RE: Naval Gun Penetration

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Naval Gun Penetration

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/19/2009 2:53:22 AM

mariandavid

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline

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.

Apologies - I incorrectly believed that you were dealing with both! In any case deserves its own files!

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 31

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/19/2009 3:48:53 AM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
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.

They have a great deal of value, Buck. The tweaks just have to stay within the general boundaries of the paradigm. Just about everything we've done to date has been well worth doing. The caution is against being arbitrary and just picking a number. The number might be historically precise, but may not "fit" within the playing field.

For example, we spent a lot of time with the tonnage model, and making the values work within the code. If someone were to come along and say "I think it's better to have it in gross tons"; well, it's a legitimate value in some cases, and it would be "pretty", and match what the internet says, and make some people more comfortable, but it would break the paradigm, and cause all sorts of problems. It wouldn't "fit".

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 32

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/19/2009 2:30:57 PM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

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.

No he is not the algorithm is fixed i believe from early WITP days , play test in the development would have shown certain values too high or low so the values were probably adjusted.

eg the penetration model may have worked well for ships up to cruiser size but BBs were not penetrating at ranges where they should and hence BBs would have had their pen values increased . This is a lot easier than retuning a number of complex formulas.

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 33

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/19/2009 2:57:51 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Ok, think we found a good way to find a workable penetration number. These fit best into the game�s calculations and give the closest approximation to actual penetration over the widest set of ranges. Fits well into Juan�s 5k to 15k.

It�s not exactly penetration at the same specific range, rather it�s actually the penetration at a given % of max range for each gun: about 16-17-18-19% of max effective range, 16 for small shells/small guns, 19 for big shells/big guns.

If ya don�t want to work that hard, a simplified model is to use pen at 6500 yds for BBs, 5500 yds for CAs, 4500 yds for CLs, and 3500 yds for DDs (or 6000, 5000, 4000, 3000, to make life even simpler). Those 500 yds don�t make very much difference, but I wouldn�t move too far outside that spread.

Individual gun/pen stats all ought to come from the same place so that the all the data is internally self consistent � Nathan�s prog is very good for this. Not surprisingly, the calculated values are in the same ballpark of those Gary Grigsby devised back 8 or so years ago (GG seemed to know which end of the gun the bullet came out of). Some go up or down about 5-10% or so. There�s a few errors that need fixing, but not that many.

Basically this will put all the little ducks in a nice row, rationally related to one another, and internally self consistent. It will make things a lot easier to mod because the basis is known and determinable, and is the same for everything. Change is a simple matter of applying a % offset (up or down).

Did this for maybe 125 different guns so far (worked every time). Will stick it into Da Babes. If we�re lucky, it might get included into the main scenarios in patch-2.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 34

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/19/2009 3:07:44 PM

JuanG

Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

Sounds like a good approach. I used elevation myself, by percentage of range sounds like a better idea to be honest. Just requires a little more work to get the numbers out...

Look forward to seeing them in your scenario - any chance you could post them in a spreadsheet or something on here? Just curious how theyre affecting certain key weapons.

Regarding your replies to my earlier points, I have to admit it sounds like I've underestimated the ballistics model from what you say - its a shame we cant get a look under the hood, but I can understand why. I'll just have to settle for being both jealous and thankful at once!

Thanks for the effort,
Juan

_____________________________

Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 35

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/19/2009 3:45:13 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Sounds like a good approach. I used elevation myself, by percentage of range sounds like a better idea to be honest. Just requires a little more work to get the numbers out...

Look forward to seeing them in your scenario - any chance you could post them in a spreadsheet or something on here? Just curious how theyre affecting certain key weapons.

Regarding your replies to my earlier points, I have to admit it sounds like I've underestimated the ballistics model from what you say - its a shame we cant get a look under the hood, but I can understand why. I'll just have to settle for being both jealous and thankful at once!

Thanks for the effort,
Juan

Yeah, we did it that way because the game first calculates pen as a function of a range fraction. So we plotted the game curve against actual penetration curves, shifted the game curve up or down to get the best line fit, and selected pen at the first crossover. After normalization, we noticed that the selected pen values were all within a tidy little group of range fractions. It just happened to work out that way, and I was quite surprised and pleased at the result. Made life easier.

