ASW Stuff (Full Version)

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



Message

JWE -> ASW Stuff (6/28/2011 4:50:28 PM)

Well, this is a heck of a time to do this, specially now that John3 has RA ready to go. But, have been running some tweaks on ASW and looking at the latest and greatest from Michaelm, and think we have this sucker nailed. The initial Babes fixes (I think they got incorporated in stock, too, but not sure) got it working much better, but there’s still some overpowered stuff out there (those pesky IJN Etorofus and Type C/Ds). But we got them behaving very nicely.

Recall the sub split-tube thing. Originally the class might have a “Front” slot with “Num”=6. When it fired the slot, it fired 6 torps. Split-tubes gives 3 “Front” slots, each with “Num”=2. So a sub might only shoot 1 slot (i.e., 2 torps), or 2 slots, or 3 slots.

Same deal with ASW weapons. The original E-types had 1 slot with 12 launchers (Num=12). When firing an ASW weapon, the system fires a slot. So the system was firing a 12-chance package. Babes cut that to Num=6 and doubled the ammo, so things stayed the same overall, but a 6-chance package is still more than a lot of Allied DEs that have the launchers more finely divided.

When conducting ASW combat, not every ASW weapon slot gets to fire. It’s on a slot-by-slot, chance-by-chance basis (sorta). So an Allied ship with 2 slots of 4 each, may very well fire only 4, and not 8. Even though it has a higher total “num” it has to roll for every slot and so may actually fire fewer weapons. 2x 4-chance packages is still not quite as good as 1x 6-chance package (it’s a math thing), but adding in the additional chance to NOT fire the second package, well … ya’ll are getting the picture.

So the latest (hopefully last) tweak to ASW is to split up those num=6 slots on the IJN Es into 2 slots, each with 3 left and 3 right. Keep ammo the same so the same number of DCs are available as historical. There is this weapon facing check that’s done, too, so 6 IJN on center are again more capable than 4 left, 4 right for Allies.

This whole magilla (IMHO) will put ASW to bed. It’s a simple data fix. Doing a code fix might fix the Es, but will crush everything else and cause more damage than it fixes.

This algorithm works very well with the Hedgehog, Squid and Mousetrap weapons, too. Ooooh, we gots some AEaster-eggs there, too, but basically a vetting of numbers of ASW slots and ‘Num’ values for those slots will put ASW to bed; at least for those in the modding community.



JWE -> RE: ASW Stuff (6/28/2011 5:21:16 PM)

More complete explanation and a full changelog available only upon pm request. John, Stan, Spidey, you guys get your's automatic.



oldman45 -> RE: ASW Stuff (6/28/2011 6:26:11 PM)

Thanks boss, glad your still tweaking things! Any timeline when your going to update your page?



JWE -> RE: ASW Stuff (6/29/2011 6:03:30 PM)

Thanks for all the pm requests. Ya'll will get the changelog and a copy of an updated class file by the end of the day. I kept this limited to the IJN E types, so it should be a simple cut and paste from a tweaked csv file to your scen csv file. But don't forget to 'update weapons from class' in your ship file. Only need to do IJ Navy and Type=15, E(escort).

A bit more on the algorithm: Naval guns have Ammo set at 1/10 actual, so why not define DCs at 1/2 actual. The number and arrangement of launchers becomes a 'quasi stonk' thing and may be adapted, in the grand scheme of things, so long as the total of launchers x ammo is consistent across nationalities. Besides, Ukurus didn't fire patterns of 16, and Type-C/Ds didn't fire patters of 12. So it makes sense to limit the launchers, but ensure the total ammo (number of potential attacks) is tikkity boo.

So, some class line items will have the "korekt" number of launchers, but half the "korekt" ammo per launcher. Some class line items will have half the "korekt" number of launchers, but have the "korekt" ammo per launcher. It all works out, but thought you folks would like to know how we got there from here.



oldman45 -> RE: ASW Stuff (6/29/2011 6:41:29 PM)

thanks pal.



