Data to insert in DB?

[Historiker]

How to calculate the Data?

Ships:
Manuever?
Durability?
Endurance is twice the number of nm at Cruise Speed, no?
Fuel is m³ of fuel, no?


Devices:
Range: is it in km or hm?
Accuracy?
Effect?
Ceiling? This is the highest point that AAA can reach, no? In km, feet, miles?0
Penetration?
Dud rate? How much don't explode, no? Is it in %
Anti-Armour?
Anti-Soft?
Load cost?

is it important how the devices are in the DB? Can I hadd new naval guns hat the end or do they have to be at the beginning?

[Historiker]

How many slots at ships, classes and locations are japs?

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Historiker

removed - re answered below

[Historiker]

Manuever?: no definition - depends on turn radius - related to size but also rudders and props and hull shape So how to calculate this?

Durability? usually related to hull size and structure - RHS also doubles an AK value for an auxiliary and triples (2.5 for Japan) for a tanker -
and warships seem to use four times
So the Admiral Graf Spee has a length of 186. What Durability should it have?

Endurance is twice the number of nm at Cruise Speed, no? Not twice the number of nm - the number of nm period
hmm? the nm period? what means this?

Fuel is m³ of fuel, no? almost - tons - probably short tons
What are short tons? Shouldn't ships with coal instead of oil need less fuel as fuel is oil or diesel?

Accuracy? good question - depends on the device
And how can I finde out what accuracy i.e. the 38cm gun of Germany has?

Effect? usually weigh of shell; RHS uses square root for HE shells and bombs; square root of 2/3 for AP; and a greater value for mortars (1.2?)
Which weight? Pound? kg? The German 38cm had a weight of 798kg - so which effect should it have?

Load cost? good question; 9999 = infinite and static (and adds 9999 men to unit size reports); weight in tons for some devices; number of men for other devices (e.g. squads)
So a bataillon with 1200 men should have 1200 load cost?!

is it important how the devices are in the DB? Can I hadd new naval guns hat the end or do they have to be at the beginning?
They normally must start to have any meaning - but if you can edit the save game file...
What do you mean? I don't understand? They must start?!

[Historiker]

How can I add the rate of fire? The guns of some nations had the advantage to fire faster...
What to do with heavy AA? At least on german ships, the AAA was often used against ships, too. will AA guns fire on ships effectifly, too - or do they have to be DP guns?

[Historiker]

You say anti-soft = effect    -  but why do your devices don't have the same data then? I.e. the 18,1in has 2147 effect but only 56 Anti-Soft...

[el cid again]

To start with the last question first - ja vohl - you are correct.

There is a problem in WITP with "nuclear bombardment" of bombers and battleships. Further
the theory of bombardment is not well modeled. RHS got rid of both problems by going over
to square root of shell weight (and later to square root of 2/3 of shell weight for AP weapons-
retaining square root for HE weapons like mortars or HE bombs - or howitzers).

So if you are using RHS, you use this system. I explained both the usual system and the RHS
variation - not knowing if you are using RHS system or not.

A shell or bomb hits one point. Its effect goes up with size, but the farther something is from the
point, the less the damage - by the inverse square law. Our function works well. Note for
a heavily armored hard target, we did NOT change the armor penetration - so that remains
as it used to be (except our data is more consistently to the standard).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

How can I add the rate of fire? The guns of some nations had the advantage to fire faster...
What to do with heavy AA? At least on german ships, the AAA was often used against ships, too. will AA guns fire on ships effectifly, too - or do they have to be DP guns?

The ROF is now correct - someitmes it was not consistent. But for a normal weapon accuracy is simply ten times ROF in rounds per
minute. There is no need to change this unless you have a different new weapon to add - in whch case use this standard:

if ROF = 15 then accuracy = 150.

Now for very small weapons - where the shell weight is very low so effect would be too small - we use ROF divided by 10 -
and multiply the shell weight by ten. This is WITP stock sandard - it is in the manual - and it works because code multiplies
effect times accuracy - so it does not matter how you manipulate this. But there ARE tests - below certain values code will ignore the device:
thus effect must be someting like 5 or greater to work in some forms of combat (all values work in land unit tactical combat).