Sure thing, can do a spreadsheet and send it up. It will have gun ID, shell wt, range, and pen values.

btw, if you want to keep it really, really simple, and only do a simple batch file for running Nathan's prog, it is probably ok to run everything at 5k yds. BBs will be maybe 10% more powerful, DDs will be maybe 15% less powerful, CAs and CLs probably won't change more than a couple %, either way.

[edit] reminds me, spreadsheet will have 4 pen columns (at least for Allied guns): pen at 5k yds (uniform) against Japanese VH, pen at 5k yds (uniform) against std Class-A, pen at % range against Japanese VH, and pen at % range against std Class-A. This should give a very nice range of options.

Ciao.

< Message edited by JWE -- 10/19/2009 4:07:51 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 36

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/19/2009 9:43:11 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Ok, here's a taste; the Brits. There's some values in blue. They are interpolations. God only knows why the original OOB folks made so many 4in/45s and 4in/40s. Got some good numbers for the nominal tubes, but as to the rest, I'm thinkin who cares what went on in 1924. Once the war got going, Uk built what it could, and your ships shot what they got. Lot easier to reline a tube than retool a factory, so the numbers in blue are right out of my butt, but I would be really pleased if somebody could provide specific and directed data for these little pukes.

Didn't do anything below 4in. It's a who cares, so far as the game is concerned. Ya'll really, really don't need to know (or care) about 3in penetration, I'll see what I can do. Anyhow, that's about it. Brits are maybe 25% of the magilla, others being run as we speak, but Brits are what most people are whining about, so thought I'd post them first.

It's an xls file inside a zip.

Ciao.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JWE -- 10/19/2009 9:46:01 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 37

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/20/2009 2:32:17 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Ya'll really, really don't need to know (or care) about 3in penetration,

That's what I keep telling my girlfriend. ;)

in all seriousness, you guys are awesome. I hope your changes can make patch 2

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 38

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/20/2009 7:22:56 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Ok, well .. here�s the second pass, with UK and US data. Same deal, an xls file inside a zip.

Found some interesting stuff on the US BB shells. Seems they weren�t quite the hot pazotties that everyone thinks (even the new ones). They were quite reasonable, but only that.

BuOrd knew of this and had a fun project going on with respect to body steels that resulted in a major increase in hardness and therefore penetration. Found some acceptance trails minutes and build specs which indicate the earliest these guys would be available (in limited quantities) was 10/44 and most likely 2/45. These were the hot pazootie shells.

Game OOB doesn�t capture this, so I have 2 lines for each BB gun; one with the nominal shell, one with the hi-Brinnel shell (indicated as 10/44). Notably, the nominal shells don�t suck, but they sure aren�t the cat�s meow.

Working on figuring out how to do a data upgrade within the editor, without specifying a different gun in the ship/class files. Getting fancy, I know, but as soon as I figure it out (or find it can�t be done that way), I�ll be sure and post.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 39

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/21/2009 6:06:57 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

And here�s one with the Japanese on page 3. Boy, the DDs were a stone witch. Whoda thunk they didn�t have AP (or SAP or even CPBC), but just HE with an instantaneous nose-fuse, and show fairly uniform 35-40 pen from 0 to .765 * max range. Woof!!

Can�t do that because the game curve doesn�t work that way, so had to actually find a pen value. Groin!! Anyway, it�s pretty close to actuals at nominal engagement ranges; higher at shorter ranges, lower at longer ranges, but functional. The short model 12cm and 20cm guns are even worse. Gonna have to think long and hard for those.

We have obliquity and striking angle curves up the wazoo, so with a bit of extrapolation, think we can come up with very acceptable results for the small �popguns�. Only thing we are missing is good data on body weight. Relative % of body wt v shell wt is all over the map, so can�t just shine it. We may have to, but if anybody can provide precise data, that would be preferable.

For the Dutch and French, there weren�t too many native factories making replacements after 1940, so I�m using their gun parameters but assuming that shells were manufactured to Brit standards (steels, core, charge, etc.).

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 40

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/21/2009 6:59:34 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

Japanese Specifications

See Report 0-19.

< Message edited by treespider -- 10/21/2009 7:00:52 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 41

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/21/2009 7:38:34 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Good stuff, Spidey, thank you. Can maybe yank and crank and find some body weights for some shells off that data. Will probably have to use shell weight and extrapolate for most, but can do some from your data and use those as a basis. Geez, don't ya just hate fiziks.

