AA Gun Range

[treespider]

Question regarding Device Type 12 - AA guns in CHS (and presumably also in stock)

A number of these weapons have a load cost of 9999. I assume these are ship mounted weapons. The minimum range of these is 5 and reaching as high as iirc 13. The other devices (presumably land based) have much shorter ranges however they also have higher effect ratings when compared to their ship based brethern...What's the logic?

[el cid again]

I cannot answer for stock - or CHS which used mainly stock values. But being unable to determine values that make sense in terms of IRL values, I devised a comprehensive system for RHS, which is consistent for all devices, land and sea. You will see there are some points the model requires compromises - and you may prefer different choices than I made - so I will outline what those options are specifically.

Code requirements: An AA device is rated in range (in thousands of YARDS) and ceiling (in thousands of FEET), also for anti-armor effect, for anti-soft effect, weight of shell in pounds and load cost. I speculate that the low values for range imply effective range was intended, but ceilings were a mixture of effective, maximum and fictional - perhaps indicating different people use different standards putting in the values? 9999 in load value is code for "immobile" and it has the unfortunate side effect of reporting as 9999 men per weapon in unit screens.

RHS adopted the convention that ranges and ceilings will all be effective. Further that effective range = effective ceiling divided by three (rounded conventionally). That is, 2000 feet, 3000 feet and 4000 feet ALL round to 1000 yards. 5000 feet, 6000 feet and 7000 feet ALL round to 2000 yards, etc. [Note that aircraft were adjusted to what I call "operational ceilings" at the same time this effective ceiling was adopted, so aircraft do not all easily overfly the AAA. This was calibrated at important points: e.g. Japanese bombers flew in about 2000 feet above the 75mm AA at Clark Field, which had a limiting ceiling of 22,000 feet due to fusing. You will find our 75mm guns have a ceiling of 22,000 feet, a range of 7000 yards, and our Japanese bombers can fly in at 24,000 or 25,000 feet - depending on type.] Operational ceiling for aircraft is halfway between service ceiling and optimum operating altitude. This itself is defined by an algorithm because it is easier to figure out than to look up the numbers: conventional piston engines 80% of service ceiling; turbosupercharged piston engines 90% of service ceiling; jet or rocket engines 95% of service ceiling.

For ordinary (that is, long barrolled high velocity) AAA guns, anti-armor value = 1.75 times caliber in mm. This is the maximum penetration of armor at point blank range in WITP theory. Unusual (that is, short barrolled, medium velocity) AAA (e.g. short guns), half this value is used. This may be a departure from stock/CHS theory where anti-armor values were OFTEN = 1.75 times caliber but SOMETIMES very different. I suspect that is just data input by people who did not know this standard ballistic principle (which is correct for mv = 2700 fps or 900 m/s) - but it may be some other definition or data sources were used.

For all AAA guns, anti-soft effect is the square root of 2/3 the weight of the shell. This is a departure from stock/CHS - where anti-soft = weight of shell. It is the same value we use for all AP shells. [For HE we use square root of the weight period - no 2/3 factor] This is based on the principle that explosive effect declines by the inverse square law. It has the effect of eliminating "nuclear bombardments" by bombs or battleship shells. It is probably better modeling - but one need not adopt this standard.

Tests and reviews of RHS AAA have uniformly indicated superior results to other WITP forms and this system has never been modified since introduction about 18 months ago.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Question regarding Device Type 12 - AA guns in CHS (and presumably also in stock)

A number of these weapons have a load cost of 9999. I assume these are ship mounted weapons. The minimum range of these is 5 and reaching as high as iirc 13. The other devices (presumably land based) have much shorter ranges however they also have higher effect ratings when compared to their ship based brethern...What's the logic?

The weapons below 256 are for ships, and I assume that if these have a load cost of 9999 then it doesn't matter. I don't know if they are set that way by convention, or because the game requires it. As for range and effect values, as far as I am aware they are equivalent scales for both land and naval weapons. For actual ratings of individual weapons, you will have to ask the people who did the work on them.