Sardaukar -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/4/2011 12:25:18 PM)

Bump!



mike scholl 1 -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/4/2011 2:14:01 PM)

Thank you John. Hopefully this will finally make it into the basic game itself and fix one of it's biggest weaknesses at last. Well done sir.[:)][:)]



Local Yokel -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/4/2011 8:55:08 PM)

Having now had an opportunity to take a good look at the changes wrought to ASW-capable ships in the current version of Big Babes, I'm sorry to say that I have reservations about whether overall they are a Good Thing, as they stand.

I think I understand the argument that the later type of Japanese Escort-class vessels obtain an unwarranted advantage as a result of the way the game, statistically, deals with them mounting banks of 12 or 16 Type 3 depth charge launchers. In Scenario 1, the upgraded Ukurus either fired a bank of 14 d/cs, or they fired nothing at all. In the case of the C- and D-gata CDs, a bank of 12 launchers fired – or didn't. If you agree that it is unrealistic to make an ASW run an 'all or nothing affair, then the Babes Team's approach of breaking the d/c launcher bank into a number of separate slots makes excellent sense.

I also follow the argument that "2x 4-chance packages is still not quite as good as 1x 6-chance package (it's a math thing ), but adding in the additional chance to NOT fire the second package…" However, this is where I start to get uneasy about the Babes Team's approach.

The fact is that the Japanese escort-class ships DID mount a larger bank of d/c launchers than their nearest Allied equivalent, the various DE classes. Take a look at the layout of the Evarts, Buckley, etc classes and you will see a common arrangement of four K-guns on each side and a double set of rails at the stern. So, the fact is that the Japanese vessels DID have the capability to fire six weapons per side to every four the Allied DEs could launch. To me, it seems to follow that if you halve the number of side-throwing launchers per slot on the Japanese ships, as in the current iteration of Big Babes, you deny them whatever historical advantage they gained from being able to put more weapons in the water than their Allied equivalent. Unless, that is, you make a corresponding adjustment to the d/c throwers fitted to Allied DEs. The implication of this would be that, if the 6 throwers per side for the Japanese escort ships is to be represented by 3 weapons per slot per side (as in the current version of Babes), the Allied DE fit would need to be correspondingly adjusted from 4 to 2 weapons per slot per side if opposing ships are to be dealt with in a consistent way.

In fact, no such adjustment has been made to the Allied DEs in the current version. Indeed, the Babes data actually enhances some DEs' capability by increasing the ammunition load. In Scenario 1, for example, the Buckleys in slot 729 carry 4 ammunition units per K-gun slot whilst in Big Babes this is increased to 6 per slot. Likewise the ammunition allotment for the rear d/c rails has gone from 6 units in scen. 1 to 12 in Big Babes. So, total d/c stowage for the Buckleys has gone from 44 in scen. 1 to 72 in Big Babes.

Contrast this with the progressive emasculation of the d/c fit for the Japanese D-gata CD in slot 1322. In scen. 1 this starts out with a single 12-thrower centreline slot having 9 ammunition units and a single stern rail with 12 units – total 120 units. In an earlier version of Big Babes the 12-thrower slot had been reduced to a 6-thrower unit again with 9 units, and stern rail with 12 units as before – a total of 66 d/c units. In the latest Babes iteration, the stern rail has been suppressed and the vessel is equipped with 2 3-thrower slots, each with 10 rather than 9 ammunition units – so that total d/c stowage has been further reduced to 60 units.

What I see, therefore, is a progressive enhancement of Allied DE capabilities as one traces the changes made from stock scenario 1 to the latest version of Big Babes, whilst on the Japanese side I see a progressive reduction in their capabilities. I have difficulty in seeing how that can be reconciled with the claim that "The number and arrangement of launchers becomes a 'quasi stonk' thing and may be adapted, so long as the total of launchers x ammo is consistent across nationalities".

I am well aware of the frequently voiced complaint that the Japanese E-class ships are overpowered. Insofar as this is the product of a statistical quirk in the way that the game evaluates the effect of a large number of 'tubes-per-slot' then the Babes' approach of breaking down the big weapon banks into smaller units, some of which may not fire, is a very acceptable solution. However, the application of these changes to one side but not the other seems to me inappropriate, unless some other justification is advanced for such an inconsistency in approach. I suspect that we may not have heard the Babes Team's full reasoning that led them to make these changes only to Japanese ship classes and not to Allied DEs as well. If so, I hope JWE will expand upon why the team went further than just breaking down the few big weapon slots into smaller units, since it appears to me that this change by itself might have achieved the effect desired.

