Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas

quote:

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

Right, you have the opposite to what DBB has. In your mod a Battle has a higher durability than a Fletcher. In DBB, which uses standard displacement, the Fletcher a higher durability despite both Battle and Fletcher having the exact same standard displacement. This is inherited from the stock database.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas
.....{snip} This is an issue of consistency within the DBB database, not a suggestion on how to arrive at the durability value to begin with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Reputation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Ok, here's the deal..

There is NO such thing really as Standard Displacement....

quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas

Right you are. As I've said before I fully understand that there is stuff that slips past the cracks with such a bit database. I'm just pointing out stuff that seems odd or inconsistent and I'll deal with it as you want.


Now that I've looked closer at it there's actually quite a combat ship classes that are +- 1 in durability compared to what you'd expect if you use standard displacement/250. I'm not sure it's worth mentioning them all.

Take two US cruisers as an example.
Helena - tonnage: 10000, durability: 40
Cleveland - tonnage: 10000, durability: 41

Some of these were probably intentional in stock. I could make a list of them but I'm not sure it's worth your time. It's easy enough to just use an exported .csv version of the class definitions and use Excel or whatever to find them. Still, if you want I could list them.

There's is at least one durability area where there's a big difference however. It's something I've noticed before but forgotten about since. The US Yorktown, Wasp and Essex class all calculate their durability using standard displacement/250. All other fleet carriers (UK, Japanese and the US Midway and Lexington) use standard displacement/285. This is inherited from stock and I have to imagine that it's intentional. I'm not too fond of giving the US carriers special treatment myself even though I can somewhat understand the rationale. The improved damage control the Allies gets should be enough of an advantage. I can imagine Allied players screaming bloody murder if their durability would be reduced though :p

quote:


Gemilitariseerde schepen van de Gouvernements Marine

Opnemingsvaartuigen
Hydrographic survey vessels Tydeman and Willebrord Snellius. Not very useful militarily. Used as receiving ships. They were temporary flying boat motherships but had neither petrol storage tanks nor a machine shop, just receiving ship type mess and berthing facilities.

Schepen van de Dienst der Bebakening en Kustverlichting: Werk- en bevoorradingsschepen
WW1 vintage buoy and light tenders, salvage and harbor/lighthouse construction vessels. Workboat-type hull form and framing. These had enough hold capacity, deck space, and hoist/crane capability to work as net and naval auxiliary tenders. H. Zeeman, Castor, Pollux, Orion, Poolster, and Zuiderkruis. All pretty much one-off looking. Technically each in a class by itself, but Zeeman, Castor and Pollux are similar enough to be grouped together as a class. Armaments detailed for each individual ship.

Gouvernementsschepen van het type Aldebaran
Station security (Bewakingdienst) and general purpose ships , characterized by being the first constructed in the DEI. Packet-type hull form and framing. There were 5 at 53.4 meters, Aldebaran, Bellatrix, Canopus, Deneb, and Gemma, displacing between 820-892 metric tons (Design Summer Light Water Mark). There were 2 at 56.5 meters, Eridanus and Formalhaut, displacing 996 and 1001 metric tons (SLWM), respectively. They had more accommodation space than deck space, so were used more as transports than whatever they were officially commissioned as. Armaments are given for each individual ship. The GM lumped them together, but really two separate classes, Aldebaran and Formalhaut.

Gouvernementsschepen van het type Sirius
Station security (Bewakingdienst) and general purpose ships built for the GM by Ijselwerf in the Netherlands. An improved Aldebaran type equipped with a radio communication station, stores refrigeration and modern electrical systems. Packet-type hull form and framing. There were 2, Sirius and Wega, at 55.64 meters and displacing 1018 metric tons (SLWM). Specifications and appearance are similar to both Formalhaut and Aldebaran types. Can be added to either class but visually a better fit with Aldebaran class.

Gouvernementsschepen van het type Merel
Next generation (diesel) station security and general purpose ships, also constructed in the DEI. Packet-type hull form and framing. There were 3 of these at 47.78 meters and displacing 600 metric tons (SLWM), Merel, Reiger, and Fazant. All had petrol storage tanks installed and were fitted with a machine shop to function as a flying boat tender (vliegbootmoederschip) for the MLD. Armaments are given for each individual ship. Separate Merel class.

Opiumjagers
Fast patrol ships built in Rotterdam, to warship hull form and framing standards, to fight the opium trade in the DEI. There were 2, Arend and Valk, at 70.1 meters, displacing 1011 long tons (‘Washington Standard’), 2 x triple expansion engines, oil fired, 3350 pk, 2x 7.5cm kannonen, 1x 7.7mm mitrailleur. Separate Arend class.

