Babes bomb effect (Full Version)

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



Message

castor troy -> Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 11:46:11 AM)

Hi

would you mind giving some info on how the difference of bomb effects compared to stock turns out in a babes campaign. I currently have two Babeslite PBEM going and both play really fine with all the changes you guys have done and the extended map is wonderful. The only thing I wonder about is the change to bombs, IIRC someone said the bomb effect was halved. Don't know if this is correct but when looking at my anti shipping strikes so far, it may well be halved effect as my bombs seem to do damage between nothing and not much.

I know that there are different factors used for the attack on ground targets, ships and bases, got no clue how this really works though, hence my question. When it comes down to anti shipping strikes, was this done due to too many hits on ships in general (with the original development having more hits with less effect compared to real life already)? If so, wouldn't there be a way to just reduce the number of hits (accuracy)? One reason I ask is that I think aerial torpedo hit rates are even more off (too many) than bomb hits so if aerial torpedoes still have the same effect and you get the same number of hits, doesn't this shift the anti shipping strikes even more towards the Japanese side making it more unbalanced as it already is with torpedoes still everywhere and hit rates real life commanders could never dream of.

Don't take this as negative critics please, I just would like to have more info on it and what you guys thought has to be changed and how it was done. Some Info would be great.

cheers



JWE -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 3:04:33 PM)

Yes, effectively it was halved. I used the weight of explosive rather than the weight of the whole bomb. This does tend to make AP and SAP bombs a trifle puny however.

Anyway, it was intended to be just a starting point and good player feedback is not only welcome but probably necessary. JuanG has already chimed in with some suggestions, but I知 dipped if I can find them again. Hopefully he値l see this and repost them, or I can send him a pm or something.

Changes are to Eff, Acc, and Anti-Soft. Smaller bomb Acc went up, larger bomb Acc went down. Anti-Soft was lined up along with the artillery algorithm. Things seem to work ok for the land model part, but I can see how anti-shipping might could use some help.

I値l pm you a spreadsheet that shows the original values, the DBB values and the possible values for AP and SAP Eff that would help your anti-shipping results. Also a nice little chart from 1944 showing the HE content of various bombs, so you can see how we got here from there. These are simple Device data changes, so they will update into an ongoing game with no problems.



castor troy -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 3:25:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yes, effectively it was halved. I used the weight of explosive rather than the weight of the whole bomb. This does tend to make AP and SAP bombs a trifle puny however.

Anyway, it was intended to be just a starting point and good player feedback is not only welcome but probably necessary. JuanG has already chimed in with some suggestions, but I知 dipped if I can find them again. Hopefully he値l see this and repost them, or I can send him a pm or something.

Changes are to Eff, Acc, and Anti-Soft. Smaller bomb Acc went up, larger bomb Acc went down. Anti-Soft was lined up along with the artillery algorithm. Things seem to work ok for the land model part, but I can see how anti-shipping might could use some help.

I値l pm you a spreadsheet that shows the original values, the DBB values and the possible values for AP and SAP Eff that would help your anti-shipping results. Also a nice little chart from 1944 showing the HE content of various bombs, so you can see how we got here from there. These are simple Device data changes, so they will update into an ongoing game with no problems.




thanks for the info, very much appreciated. I've not gone through a whole campaign using your mod so I can't comment from a whole lot of years point of view but with the two PBEM going there were still quite a couple of nav strikes using bombs. I assume changes were only done to bombs and no changes to aerial torps.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to make this a JFB or AFB issue but this is where I think it will shift this change quite a bit towards the Japanese side. IMO and I think this is the general consenus, we have always seen too many bomb hits (speaking about stock). As compensation for this long ago we were told that the bomb effect is lower than it would probably be in real life and I think this is well true if you look at the game's results.

Now I would of course opt for a reduced hit rate of bombs and torpedoes while it would be great to have hit effects close to real life. So far I didn't notice a reduced hit rate, what is absolutely notable is the reduced effect of bomb hits though which is a little concerning to me as I just lately have put two 500lb bombs through CVE Hosho's flight deck (the crappiest of all CVE IMO) and the ship still was able to operate aircraft after those hits. Same goes for small and medium freighters, it seems they take 500lb bombs as they would be hit by Easter eggs. Now I was only used to see this from 250lb bomb hits in stock, which would be close to what the 500lb bombs are now in the mod.

