Some interesting lessons from geometry...

[Paul Vebber]

IF one takes teh freeboard to beam ratio of a ship and assume it has an average of about 3 to 1 you get the following realtionship between angle of heel and probabilty of a deck hit given a flat trajectory shot:

Code: Select all

Angle 	belt hit %	Deck hit 
0	1.00	0.00
1	0.95	0.05
2	0.91	0.09
3	0.86	0.14
4	0.83	0.17
5	0.79	0.21
6	0.76	0.24
7	0.73	0.27
8	0.70	0.30
9	0.68	0.32
10	0.65	0.35
11	0.63	0.37
12	0.61	0.39
13	0.59	0.41
14	0.57	0.43
15	0.55	0.45
16	0.54	0.46
17	0.52	0.48
18	0.51	0.49
19	0.49	0.51
20	0.48	0.52
21	0.46	0.54
22	0.45	0.55
23	0.44	0.56
24	0.43	0.57
25	0.42	0.58
26	0.41	0.59
27	0.40	0.60
28	0.39	0.61
29	0.38	0.62
30	0.37	0.63

Even a heel angle as little as 5 degrees can expose the deck (albeit at an extreme grazing angle) as over 20% of the exposed area.

You CAN try this at home by looking at a brick side on and tipping it at slight angles and seeing how much of the top surface you see.

The distribution of deck hits themselves may not be that far off (assuming the trajectory angle can add 10 to 20 or more degrees to the heel angle) . The effect of that high incidence angel still seems to need some tweaking, but I'm not sure the proportion of deck hits are that bad? THough this exposure is only seen 50% of teh time (when the ship is heeling toward the firer..

[Preacher]

<bewildered and bemused sarcasm born from total ignorance>

Weird.

I was JUST about to post the EXACT same thing.

</bewildered and bemused sarcasm born from total ignorance>

Preacher

[brisd]

Those of us like myself who spent a good many days on ships (USN here) can relate to the pitching and rolling on even during calm sea states. When ships are manuvering at battle speed, make turns, firing salvos, there will definitely be deck vs belt armor dynamics at play. This being an operational simulation we can only expect a certain level of precise tactical combat resolution. If we nitpic every combat results formula then this game will be patching thru 2010! Having said that, I am glad that Matrix is looking at the combat routines and tweaking them as needed.

[Sonny]

Does it really make a difference? Have you had a battle where any major gun has not penetrated any of the armor? And if you have, how many times? Maybe I have not paid too close attention to the surface combat but from what I've seen the smaller caliber guns don't even fire at the larger ships and the large guns always penetrate. Must admit however that I only watch the surface combat between small number of ships - if it is more than 4 or 5 ships a side then I just click the DONE button.

[dgaad]

Having failed geometry, I appreciate the table















(note : just kidding about the "failed geometry" thing).

[Wilhammer]

As long as they deck hits at such shallow angles take into effect slope increasing apparent armor thicknes, I am OK.

(BTW, I have no indication it does not do this.)

[Nikademus]

I was great at geometry!

Unfortunately..........i havn't studied it since 9th grade! :rolleyes:


I would still have to disagree paul, based on historical evidence.

For example, In the battle of Jutland (fought at ranges between 10-19,000 yards) it was often assumed that weak deck armor contributed to several notable British losses

A detailed shell by shell analysis revealed that *no* capital ships in that battle had their deck armor struck *exclusively* by shell fire. The ranges coupled with the shell paths were such that it proved impossible to isolate the thin decks of all the capital ships (German and British both) without other metals (hull and/or armor and shell plating, superstructure) getting in the way first.
Closest you get was a hit on the Armored cruiser Warrior by an 11inch shell which entered the hull over the belt armor and exploded on striking the one inch deck armor throwing fragments and splinters into the engine spaces.

Similar results were experienced experienced in the battles around IB sound due to the extremely short range of the conflicts, like when SoDak got hammered at fourth Guadalcanal.