Andrew

[el cid again]

It is clear that ship weapons can be rated less than 9999. Many instances of this exist in stock and CHS - and all instances in RHS. It may be that it affects the costs of a ship - but maybe not??? That is, for a land unit, you pay in ordnance points for the load cost of weapons in a unit. But do you pay for them on a ship? IF you do, then rating the weapons in actual weight (or crew size - an alternative system coexisting in WITP for small systems) may mean that you demand less of the ordnance plants than stock does. In any case, it works not to use 9999 for stock ship weapons. Even battleship guns in RHS have their actual weight, not 9999.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It is clear that ship weapons can be rated less than 9999. Many instances of this exist in stock and CHS - and all instances in RHS. It may be that it affects the costs of a ship - but maybe not??? That is, for a land unit, you pay in ordnance points for the load cost of weapons in a unit. But do you pay for them on a ship? IF you do, then rating the weapons in actual weight (or crew size - an alternative system coexisting in WITP for small systems) may mean that you demand less of the ordnance plants than stock does. In any case, it works not to use 9999 for stock ship weapons. Even battleship guns in RHS have their actual weight, not 9999.

I think this is a case of a solution looking for a problem.

[akdreemer]

US 3" AA Gun balistics

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It is clear that ship weapons can be rated less than 9999. Many instances of this exist in stock and CHS - and all instances in RHS. It may be that it affects the costs of a ship - but maybe not??? That is, for a land unit, you pay in ordnance points for the load cost of weapons in a unit. But do you pay for them on a ship? IF you do, then rating the weapons in actual weight (or crew size - an alternative system coexisting in WITP for small systems) may mean that you demand less of the ordnance plants than stock does. In any case, it works not to use 9999 for stock ship weapons. Even battleship guns in RHS have their actual weight, not 9999.

I think this is a case of a solution looking for a problem.

I think it is a case of no one wanting to look up the proper load values when they didn't need to. Over time, these weapons crept into some non-ship OBs. That at least became a problem. Ultimately, we were forced to duplicate land and naval weapons in different slots to get proper behaviors. But since the data is known, I see no reason not to put the right load values in. We are operating with undocumented code here - and we don't know it isn't used. Nor that it won't be some day. I was told "get the data right and the code will follow if need be."

[Nikademus]

who told you you to get the data right?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It is clear that ship weapons can be rated less than 9999. Many instances of this exist in stock and CHS - and all instances in RHS. It may be that it affects the costs of a ship - but maybe not??? That is, for a land unit, you pay in ordnance points for the load cost of weapons in a unit. But do you pay for them on a ship? IF you do, then rating the weapons in actual weight (or crew size - an alternative system coexisting in WITP for small systems) may mean that you demand less of the ordnance plants than stock does. In any case, it works not to use 9999 for stock ship weapons. Even battleship guns in RHS have their actual weight, not 9999.

I think this is a case of a solution looking for a problem.

I think it is a case of no one wanting to look up the proper load values when they didn't need to. Over time, these weapons crept into some non-ship OBs. That at least became a problem. Ultimately, we were forced to duplicate land and naval weapons in different slots to get proper behaviors. But since the data is known, I see no reason not to put the right load values in. We are operating with undocumented code here - and we don't know it isn't used. Nor that it won't be some day. I was told "get the data right and the code will follow if need be."

In the case of having load values for naval mounted guns you are on the verge of being rediculous. Micromanaging every aspect of this game is not necessary IMHO. But do what ever you think you need to do, and I will continue to do the same. As far as the data and the code will follow, who appointed you the sole proprieter of what this should and should not be?

[m10bob]

Alaskan Warrior sez: "In the case of having load values for naval mounted guns you are on the verge of being rediculous. Micromanaging every aspect of this game is not necessary IMHO. But do what ever you think you need to do, and I will continue to do the same. As far as the data and the code will follow, who appointed you the sole proprieter of what this should and should not be? "


Richard, I for one appreciate the historical contributions you have made to the forum, however this is about the 5th time you have said something like "do whatever you think you need to do"..
O.K. We know you have given other modders (Cid), your "blessing"..
Move on..You have a mod of your own in the offing.
Go at it...
I have personal problems seeing about 4 guys jump on one when they think they are in good company.
That is not good sportsmanship, and has another name in the alleys.
Contribute positively,please, or just allow others to "make their own music".
If we don't like RHS, we don't need to download it..........

