Editor Formulas

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Again - and as usual in an impass between sincere people - the problem is linguistic and not substantive.

I also am talking in specific game terms - although here I am using WITP I terms as a foundation since I don't play with AE as such. But I to suspect that "durability" means the same thing in AE - since it has not been split into 4 different fields as would be required for it to be different.

I too, am speaking substantively, and I’m here to tell you that Durability does not mean the same thing in AE.

So what does it mean? And why is it NOT really "the ability to sustain damage" (which was posted above)???

All I tried to say is that durability AS USED BY WITP/AE needs to have "damage control" in the hull in the durability value - and this is not really related to "damage control" as a code handles it after a battle requires fighting fires, flooding, etc.

You do not understand how durability, or damage control, is developed in AE.

So tell us - how can we make an identical hull have different durability - other than by changing the field itself?

What I mean in saying that is that a ship which otherwise is identical has DIFFERENT durability values

It does not in AE. If you are referring to damage control, it may well have substantially different velocities, but it will not have a different presentation value to a torp, for example.

What does "velocities" mean here? And what does "presentation value" mean? Unless you inverted it, a bigger durability means "better able to sustain damage" - and if that alone is true - nothing has changed about my point. Similarly - are not VP and cost related to durability still?

including cost to buy, cost to repair, and amount of damage it can absorb

And that’s exactly why we chose to minimize the simplistic ‘durability’ number, and add several new data vectors to the code.

Which all sounds good to me. But if durability has any residual meaning - we need to honor that meaning. And it was stated it is ability to sustain damage - so that is good enough for my points to remain.

[JWE]

Sounds to me like you don't get it, and have no inclination to try to get it.

I have lots more interesting ways to waste my time than to continue with this silliness. So ...

That's it for me. Bye.

[witpqs]

Sid, I'll give this topic one more try - The game code behaves in a certain way. You are insisting that it should work a different way. Still, the game code continues it's behavior unmodified. As a result, the users of RHS are frustrated.

[el cid again]

I can neither read the code nor dictate how it should be modified - so I make no effort to do either. You guys are confused by what I have said ASSUMING things I am not trying to think, say or do.

I am saying that IN THE CONTEXT OF EXISTING CODE (and also future code for AE) the value in the field "durability" should NOT be purely a function of displacement. The ONLY thing that needs to be true for this to be a valid opinion is that "as durability increases, the ability of the ship to absorb damage increases". This is awfully simple and I don't understand why it is confusing for you. There is more to "durability" than displacement - and failing to think about it that way is to miss my point. It does not, however, make my point invalid. And it has nothing whatever to do with what I would say if code could work a different way. Coding is allegedly closed - so I am not trying to deal with that.

This discussion reminds me of my "impossible" attitude about shipping and economics. But today it is no longer controversial - no one advocates "AKs to burn" any more - and lots of things are being done to make logistics work better for AE. Yet it was once roundly thought to be grossly unreasonable to advocate such changes.

[witpqs]

No one has said that durability is only a function of displacement.

The discussion was about damage control, which you were trying to influence by changing durability. You were informed that in the code durability and damage control are not related.

No one said that durability is only a function of displacement.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

No one has said that durability is only a function of displacement.

The discussion was about damage control, which you were trying to influence by changing durability. You were informed that in the code durability and damage control are not related.

No one said that durability is only a function of displacement.

You have it backwards. The thread is about what to enter in fields. I am the one who said that damage control should be a factor in durability. And some of you think that has something to do with the way damage control is handled by code - but it does not. It is about durability, pure and simple: the ability of a ship of size abc to absorb damage is a function of how much has been done to modify the ship in a damage control sense, both hardware and software (people). That damage control occurs after damage occurs is a wholly different matter: durability is about "how much damage can the ship take?" - and it is not the same for apparently identical hulls. Failing to include damage control INSIDE durability is to misunderstand why an AK will sink before an APA when hit exactly the same way.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Anyone know what the formulas are for the following or how these values can be arrived at? I've lost my notes. [:(]

Ship Classes: Durability
Ship Classes: Manuever
Ship Classes: Fuel

Durability is four things as near as I can figure:

(1) VP Base
(2) Resistance to damage ( but this is also highly correlated to displacement )
(3) Production Cost (for IJN)
(4) Safe diving depth (for subs)

Ideally, these would be four factors, not one. But they are one.

Are you saying that Allied ships have no cost - that no HI points are required to build them - and that naval shipyards and merchant shipyards have no function? Do they expend HI points anyway? We know that repair shipyards work for the Allies. We know that naval and merchant shipyards - and feeding them- matters to Japan. Is there no point in having US shipyard capacity grow - or even exist?

Naval and Merchant shipyards never worked for the Allies and never existed for them in the game (because it ostensibly would've been completely useless to include them).

[GaryChildress]

OK. Cid appears to be talking about how things should be handled and the AE team seems to be talking about how they are handled within the confines of the game engine. And neither side can seem to agree on what the main point of this thread is. This is really confusing to me. I almost feel like I should get some batons and start juggling to entertain spectators during this deadlock. [:D]

EDIT: Or maybe I should have gotten more sleep last night. [:-]

[JWE]

Hi Gary, Can’t understand your confusion, since you asked the question in the first place, i.e. what numbers do I put into these fields.

I tried to give you my best take on what works in AE, and why.

Unfortunately, the thread was hijacked (a seemingly recurrent fact in this particular sub-forum).

If you would like to learn more, shoot me a pm.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson



Durability is four things as near as I can figure:

(1) VP Base
(2) Resistance to damage ( but this is also highly correlated to displacement )
(3) Production Cost (for IJN)
(4) Safe diving depth (for subs)

Ideally, these would be four factors, not one. But they are one.

Are you saying that Allied ships have no cost - that no HI points are required to build them - and that naval shipyards and merchant shipyards have no function? Do they expend HI points anyway? We know that repair shipyards work for the Allies. We know that naval and merchant shipyards - and feeding them- matters to Japan. Is there no point in having US shipyard capacity grow - or even exist?

Naval and Merchant shipyards never worked for the Allies and never existed for them in the game (because it ostensibly would've been completely useless to include them).

They have not thought this through: they are significant for Japan if captured. And they create demand for Allied HI points - hopefully - which have too little demand. Anyway - they need to be there to fight over - and maybe capture. It matters for Japan - and should be a factor in operational strategies.

The other thing is - we are standing up for a day in which things are better done. The instructions were "get the data right and the code will follow." So far -- it is happening more than expected. So we will have the data in the right spot - pending better usage.

Interesting - "completely useless" - tell that to those who are using captured shipyards!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Hi Gary, Can’t understand your confusion, since you asked the question in the first place, i.e. what numbers do I put into these fields.

I tried to give you my best take on what works in AE, and why.

Unfortunately, the thread was hijacked (a seemingly recurrent fact in this particular sub-forum).

If you would like to learn more, shoot me a pm.

Well - I have had enough. The thread was not hijacked - and the horse is dead now. If you don't get it - you don't get it - and if you do - you do. The question was not properly answered - so I answered it properly. I mean that literally. Ignoring the reason it is so does not make it less correct.