This is not to say deck hits are not impossible, just extremely unlikely at closer ranges. Fighting steel used mathamatics and shell characteristics to portray the poss of side to plunging hits and at short ranges the odds of a deck hit are very low

But more signifigantly, due to the limitations of UV and other game engines, one cannot allow such a proliferation of "deck" hits at short ranges based on "heel theories" and such for one simple reason

Games like UV and FS only allow a single deck armor rating to protect the entire ship from plunging fire.

Most ships have multiple deck and superstructure levels between them and the primary protective deck. Some older ships even have more than one armored deck. Newer ones such as the American fast battleships have splinter decks.

Even smaller shells that can "plunge" at shorter ranges than the heavier shells will often strike hull plating first before attacking the deck armor (assuming their AP, which many small shells are not)

None of these detail oriented but key factors are simulated in games like UV and FS and others....you only get the one deck rating.

This is fine in many situations where big heavily armored units are concerned such as the battleships......its more of an issue with cruisers and other support craft though which may only have a thin strip of armor to protect their vitals.

The heavy cruisers are good examples here....both Tin clad as well as 2nd and 3rd generation. Their deck armors tend to be thinner but as long as they are not out at 15-20+ thousand yard ranges they should be fairly safe from plunging fire from medium and light caliber weaponry.

Of course the big problem is not even a factor of geometry. its a matter of penetration.

its not much the frequency of "Deck" armor hits thats disturbing (though a little ) its the fact that all the shells, heavy included (which would have the flatest trajectories along with other high velocity weapons) are penetrating deck armors from point blank range to close range......an impossibilty, even when just isolating the protective decks and chucking the rest of the metals involved.

A 2700ILB 16inch shell is *not* going to penetrate a 5inch deck at 12,000 yards, irregardless of hypothetical "heel"

Niether will an 8inch shell

A 5inch shell is not going to penetrate a 2inch armor deck at 4000 (even if it's an AP shell! which most if not all 5inch shells will not be or should not be in the game) Hell it wont even penetrate a 1inch deck, almost no shell would.

the ratio of horizontal to vertical hits is an issue, but not as serious an issue as the penetration curves in the game and what those values should be for horizontal as well as verticle hits

More so when one considers that UV appears to only resolve key damage. Key damage is defined as a "penetration" that attacks vital systems.

Just because a shell "penetrates" an armor scheme does not automatically mean it will cause critical damage, but UV does assume this for playability reasons just as Pacific war and other operational/tactical games in the past have

Unless a shell has a chance to 'only' cause fire damage i should say, as in Gary's Warship and Battlecruiser. Judging by the results the next turn though this does not appear to be happening. All ships attacked always have a fairly equal balance of floatation, system and fire damage.

Deck hits are fine..........but if your recieving "deck" i.e. plunging/horizontal hits at close or even medium ranges, they should not have very much penetrative capability due to the often severe AoI paths of the shells.

Plunging fire is only a serious threat at long ranges and/or the long ranges for the gun in question and it's shell characteristics. Remember that lighter shells too wont be as effective in this dept as bigger heavier shells which can build up the necessary velocity which coupled with a more favorable AoI to punch through heavier deck armor systems. This is why the 2700ILB 16 inch shell, coupled to the lower velocity of 45cal weapon were idea deck penetrators whereas the same shell, fired by a higher velocity 50cal weapon were less so.

In Gary's two tacticals i oft mention, this was understood as 6 and 8 inch shells had their horizontal pen values divided by 1/2 to 2/3rds in order to prevent ahistorical penetration ratings approaching heavy shell abilities due to their lighter characteristics.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Sonny
Does it really make a difference? Have you had a battle where any major gun has not penetrated any of the armor? And if you have, how many times? Maybe I have not paid too close attention to the surface combat but from what I've seen the smaller caliber guns don't even fire at the larger ships and the large guns always penetrate. Must admit however that I only watch the surface combat between small number of ships - if it is more than 4 or 5 ships a side then I just click the DONE button.

Yes, it has made critical differences, even in the shorter ranged "point blank" night battles and IMO, is a primary cause for the various and occaisional complaints by players that their CA heavy forces are consistantly being either bested or at least battered to a draw by DD heavy forces (using gunfire....not torpedoes) This has happened even when a BB or two is present

This would be my one complaint against UV. It's surface combat routines in general are actually, when one is brutally honest, little improved over the routines first seen in Carrier Force, to carrier strike, to Pacific War and now. The graphics are the biggest improvement.