So the result seems to be now that we need even more bombs compared to stock, where we need more bombs than real life. It's hard for me to comment on the effect of A2G attacks but I think it's easier to judge on the effects of anti shipping strikes. Unfortunately I have no clue what which value really does but isn't there a way to have the effect for ground attacks (soft value?) reduced while increasing the effect of bombs when they hit ships? Actually, the bombs that are used vs ships aren't the same that are used against ground targets anyway (SAP + AP vs GP). I think the optimal result from a game's perspective would be to have the hit rates on ships halved with the actual damage done to ships increased. How would a rather drastic change of accuracy and effect do to SAP/AP bombs? Wouldn't this go towards less hits that do more damage? [&:]

And there is the issue of bombs compared to aerial torps that should not be forgotten as this really may shift the odds by quite a margin. Aerial torp hit rate has always been far too high with damage effect being not so far off I guess.

I am abolutely no bomb or explosive expert or so and I can't provide any statistics or whatever is needed to really determine what has to be changed in any way, I am only going with what I have read about anti shipping strikes and how many bombs it usually took to severly damage or sink ships and going with those reports, we are currently off by something like x2,5 number of bombs.



vettim89 -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 3:25:28 PM)

I can get you a save file but we just have an incident in our game that had me scratching my head. BB Fuso took eleven 1000 lb non-pentrating hits and five 500 lb hits. Now I know that with no penetration, the ship would not be in danger of sinking; however, two days later she took part in several surface combats and seemed no worse for the wear. Seems to me that 16 bomb hits should have wrecked her topsides even if it didn't sink the ship.



JWE -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 3:59:50 PM)

That does make a great deal of sense, CT. Frankly didn't put a whole of time into this, was just trying to address the "death cloud" of bombers eradicating entire Corps in a few turns. Seems a deeper look at the Nav combat algorithm is warranted.

Good news is that all the bomb data is "lined up", so an entire column can be increased or decreased and have the result still be proportional. In fact, I think that's exactly what JuanG did, so I'll get after him to resend his methodology. This can be an easy tweak, although I'll have to acquire a lot more %hit data. Again, thanks for bringing it up.

Your comments about bombs vs torpedoes are also well taken. Never considered it; oh well, we all have Senior moments. Will look at that too. Torps are a bit of a witch, because of rearm and HQ and supply stuff, but I think it's feasible.

Only concern I have, but only in terms of something to think about, is making sure things don't get out of whack for Port, City, and Airfield attacks. Those algorithms share certain data elements with the Nav model. The land model, fortunately, uses certain data elements that the others don't, so I feel comfy in dinking with the Nav data and not screwing up the land stuff (which was the whole point of the original exercise [8D]).

Ciao.

[ed] Not to worry, though. These are only changes to data in the Device file, which do not propagate to any other scenario file. This is will be a straight forward update to all ongoing games, with no problemos (so long as both PBEM players do it).

@vettim89, this should address your stuff too.



castor troy -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 4:55:10 PM)

thanks for taking a look JWE. You guys put out a really nice mod and all the other stuff I've seen so far really make it a more realistic feel as far as I can see. Bombs vs ships made me a bit sceptic though as I thought we already had too many hits with bombs in stock while not doing enough damage per bomb and in the mod we even need drastically more bombs to do the same damage on ships.

thanks for your spreadsheed, even if I am not sure what all the values really do in the game and I never fiddled around with the editor.[:D]



JWE -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 5:29:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to make this a JFB or AFB issue but this is where I think it will shift this change quite a bit towards the Japanese side. IMO and I think this is the general consenus, we have always seen too many bomb hits (speaking about stock). As compensation for this long ago we were told that the bomb effect is lower than it would probably be in real life and I think this is well true if you look at the game's results.

No FB issues, here, CT. I'm not a FB of any side (well, maybe a FB of both); just a data modeling FB. I do consider, and care a lot about, about relative playability, so sometimes strict historicity takes a back seat to play balance. I've done this to both sides.