One further point: if ships that mount a slot containing a large number of tubes obtain a disproportionate advantage through the vagaries of statistics, then one Allied ship class that really does need a second look is the Tacoma/Colony class frigate at slot 764. If there is a case for reducing the Japanese bank of 6 centreline throwers to two banks of 3, one on each side, then surely it's a case that applies with even greater force to the 8 centreline throwers on the Tacomas.

I also have doubts about some timings of the radar upgrades to the Japanese Escort-class ships. However, no doubt the points I've made above will by themselves cause a big enough storm of protest to fall upon me, so for the time being enough said!



JWE -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/4/2011 9:27:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
In fact, no such adjustment has been made to the Allied DEs in the current version.

In fact, all adjustments are being made to Babes according to the stated paradigm. You just don't see it yet.

The present fixes to the IJN Es are done in accord with the whining and shrieking of certain cosmopolitan progressives. They are there to make vocal idiots happy, not necessarily to make everything work

Anything done in response to one half of the shriek chorus will necessarly be done to the other, in Babes. Trust we will do what is required. Or don't trust. We have long since passed the point of caring .. and will do as we see fit regardless of the demands of the shriek chorus.

Hate to be so curt, but one can only play the cards dealt.



el cid again -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/4/2011 10:11:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Thanks for all the pm requests. Ya'll will get the changelog and a copy of an updated class file by the end of the day. I kept this limited to the IJN E types, so it should be a simple cut and paste from a tweaked csv file to your scen csv file. But don't forget to 'update weapons from class' in your ship file. Only need to do IJ Navy and Type=15, E(escort).

A bit more on the algorithm: Naval guns have Ammo set at 1/10 actual, so why not define DCs at 1/2 actual. The number and arrangement of launchers becomes a 'quasi stonk' thing and may be adapted, in the grand scheme of things, so long as the total of launchers x ammo is consistent across nationalities. Besides, Ukurus didn't fire patterns of 16, and Type-C/Ds didn't fire patters of 12. So it makes sense to limit the launchers, but ensure the total ammo (number of potential attacks) is tikkity boo.

So, some class line items will have the "korekt" number of launchers, but half the "korekt" ammo per launcher. Some class line items will have half the "korekt" number of launchers, but have the "korekt" ammo per launcher. It all works out, but thought you folks would like to know how we got there from here.


For your consideration:

In the era before smart weapons
(WWII is more or less before that - but smart ASW torpedoes were successful then in USN)
ASW is very statistical - assuming you even could tell there was an actual target (vs something that might be a target)?

If you wish to limit ASW deadliness per shot
it might be best to consider that a pattern even when "on target" actually has some (or most) off target.

It might be better to arm ASW vessels by their standard pattern - thus for example a ship with 1 DC rack probably has a standard pattern of 2 -
or 2 racks a pattern of 4 - while those with throwers get N (number of throwers - 1 per K gun or 2 per Y gun) plus (DC racks x 2) = pattern.
The change of a hit is a function of pattern size, although not quite proportional - close enough. But that is the chance of A hit - or possibly a couple of near misses = a direct hit - where hit is any charge in severe damage distance (not contact). So effect remains a function of DC size - but the change of hits is a function of pattern size - which indeed may not be related to the total inventory. Shots is then the number of standard patterns that can be fired at all.
Num field would then be pattern size, while turrets is always 1 (aft for DC, fwd for ahead throwing weapons) - effect related to DC size - and ammo the number of patterns available to fire. Basically you only get one shot per pattern, and the chance of one "direct hit" per pattern fired - which is vastly less than the number of DC on board.

How to model the USN smart torpedoes is less easy to suggest. Treat em as centerline weaopns, I guess - and only one round per attack - but total number carried = ammo - and a high PK - that is accuracy - worked such that about 1 shot in six is a hit (presumably determined by testing).