Admitedly, there is only so much detail one can implement so the designers face a hard challenge. This is the direct counterpart to the complaints revolving around the Carrier TF battles. But like there, one cannot expect an operational level game to allow specific control of ship formations, movements and such while combat is going on. Thus Gary's original "line up" model is probably the best we can do. There have been some serious detail improvements, mainly in the form of giving ships experience and leadership ratings for the first time as well as allowing routines to factor radar and ship formations at the start of the battle (crossing 'T' etc etc)

Unfortunately, all these improvements have been mostly if not completely negated by the skewed shell placement/armor penetration factors. Factors which allow DD's (which should be firing HE) to penetrate even well protected cruisers (belt or deck) to cause system and floatation damage (as well as fires) and allow 8-inch gun cruisers to penetrate even thickly protected battleships out past 12,000 yards....again deck and belt systems both.

If one can argue that Night battles minimize this fault, it cannot be argued when engaging in longer ranged day battles. One must also realize that I'm not simply arguing this for the sake of UV but also for the upcoming WitP which will share the same game engine though in (i would assume) modified form, a grand strategic game which will (hopefully) allow the full breadth of potential battle types, from night battles, to carrier battles to even more traditional daylight surface battles.

As such, the following factors need to be addressed/tweaked

1) Fixing of the penetration curves for the shells in the game. Absolutely critical if either game is to be considered a credible simulation of surface combat. This includes the mathmatics which govern the ratio of verticle to horizontal hits but more importanlty the penetration capabilities therein. No more deck armor penetrations against 2+ inch thick armor by light shells at point blank range! Data for all of the guns available in this game are readily available and frankly i am a little stunned that UV was unable to follow in the footsteps of the recent "Fighting Steel" game in this regards. FS was a disaster of a wargame, but at least in this one area it showed improvement over it's ancestor wagames from which much of it was based on, Gary's "Warship" and "Battlecruiser" in that it featured extremely accurate renditions of the penetration curves of the shells in the game, from 3.9inch to 18.1inch, and fixed the somewhat variable and erratic determiner of whether a shell attacked a ship's horizontal or vertical armor system based on range.

2) Improvements in distribution of damage. Fire damage should be seperated from "penetration" This would be especially critical to night battles as under the improvements i am suggesting , DD weaponry (3.9inch to 5.5inch) should/would have little chance of penetrating any armor but if assuming to fire HE should have a decent chance of causing fire damage........so that situations like the BB Hiei's at Third Guadalcanal can be more properly simulated. (shown in my tests as well......BB's are immune to 5inch fire, but suffer little to no fire damage even when hit many many times because there is no penetration) Fire damage should be shored up too and made more dangerous, yes right now it causes system damage but it never seems to have the potential to continue raging out of control or get worse
Part of this is again due to one day turns so i'm not suggesting one go overboard on it but one 'can' see flood damage increase via the day turns if it's bad enough, the same should be present for fire as well.

Also, the damage itself needs to be more variable when there is penetration. Its too generalized.....ships always suffering a ratio of floatation, system and fire damage. It should be possible for a ship to be "Shot up" above the water line but be reletively intact below the waterline. This is one reason why torpedoes are so deadly, they always hit below the waterline causing dangerous flood situations. Shell fire, unless lucky enough to score waterline hits in frequency or (in longer range battles) plunging hits that cause damage below the waterline will often not cause flood damage. An exception would be the causing of an ammo explosion (i.e. magazine) I have yet to see this happen though outside of bomb and torpedo hits so am not sure if this routine for shellfire exists. The adding of another "location hit" might help solve this, add a "superstructure" hit to the belt/deck/device/tower selection path and, like a device or Tower hit make it immune to causing flood damage, only system or fire damage.

3) the possible ranges for surface combat need to be expanded depending on ship types present, their search/radar capability, experience and time of day.