True, there's too many hits, and not only with bombs. There's simply too much "boom shaka-laka" that happens within a combat algorithmic period in general, but that is a function of the engine and all we can try and do is moderate it. But yes, moderating in a way that skews game balance to one side or the other is anathema.

Don't know why anyone would say that about bomb effect. The bomb algorithm and data are the same going back to UV. There was neither time nor intent to mess with it and there was no discussion of any compensation, whatever. The only developer to mess with this is Nikademus and he did it for a specific situation and in the context of a personal mod. The results you see may suggest many things, but some kind of conspiratorial "intent" is certainly not one of them. I was there. There was me and Don and Elf and Andy, Timtom, Terminus, Michael, Kereguelen, Cathartes, Blackhorse, Tankerace, BigJ62, Wdolson and Uncle Joe. Do you really think any of those people would cop a fanboi tude? I think you have been listening to some of the beta testers, who 'are' fanbois, and who are disatisfied about this and that, but who truly don't know jack but are willing to say anything.

Ok, it's off my chest, now. Dude, the developers want to see this work just as much as you, and the babes team has an additional imperitive to address the professional community. There is no conspiracy happening here. There are no hidden agendas. Your points are well taken and will be adressed. We will work with you and give you all the data tweakin stuff we can. Seien sie einfach ruhig, mein Freund, und vertrauen sie uns; wir erkl舐en, was wir taten.

We got a lot of stuff in the box, along with a lot of descriptive text. Don't be shy.

Ciao. John



Puhis -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 5:38:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Only concern I have, but only in terms of something to think about, is making sure things don't get out of whack for Port, City, and Airfield attacks. Those algorithms share certain data elements with the Nav model. The land model, fortunately, uses certain data elements that the others don't, so I feel comfy in dinking with the Nav data and not screwing up the land stuff (which was the whole point of the original exercise ).


I think you've done very good job with GP bombs. Those did have excessive effect, a few turns back allied level bombers destroyed entire japanese brigade in 3 turns, and wiped out tank regiment in one turn, without even recon. Also, I hope this will address airfield/port bombing issue.

I have no idea how the code works, but I think SAP bombs should have more effect than just weight of explosive, IF that bomb penetrates. After all, blast happens inside a ship. But I still think SAP bombs are too effective in stock scenarios. So if you must tune something, maybe tune just SAP bombs that are not used in ground or airfield bombing?

Having said that, I don't have much concern with Babes nerfed SAP bombs. I just played Guadalcanal scenario, and four 1000 lb SAP bomb hits is definitely enough to destroy japanese heavy cruiser.



JWE -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 5:57:55 PM)

That is the problem, Puhis, my friend. Where is the balance between results seen by different groups of people? How to maintain the balance between and among the different combat algorithms? How do I address CT's issues without screwing you up? Woof !!

M'kay, think Nav could use some work. Probably got too aggressive with AP and SAP numbers. Will consider your comments as well as CT's.

Ciao. John



castor troy -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 6:13:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to make this a JFB or AFB issue but this is where I think it will shift this change quite a bit towards the Japanese side. IMO and I think this is the general consenus, we have always seen too many bomb hits (speaking about stock). As compensation for this long ago we were told that the bomb effect is lower than it would probably be in real life and I think this is well true if you look at the game's results.

No FB issues, here, CT. I'm not a FB of any side (well, maybe a FB of both); just a data modeling FB. I do consider, and care a lot about, about relative playability, so sometimes strict historicity takes a back seat to play balance. I've done this to both sides.

True, there's too many hits, and not only with bombs. There's simply too much "boom shaka-laka" that happens within a combat algorithmic period in general, but that is a function of the engine and all we can try and do is moderate it. But yes, moderating in a way that skews game balance to one side or the other is anathema.