Overige schepen van de Gemilitariseerde Gouvernements Marine
Other one-off station ships, like Albatros and Rigel. Best just abstracted into the Aldebaran or Formalhaut class.

Tydeman, Albatros, Canopus, Deneb, Eridanus, and Formalhaut are said as having 1 or 2 3.7cm kannonen. A photograph of this weapon on Canopus shows it to be a Gericke.

Arend and Valk had a space to store a small seaplane on the aft deck. It was for searching out pirates, gun runners and opium fleets. The ship had to be calmly anchored and the plane lifted off and on the deck by a crane and winches. The planes were hardly ever used. There is no mention in reports and no photos ever show a plane on board.

quote:


Ok, made 160 Arend look better, 161 Aldebaran replaces 161 Sm PC, 162 Formalhaut replaces 162 Med PC, 509 Merel replaces 509 Rigel, 517 Pollux replaces 517 Castor. Save the old ones somewhere cause ya never know. Lemme know if ya need more. Ciao.

quote:

A Bofors 12cm/L50 Model 1924 became a Ducth 12cm/50 W-F No.6 or a 12cm/50 No.4 if it was early from Sweden and like that.

quote:

ORIGINAL:
7,5cm guns:

7,5cm L40 No 1 (Krupp): KL Coastal
7,5cm L40 No 2 (Krupp): ex- Noord-Brabant, KNIL coastal, Gouvernementsmarine vessels
7,5cm L40 No 3 (Krupp): KL Coastal, KNIL coastal, Gouvernementsmarine vessels
7,5cm L30 No 4 (Skoda): (ex) Z-class torpedoboats (2 each)
7,5cm L13 No 5 (Krupp): 1 on KVII, KL coastal

7,5 cm L?? s.auto No 1-3: ?
7,5 cm L55 s.auto No 4: 4 each on Java, Sumatra, 3 each on van Meerlant, Douwe Aukes, 4 on Pelikaan
7,5 cm L55 s.auto No 5: 1 on Pro Patria, 2 on Krakatau (replaced 1929 by s.auto No 4 (from Java and Sumatra?))

7,5cm L55 No 6 (Bofors-Krupp): 2 each on Van Ghent and Evertsen, 1 each on Flores, Soemba, total: 6
7,5cm L55 No 7 (Bofors-Krupp): 2 each on P Hein, Kortenaer, 1 each on V Galen, W de With, total: 6
7,5cm L55 No 8 (HIH Siderius): 1 each on Banckert and Van Nes, total: 2
7,5cm L55 No 9 (HIH Siderius): 2 each on Gouden Leeuw, Prins van Oranje, total: 4

Note-1, at least 17 pieces Krupp 7,5 cm L40 "No 2 and 3" were used on Gouvernementsmarine vessels in the East Indies. Or s. aut No 2 and 3?
Note-2, total number of Bofors-Krupp 7,5cm L55 guns delivered was 35 (Fransson). Some guns may have been used to replace older 7,5cm guns, like the Skodas. Also KNIL by 1940 possessed 25 7,5cm L55 guns, mostly Bofors (the IJA in 1942 captured 14 Bofors 7,5cms on Java alone).
Note-3, No 5 was a very short submarine gun model.

12cm guns:

12cm L40 No 2 (Krupp): 1 on Braga,
12cm L40 No 3 (Krupp): 1 on Freijr, Hefring,
12cm L50 No 4 (Bofors-Krupp = Bofors M1924): 4 each on V Ghent, Evertsen, P Hein, Kortenaer, V Galen, W de With, total: 24
12cm L50 No 5 (HIH Siderius): 4 each on Banckert, Van Nes, total: 8
12cm L50 No 6 (Wilton-Fijenoord): 4 on van Kinsbergen
12cm L50 No 7 (Wilton-Fijenoord): 2 on van der Zaan
12cm L45 No 8 (Wilton-Fijenoord): 2x2 each for Callenburgh, Tj Hiddes, Is Sweers, v Almonde, 2x2 for K1-K7, 10x2 for auxiliary cruisers, total: 32
12cm L45 No 8 (Wilton-Fijenoord): 1 each for 4 Callenburgh destroyers, total 4

Note-1, Fransson says Bofors delivered 57 12cm pieces of which 23 twin mounts, while I reach 32 twins and 34 singles.
Note-2, 8 12cm Krupp No2 modernized by Wilton-Fijenoord.
Note-3, KNIL purchased 12cm L40 coastal guns from Bofors in the 1930s.
Note-4, Krupp 12cm No 1 (L40) serving as coastal with KL.
Note-5, 12cm No 8 was known with W-F as L46.
Note-6, all W-F 12cm had Bofors barrels.