In all the tests i conducted that included BB's, and BB's with radar, every one started at point blank ranges such as 10-13,000 yards making all armor system save horizontal surfaces moot. (a few battles that lasted a while did sometimes seperate out to as far as 17,000 yards but none started at that range)

If WitP in particular is to hope to cover "all" possible types of conflict, including classical matchups of the big units and their supporting CA's, then ranges beyond 20,000 yards should be worked in as well.

Point blank is fine for night battles involving cruisers and DD's but that is only one aspect of surface combat. This weakness was present in all previous Grigsby games as well, particularily Pacific War which always assumed any surface battles would be fought at night (reasonable given the limitations of the time.....since it could be assumed that carriers and LBA would dominate tactics and deployment by day) therefore battles always started at close range.

WitP and UV should not be so limited given the breadth of detail shown so far.


4) everyone and their dog Skippy needs to buy a copy of UV to ensure that Matrix can continue to produce and distrubute such wargames so that grognards like myself can stop relying on 8-bit emulators of old AppleIIe programs to get our wargaming fix.
:p


I'll relax now....(and play some more UV!)

[Reiryc]

Without dealing with all the technial mumbo jumbo, I would have to agree with nikademus...

Something about the surface combat routines just doesn't 'feel' right with the results I've been seeing. DD heavy TF's just shouldnt match or best CA heavy TF's so routinely.

I hope that something is looked at here...

Maybe the damage routine in which system damage is inflicted. It almost seems that the current ships have an RTS flavor to them. I didn't play sudden strike, but I've heard of how an MG unit could, by continually firing on a tank unit, kill the tank unit.

Surface combat right now seems to have this 'flavor' to it.

Reiryc

[dgaad]

When comparing the hit to penetration ratio of shell hits in the game, and the general results of surface battles in the game, to the actual historical results of surface actions in the Pacific War, I see no need for change whatsoever.

All the ballistics talk in the world does not account for chaos. Surface battles are a chaotic "system" in which penetrations occur that could not and were not predicted by calculus majors. Where gun turrets get knocked out by a fluke hit from an AA gun.

Read the history, and compare that with what goes on in the game. I think the current game model is much more complex than is currently understood by those not in a position to know.

[Wilhammer]

Yep, something is definitely amiss.

Excellent posts by the way.

The only reason it is not more catostrophic than it is results from the "targeting" engine.

Have you noticed that very few of the ships actually participate in delivering shell/torpedoe fire?

In all the surface engagements, everyone that had ranged, opened fire on targets.

Savo Island would be damned near impossible to recreate in this game. In that battle, the Japanese closed, and opened up with everything at once, torpedoes first. Multiple hits on multiple targets by multiple weapon systems, and it was over in minutes.

It seems we have two "flaws" working "together" to lessen the negative impact of either one if it stood alone.

1. The ballistics are not right, and deck armor is over represented.

[Think of tanks at their range. If we got upper deck hits in a game like CM, it would be laughed off]

2. Under done targeting.

If 2 were right, then having 1 would result in mass carnage.

If 1 were right, then a bad 2 would result in under done damaging.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by dgaad
When comparing the hit to penetration ratio of shell hits in the game, and the general results of surface battles in the game, to the actual historical results of surface actions in the Pacific War, I see no need for change whatsoever.

All the ballistics talk in the world does not account for chaos. Surface battles are a chaotic "system" in which penetrations occur that could not and were not predicted by calculus majors. Where gun turrets get knocked out by a fluke hit from an AA gun.

Read the history, and compare that with what goes on in the game. I think the current game model is much more complex than is currently understood by those not in a position to know.

I have read the history Dgaad, and you are incorrect. As i have said in the past, if the UV game engine wishes to involve these "hidden and complicated facets" that you hint at, to such a degree that "those of us not in a position to know" have no business questioning it as you imply, then we should not be made privy to the hits at all.

We should just go back to the old system of

CA hit by 5/38 shell*
CA hit by 5/38 shell
CA hit by 5/38 shell*****

and "assume" that the game engine is factoring in all these nebulous facets and not dare open our mouths.

Sorry......i happen to believe constructive criticism and active involvement in the development of a wargame factor highly in it's success and credability.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Wilhammer
Yep, something is definitely amiss.

Excellent posts by the way.

The only reason it is not more catostrophic than it is results from the "targeting" engine.

