Newbie Modder Questions

[vettim89]

I decided to take on the Cartwheel project. As someone who has never modded the game, I have some quick questions.

I don't find an ASW strength anywhere in the Database Editor. Is ASW capacity assigned by Nationality? If not where does the ASW value come from?

Those that have modded the aircraft values: are your mods to make the game performed to get better results from aTa combat or because you feel the original values were historically wrong?

[DuckofTindalos]

ASW strength is the sum of ASW devices assigned to a given class. The program modifies it according to circumstances in-game.

Your second question is a very wide one. The little aircraft data modding I did for my personal stock mod was to correct errors, like insufficient range.

[Big B]

Hi,

Well to answer your question - ASW values are derived by the game itself - that is why you didn't see it listed in the db editor...as such.
However, they are there in the editor, under Devices, lines 105 to 117 - they define all of the depth charges and ASW weapons.
Modifying the devices will definitely affect the ASW values, also when you look at ship classes, you will see that - that is where you can define how many of which ASW weapon a ship carries, along with amount of reloads.
Between these, you will be able to do whatever you wish to ASW values.

As for part two - aircraft values, in my case it was both below...somewhat incorrect values, and also (mainly) to try to get A2A combat more reasonable.[;)]

B

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I decided to take on the Cartwheel project. As someone who has never modded the game, I have some quick questions.

I don't find an ASW strength anywhere in the Database Editor. Is ASW capacity assigned by Nationality? If not where does the ASW value come from?

Those that have modded the aircraft values: are your mods to make the game performed to get better results from aTa combat or because you feel the original values were historically wrong?

[Nikademus]

if your attempting to mod ASW, there are only two variables that matter, the DUR value of the sub class, and the Range value of the ASW device (Depth Charge, Hedgehog etc). The former variable isn't a good way to do it...because DUR also impacts build times for subs, repair time, and VP generation.

I reduced ASW effectiveness in my current set of Nikmod scenarios. TF's are less able to pattern bomb a sub into serious damage (which in game terms is almost as good as a sinking since SYS greatly impacts a subs ability to operate effectively) JoeW.....a matrix programmer with many hundreds of hours of playtest time and who's jelous of my charming abilities with the ladies, liked it enough that it might have found its way into AE.

[el cid again]

ASW is a hard code thing. That is, the ability of a ship to detect a submarine is defined by its type and nationality.

The best are apparently DE - I think of this as a ship with sonar and an expert ASW crew

The worst are apparently PC - I think of this as a ship with hydrophones only

DD seem to be in between the two - I think of this as a ship with sonar - but not the best sonar - and a crew that does not drill in ASW 2 or 3 times every day - so they are not as skilled at ASW as a DE crew is

Other ships with ASW weapons may be treated the same as PC are - but they seem to attack only if the submarine is revealed by attacking or by another ship in the same force - THEN they attack

ASW is not well defined - we cannot look up definitions in a tech manual for WITP. There are two kinds of weapons - DC and ahead throwing.

DC seem to be treated exactly the same as bombs are - and their original name was depth bombs - so it sort of makes sense.

Educated in ASW IRL and a veteran simulator - I have my own convention used only in RHS (and variations of it): ALL DC are combined into a SINGLE mounting - the total number of DC dropped or thrown are the number of tubes - the "mounting" always "faces aft" - and then the number of shots is the total DC carried divided by pattern size. Thus - a DD with 12 DD dropped by one DC rack (which drops twice per attack) has a pattern of 2 and 6 shots. A DE with 120 DC and 3 Y guns (or 6 K guns) and 2 DC racks has a pattern of 10 and 12 shots. Ahead throwing weapons are different - they "face forward" - and they have a "range" - while a DC pattern has zero "range" meaning you pass over the target - close to zero range.

[el cid again]

Aircraft in stock (and other mods - often using stock values) had lots of errors in the data itself.

But "errors" come in more than one flavor - different sources give different data - and it is not presented using the same definitions - so getting data to a good common standard is not easy - or subject to universal agreement. We spent a year or more just on this aspect of aircraft.

There were also problems in the air model itself. I changed device values as well as aircraft data. For one thing - most air weapons were badly defined: they pretty much have the same range - so wether it is 1 or 3 or 5 - it should not change with the gun. But punch was vastly overstated for MG and understated for cannon. Since ROF IS a factor in the device - that was no excuse either. We also changed bombs - using actual lethality theory - and cured by these means uber cap and nuclear bombings.

Yet another aspect of this is - what is meant by a field? Altitude is a case in point: should you use service ceiling, absolute ceiling or somethign else (operational ceiling is what I use - and I had to define it). It is intimately related to AA - which should not use maximum altitude where it is not effective (and cannot reach at maximum range either) - so the two altitudes should be coordinated. As far as I know - only RHS looked at things like that. More difficult is how to define durability and maneuverability - which latter is somewhat misnamed. That was very hard to do and requires compromises due to the simple system. How to be fair to ALL planes? That is the 64 thousand dollar question.

Once you define what you want to do - you will find looking up about 250 plane types is a time consuming exercise.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Aircraft in stock (and other mods - often using stock values) had lots of errors in the data itself.

