Enhanced DV Artillery OOB Issues

[vahauser]

And here is the Encyclopedia data for the on-board Canadian Enhanced DVRN 4.5" gun:

(Note that the Enhanced DVRN Encyclopedia is calling the GUN a "howitzer"):

[Alby]

here is what is in the OOB edcitor
I dont know if those game screens display the max "game range" or what, but this is what it is set for.

[vahauser]

Alby,
 
What use is the Encyclopedia if the numbers given in it are incorrect? Where does the Encyclopedia get its data to display the numbers it displays?
 
I'm not blaming anybody here since it is now very clear that the current artillery mess is the result of years of accumulated crap.  Certainly you and FlashFyre cannot be held accountable for all the mess the artillery is in.  Is it possible to make the Encyclopedia give reliable numbers?

[Alby]

I simply Dont know how the game takes the info and then places it to those screens...
[&:]

[vahauser]

Alby,
 
Having an unreliable and untrustworthy Encyclopedia that we cannot believe is very troubling.  How can this be fixed? 

[vahauser]

Alby,
 
Does anybody on this forum or at the Depot have the skill to make the Encyclopedia give accurate and believeable information?

[FlashfyreSP]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Alby,

Does anybody on this forum or at the Depot have the skill to make the Encyclopedia give accurate and believeable information?

To do so would require knowledge of how the Encyclopaedia system in the game works, and short of one of the actual programmers, I doubt if anyone else has that knowledge.

And the reason the GUN is called a Howitzer is because that's the Unit Class Name, and it's the ONLY Class available for non-ATGs/non-AAGs.[;)]

[KG Erwin]

Guys, the encyclopedia numbers are abstracted numbers, NOT absolute numbers. These are meant for intrepretation by the game code. Mike Wood made this plainly apparent to a few of us some time ago. This point must be understood, particularly by you, vahauser.

To Repeat: The game code does NOT deal in absolute translations of real-life stats. They are accurate, BUT but the code abstracts the actual numbers. In other words, SPWaW's stats have their own language.

Given this, it's no wonder that everything got skewed. Until recently, no one asked and Mike didn't volunteer the details of how this game actually works.

Alby and Flashfyre and myself by contact were basically given the a few of the keys to the kingdom, but NOT all of them. We got lucky when Mike decided to offer his own patches. Mike gave us enough just to get on the right track.

I found out that basically everything I believed about the game mechanics was wrong -- NONE of the previous OOB teams really had any clue, and that's the truth of the matter.

The official Matrix OOB updates were based on nothing more than historically-based but game-code deficient guesswork --- there's really no one to blame, but it did create a hell of a mess. I got caught in the middle of it as a volunteer, but my involvement in the later developments is a separate story. A bit of serendipity occurred, and it's been great for everyone concerned.

Now, there is STILL some mystery, but we're closer now to how the game was meant to play than at any previous time, so we should all be grateful.

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin


Alby and Flashfyre and myself by contact were basically given the a few of the keys to the kingdom, but NOT all of them. We got lucky when Mike decided to offer his own patches. Mike gave us enough just to get on the right track.

Don't forget Mr Goblin was there too.
[:)]

[vahauser]

So basically the only numbers we as players can trust are the numbers in the OOB Editor, right?
 
But if one OOB (for instance, the Canadian) has different numbers for the same weapon than another OOB (for instance, the British), which numbers do we believe?

[Kevin E. Duguay]

Editor! Please read Mr. Erwins post again.[;)]

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

But if one OOB (for instance, the Canadian) has different numbers for the same weapon than another OOB (for instance, the British), which numbers do we believe?

Hoepfully you wont find any differences, thats what we spent 2 yeaRS ON trying to eliminate..
[X(]

[FlashfyreSP]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

So basically the only numbers we as players can trust are the numbers in the OOB Editor, right?

But if one OOB (for instance, the Canadian) has different numbers for the same weapon than another OOB (for instance, the British), which numbers do we believe?

To the first question, basically, yes. The OOB data are the most trustworthy, especially with regards to Range. Most of the other items in the Encyclopaedia screen match up to the OOB data.
Before I attempt to answer the second question, let me give some info on the OOB data:

There are 2 types of data values that the OOB uses: factual (real-life) data and fabricated data. Factual data may be used either literally (e.g. armour values) or it may be modified by the use of a game-code formula (e.g. Max Range). Fabricated data are values wholly made-up by the programming team to emulate some effect, like the HE Kill numbers, which have no basis in reality, but are required for the game to actually function.

So, to answer your question, Vahauser, if there are different stats for the same weapon/unit in two different OOBs, the correct one depends on whether the data in question is factual or fabricated. If factual, the it can be checked against sources; if it's fabricated, then it's a toss-up, as either could be the correct number.

Some examples of factual data fields for weapons in the OOBs:
1. Max Range
2. AP Penetration
3. HEAT Penetration
4. Max APCR

Fabricated weapon data fields:
1. HE Kill
2. Accuracy
3. Warhead
4. HE Penetration
5. Weapon Size

Some examples of factual data fields for units in the OOBs:
1. Armour values
2. Slope values
3. Crew
4. Ammo, to some extent

Fabricated unit data fields:
1. Speed (and Water)
2. Weight
3. Rarity
4. Survivability
5. Targeting
6. Rangefinder
7. Fire Control
8. Skirts
9. Rate of Fire
10. Carry Capacity
11. Size
12. IR Vision

Maybe this will help explain why Alby and I, as well as others like KG Erwin, had such a difficult time doing corrections to the OOBs. And why adding new units and weapons is not a simple proposition; much of the data has to SWAGged, using comparable units, in order to maintain game balance.