Have you noticed that very few of the ships actually participate in delivering shell/torpedoe fire?

In all the surface engagements, everyone that had ranged, opened fire on targets.

Savo Island would be damned near impossible to recreate in this game. In that battle, the Japanese closed, and opened up with everything at once, torpedoes first. Multiple hits on multiple targets by multiple weapon systems, and it was over in minutes.

It seems we have two "flaws" working "together" to lessen the negative impact of either one if it stood alone.

1. The ballistics are not right, and deck armor is over represented.

[Think of tanks at their range. If we got upper deck hits in a game like CM, it would be laughed off]

2. Under done targeting.

If 2 were right, then having 1 would result in mass carnage.

If 1 were right, then a bad 2 would result in under done damaging.

Yes, i have noticed this phenomenum, though i'm honestly not sure its a fault as of yet. I have assumed that its the engine attempting to resolve the "chaos" factor of a night battle in which formations are disrupted and ships seperate to fire on "Targets of opportunity"

There have been numerous night battles where some ships were unable to really get involved in a battle, this may be the engine's attempt to simulate this.

Experience and leadership should factor though, and i have seen this happen alot to even well exp'd and led IJN formations.

[Paul Vebber]

Good points Nik, and we are generally in agreement about a lot but some comments (and the caveat that I'm just a playtester on this one...)

The argument that no Jutland hit was "exclusively" deck is largely do the fact so much superstructure (much of which had only limited armor value) and turret is in the way. Most large ships have very little "open deck". I believe a "superstructure" hit location is being added. A check to make sure MA turrets are potential results of such hits is hopefullybeing done too.

But many shells hit the stuff that sits on the deck and THEN went through the deck. OR would have hit the deck if the turrets were't in the way.

If you look at ballistics of the guns involved you get basically like the following:

(note: Tank games deal in fairly flat trajectories so comparing to CM is not valid in the least)

Here is a general table of angles of fall for typical classes of naval guns (averaged form actual data for the respective gun types):

Code: Select all

range	light (6")	Med(8in)	Heavy (12+")
4000	     3.2	     2.5    	     2.6
8000	     8.9	     5.9	     5.4
12000	     20.9	     13.1	     9.4
16000	     35.5	     23.2	     13.7
20000	     44.3	     29.0	     17.1
24000		             47.6	     25.4
28000			                     29.2

At long ranges where the angle of descent is >18 or so , belt and deck (many with superstructure and turret tops in the way) will be about even.

A review of the penetration and effective armor thickness is being done, but the comment you make about "it shold be at least as good as Fighting Steel" is a bit off the mark. Like saying Panzer Campaigns needs to treat tank armor like SP:WaW.

FS deals with naval battles explicity "fought out" where teh geometry of specific shots can be determined and examined in detail. In UV the operational level of teh engagements makes it impossible to set the geometry out in other than broad generalizations at which the details of specific armor/pen cals is meaningless because you can't isolate each shot's geometry in detail.

There are definately some issues to be looked at, and are, and a few have already been resolved, like light guns lack of AP. But one has to be careful not to "add insignificant digits" to calculations where the granularity of data isn't there to support it.

[Hartmann]

Originally posted by Reiryc
SNIP

Something about the surface combat routines just doesn't 'feel' right with the results I've been seeing. DD heavy TF's just shouldnt match or best CA heavy TF's so routinely.

I hope that something is looked at here...

SNIP

THIS seems to me the most pressing issue! Whatever else you guys figure out regarding of where the hits actually occurr then is fine with me.

Hartmann

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber
Good points Nik, and we are generally in agreement about a lot but some comments (and the caveat that I'm just a playtester on this one...)

The argument that no Jutland hit was "exclusively" deck is largely do the fact so much superstructure (much of which had only limited armor value) and turret is in the way. Most large ships have very little "open deck". I believe a "superstructure" hit location is being added. A check to make sure MA turrets are potential results of such hits is hopefullybeing done too.

But many shells hit the stuff that sits on the deck and THEN went through the deck. OR would have hit the deck if the turrets were't in the way.