Mac Linehan -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/4/2011 10:11:46 PM)

JWE -

I missed this thread earlier, have just come across it and saved to my reference folder.

Thanks for the clear, exact explanation, so that even the wanna be's (such as my self!) can understand the concepts involved.

A Babes Forever<grin>

Mac



JWE -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/4/2011 11:18:06 PM)


Thanks Mac. For folks like you, we try.



Local Yokel -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/5/2011 1:20:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
In fact, no such adjustment has been made to the Allied DEs in the current version.

In fact, all adjustments are being made to Babes according to the stated paradigm. You just don't see it yet.

The present fixes to the IJN Es are done in accord with the whining and shrieking of certain cosmopolitan progressives. They are there to make vocal idiots happy, not necessarily to make everything work

Anything done in response to one half of the shriek chorus will necessarly be done to the other, in Babes. Trust we will do what is required. Or don't trust. We have long since passed the point of caring .. and will do as we see fit regardless of the demands of the shriek chorus.

Hate to be so curt, but one can only play the cards dealt.


…which is why I was careful to express reservations about the changes 'as they stand'. All I had to go on as to the extent of the changes was such comments as "I kept this limited to the IJN E types" and "there’s still some overpowered stuff out there (those pesky IJN Etorofus and Type C/Ds)". I am very glad indeed to learn that the changes are to be applied consistently to all ASW platforms, Allied as well as IJN, so that the present ASW changes to Babes is presumably to be treated as a work in progress. However, I hope the comments I have quoted help to explain why the way in which these changes to ASW were presented gave me the impression that they were only going to be applied to IJN assets.

I also think this helps to illustrate a danger in being too ready to respond to those whose bleats are the loudest: the "vocal idiots" you are trying to make happy. There have been plenty of complaints that the Japanese E-class ships are excessively effective. Whether that is 'true' or not I really don't know, but I am perfectly ready to accept your thesis that they were getting an unjustifiable bonus from the concentration of many weapon 'tubes' in a single slot. This must be equally true of the Tacoma class frigates, which have a greater concentration of tubes in a single slot than any of the Japanese ships, yet this class has yet to receive the same fix as that applied to the IJN escort classes. Could this be because there was no corresponding body of vocal idiot Japanese players who had been wailing that an I-boat going up against a Tacoma was the same as having an encounter with an Oliver Hazard Perry FFG? And if so, doesn't this encourage the vocal idiots all the more, because they can see a payoff for their whining and shrieking?

I am highly appreciative of the work the Babes team is doing on ASW, but I do find myself wondering whether a better approach to presentation of these changes might have been "Look, the complaints about overpowered IJN escorts prompted us to investigate, but we discovered things about the way the game's mechanisms are working that call for changes to the weaponry on both sides' ships."

Going back to the changes themselves, what you have done by reducing IJN d/c throwers from 6 to 3 per side seems to prompt a corresponding reduction in Allied DE throwers from 4 to 2 per side. The problem that I see with that is that you have then neutered the effectiveness of the DE's weapons fit so that its 4 actual throwers per side (represented by 2 per side in game) are no more effective than a ship that actually carried 2 throwers per side – unless you reduce all 2-thrower-per-side ships to 1 thrower per side, and so on. And what do you then do to deal with those ships that actually did carry only one thrower per side!

If the problem lies in the fact a large number of tubes in a single weapon slot give that slot an excessive number of chances to hit, then might a better approach be to spread the correct number of weapons over a larger number of slots rather than occupying the same number of slots and artificially halving the number of weapons assigned to them? If each slot is then given the same chance to fire (or not to do so) and its hit probability is affected by the same factors (crew experience, weapon accuracy, etc), will you not surmount the problem you have identified without incurring what appears to be a knock-on effect of having to halve the number of depth charge mounts on every ship in the database, or accepting that some ships’ mounts are less effective than others? Or is there some obvious consideration that I have missed?



