. And some fudges / design decisions can't be modded out (IJN submarines, anyone?).

Consider this - I earned the right to have my voice heard when I bought the game. YOU may be happy with the changes, perhaps you helped implement them...in which case you are biased.

-CJ


Let's see, you initial post was accusastions of fraud. Not only is that aggressive, it is also libel.

And I do work as a game developer, so I'm completely aware of having to deal with the PR. There are days I just want to throw my hands up and give up, but then the one that has reasonable suggestions make up for the 99 that just constantly complain.

And yes you can have your voice heard, but you won't get it heard by demanding. The way you present yourself will determine whether or not your voice is heard. Having had to deal with it myself, I know how well I listen to people who can't have a reasonable discussion. Coming in and demanding to have it changed your way or demanding a refund is not reasonable, why should they change the game for one unhappy customer with the other 99 are happy? There are tons of posts associated with any game that will say 'I want it my way or I quit!' This is nothing new and no one pays attention to them.

And no, I have nothing to do with AE.



JWE -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 6:07:14 PM)

Enough! This ends now!

This is my GD thread and I will not stand for it's being hijacked! If ya'll must chat, do it pm or sidebar, but keep it off my frikkin lawn! The very next one of these will cause this thread to be locked, and I will be very very very pissed.



JWE -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 6:49:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
We do consider all ranges. Thing is we cannot modify the coded algorithm, and so must do our best to "fit" things.

And therin lies the rub. Its not simply a matter of getting the most "correct" data into the OOB. its how the algorithm works that data into the routine that generates the armor vs. pen. Sometimes its easier to manipultae the OOB data to get the desired effect vs. trying to rewrite the algorithm. I did this sort of thing in my old Nikmod series. The OOB data was not "correct" in places per paper stats....but the effect it generated improved results (for the most part. [:D] )

Trust Nik to make the explanation simple. Wish I had his gift for relevant brevity. [;)]

Can't expose the code, but can do what Nik did, and may be able to do a graph of generated results. It will be normalized, so at least it will be uniform for whatever basis people choose, without violating either the letter or the spirit of the restrictions. Offsets will be problematic, but legitimate modders can depend on assistance.



JWE -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 7:52:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
When doing my own asessment of the guns, I also tried to fit the values within the same 'bracket' as stock, as I felt moving away from this might break gameplay. In retrospect this was a bad move, and I intend to redo alot of the data for AltWNT so that we no longer have BBs with an IZ that extends to 11,000yards. I will also try to account for the effect of explosive in HE rounds, though I'm a little worried this might break AA fire. I may try to scrap the 'weight' system of effect altogeather and do a composite 'kinetic + chemical energy' system to see how it works.

There are some other factors though, that without knowing how the game uses the penetration value, we cannot resonably account for;
-Formula for deck penetration at long ranges; how is the game calculating this from the penetration value? Is it even doing this at all? How can it account for the difference in a HV low elevation gun and a LV high elevation gun??
-Effect of armour thickness to shell diameter ratio (T/D), and its effects on penetration; does the game estimate shell size from effect? Is this considered at all? Probably not.

Juan, you are a man after my own heart! Someday, we just have to meet, munch on boliche, drink tinto, listen to fado, and just chat. I get to the Med every now and then, and can burn a day and fly over. Woof.

Your thoughts are identically like mine, or maybe mine are identically like yours. Either way, you "got it". You have my email, I believe. I would enjoy, and look forward to, hearing from you.

Ciao. John



CJ Martin -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/16/2009 7:57:21 PM)

Fair enough, I believe I've made my point.

I don't want to see this thread locked as there is worthwhile discussion going on.

-CJ



JWE -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/18/2009 9:20:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Penetration values in game are unforunately a hazy area ... so I believe that one has to not only look at the raw data ... but also fit that to provide believeable results at the ranges which dominate surface combat in WitP - I personally consider this to be the 5,000 to 15,000yard range band.

Yes, but the algorithm doesn’t work quite that way. However, I’m plotting actual pen curves over the algorithm and calculating the sweet spot to be within those general parameters; more a function of range than a specific min/max, but you get the idea.
quote:

When doing my own asessment of the guns, I also tried to fit the values within the same 'bracket' as stock, as I felt moving away from this might break gameplay.

It most definitely will.
quote:

I may try to scrap the 'weight' system of effect altogether and do a composite 'kinetic + chemical energy' system to see how it works.

It won’t. Not unless you have exactly the same absolute value spread between your min and max, as for the weight parameter.
quote:

Formula for deck penetration at long ranges; how is the game calculating this from the penetration value? Is it even doing this at all? How can it account for the difference in a HV low elevation gun and a LV high elevation gun??

It does, actually. It calculates trajectory v range and there is an angle of incidence factor.
quote:

Effect of armour thickness to shell diameter ratio (T/D), and its effects on penetration; does the game estimate shell size from effect? Is this considered at all? Probably not.