If you look at ballistics of the guns involved you get basically like the following:

(note: Tank games deal in fairly flat trajectories so comparing to CM is not valid in the least)

Here is a general table of angles of fall for typical classes of naval guns (averaged form actual data for the respective gun types):

Code: Select all

range	light (6")	Med(8in)	Heavy (12+")
4000	     3.2	     2.5    	     2.6
8000	     8.9	     5.9	     5.4
12000	     20.9	     13.1	     9.4
16000	     35.5	     23.2	     13.7
20000	     44.3	     29.0	     17.1
24000		             47.6	     25.4
28000			                     29.2

At long ranges where the angle of descent is >18 or so , belt and deck (many with superstructure and turret tops in the way) will be about even.

A review of the penetration and effective armor thickness is being done, but the comment you make about "it shold be at least as good as Fighting Steel" is a bit off the mark. Like saying Panzer Campaigns needs to treat tank armor like SP:WaW.

FS deals with naval battles explicity "fought out" where teh geometry of specific shots can be determined and examined in detail. In UV the operational level of teh engagements makes it impossible to set the geometry out in other than broad generalizations at which the details of specific armor/pen cals is meaningless because you can't isolate each shot's geometry in detail.

There are definately some issues to be looked at, and are, and a few have already been resolved, like light guns lack of AP. But one has to be careful not to "add insignificant digits" to calculations where the granularity of data isn't there to support it. [/B]

Heh, yes and no on the superstructure argument. Acutally i had highlighted "exclusively" to plug up the hole that some might see given the thinness of the armor decks present as, i agree, the precence of non armored metal structures striking the shells did contribute to the effectiveness of the protective decks in addition to the extreme AoI.

However the crowded superstructure decks were not the sole reason. Actually, WWI era capital ships tended to be somewhat bereft of structure, it being a simpler time with no big masts for radar and electronics, no CIC's etc etc.

Some shots wouldn't even need much superstructure to be defeated as highlighted by a very interesting hit on the Princess Royal. This heavy shell did not in fact go through alot of superstructure, instead it entered the ship above the upper belt armor encoutering but thin 1/8 shell plating and may one or two seperating bulkheads. It was still enough to, added to the high AoI, to allow the thin 1inch protective deck to defeat and deflect the heavy shell.

Good info on the balistics

to this i'll add the following emperical data for the listed guns using the US models as a control matching the ranges and balistic AoI i'll list the belt armor penetration, then the deck armor penetration estimated for indicated ranges

6/47 shell (Brooklyn class CL)

8,000 yards 6 inches/NA (probably <1inch)
10,200 yards 5 inches/NA (<1inch)
12,600 yards 4 inches/NA
14,800 yards 2? inches/1 inch
18,600 yards 1 inch/1.5 inches

This weapon had particularily good MV and was had very good verticle penetration as a result. Given it's lightness though and that good MV, its plunging ability was limited

8"/55cal (Mark 12 and 15 shell)

10,800 yards 10.0 inches/NA (probably 1 inch or <1inch)
15,400 yards 8.0 inches/NA (my est: 1-1.5inch)
18,400 yards 6.0 inches/2.0 inches

16inch/45cal* (2700ILB shell)

10,000 yards 26.6 inches/1.87 inches!
15,000 yards 20.47 inches/3.04 inches


A 15inch/42 cal from the Jutland era, since i've used that as an example


10,000 yards 14.0 inches / 1.25inch
15000 yards 12.0 inches/ 1.95 inches

This was firing a 1920ILB shell and a reletively low MV, factors which produce the best deck penetrators. For smaller higher velocity weapons such as those employed by the Germans, the deck penetration ability would be even less impressive at ranges under 20,000 yards.

A word on US empirical formula. It tends to be a bit optimistic, as a quick look at the 8 inch figures will indicate. It also assumes optimal conditions for penetration. This may help explain the apparant ability of the Hiei to resist 8inch fire during the night of Third Guadalcanal since her citidel appears to have not been penetrated (The disabled steering gear was outside it and was poorly protected)

Even these figures though show clearly that at closer ranges, its pretty obvious that deck penetrative qualities are going to be low if not completely negligable.