JWE -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/5/2011 1:47:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
Going back to the changes themselves, what you have done by reducing IJN d/c throwers from 6 to 3 per side seems to prompt a corresponding reduction in Allied DE throwers from 4 to 2 per side. The problem that I see with that is that you have then neutered the effectiveness of the DE's weapons fit so that its 4 actual throwers per side (represented by 2 per side in game) are no more effective than a ship that actually carried 2 throwers per side – unless you reduce all 2-thrower-per-side ships to 1 thrower per side, and so on. And what do you then do to deal with those ships that actually did carry only one thrower per side!

Reducing the right and left DC throwers for 5 IJN classes does not compel doing exactly the same thing to everything else. If so, those 5 classes would remain twice as powerful as everything else. A rather pointless exercise, no?

The number of throwers is adapted to the requirements of the program in order to achieve a rational effectiveness for these 5 E-types, in accord with the program's ASW algorithm. The adaptation further endeavors to achieve a practical consistency between and among classes and between nations by setting [# of launchers] x [ammo per launcher] x 2 = irl listed capacity (or as close as possible).

So instead of an Ukuru with [16 Center (or 8 R, 8 L) with 3 ammo each, and 2 Rear with 6 ammo each] = 60 , one gets [4 Right, 4 Left, 2 Rear, with 6 ammo each] = 60 (irl listed capacity is 120). The same number of total shots, merely divided into different packages that fit better within the program model.

Brit DDs with 4 Right, 4 Left, 2 Rear, keep them. They get [4R, 4L, with 5 ammo each, and 2R with 8 ammo each] = 56 (irl listed capacity is 112).
US DEs with 4 Right, 4 Left, 2 Rear, keep them. They get [4R, 4L, with 8 ammo each, and 2R with 12 ammo each] = 88 (irl capacity "approximately" 200).
Other combatants, including other IJN classes keep their actual weapon Nums and have ammo adjusted so that total ammo is 50% of listed capacity.

This is simply an explanation of what we are doing and why we are doing it this way. basically, we are doing it this way because it works. One may use it in situ, tweak it to suit themselves, or do something else entirely.

[ed] some responses are somewhat less than elegant or graceful because anyone working on this stuff is subject to constant, increasingly shrill, demands that everything must conform to strict historical accuracy in every single way including specific daily engagement results. The code simply does not work that way. It cannot be done. This has been repeatedly stated, but all it does is raise the decibel level of the howls. It's not so much that we have become over-sensitive, but that we have developed a certain hostility towards pandering to the thoughtless. Sometimes, the thoughtful gets caught up. Ah well.

Historical accuracy is a model, a goal, a touchstone. Where it can be achieved, well and good. Where not, something must be devised that gives acceptable results but maintains consistency.



witpqs -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/5/2011 5:54:24 PM)

Local Yokel,

The way I think of it is that the team is working to get as close as practical to accurate historical capability. Getting the Data to look a certain way - weapon counts, etc. - is not an objective. The Code + the Data gives a certain capability. They do not have total control over the Code, so often the Data must be modified to complement the Code and achieve the historical capability.

It's not about getting the list of weapons to look "accurate" on the display, it's about getting the whole package to perform realistically.



mike scholl 1 -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/5/2011 8:12:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Local Yokel,

The way I think of it is that the team is working to get as close as practical to accurate historical capability. Getting the Data to look a certain way - weapon counts, etc. - is not an objective. The Code + the Data gives a certain capability. They do not have total control over the Code, so often the Data must be modified to complement the Code and achieve the historical capability.

It's not about getting the list of weapons to look "accurate" on the display, it's about getting the whole package to perform realistically.


AMEN!



herwin -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/5/2011 10:46:32 PM)

If you ever design your own game, look at Gibbs sampling as a tool to define simple combat resolution models matching the functional relationships you expect among the input parameters and fitted to your combat data. It might also serve as a tool for the calibration JWE et cie. are trying to do.



vettim89 -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/5/2011 10:54:06 PM)

First of all the E class ships are way too powerful. I played Andy Mac's Downfall scenario and it was not unusual to see a USN fleet sub attack a IJN convoy with a single E class escort and get 10-20 hits on the sub with a sinking. I also saw similar but not quite as bad results with the USN DE's when they attacked an IJN sub.