15cm guns:

15cm L50 No 6 (Krupp): 8 on Java (built for Koblenz fortress)
15cm L50 No 6 (Bofors-Krupp = Bofors M1924): 2 on Java, 10 on Sumatra
15cm L50 No 7 (Bofors-Krupp = Bofors M1925): 3 on FLores, Soemba
15cm L50 No 8 (HIH Siderius), 3 on JM van Nassau
15cm L50 No 9 (Wilton-Fijenoord): 3x2 on De Ruyter
15cm L50 No 10 (Wilton-Fijenoord): 1 on De Ruyter
15cm L50 No 11 (Wilton-Fijenoord): 3x2 on Tromp, 3x2 built for Van Heemskerk
15cm L53 No 12 (Wilton-Fijenoord): 10 each for Zeven Provincien and Eendracht (2 triple, two twins each).

Note-1, actual bore of 15cms was 14,91cm.
Note-2, Bofors delivered 35 15cm guns of which nine twin mountings (Fransson).
Note-3, KNIL also acquired 15cm guns from Bofors directly.
Note-4, actual calibre of No6 was 53.
Note-5, earlier Krupp 15cm models were No 1 (L35), Nos 2,3,4 and 5 (L40), all serving as coastal with KL or KNIL.
Note-6, all W-F 15cm had Bofors barrels.
Note-7, Werkspoor was involved with triple turret construction of 15cm No12.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas
This should be the Swedish M/24 as found on Ehrensköld on top, the Dutch No. 5 (I think) from Banckert/Van Nes below and finally the Swedish M/24C (shield excluded) as on Visby. Obviously not in 1:1 scale.

Now those images aren't really detailed enough to say for sure, but assuming they are somewhat accurate it doesn't really look like the Dutch gun is the same as the Swedish ones. The breech as an example is somewhat different. A lot of sources also puts the Swedish guns as being L/45 or L/44 with only some claiming it's a L/50. The Dutch guns on the other hand are always put down as L/50 guns. The muzzle velocity for the Swedish guns (from the official ammo registry) also gives credence for them being less than L/50; 22,5 kg common at 775 m/s or 21 kg HE at 800 m/s. That would be a very low muzzle velocity if they were actually L/50 guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

Question in another thread that sparked thoughts on describing the concepts behind JWE’s data models for AE Babes. A new thread seems a good place.

quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Nonetheless, AE seems to be fairly good at ultimate outcomes. This is good for modders since values can be tweaked quite a bit to conform with preferences.

quote:

Question in another thread that sparked thoughts on describing the concepts behind JWE’s data models for AE Babes. A new thread seems a good place. quote:ORIGINAL: cardas Building upon your answer I still find it a bit odd that the 37 mm M3 has a higher anti-soft value than a 81 mm mortar (16 vs. 13). As an armchair general I'd value the mortar higher in an anti-soft role. On the other hand the mortars do get to bombard while the 37 mm can't do the same, so they aren't directly comparable. I don't know how to value the bombardment possibility vs. the higher anti-soft stat. The difference is due to the 81mm mortar being an indirect fire weapon, while the 37mm is a direct fire weapon. Also, the 37mm is effective up to 200m, while the 81mm cannot engage till the target is (well) beyond 200m. Arty IF weapon stats need to account for things like HE filler brisance, HE %, casing steel, area of effect, AoE shape, variations with shell size, as well as standard fire accuracy and CEP. The DF calculations are based on weapon ‘effectivity’ studies by the GRU, Army MSA, CPLA, in the Korean War time frame. Notably these include the vast majority of US/Japanese WW2 infantry weapons. The paradigms for IF and DF are different as are the corresponding game calculation algorithms, so all the curves needed to be tilted, or flattened, to both fit together at the transition points and to fit within the numerical constraints of what the code is doing, without undue model discontinuities. It is a manifestation of the old question; what’s better, a hand grenade at 100 feet or a shotgun at 10 feet? Probably it’s fair to reduce the 37mm to 15 and raise the 81mm to 14 (the AE code wants integers, grrrr). The biggest problem with AE weapon values is that they are relative numbers calculated on the basis of the individual weapon system. The game code lumps everything together. There might be 30 odd 37mm in a unit. The game code will shoot them all (abstraction), whereas there might be only 2, 3, or 4 at the actual point of contact (reality). The same is true for every other weapon, vehicle, squad, what-have-you. There is a sort of conceptual disconnect between having data for individual weapons and the 45 mile per hex game scale that compels stack-vs-stack combat resolution. This is why we really like having the Army TEM3 as the battlespace simulator. It functions on an individual platform level so having accurate relative weapon stats is not just nice, but necessary. Nonetheless, AE seems to be fairly good at ultimate outcomes. This is good for modders since values can be tweaked quite a bit to conform with preferences.