Don't know why anyone would say that about bomb effect. The bomb algorithm and data are the same going back to UV. There was neither time nor intent to mess with it and there was no discussion of any compensation, whatever. The only developer to mess with this is Nikademus and he did it for a specific situation and in the context of a personal mod. The results you see may suggest many things, but some kind of conspiratorial "intent" is certainly not one of them. I was there. There was me and Don and Elf and Andy, Timtom, Terminus, Michael, Kereguelen, Cathartes, Blackhorse, Tankerace, BigJ62, Wdolson and Uncle Joe. Do you really think any of those people would cop a fanboi tude? I think you have been listening to some of the beta testers, who 'are' fanbois, and who are disatisfied about this and that, but who truly don't know jack but are willing to say anything.

Ok, it's off my chest, now. Dude, the developers want to see this work just as much as you, and the babes team has an additional imperitive to address the professional community. There is no conspiracy happening here. There are no hidden agendas. Your points are well taken and will be adressed. We will work with you and give you all the data tweakin stuff we can. Seien sie einfach ruhig, mein Freund, und vertrauen sie uns; wir erkl舐en, was wir taten.

We got a lot of stuff in the box, along with a lot of descriptive text. Don't be shy.

Ciao. John



Oh, my comment was rather meant you should not think I am a fanboy who argues for one side to be nerfed, not meant as saying any of the devs would be a fanboy. But I do know ppl often think that if one says a change may be asked for because one is a fanboy. So if I say that if bombs are "nerfed" and aerial torps stay as they are then this pretty much effects just one side, which are the Allied as most of their anti shipping strikes are flown with bombs while the Japanese usually fly more than 50% of their strikes with torps. I also didn't think there would be a conspiracy. [;)]

Of course when it comes down to IJ bomb attacks against ships, the same goes of what I have been thinking about above, we need even more bombs to sink ships, while IMO we should see far less hits but more lethal ones.

As with the other things that were adressed in Babes I am sure you will find a well working way to deal with it.

cheers



JWE -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 6:42:58 PM)

I will do my damndest best. That's all I can give.



castor troy -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 7:11:06 PM)

I guess these damage reports in the link below are well known to most ppl on the board and going with these, bomb hits were quite lethal which is also my impression when reading reports on naval strikes.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/WDR/index.html




LoBaron -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 7:46:06 PM)

Threads like this one always brings me back to the question if a remoddeling of the whole exp/skill values (on DB as well as code side)
holds the solution.

I have two points which are rather vague but please bear with me:

- I do not believe a single individuum flying an aircraft in a complex enviroment can be rated 95 of 100 (where 100 represents a faultless individuum).
I also do not belive, that based on the same principles, even as many as 10% of the total fighting pilots could rely on values like 70/70 navS/NavT
after 4 months of combat training. And I think only a few would be able to reach this skill after a year of combat.

- I think the dice rolls have the habit to calculate values where 0 is chanceless and 100 is guaranteed success. There is a saying I like, and it applies undisputed
to the strategy layer of WitP AE: The side wins which makes the least mistakes. Is this really represented in the absolute unit/pilot skills? We got pilots who,
based on the above, have an 70% post-training chance to succeed in their attempt. Or prewar pilots who have this chance, or higher, per default.

Based on a scale where 0 means no chance at all, and 100 means faultless perfection, Iｴd rate Mozart as a 65, compared to that, myself as a 5 with tendency to 6.
And I love music since I can think.

I know something like this is a huge undertaking, but I always return to these two things:
Skills in general, and exp as well, are too high.
Skills in general are too easy to train too fast and too high.



Captain Cruft -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 8:06:06 PM)

individuum - what a cool word [:D]

While I see your point, I tend to think that messing with the experience and skills values would create a lot more problems than it would solve. It also can't be done properly without coding.



JWE -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 8:48:27 PM)

This is why I so utterly hate doing informative posts on these forums. Somebody always wants to jerk it into their little universe.

No, LoBaron, this has nothing whatever to do with skills, or experience, or dogs, or cats, or the color of grass in Kansas. Take the irrelevant stuff back to the main forum and let us get on with detailing the algorithm in question. Thank you.



JWE -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 9:25:36 PM)

And now the pm whining starts. Ok. That's it. You all can whine away about anything you can find to whine about. This is my last post on these forums. Ya'll have a nice day now.



treespider -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 9:38:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

This is why I so utterly hate doing informative posts on these forums. Somebody always wants to jerk it into their little universe.