I think witpqs' point is well made. The code is the code. As modders we cannot change the code no matter how much we might want to do that very thing. What we can do is alter the DB to have the end result be what we want. Now that may lead to odd entries as far as what the Ship Info screen shows us but that is unimportant if the game behaves as we desire. It is a given that code + DB = combat results; if the code cannot be altered then we are left with but one option.

I also agree with the point El Cid made. DC's were not fired singly nor even as a group. The were fired as patterns. Each pattern consisted of a number of weapons fired from each of the various DC devices on a ship. Gary Carlson did an amazingly good job in quantifying this in the Clash of Arms Games miniatures rules. The most important part of this is that even a successful pattern would only achieve a "hit" with one weapon. How much damage it did was based on how close to the sub it was when it went off.

Where the RL IJN ASW weapons suffered was in two areas. First they were slower sinking weapons. This gave the sub a better chance to evade attacks. The second is that the late war USN fleet boats were able to dive below the deepest depth setting of the IJN DC's. My research into the subject also showed that the IJN had some of the best passive SONAR equipment in the war (on par with the RN), but lacked the technology to plot active SONAR properly (which in WWII was a trace on chemically treated paper). I guess my point is that even a well organized IJN ASW effort should be below the Allied efforts for those reasons.

Going back to the WiTP board game from SPI, only the Allied player was able to form dedicated ASW TF and then only after October 1943. This was done to introduce into the game the fact that technically the IJN was not on par with the Allied navies and also that it took the Allies a while to develop proper tactics



Local Yokel -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/6/2011 1:26:36 AM)

Rather than engage in a wide ranging discussion about what was good and bad in IJN ASW, I would like to get back to the specific changes made to the data in this version of Big Babes, and the underlying reasons for them.

The starting point was the perception that "there's still some overpowered stuff out there" - specifically IJN E-class ships.

The problem identified by the Babes team was the excessive number of chances 'to hit' enjoyed by a weapon slot with a large number of tubes: "2x 4-chance packages is still not quite as good as 1x 6-chance package (it's a math thing)".

To address this "math thing", the solution proposed was to break down the single weapon slot with a large tube count into multiple weapon slots with fewer tubes per slot.

This was how JWE explained the change in post #1. I understand that explanation and applaud the solution proposed.

But the changes went beyond that. For certain IJN ship classes they involved the reduction in the tube count of depth charge throwers from 12 in real life to 6 in the game. This I don't understand. The reason cannot lie in the overpowering effect of having too many tubes in a single slot. You get round this by having 2 banks of 3 throwers per side, or, if 3 tubes per slot is still too high a concentration, by having 3 banks of 2 per side.

So there must be some other reason for halving the number of side throwers on the IJN E's. Perhaps I am being very dense, but I cannot see any explanation for this, and would like to know what it is.

I too can see the significance of El Cid's point that depth charges are fired in a pattern, but unfortunately it seems that the code doesn't evaluate an ASW attack by reference to any such pattern, so there's no point in wishing for something the code will not provide. However, what anyone can see by looking at the layout of the throwers on the later IJN E-class vessels is that they were designed to have the capability of laying down a 12-charge pattern.

If the original ships were able to throw 12 weapons during a single depth charge run, why not simulate that capability in the game, even if there is an inbuilt series of checks which make it unlikely that all 12 will actually be launched on that run? Why the apparently arbitrary decision to halve the launching potential of these particular ships?

It's all very well to say that the objective is "to get as close as practical to accurate historical capability." That begs several questions. In the case of E and DE class ships, what exactly is this 'accurate historical capability'? How do you measure it? And how do you best represent it in the game, given the game’s fixed code base? The approach generally adopted is one of modelling a ship’s armament in the game by attributing to it the same number of guns, torpedoes, etc as were fitted to its real life prototype. If there is a compelling reason for departing from that approach in the case of the later IJN escorts by halving the number of their throwers then I should very much like to know what it is.



Sardaukar -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/6/2011 1:32:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

So there must be some other reason for halving the number of side throwers on the IJN E's. Perhaps I am being very dense, but I cannot see any explanation for this, and would like to know what it is.