Well, the algorithm doesn’t consider that at all, per se, but it’s all part of the calculations that we do to determine just what is the appropriate penetration basis, at what appropriate range. You are looking at third order effects. The game code is rather limited, but frankly pretty damn good in general, and can be accommodated reasonably well. Obviously, I look at second and third order effects, but once acquired, they must fall within a simple curve fit.



JWE -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/18/2009 9:41:12 PM)

So ... having said all that, I think the best penetration values, for any particular gun, should be set at a basis of penetration at "82% of nominal max range" calculated by Nathan's program, modified by SoftShell and FlatShell.

It's relational, just like the program.

Will be doing this for Da Babes mod, and perhaps can port it over to the Official scenarios - time will tell. It won't change many things, just tweak some things up (or down), but it will provide a mathemetical basis to justify the values to the "this-isn't-historical" Nazis out there.

[edit] will certainly provide plots, etc., and explanations.



mariandavid -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/18/2009 9:42:03 PM)

I for one are more than satisfied with the system that was developed. There is sometimes a tendency to believe that the figures cranked out by Okun and others are always and irretrievably definitive, but they only form a useful guide. In truth penetration turned out to be seriously impinged by relative aspect of target to line of impact (not declination), round and armour relative quality and sea-state. Effect was endlessly varied, just as examples, by everything from size of burster (USN 16" poor) to nature of impacted material (RN SAP rounds particularly affected) . I therefore feel that any attempt to claim more plausibility is doomed, while evaluations based on single nation characteristics are prone to error. 

My only concern (hopefully a trivial one, but influenced by what I have sort of noticed in my own games) is that the formula generates a higher hit rate than was actually achieved. On reading the latest book on the war in the Mediterranean (where actual damage is far better documented than in the Pacific) it is truly astonishing how very, very few hits were achieved by well-trained ships firing over considerable periods. 



JWE -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/18/2009 11:34:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid
I for one are more than satisfied with the system that was developed. There is sometimes a tendency to believe that the figures cranked out by Okun and others are always and irretrievably definitive, but they only form a useful guide. In truth penetration turned out to be seriously impinged by relative aspect of target to line of impact (not declination), round and armour relative quality and sea-state. Effect was endlessly varied, just as examples, by everything from size of burster (USN 16" poor) to nature of impacted material (RN SAP rounds particularly affected) . I therefore feel that any attempt to claim more plausibility is doomed, while evaluations based on single nation characteristics are prone to error. 

Oh, heck yeah! There's really 2 parts to the game, the editor numbers, and the code. Everyony gets them confused and thinks they are the same thing.

Editor numbers are fun, but those are the ones everybody "demands" must be acording to their version historical. They are pretty, however, and if the point is to show people a "pretty" OOB, the editor will let you do that. But, the code don't care about pretty, so a historically precise set of editor fields (according to opinion) would probably bugger the game; but what the hey, most historico Nazis don't actually play, so they can make all the "pretty" OOBs they want - they won't work, but they will be 'pretty".
Need to know how the code works in order to efficiently "prettify" the field values.
quote:

My only concern (hopefully a trivial one, but influenced by what I have sort of noticed in my own games) is that the formula generates a higher hit rate than was actually achieved. On reading the latest book on the war in the Mediterranean (where actual damage is far better documented than in the Pacific) it is truly astonishing how very, very few hits were achieved by well-trained ships firing over considerable periods. 

You are confusing one thing with another. % hit is a totally different algorithm from % penetration. What Juan & I & others are doing is lining up the ducks on the penetration side of things. % hit is another topic entirely.



witpqs -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/19/2009 2:08:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

... sea-state.


And as you guys are pointing out, when you otherwise have everything calculated (at least for statistical likelihood), Mother Nature comes along and says:

"I'm changing the impact angle, in all three planes. [sm=00000622.gif]"

[:D]



Buck Beach -> RE: Naval Gun Penetration (10/19/2009 2:32:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Oh, heck yeah! There's really 2 parts to the game, the editor numbers, and the code. Everyony gets them confused and thinks they are the same thing.

Editor numbers are fun, but those are the ones everybody "demands" must be acording to their version historical. They are pretty, however, and if the point is to show people a "pretty" OOB, the editor will let you do that. But, the code don't care about pretty, so a historically precise set of editor fields (according to opinion) would probably bugger the game; but what the hey, most historico Nazis don't actually play, so they can make all the "pretty" OOBs they want - they won't work, but they will be 'pretty".
Need to know how the code works in order to efficiently "prettify" the field values.



This is rather disappointing to know that any of our tweaks out here (to erroneous data entries, missed OOB, etc) that we care to make with the editor have no value? Hope I am misinterpreting your statement above.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125