No, LoBaron, this has nothing whatever to do with skills, or experience, or dogs, or cats, or the color of grass in Kansas. Take the irrelevant stuff back to the main forum and let us get on with detailing the algorithm in question. Thank you.


John,

I think LoBaron's point, after re-reading a number of posts, was:

- as CT pointed there is a feeling/consensus that there were too many bomb hits
- CT would desire fewer bomb hits with greater effect per hit.

- LoBaron speculated that one of the causes of the "too many hits" was the elevated skill ratings for pilots that players are able to achieve in game through various mechanisms. LoBaron would like to see the code changed to address the skills part of the equation...which is not happening.


All of which leaves the modder with addressing the DB by modding accuracy and effect of devices...and seeking to strike the right balance.

My humble suggestion would be to mod certain devices for primarily Land/Installation use and other devices for Naval. The Land/Installation devices would be normalized for uses in those missions and the naval devices would likely use an entirely different formula to arrive at their values.

In a perfect world we could choose load outs for each air unit dependent on mission which would allow for great flexibility of the air unit.

However this ain't a perfect world...so by doing as I suggest... the modder creates aircraft that are suited for either land ops or naval ops ...but not both.

One thing is certain - code ain't gonna change.





LoBaron -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/28/2012 9:55:06 PM)

Thanks treespider, this was what I wanted to point out.

I have to agree with JWE though, that you could consider out of scope and also off topic in this discussion, and I am aware that such a
change would require more (testing) effort than anybody is able and willing to put into the game at these stage.
Finally, I see the possibility, that assumptions I have on how 0-100 scaled values influence specific dice rolls and my interpretation how this
should translate into actions and decisions of a human being are wrong.

So, apoligies for that. Although such things could be communicated in a slightly more friendly fashion, more so, JWE, as I do apprechiate your
informative posts.



castor troy -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/29/2012 7:24:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

And now the pm whining starts. Ok. That's it. You all can whine away about anything you can find to whine about. This is my last post on these forums. Ya'll have a nice day now.



not sure what I've done wrong, I may have opened a can of worms again though. Guys, I really meant my original post seriously, it wasn't in any way intended to critisize someone or to bring up any negative. I like the mod very much, as mentioned earlier, it just gives a so much more realistic feeling on many things where vanilla fails (ASW, flak or torp spreads anyone?). The only concern I had were bombs vs ships and I stand to what I have said, I just think it took too many bombs (compared to real life) to heavily damage or sink a ship in stock and in the mod it now takes even more (twice?). While I think, no, I dare to say know from reading real life reports, that it usually didn't take that many bombs to sink a freighter for example. With the exagerated hit rate in the game in general we may end up with better results than stock but when going with how the feel is, it would be more realistic to have less hits for more damage as this is what actually happened in real life.

As always, I am absolutely aware that there are other ppl around thinking 100% the opposite, just like there are ppl around that say 9/11 or landing on the moon was a conspiracy. I do want to point out again that I didn't intend to start a fight with anyone and I also tried to keep it as constructive as possible. [:(]



castor troy -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/29/2012 7:28:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

This is why I so utterly hate doing informative posts on these forums. Somebody always wants to jerk it into their little universe.

No, LoBaron, this has nothing whatever to do with skills, or experience, or dogs, or cats, or the color of grass in Kansas. Take the irrelevant stuff back to the main forum and let us get on with detailing the algorithm in question. Thank you.


John,

I think LoBaron's point, after re-reading a number of posts, was:

- as CT pointed there is a feeling/consensus that there were too many bomb hits
- CT would desire fewer bomb hits with greater effect per hit.

- LoBaron speculated that one of the causes of the "too many hits" was the elevated skill ratings for pilots that players are able to achieve in game through various mechanisms. LoBaron would like to see the code changed to address the skills part of the equation...which is not happening.


All of which leaves the modder with addressing the DB by modding accuracy and effect of devices...and seeking to strike the right balance.

My humble suggestion would be to mod certain devices for primarily Land/Installation use and other devices for Naval. The Land/Installation devices would be normalized for uses in those missions and the naval devices would likely use an entirely different formula to arrive at their values.

In a perfect world we could choose load outs for each air unit dependent on mission which would allow for great flexibility of the air unit.