Very heavy AA guns (e.g. 6 or 8 inch) will work for AA IF

1 - you redesignate the device as a DP gun

2 - you figure out effective ceiling - which is usually pretty low for a naval weapon used in this form (but not so low for a single tube land
weapon - thus a Japanese naval gun 8 inch in a single 8 inch AA mount should be a different device with a different ceiling - but in WITP we lack the slots to represent it).

You may not do this for super heasvy guns - we tried - but the effect values are too high - if they work for surface combat they kill way too many planes. These weapons were used - but not with effect - there is no know instance where they caused a kill or damage - and while probably it happened - it should be very low in effect - and our system here won't let us do that unless we made the device ineffective for surface combat.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

How many slots at ships, classes and locations are japs?

Good question.

Classes may be either side.

Ships must be below 3000 to be Japan, 3000 or above to be Japanese.

Locations are very tricky: there are ranges for one, the other or both

separately for HQ, for locations like places, and for land combat units

Use stock scenario 16 and the manual as a guide - then experiment and test

or use RHS as a guide for a tested indication of where the limits are

mostly you must honor this - but

for aircraft you can "cheat" for any type you do not need to produce or upgrade

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Manuever?: no definition - depends on turn radius - related to size but also rudders and props and hull shape So how to calculate this?

Durability? usually related to hull size and structure - RHS also doubles an AK value for an auxiliary and triples (2.5 for Japan) for a tanker -
and warships seem to use four times
So the Admiral Graf Spee has a length of 186. What Durability should it have?

REPLY: Size for a naval vessel refers to displacement tonnage - not to length overall. In general, divide a warship full load by 100 or a non warship by 400. If manned to auxiliary standards, double this. If a tanker for the Allies, triple this (but if for Axis multiply by 2.5). For an armored warship, most of the rest of the protection comes from armor in mm - use the thickest deck and side armor - or add all decks and sides together when there are several (this latter should be discounted if more than one but a definition needs to be made and then applied to all similar cases).

Endurance is twice the number of nm at Cruise Speed, no? Not twice the number of nm - the number of nm period
hmm? the nm period? what means this?

REPLY: The range in nautical miles at the cruising speed you put in the cruise field
= the endurance. Simple.

Fuel is m³ of fuel, no? almost - tons - probably short tons
What are short tons? Shouldn't ships with coal instead of oil need less fuel as fuel is oil or diesel?

REPLY: A short ton = 2000 pounds. Ships with "fuel" use oil or diesel. Ships with coal are treated the same in stock and most
mods, but in CHS and RHS they use half the coal = fuel.

Accuracy? good question - depends on the device
And how can I finde out what accuracy i.e. the 38cm gun of Germany has?

REPLY: Look up the rate of fire - in rounds per minute - multiply times 10. If it is two (from memory - it is about that)
then accuracy = 20.


Effect? usually weigh of shell; RHS uses square root for HE shells and bombs; square root of 2/3 for AP; and a greater value for mortars (1.2?)
Which weight? Pound? kg? The German 38cm had a weight of 798kg - so which effect should it have?

REPLY: This system uses the English system, so weight in pounds. In stock and otehr mods, use 798 times 2.2. In an RHS system,
use 798 times 2.2 - then take 2/3 of that - then take the square root of that.

Load cost? good question; 9999 = infinite and static (and adds 9999 men to unit size reports); weight in tons for some devices; number of men for other devices (e.g. squads)
So a bataillon with 1200 men should have 1200 load cost?!

REPLY: No. A battalion has many squads and devices. It is the sum of all the devices and squads load costs. It will NOT end up at 1200 - but may not be too far off. This because the squads load cose = men - but heavier weapons = weight. I think I said the weight wrong too - it should be weight in tons for large weapons for land devices - but for an aircraft weapon - load cost is in thousands of pounds. Because aircraft max load is in thousands of pounds.

is it important how the devices are in the DB? Can I hadd new naval guns hat the end or do they have to be at the beginning?
They normally must start to have any meaning - but if you can edit the save game file...
What do you mean? I don't understand? They must start?!

OK - I misunderstood the original question. No - you may not add devices. You must put a naval gun in the naval gun area of the device list. The only way to add one is to get rid of another one. A few land devices may be added at the bottom but they will not produce, will not have effetive pools, and I find often do not work at all. There are ranges for each kind of device, and some have specific slots (like radar). It is very complicated. Use stock and RHS device lists as a guide. Some of this is documented in the manual and the forum - and sometimes the documentation is wrong - but usually right. Testing is the only reliable guide - but RHS devices are tested.