It was already said by witpqs:

The Code + the Data gives a certain capability. They do not have total control over the Code, so often the Data must be modified to complement the Code and achieve the historical capability.


There seems to be some hard-coded factors, that can only be addressed by data changes that may look "absurd" to person without access to code.



Local Yokel -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/6/2011 1:43:38 AM)

Fine, but that leaves unanswered the question of what historical capability is being achieved. The Japanese C- and D-gata kaibokan had the historical capability of firing 12 d/c launchers on a single run. Their game equivalents only have a capability of firing 6. That is somewhat counter-intuitive.



Sardaukar -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/6/2011 1:50:32 AM)

I don't think you really read what is said....

Just mod it and give them historical numbers...and see how code treats it.



Local Yokel -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/6/2011 2:05:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I don't think you really read what is said....



What do you believe I have missed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Just mod it and give them historical numbers...and see how code treats it.



Sorry, don't understand. All I will see will be a set of combat results, but I will be none the wiser as the way in which they were affected by code to which I have no access. That's why I am hoping that someone who does enjoy such access can explain why they don't consider the code handles the historical numbers well.



vettim89 -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/6/2011 4:06:56 AM)

quote:

Sorry, don't understand. All I will see will be a set of combat results, but I will be none the wiser as the way in which they were affected by code to which I have no access. That's why I am hoping that someone who does enjoy such access can explain why they don't consider the code handles the historical numbers well.


Well thats the rub now isn't it? The powers that be have, in my opinion, correctly decided that the intricacies of how the code works are not for public distribution. As modders that puts us into the position of having to use trial and error to discover how our changes to the database affect the results

To clarify, I was not intending to broaden this into a discussion into a general discussion about Japanese ASW capabilities. The facts I stated above were merely to add substance to the case for looking at this issue. Put a "X" down for me as one who greatly applauds the DaBabes team willingness to at least look at it.




morganbj -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/6/2011 3:35:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Historical accuracy is a model, a goal, a touchstone. Where it can be achieved, well and good. Where not, something must be devised that gives acceptable results but maintains consistency.

This is what I've been saying for years about AE. Its individual systems are quite good, but imperfect, but when taken together, they render a perfectly acceptable model of the strategic war. Quite frankly, AE works.

I, too, still have my pet peeves about some of the systems (e.g., land combat), but I've learned to adapt my play to account for those things that seem a tad off. I may, for instance, apply a few extra units to an attack to make sure I have some success, or, I may modify how and where I use my submarines to avoid getting massacred by IJN Es. But the war still seems to go according to the capabilities of the participants. There are more than ample strategic possibilites, and each plays out a little differently, but probably close to what would actually have happened had that strategy been tried. I find it remarkable that it all works so well. Yes, I'd like a perfect program, but AE is good enough for me. I can certainly understand the feeling that a few vocal people can cause additional unanticipated problems when the code is changed to make something "work better." (Remember the artillery fix, then refix, unfix, and fix again? And it's still not quite right.) Generally, though the code is in very good shape; most of the serious concerns have indeed been addressed. And, it'll get better.

That said, I also greatly appreciate what the Da Babes team have done. I realize Da Babes doesn't deal with the code, but makes modifications to the data files to accomplish its ends. That means that Da Babes is forced to use an imperfect engine, one that is in pretty good shape, but not without a few issues that may never be fixed. After all, it's impossible to code reality perfectly. Da Babes makes that imperfect code seem to work a little less imperfectly. That's called "success."

So, keep up the good work. I'll play whatever you guys conjure up. I trust your decisions. I know you're thinking things through. Besides, like you say, if I don't like what you do, I can use the editor, too.

Keep pluggin' away.



treespider -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/6/2011 7:08:18 PM)

My take on what Local Yokel was trying to say :

Do we have a historical baseline on which to judge the E's?

In other words perhaps the E's in game performance is being "enhanced" by other factors, such as operational employment of the hunters and hunted, air search assets etc. that are different than history.

Personally I have no issue with a one-off "correction" if the system is an "Outlier" and the "correction" brings the system into line with our perceived reality.



vettim89 -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/7/2011 7:27:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

My take on what Local Yokel was trying to say :

Do we have a historical baseline on which to judge the E's?