However this ain't a perfect world...so by doing as I suggest... the modder creates aircraft that are suited for either land ops or naval ops ...but not both.

One thing is certain - code ain't gonna change.






but that's not necessary, because in AE we now have different loadouts. For land attacks against LCU and bases the bombers carry GP bombs and for anti shipping strikes they carry AP or SAP bombs. So those different type of bombs can have different values. I am no modder, I am no bomb expert so I got no clue what values I have to enter, I could however just try, rinse and repeat. It would still leave me with my own mod and not the "real" mod so go find an opponent.



treespider -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/29/2012 7:38:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

This is why I so utterly hate doing informative posts on these forums. Somebody always wants to jerk it into their little universe.

No, LoBaron, this has nothing whatever to do with skills, or experience, or dogs, or cats, or the color of grass in Kansas. Take the irrelevant stuff back to the main forum and let us get on with detailing the algorithm in question. Thank you.


John,

I think LoBaron's point, after re-reading a number of posts, was:

- as CT pointed there is a feeling/consensus that there were too many bomb hits
- CT would desire fewer bomb hits with greater effect per hit.

- LoBaron speculated that one of the causes of the "too many hits" was the elevated skill ratings for pilots that players are able to achieve in game through various mechanisms. LoBaron would like to see the code changed to address the skills part of the equation...which is not happening.


All of which leaves the modder with addressing the DB by modding accuracy and effect of devices...and seeking to strike the right balance.

My humble suggestion would be to mod certain devices for primarily Land/Installation use and other devices for Naval. The Land/Installation devices would be normalized for uses in those missions and the naval devices would likely use an entirely different formula to arrive at their values.

In a perfect world we could choose load outs for each air unit dependent on mission which would allow for great flexibility of the air unit.

However this ain't a perfect world...so by doing as I suggest... the modder creates aircraft that are suited for either land ops or naval ops ...but not both.

One thing is certain - code ain't gonna change.






but that's not necessary, because in AE we now have different loadouts. For land attacks against LCU and bases the bombers carry GP bombs and for anti shipping strikes they carry AP or SAP bombs. So those different type of bombs can have different values. I am no modder, I am no bomb expert so I got no clue what values I have to enter, I could however just try, rinse and repeat. It would still leave me with my own mod and not the "real" mod so go find an opponent.



Ahh...been away for awhile...so that is what the alt device setting is for in the editor...

In the case of the Val it is set to carry device 1881 - 250kg GP Bomb. The alt device for device 1881 is device 208 - the 250 kg SAP bomb.

Got it...thanks for pointing that out CT.

So now I wonder how the code knows which device to use for which mission? There is nothing that you specifically check in the editor designating GP v SAP.




castor troy -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/29/2012 7:40:24 PM)

Could that be a line in the code like "land attack = GP device x; naval attack = SAP device x"?

I'm no programmer and above is BS of course but hopefully you get what I mean [:)]



JWE -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/29/2012 8:53:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
not sure what I've done wrong, I may have opened a can of worms again though.

You did nothing wrong CT. You posed an interesting problem in a very informative way. And I thank you for it. It's the rest of the whining pack who just want to pile on. I won't post anything anymore on these forums, but we are still working with our personal tweaks. I promised you a look and hopefully a better fix for the whole bomb/torpedo thing. Once we figure it out, I'll send you (PM) a new Device file along with all the background stuff so you will see how we got there. It just won't go here. The Babes site is very active within the Babes community, so there will continue to be support and updates.



LoBaron -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/29/2012 9:05:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

And now the pm whining starts. Ok. That's it. You all can whine away about anything you can find to whine about. This is my last post on these forums. Ya'll have a nice day now.



not sure what I've done wrong, I may have opened a can of worms again though. Guys, I really meant my original post seriously, it wasn't in any way intended to critisize someone or to bring up any negative. I like the mod very much, as mentioned earlier, it just gives a so much more realistic feeling on many things where vanilla fails (ASW, flak or torp spreads anyone?). The only concern I had were bombs vs ships and I stand to what I have said, I just think it took too many bombs (compared to real life) to heavily damage or sink a ship in stock and in the mod it now takes even more (twice?). While I think, no, I dare to say know from reading real life reports, that it usually didn't take that many bombs to sink a freighter for example. With the exagerated hit rate in the game in general we may end up with better results than stock but when going with how the feel is, it would be more realistic to have less hits for more damage as this is what actually happened in real life.