[Historiker]

Accuracy:
OK, a 38cm has a ROF of 2,5 - so it is 25... But what about smaller calibers? What about 15cm with a ROF of 6 - 60??? And when there's a light gun with a ROF of 120 - what then?
What accuracy should a AAA have?

Load costs:
ok, we have a bataillon with 1200 men, 24 mortars - let's say 10t - so the load cost will be 1210?

Thx for your help so far.

[el cid again]

For light, medium, heavy and very heavy guns - it is always ROF times 10 - so 6 is indeed 60.

For AAA below about 3 inch caliber they divide the ROF by 10 and multiply the shell weight times ten.
This is really determined by shell weight - if shell weight is less than 3 you MUST do it - or the gun
cannot bombard. So a 2 pounder (40 mm) if it could shoot 120 RPM would be 12 instead, but the
shell (effect) would be 20 instead of 2.

The manual says effect and accuracy are multiplied together - so this means the result is always the same
for these small weapons. I did this with light mortars and similar weapons too - so that weapons too small
to be used appear in RHS. We have MMG (LMG are part of squads) and mortars 2 inch and above (but
below they are in the squads too).

[el cid again]

A battalion is not a device - so you do not do the math - the game does.

A battalion is a set of squads

e.g. 81 infantry squads

4 MMG squads

72 support squaqds

and you will SEE both manpower and load cost in reports - indeed three different load costs (for AP, AK and LST) -
but you don't have to figure them out. Nor will they be truly right about "men." Men will be slightly too big.
As if there are some portars attached (which was normal in PTO at least). The bigger the weapons - the more
this is the case.

[Historiker]

Durability is full load / 100 - but that leads to extreme durations. I.e. the Gneisenau has a maxload of 38.900 tons - so 389 duration??? That sounds way to high.
How to calculate the manuever?

[DuckofTindalos]

Durability is standard displacement divided by 400. Maneuverability is something you'll have to try to estimate.

[el cid again]

This of course is a conundrum.

Standard displacement is not real - but a legal thing - of no meaning either to ships constructors or to those managing the damage or loading of
any sort of ship. It is never calculated (therefore never given) for any merchant ship - nor for most kinds of naval vessels other than those
covered by the Washington Naval Treaty for which it was devised - or derivitive treaties. And while it is given for the types of warships covered by those agreements (battleships, carriers, submarines and cruisers are examples) - it is not even honestly done. One naval architect determined by physical measurement that EVERY NATION signatory to the Washington Treaty FALSIFIED the standard displacement data, and built ships which were larger in fact - although apparently the Axis powers did so by a greater proportion.

Then there is the matter that a warship is not the same in terms of durabilty as a non warship is. Nor for that matter is a large ship the same as a small one. We will return to this latter issue. The former one is done by dividing DISPLACEMENT tonnage - which is real for all ships and available or calculable for all ships. The reason RHS tried to use 100 tons for tankers is to make it the same as it uses for warships - and now we use 300 (for Allied tankers) and 250 (for Japanese tankers). We use 200 for naval auxiliaries other than tankers. [Here the hull does not matter - the hull as an AP or AK is divided by 400 - but the SAME hull as an amphib is divided by 200].

Someone (likely in CHS world) changed the standard (or the data is inconsistent) - so that warships were not divided by the stock divisor - and it appears this included a size advantage not directly related to a single divisor - and RHS continues to use CHS data (where it existed). But if we must do a new and small warship (we don't need to add gigantic ones which already were done) - we use the 100 standard. The idea is that a warship is very complex - should cost more to build - should take more time to build - and should also be much more difficult to damage (ton for ton). We find the build times are more realistic and the damage / sinking rates slightly better - but there is not nearly as much difference as the numbers imply. Increasing durability by a factor of 4 does not make a ship even 50% harder to sink.

[DuckofTindalos]

Ah, the joys of a poorly-defined set of data fields...[:D] For the OOB work I did for AE, I defined durability as standard displacement/400.

[jwilkerson]

For IJN Warships under about 1200 tons .. I defined it as standard disp/200 ... this seemed to be mostly .. but not totally ... consistent with stock.

[DuckofTindalos]

Like I said, the joys of poorly defined data fields. That's one of the interesting things about modding - you actually have to THINK about what you're doing...[:D]

[Historiker]

How much ammo should ships carry? How to calculate this?