Really like the "short" 8" data. Gun parameters don't quite work within the game curves, but I'll do some serious regression based on that data and see what happens. Always appreciate your thoughtful and relevant input. Good stuff, Spidey, and thank you again.

Ciao. J

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 42

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/23/2009 2:29:55 AM

Big B

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

Hmmm, long thread.

John, isn't that what I started you guys on months ago?

As some of you may have guessed - I don't post anymore.

B

PS... I would say don't 'GIVE' anyone anything - stay with the numbers come hfLL or high water ....

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 43

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 10/23/2009 8:11:00 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Hmmm, long thread.

oh, yeah.

quote:

John, isn't that what I started you guys on months ago?

Not really. Something different. Looks at relative relationships and nominal effectivity. Using Nathan's algorithm to establish uniformity and consistency.

quote:

As some of you may have guessed - I don't post anymore.

Me neither, really. Hard to find a thread that's not juvenile. I kinda like it here.

quote:

PS... I would say don't 'GIVE' anyone anything - stay with the numbers come hfLL or high water ....

I don't 'GIVE' anything. I crank math, and it is as it is. May tweak some stuff to make it play within the game parameters, but won't give gratuitous gifts.

Ciao. John

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 44

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 11/4/2009 8:17:59 PM

akdreemer

Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline

what minimum range are you using for the game value in computing penetration?

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 45

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 11/5/2009 6:18:22 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Japanese Specifications
See Report 0-19.

Good news Spidey, we actually got it finished in time. Woo - hoo!!
We did a major push on pen, acc adjustment on the magilla; a few range and eff things, too, where things were out of whack. I think we got lucky and these will be in patch-2. Jap stuff helped. Thanks.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 46

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 11/6/2009 3:08:58 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

Is this going to have any effect on the ranges the ships appear to want to fight?

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 47

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 11/9/2009 7:31:31 AM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
Hmmm, long thread.

oh, yeah.

quote:

John, isn't that what I started you guys on months ago?

Not really. Something different. Looks at relative relationships and nominal effectivity. Using Nathan's algorithm to establish uniformity and consistency.

quote:

As some of you may have guessed - I don't post anymore.

Me neither, really. Hard to find a thread that's not juvenile. I kinda like it here.

quote:

PS... I would say don't 'GIVE' anyone anything - stay with the numbers come hfLL or high water ....

I don't 'GIVE' anything. I crank math, and it is as it is. May tweak some stuff to make it play within the game parameters, but won't give gratuitous gifts.

Ciao. John

Damnation, I just caught up with this thread. Good thing I am a math goob , i could actually follow what was being said, at least to some extent

I am sorry that Big B , and maybe JWE, do not post as often in the general threads. More knowledgeable players posting in the forums would be nice.

But I would also prefer you guys continue to work on the game itself I guess

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 48

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 11/29/2009 1:53:05 PM

hueglin

Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline

In terms of the surface combat model being a little"fuzzy", didn't Tankerace tweak the code for War Plan Orange? Has anyone on the AE team looked at using the WPO code changes he made, in order to make a more realistic model?

(in reply to stuman)

Post #: 49

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 12/5/2009 12:20:52 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Editor numbers are fun, but those are the ones everybody "demands" must be acording to their version historical. ...
Need to know how the code works in order to efficiently "prettify" the field values.

quote:

Precisely. I don't care what actual numbers are input, want to see the results work out. The model is what it is. As been mentioned in these boards many times, Gary puts a lot of randomness into his alogrithms for (what I beleive are) very good reasons: people seem to think that the bigger/better always wins out. Reality is far from that. Bigger/better adjusts the odds slightly in your favor. All the other myriad variables are still bigger (morale, surprise, luck, ...)

Great info in this thread. Thanks for sharing it. Helps a ton.

Does the air to air penetration model work in a similar fashion, or is it entirely different?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 50

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 12/5/2009 7:38:31 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Does the air to air penetration model work in a similar fashion, or is it entirely different?