As always, I am absolutely aware that there are other ppl around thinking 100% the opposite, just like there are ppl around that say 9/11 or landing on the moon was a conspiracy. I do want to point out again that I didn't intend to start a fight with anyone and I also tried to keep it as constructive as possible. [:(]


No, you didn't, CT. If anybody it was me bringing a random element into a focused discussion. Carry on, this is interesting stuff.



tanjman -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/30/2012 12:47:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

This is why I so utterly hate doing informative posts on these forums. Somebody always wants to jerk it into their little universe.

No, LoBaron, this has nothing whatever to do with skills, or experience, or dogs, or cats, or the color of grass in Kansas. Take the irrelevant stuff back to the main forum and let us get on with detailing the algorithm in question. Thank you.


John,

I think LoBaron's point, after re-reading a number of posts, was:

- as CT pointed there is a feeling/consensus that there were too many bomb hits
- CT would desire fewer bomb hits with greater effect per hit.

- LoBaron speculated that one of the causes of the "too many hits" was the elevated skill ratings for pilots that players are able to achieve in game through various mechanisms. LoBaron would like to see the code changed to address the skills part of the equation...which is not happening.


All of which leaves the modder with addressing the DB by modding accuracy and effect of devices...and seeking to strike the right balance.

My humble suggestion would be to mod certain devices for primarily Land/Installation use and other devices for Naval. The Land/Installation devices would be normalized for uses in those missions and the naval devices would likely use an entirely different formula to arrive at their values.

In a perfect world we could choose load outs for each air unit dependent on mission which would allow for great flexibility of the air unit.

However this ain't a perfect world...so by doing as I suggest... the modder creates aircraft that are suited for either land ops or naval ops ...but not both.

One thing is certain - code ain't gonna change.






but that's not necessary, because in AE we now have different loadouts. For land attacks against LCU and bases the bombers carry GP bombs and for anti shipping strikes they carry AP or SAP bombs. So those different type of bombs can have different values. I am no modder, I am no bomb expert so I got no clue what values I have to enter, I could however just try, rinse and repeat. It would still leave me with my own mod and not the "real" mod so go find an opponent.



Ahh...been away for awhile...so that is what the alt device setting is for in the editor...

In the case of the Val it is set to carry device 1881 - 250kg GP Bomb. The alt device for device 1881 is device 208 - the 250 kg SAP bomb.

Got it...thanks for pointing that out CT.

So now I wonder how the code knows which device to use for which mission? There is nothing that you specifically check in the editor designating GP v SAP.




This was posted by michaelm sometime back:

Alt Device

Basically you can link devices in a sequence specifying what missions can use said device. The code will attempt to swap out any device that has a 'Alt use' value that is applicable to the mission being executed. It will find the first alternate device that is applicable for the mission being executed.

It is a simple method that can be horribly broken if you try to chain too many devices together or give it conflicting mission profiles.

For example: The 100kg SAP can be linked to the 100kg GP linked back to the 100kg SAP. This is done by putting the next device in the chain in the 'Alt device' field of the device\n (100kg SAP has AltDev of 100kg GP; which has AltDev of 100kg SAP) Now to keep the SAP limited to naval attack, you put 6 in the 'Alt use' field, and 120 (to use for land and AF attacks) for the other linked device.

Alt Use

Below are the values for the 'Alt use'. Just add the numbers of the missions that can use the device together.
- define PM_NAVAL_ATTACK 2 // used for naval attacks
- define PM_NAVAL_ATTACK2 4 // alternate for naval attack (like torp replacement)
- define PM_LAND_ATTACK 8 // used for land (ground/port) attack
- define PM_LAND_ATTACK2 16 // alternate for land (ground/port) attack
- define PM_AF_ATTACK 32 // used for airfield attack
- define PM_AF_ATTACK2 64 // alternate for airfield attack



castor troy -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/30/2012 5:03:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
not sure what I've done wrong, I may have opened a can of worms again though.