It also assumes the shell is firing AP. Something i would not consider likely for anything 5.5 inch or less. (US did not ship any for it's 5inch)

Optimal conditions are why i particularily highlighted that UV (and other wargames) only give a single rating for deck armor. Since the presence of other deck and SS layers are not there one should definately take optimal penetration figures with a grain of salt.

Sorry for mentioning FS, but i dont think its that invalid at least in terms of comparing Panzer commander to SP: It would be if i was demanding the ability to steer each ship and fire the guns. The comparison with FS was limited strictly to the armor vs pen interaction only. UV is such a detailed game, it should be able to resolve hit location and armor penetration in a similar manner as FS. That was all i was saying. (FS was a poor preformer otherwise)

Thanks for taking my comments into consideration. You are right of course, one should not try to calculate the last digit to the exlusion of all else. But one must stand up and take notice when 8 inch guns are penetrating both the decks and belt armors of battleships like Mutsu at 12,000 yards! or one is seeing heavy cruisers having their deck armors penetrated at 4000 yards by 8, 6 and 5 inch guns.

This gives grognards fits and since i've been telling all i know to go grab a copy of UV, i want em to be happy grognards

Because some know where i live

:p

[Paul Vebber]

Thanks fo your constructive tone and scholarly input btw!!

I was only addressing the quantity of deck hits, not the issue of penetration. Like I said that and other things are currently being reviewed. The litmus test in an operational level game has tobe the RESULTS OF THE ENGAGEMENT being "believable' even if occasionally the statisitcal engine may present a few too many "outliers" into the detailed results.

I still think FS is a red herring. Here is a table of armor multipliers based on horizontal angle of incidence for med-heavy naval caliber guns:

10 1.03
20 1.11
30 1.25
40 1.47
50 1.83
60 2.49
70 3.83
80 7.56


Given that encouter geometry, avaoidance manuevers could easily make this a nearly random "salvo by salvo" modifier. DO you really need to be "gnat's kiester" accurate on armor and pen when you have a random variable that would be in "normal encounters that would very from 30-60 degress warp you around from 1.25 to 2.5 times the armor value?

I could see using a 'general' encounter geometry modifer for each pahse in the battle, but eventhat would just be an "average" of what would likely be at least a +/- 20 or 30 degree span.

A random variable that large argues against trying to model the armor and pen specifics in too much detail.

Enough, to make the reports received believable, and that IS being looked at, but too much is a waste.

[elmo3]

Paul

Since it's an operational game I'd hope the results of the whole scenario, not any one engagement, are believable. As you say there is enough luck factored in to make the outcome of any one engagement pretty variable. Just trying to tweak for single engagement results may throw off the big picture which is more important IMO.

elmo3

[Wilhammer]

Paul.

My comparison of tank fire is not to be completely dismissed.

Refer to short range fire, the source of most of the concerns.

The angles of fire at short ranges is shallow.

Thus, to hit the deck would be unliekly, and even so, the effective armor resistance would go up.

You mention Superstructure hits.

That brings up a point that might contribute to the problem.

You can hit ships in only 3 areas, belt, deck and the occasional tower. The elimination of weapons systems by critical damge is randomized (so it seems).

Adding detail to ship models will help.

For instance, at short range, we would get a lot of front turret hits, side hits, belt hits, superstructure hits, and conning towers.

More detail at least to those levels would be great and helpful.


=============================

BTW, has anyone noticed if seaplanes on ships get hit in surface engagements?

[Paul Vebber]

Refer to short range fire, the source of most of the concerns.

We seem to be in agreement here. For short ranged naval cmbat descent angles of 3-5 degrees are common (especialy with a couple degrees of ships roll.

For tank combat a 6lber at 1500 yards has a descent angle of <1 degree and the typical height to width ratio of a tank is (averageing turret and hull height) is only about <2 vs 3 for a ships freeboard to beam so you are talking <5 chances for a top hit to a tank (though rough ground could increase that) at "combat range". FOr a ship even at short range (8000yrds) the angles are in the 5-8 degrees range and the probability of "non-belt" hits is about 33%.

33% compared to <5% is why I don;t think the comparison is valid.

Thats not to dismiss the penetration problem. We'll see what the designers have to say about that in the patch.