Don't know. Air model belonged to Elf, michaelm, and timtom. On a scale of 1 to 10, if my efforts on the Nav side could reach 6 or 7, their efforts on the Air side would reach 30 or more. Likely doesn't work in a similar fashion, but since it's irrelevant to Nav imperitives, it's ... irrelevant.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 51

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 12/6/2009 5:41:24 PM

Central Blue

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

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.

If you are making changes to entry dates, fleet assignments, wrong guns, or wrong facings, then no problem -- I would hope.

I think he is talking specifically about what might be called naval gun fan boys. Or the folks who get upset if the squad numbers for a regiment don't match historical numbers. I know I asked about the latter one, and got a very nice reply from JWE.

Consider the thread as a free education in how to mod the gunnery numbers in the editor, so that they play well with the code. I have no interest in taking that on in this massive game. Given what I read in this forum. I think the modding is in more capable hands than mine. But the process is instructive for modding other games as well. I already have the navweapons site bookmarked, and I will add the panzerwar site as well.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 52

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 12/6/2009 7:10:59 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Thanks very much Central Blue.

And in keeping with the title of this sub-thread, I'm doing my best to show how and why things can be (or have been) modded so that they play well with code. It's much like the # of squads thing. For a US company, 9 squads of 13 is pretty much equivalent to 10 squads of 12. Similarly, a Japanese company could have 4 squads of 13, or 3 squads of 17. This assumes, of course, that firepower is also proportionately allocated. They are all equivalent, and all perfectly historical, so which do you choose?

Ah! .. that's where the game algorithm comes into play. When you populate the squads out into regiments and divisions, they become the basis for AV. In one "historical" view, you could have a Japanese regiment of 144 squads bearing down on a precisely equivalent Marine regiment of 81 squads. Bad juju. So run equivalency up and down, and you get the equally "historical" view of 108 Japanese squads bearing down on a precisely equivalent Marine regiment of 90 squads. Much better. It's going to be the relative firepower of the respective units that determines whether or not contact is made. Japs have more AV, US has more firepower. Woof, ain't that just as it was?

So there's 2 corners to the paradigm. But there's more. For each and every additional squad, gun, tank, tankete, whatever, you need another Support squad, which impacts troop count, load/unload, atoll population, you name it.

Realize I have been a bit short and sharp with the "My 'historical' OOB says 9" people, but things really have to be put in perspective.

Same thing applies to the ship weapons. We are trying our best to square the circle on those.

All I can do is define data in a smooth and uniform (and hopefully realistic) manner, so that code changes can be done to a stable and determinable baseline.

(in reply to Central Blue)

Post #: 53

RE: Naval Gun Penetration - 12/6/2009 9:24:13 PM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Thanks very much Central Blue.

And in keeping with the title of this sub-thread, I'm doing my best to show how and why things can be (or have been) modded so that they play well with code. It's much like the # of squads thing. For a US company, 9 squads of 13 is pretty much equivalent to 10 squads of 12. Similarly, a Japanese company could have 4 squads of 13, or 3 squads of 17. This assumes, of course, that firepower is also proportionately allocated. They are all equivalent, and all perfectly historical, so which do you choose?

Ah! .. that's where the game algorithm comes into play. When you populate the squads out into regiments and divisions, they become the basis for AV. In one "historical" view, you could have a Japanese regiment of 144 squads bearing down on a precisely equivalent Marine regiment of 81 squads. Bad juju. So run equivalency up and down, and you get the equally "historical" view of 108 Japanese squads bearing down on a precisely equivalent Marine regiment of 90 squads. Much better. It's going to be the relative firepower of the respective units that determines whether or not contact is made. Japs have more AV, US has more firepower. Woof, ain't that just as it was?

So there's 2 corners to the paradigm. But there's more. For each and every additional squad, gun, tank, tankete, whatever, you need another Support squad, which impacts troop count, load/unload, atoll population, you name it.

Realize I have been a bit short and sharp with the "My 'historical' OOB says 9" people, but things really have to be put in perspective.

Same thing applies to the ship weapons. We are trying our best to square the circle on those.

All I can do is define data in a smooth and uniform (and hopefully realistic) manner, so that code changes can be done to a stable and determinable baseline.

JWE and Central Blue, I have neither the background nor the mental capacity to analize the subject discussion (and I might say the interest) and so as not to clutter this thread with off topic issues I will move my concerns to a separate thread

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 54

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]