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

As far as the data and the code will follow, who appointed you the sole proprieter of what this should and should not be?

No-one.....trust me.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior


I think this is a case of a solution looking for a problem.

I think it is a case of no one wanting to look up the proper load values when they didn't need to. Over time, these weapons crept into some non-ship OBs. That at least became a problem. Ultimately, we were forced to duplicate land and naval weapons in different slots to get proper behaviors. But since the data is known, I see no reason not to put the right load values in. We are operating with undocumented code here - and we don't know it isn't used. Nor that it won't be some day. I was told "get the data right and the code will follow if need be."

In the case of having load values for naval mounted guns you are on the verge of being rediculous. Micromanaging every aspect of this game is not necessary IMHO. But do what ever you think you need to do, and I will continue to do the same. As far as the data and the code will follow, who appointed you the sole proprieter of what this should and should not be?

This is a case of not thinking things through. For example, consider the case of a naval gun used by a coast defense unit. IF the load cost is 9999, the unit is de facto immobile. The unit also reports 9999 men per gun. But many such units are in fact mobile, and they should not have meaningless reports generated with tens of thousands of fictional men. Nor should moving them cost such a gigantic amount of shipping. In RHS I also have a special case where a gigantic naval gun is in a land unit that is not mainly a coast defense gun - the Schneider rail gun in service up in Manchukuo with an independent battery. Again - I see no point in having the rail gun be fixed or inflating the manpower report for the unit. Now because of slot limits, I ultimately moved the slot to a range where there is no production - because there is only one and it cannot be replaced. But it began as a naval gun, and one day it will be again if we get the additional slots.

It is likely there is a production dimension to the load cost. Load cost may be associated with the armaments points required to produce a weapon. It is certainly associated with the cost of moving it. Wether big naval guns can be moved may be debated - I submit they didn't get to Fort Drum or Panama or Tsushima by being built there - but AA guns are beyond argument. That I elected to segregate out all naval and land guns - I had help doing so because it is tedious to inspect every field - was due to messages in utilities - and it may or may not be required. Even in this case, people with editors may add naval guns back in to land units - and if they do there is no particular reason we should structure the data to forbid it - whatever the code limits of the moment may be. The product is evolving - code is getting better - and it will continue to do so for some time. No reason not to get the data right. And those were my marching orders - so I honor them.

As for being "the sole proprieter of what this should and should not be" - I wonder where you will find I have made such a claim? For the most part I write in the context of my understanding of what the system design says (or implies) should or should not be. Occasionally - if I think the system design is more abstract than is required - I will write to what I regard as an alternate standard - and say so. The fact is that I do not claim to be sole proprieter of anything - not even of the RHS mods I manage - which is why you will find in them many things I do not prefer - to such an extent I will not play fully 1/3 of them (except as a tester). [For example, I think the entire idea of passive Soviets is a poor one, and so the two Russian Passive scenarios at every level are not for my use at all - but for those who have different tastes]. There are even things I was not able to "sell" to the Forum which are different in ALL RHS mods than my own preference would have. I claim to be the boss of nothing and no one. I do not understand your injured tone - nor the point of asking such a question? I could, I suppose, begin every sentence with IMHO - but IMHO that is redundant. By definition if I say something it is my opinion. No where do I claim it is Holy Writ.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

As far as the data and the code will follow, who appointed you the sole proprieter of what this should and should not be?

No-one.....trust me.

For the first time, I don't trust you. I am shocked you think I would say something that isn't true. I would not. Waste of time.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


For the first time, I don't trust you. I am shocked you think I would say something that isn't true. I would not. Waste of time.

Frankly, i don't care if you trust me or not Trevethan. Are you are again claiming to be an official part of the development process? You certainly wern't during the time I was a tester and developer and that covers a good space of time. I'll ask you again......who told you to fix the data, the code will follow and when was this?

[DuckofTindalos]

Hey look, he went away rather than answering... What a surprise...