You did nothing wrong CT. You posed an interesting problem in a very informative way. And I thank you for it. It's the rest of the whining pack who just want to pile on. I won't post anything anymore on these forums, but we are still working with our personal tweaks. I promised you a look and hopefully a better fix for the whole bomb/torpedo thing. Once we figure it out, I'll send you (PM) a new Device file along with all the background stuff so you will see how we got there. It just won't go here. The Babes site is very active within the Babes community, so there will continue to be support and updates.



thanks JWE

edit: tried to pm you but I don't see the option to do that



el cid again -> RE: Babes bomb effect (3/30/2012 5:55:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yes, effectively it was halved. I used the weight of explosive rather than the weight of the whole bomb. This does tend to make AP and SAP bombs a trifle puny however.

Anyway, it was intended to be just a starting point and good player feedback is not only welcome but probably necessary. JuanG has already chimed in with some suggestions, but I知 dipped if I can find them again. Hopefully he値l see this and repost them, or I can send him a pm or something.

Changes are to Eff, Acc, and Anti-Soft. Smaller bomb Acc went up, larger bomb Acc went down. Anti-Soft was lined up along with the artillery algorithm. Things seem to work ok for the land model part, but I can see how anti-shipping might could use some help.

I値l pm you a spreadsheet that shows the original values, the DBB values and the possible values for AP and SAP Eff that would help your anti-shipping results. Also a nice little chart from 1944 showing the HE content of various bombs, so you can see how we got here from there. These are simple Device data changes, so they will update into an ongoing game with no problems.



I wonder about the idea of changing bomb accuracy. Bombs (other than retarded) are not very affected by winds - unless the altitude of release is very high and crosswinds come into play - but otherwise - bombs are pretty much the same, with the opposite of what seems to be said above - smaller are more easily knocked off course than larger are.

I also think the idea of blast radius has escaped most involved with WITP algorithms: as the size of an HE device (bomb, shell, anything) increases, the effect on a soft target increases - but not in direct proportion. Rather, in propoortion to the square root of the size. [I find pure square root too small - so put a constant in front of it - at the moment the constant is 2 and it is either close or almost big enough]

What I do like about JWE's changes is that he uses the explosive weight vice bomb weight. I think that makes a lot of sense. The reason I do not use it is that we often do not know the the data - total bomb weight is almost universally available - but not the content. Further - once you get into that - one needs to think about WHAT the explosive is? During the war, the Allies in particular changed the explosives used, such that a smaller weight might be associated with a bigger effect - and commonly was. Again, the problem with going that way is you need a lot of data for all nations to be fair. The simple assumption that all bombs are similar (by class anyway) at least has the merit of no great requirement for research time, and being fair in the crude sense.



JWE -> Data Things (4/5/2012 6:58:57 PM)

Hi Deion; and welcome. Btw, are you with the Spanish group or the EU group? Not that it matters, just curious.

You have it right: the headers in the game are just text strings, and have nothing to do with anything. The data fields service several individual and distinct game modules that have very different parameters; but the editor has a text name field, so anything in that field gets so named. It is meaningless.

You need to consult spreadsheet-1 (attached), that痴 where the differences are highlighted. Clearly, I agree the whole stock RoF thing is nonsense. When I did Acc, there was a RoF component involved, but Babes Acc is a function of RoF, sectional density (spreadsheet-2), and those vestigial aim-point devices that aren稚 accounted for in the code (spreadsheet-3). The math is included for each spreadsheet, and each one has the calculations in the Col header.

Appreciate the data from Pavel Dimitrovich. Will fold it in, but you must realize that normalization will damp out his excursions, notwithstanding he was the only one to present things that way. I do agree this is a subjective exercise, but Pavel was just so totally out of nominal, that he gets a dinky multiplier on the source scale. Large scale game, moi droog, dermo sluchiatsia.

Hope the attached spreadsheets make your life more pleasant.

[ed] Very sorry, this was supposed to be a PM. Some people captured it, so may as well keep it on the forum, but the Attachment is gone.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.171875