[vahauser]

Okay.  Now for some corrections.

The 4.5" gun should not have a range of 231.  If 231 is the maximum range allowed by the game, then only the longest-ranged guns should have a range of 231.

Here is my guess at a standardized range table:
Historical range > 30,000 yards,  231
Historical range 26,000 to 30,000 yards, 230
Historical range 23,000 to 26,000 yards, 229
Historical range 20,000 to 23,000 yards, 228
Historical range 18,000 to 20,000 yards, 227
Historical range 16,000 to 18,000 yards, 226
Historical range 14,000 to 16,000 yards, 225
Historical range 12,000 to 14,000 yards, 224
Historical range less than 12,000 yards, historical range/50 or 223 whichever is less.

Using the above table, the 4.5" gun should have an SPWAW range of 226 since it had an historical range of around 18,000 yards.  The German 170mm K 18 FK should have an SPWAW range of 231 since it had an historical range of 30,000+ yards.  The American 155mm Long Tom should have an SPWAW range of 229 since it had an historical range of 25,000 yards.  Heavy naval guns should have an SPWAW range of 231.  Medium naval guns should have an SPWAW range of either 229 or 230 (depending on nation and year). Small naval guns (of which the 4.5" gun would be typical) should have an SPWAW range of either 226 or 227 (depending on nation and year).  Etc.

[sabrejack]

I still can't find my tactical nukes in DVRN...? [&:] 

[KG Erwin]

VAHAUSER:

Why do you go on about thse ranges when the maximum length of the battlefield in ANY long campaign map is 98 hexes, i.e., 4900 yards?

Are you referring to possible counterbattery fire ranges? In this case, the maximum ranges WILL matter, but only to a very small degree. The overall effect on a given battle or campaign is minimal.

As has been frequently mentioned, you have the option to alter your personal OOBs as you see fit.

To make a personal analogy: in the trial I sat in as a juror in the last two days, the defense attorney asked the same question, in varying wording, over and over again. It grew tiresome, and it had no effect on our final verdict. Do you catch my drift?

[vahauser]

Erwin,

Some maps are 240 x 100. 

It also matters for counterbattery. 

It also matters for historical accuracy. 

It also matters for consistency within the game itself. 

--V

EDIT: It is troubling to me that you will go on and on fanatically in infinite detail regarding the historical accuracy of the USMC, but yet you see my desire to make the artillery more historically correct as meaningless and trivial.

Having historically correct artillery is every bit as important as any other aspect of the OOBs. Indeed, I think a solid case can be made that having historically accurate artillery ratings is the single most important weapons group in all of SPWAW.

And since we have an opportunity right here and right now to address some of these ratings, then now is a perfect time to do so.

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: vahauser


...Having historically correct artillery is every bit as important as any other aspect of the OOBs. Indeed, I think a solid case can be made that having historically accurate artillery ratings is the single most important weapons group in all of SPWAW.

And since we have an opportunity right here and right now to address some of these ratings, then now is a perfect time to do so.

Well, my friend, you go right ahead and do it. No one is preventing you from it. The final patch for DV has already been released.

[vahauser]

Indeed.

[FlashfyreSP]

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Having historically correct artillery is every bit as important as any other aspect of the OOBs. Indeed, I think a solid case can be made that having historically accurate artillery ratings is the single most important weapons group in all of SPWAW.

Much as I hate to do this, because I'm sure it will just prolong the discussion, I have to disagree with the premise that artillery is the single most important weapons group in SPWAW. The game was originally designed to depict armoured warfare, and contributing arms such as artillery, air & naval power, and infantry were all abstracted to one degree or another. There are many aspects of artillery warfare that are not included in the game, such as sound ranging, air spotting, and landline comms, and some that are abstracted, such as counterbattery fire and smoke/chemical shelling. The most important weapons group is the direct-fire group used to arm the various tanks and armoured vehicles, and it's this group that has had the most time spent on it to get the numbers right.

The game treats all offmap artillery as being deployed 2 hexes (100 meters) behind each player's mapedge, regardless of the unit's maximum range. And these are considered to be deployed at the middle of that mapedge, regardless of the map size. So, on a 100x240 hex map, the farthest range from the middle of a mapedge is 160 hexes, or 8000 meters. Add in the offmap deploy location, and all OffBoard Artillery effectively works within an 8100 meter (162 hex) range arc. In OOB data, that range would be 221.

The only game aspect that uses ranges longer than 8100 meters is the counterbattery fire routine, which compares the Max Ranges between opposing OBA units and determines whether any countering fire is undertaken. Units with ranges less than their opposing units will never counter fire, while those with ranges equal (or possibly within a range group, unclear at this time) to each other may counter fire each other. And counterbattery fire is not selectable by the player, and it happens with less frequency than reality would indicate.

So having historically accurate artillery ranges seems only necessary to ensure that sporadic counterbattery fire occurs along reality-based lines. For 90+% of the game's artillery usage, they could all have the same range and would all operate perfectly well across the map surface. It's in the abstract artillery aspects that these ranges are needed to be accurate.

I'm not going to advocate not trying to make some kind of improvement to the artillery system, but I'm not interested in taking up that project right now. I will, of course, give support and advice to anyone wishing to do this.