The worst thing is, some newbie might believe he actually has any official clout around these here parts...[8|]

[el cid again]

Or he might notice that ideas I introduce get adopted even when code changes are required. Horrible thing. But even the more dramatic of these (e.g. the addition of the Soviet ships) only is "mine" in the sense I first released them in a mod. It was not actually my idea, and I first did them by request for CHS - which then didn't introduce them right away. As Jim Dunnigan says, "good game designers shamlessly steal each other's ideas." I don't mean to say that ANY idea I implement was originally entirely my own - and except for a couple of radar-technical things - none ever are. I don't need to feed my ego - so the term "ideas I introduce" is not meant to imply "my ideas which I invented and own."

The truth is that I have never claimed any official status as a tester, developer or anything else - so to say I did is itself false. On the other hand to say that I have no connection is equally false. Andrew and I enjoy what might be called a semi-official association. We are given just in time technical support, unsolicited technical tips, and sometimes are asked for other things. We also sometimes are told that this concept might be outdated - and for that might not be worth developing - by some future feature of WITP - so we get to decide if putting time into this or that is worth the effort in an informed context. It is not appropriate to disclose the source or technical details of such communications in great detail - unless the details are part of a general agreement which in due course will become universally known (e.g. the standard stock/CHS/RHS art design concept).

I have too little time to waste - and assume most not griping also have too little time to waste - with "news" that isn't news - so I never would say anything that was not germane and interesting and wholly true. Fact of life, like it or lump it.

I regard this turn of thread as outside the bounds of the board, unethical, deliberatly impolite, and as giving me the moral high ground. All claims I offended anyone were always based on implications of language - and in no case did I ever deliberately try to be hostile in the sense these gentlemen are trying to be negative and hostile here. I fail to see the point of it and won't be further drawn. Since they claim not to believe me (I don't believe them in that - I think they know perfectly well I tell the truth and only pretend not to) they would not believe anything I said anyway. And I note that the question in question has been answered before. They elect to pretend they don't know already who and when.

[Andrew Brown]

I do not like discussions that get personal, but can see that my name is cropping up in this thread. For that reason I will add a couple of comments. It is absolutely not my intention to get involved in any personal discussions, I simply want to clarify a couple of things:

I do receive occasional private contact from El Cid via email, as I do from a number of other forum members, and exchange the occaional message, again as I do with other modders and forum members. And as with the others, the messages are about things to do with scenario mods or map mods. It should be no surprise that people who are interested in modding WitP are in occasional contact with each other in this way. I do not see anything special in this.

Regarding the Soviet navy - While I was aware that there was interest in adding Soviet ships to RHS, I based the Soviet naval additions to CHS entirely on data posted to this forum by "Subchaser" back in 2004/2005 (can't remember when exactly).

That is all.

Andrew

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
The truth is that I have never claimed any official status as a tester, developer or anything else - so to say I did is itself false. On the other hand to say that I have no connection is equally false. Andrew and I enjoy what might be called a semi-official association. We are given just in time technical support, unsolicited technical tips, and sometimes are asked for other things. We also sometimes are told that this concept might be outdated - and for that might not be worth developing - by some future feature of WITP - so we get to decide if putting time into this or that is worth the effort in an informed context. It is not appropriate to disclose the source or technical details of such communications in great detail - unless the details are part of a general agreement which in due course will become universally known (e.g. the standard stock/CHS/RHS art design concept).

So in regards to the latest rendition of "get the data right and the code will follow if need be"..... your basically full of crap.

I regard this turn of thread as outside the bounds of the board, unethical, deliberatly impolite, and as giving me the moral high ground. All claims I offended anyone were always based on implications of language

Noone claimed you offended anyone. This is another one of your fabrications. Seems you couldnt accept the opinions of those who felt your latest crusade wasn't a matter of great importance so once again you, and you alone, dropped another hint of semi-official connection with your "Get the data right, the code will follow if need be" in order to further justify your cause. All I simply asked was "Who told you that and when?" Once again you have evaded the answer because noone developing WitP on the Matrix team told you this. Mod your Mod the way you want....but spare us the pretentions.

[DuckofTindalos]

And spare us your fabrications...

[treespider]

So the short answer to the original post was...
 
I imagine land based AAA has shorter ranges to account for the range used in land combat...and Naval based AAA has ranges based on ranges used in naval combat.