In other words perhaps the E's in game performance is being "enhanced" by other factors, such as operational employment of the hunters and hunted, air search assets etc. that are different than history.

Personally I have no issue with a one-off "correction" if the system is an "Outlier" and the "correction" brings the system into line with our perceived reality.


I have been contemplatingthis for a day now and I find myself embracing this idea more and more. Watching combat replays may give us an idea of what the code is doing during ASW resolution. Comments include

"Sub evades pattern"
"USS XXX unable to locate submarine"
"USS XXX unable to get position to attacke submarine"
"Escorts searching for submarine"
"Near miss rattles submarine"

So perhaps its not just about weapons moints and how they are displayed in the DB. Maybe ASW rating, which of course is related to the number of weapons mounts, is just as big a factor. If true then the "E" class patrol craft will still have the obnoxious ASW of 12 no matter how the mounts are grouped. Just throwing that out there for consideration



JWE -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/7/2011 9:59:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89
So perhaps its not just about weapons moints and how they are displayed in the DB. Maybe ASW rating, which of course is related to the number of weapons mounts, is just as big a factor. If true then the "E" class patrol craft will still have the obnoxious ASW of 12 no matter how the mounts are grouped. Just throwing that out there for consideration

nooo ... ASW rating has no impact. It is nothing but a WeapNum summation shown on the ship screen that people can use to roughly judge who's better then who. There are 3 different things that happen; in sequence, but with some overlap.

1) Acquisition - You need a good Detect value to find and hold a sub for prosecution. Leader and crew exp values are of primary importance.
2) Prosecution - Done on an individual ship-by-ship basis. Crew exp values are of primary importance.
...2a) How many weapons (i.e., slots) will engage? Crew exp values are of primary importance.
...2b) How many passes (i.e., attacks) will the ship make? Crew exp values are of primary importance.
...2c) Before each pass, will the ship acquire/reacquire the sub? Crew exp values are of primary importance.
3) Destruction - Done on an individual WeapSlot-by-slot basis. WeapNum is of primary importance.
...this is the only place in the wide, wide, world of sports, where WeapNum of a slot is important. This is the % chance to hit part. All the rest is just % chance to acquire and % chance to shoot.

So all of your 'messages' relate to item ...2c), except the last one which indicates 'close but no cigar' under item 3). Before you drop, the sub can evade. You can lose contact while moving into position to drop. You might just be too far away to effectively prosecute. None of these things have anything to do with how many DC launchers (or slots) you gots. That happens in part 3). And that's where the math comes into play.

This is NOT THE ALGORITHM. It is an UTTER SIMPLIFICATION, but it might give you some idea of what's involved. A slot might have Num of 2, 3, 4. Think of 2^Num and you get 4, 8, 16. Think of that as a % chance to hit with that slot. Now make a slot with Num of 12 or 16 (the original Es). 2^Num is 4096 or 65536. A little bigger than 16, yes? So if an original E could acquire, it could prosecute (those 12-16 launchers were in 1 slot). If it could shoot it WOULD KILL. That was the booger. And a right wet and green one it was, too.

I really hope this makes sense to ya'll. Ciao. John



oldman45 -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/7/2011 10:12:31 PM)

In fact that does make sense. It now brings another question which might be better served in another thread.

Since crew exp plays such a large role, how then is the best way to get the US "escort" crews up to speed so that in 1943/44 they do a great job of keeping the subs at bay? In my game I try to always use the same group of "escorts" doing nothing but ASW hunting but I do not see a lot of change in exp.



vettim89 -> RE: ASW Stuff (7/7/2011 10:21:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

In fact that does make sense. It now brings another question which might be better served in another thread.

Since crew exp plays such a large role, how then is the best way to get the US "escort" crews up to speed so that in 1943/44 they do a great job of keeping the subs at bay? In my game I try to always use the same group of "escorts" doing nothing but ASW hunting but I do not see a lot of change in exp.


Just steaming will raise exp but it has a cap. I beleive it has been put forth that it is 55. Beyond that the only way to get exp to increase is actually being involve in combat



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8583984