But "errors" come in more than one flavor - different sources give different data - and it is not presented using the same definitions - so getting data to a good common standard is not easy - or subject to universal agreement. We spent a year or more just on this aspect of aircraft.

There were also problems in the air model itself. I changed device values as well as aircraft data. For one thing - most air weapons were badly defined: they pretty much have the same range - so wether it is 1 or 3 or 5 - it should not change with the gun. But punch was vastly overstated for MG and understated for cannon. Since ROF IS a factor in the device - that was no excuse either. We also changed bombs - using actual lethality theory - and cured by these means uber cap and nuclear bombings.

Yet another aspect of this is - what is meant by a field? Altitude is a case in point: should you use service ceiling, absolute ceiling or somethign else (operational ceiling is what I use - and I had to define it). It is intimately related to AA - which should not use maximum altitude where it is not effective (and cannot reach at maximum range either) - so the two altitudes should be coordinated. As far as I know - only RHS looked at things like that. More difficult is how to define durability and maneuverability - which latter is somewhat misnamed. That was very hard to do and requires compromises due to the simple system. How to be fair to ALL planes? That is the 64 thousand dollar question.

Once you define what you want to do - you will find looking up about 250 plane types is a time consuming exercise.

Those of us who have played this game and want to mod it feel that way because we see things that either don't fit historical results or don't work the way they are supposed to. ASW is a glaring example as subs are just too easy to sink. I think that is more Allied ability to kill Japanese subs than vice versa. I think you have it right as far as the DC values.

Aircraft are another story. Some ranges are completely wrong. Beyond that you get into a lot of opinions as to what needs fixed. These opinions aren't necessarily in opposition to each other just different solutions to the same problem. Also, some things are very important to some people and not at all to others. Also, some people think some item needs fixed while others think there is not a problem

I personally think float plane fighters are overrated. Then may have done well against Buffalos in NEI but the floats serious affected their performance and they were not used as fighters really after early 42. I think air defensive fire is screwed up. In my Guadalcanal game I had a OSU-2 pilot with two kills. Now I won't deny a backseater might get lucky once in a while but the likelihood a=of a plane that normally flew alone and had one pop gun for defnse racking up multiple kills is a reach. Just OMO

[el cid again]

These are intelligent comments and modding is above all a matter of compromises - it can be done different ways and still be "right"

One wonders what mod you played with respect to float fighters? They are included in RHS not because they work very well - somone posted the Pete is "useless" (it is not totally useless, just almost useless) - and only in RHS is it a float fighter at all. [Joe said "we have lots of seaplanes that dorp bombs - make it a fighter] The only successful one was the Rufe. But it was not as successful as hoped - Japan built seaplane carriers for these and they were a "secret weapon" that didn't pan out very well. USN did even worse - producing a float F-3F Wildcatfish that is not in the leage of the Zero in the era of the Rex. The Rex was way too late - it was not able to develop in the time frame hoped for - but was so good it became a great land fighter. I put these planes in at the right time not because they work well - but for historial flavor. Their real job is to provide limited fighter cover where there are no bases at all - and they do that well early in the war.

I found CHS with astonishingly short ranges and light bombloads for Allied bombers - the heavies most of all. I found the stock system all of us used had the wrong algorithm to calculate normal range and extended range for bombers (and everything but fighters really). I came up with workarounds for them all - so RHS planes carry more bombs farther - and to something like the "right" range. [Range is intimately related to the load carried] But even so map distortion is 20 per cent in places - so there are places you cannot make a "historical mission"

In order to help players and modders we did our values openly - and the formulas we used are described in the RHS manual - and we provide real time technical answers too. By defining standards we hope that those who want to get something different are able to do it in a way that makes sense relative to the other planes. And we certainly were able to get rid of the extreme errors - some planes were given vastly too much speed, range, roc, ceiling - while many others were given too little. Consistent standards universally applied is a good starting point - although one may prefer some particular plane have some different value in some particular field. As a modder that is easy to change too.

[el cid again]

As for submarines, I have long agreed with you.

The Allies DO get better ASW ratings - for lots of reasons:

1) It is hard code - ASW is better for some "nations" than others - and worst for Japan

2) The Allies get more ASW ships

3) The Allies get radar on ASW ships sooner

4) The Allies get effective ahead throwing weapons

to which in RHS add that

5) You get blimps (to be added to AE too)

6) You get dedicated ASW aircraft - with ASW weapons as such - and even a new kind of ASW sensor (MAD) - the Japanese also get MAD but the Allies get it sooner and in bigger numbers

But what that means is that ALL subs are way too easy to sink - and sub life is so poor they might not build subs if it was that bad. I long thought there was no solution for this. But a new kid in the Forum - Historiker- invented a solution - and I have developed it. It will be out in a day or two. Subs will be a lot more survivable now. While I did try to reduce weapon effects already - it was not enough. I was considering radical measures to reduce it more (drastic effect reductions, adding armor) - until Historiker's idea. Now I am going to work with changing durability to exatly what it is supposed to be - but never was. We will use durability defined by depth - the actual depth subs could go to in battle - and not the mixed standards of operating depth (which is mixed because of real differences in national standards). This means that all subs will be harder to sink, but relative to each other, all subs will be more relatively correct in their survivability. In particular, Dutch, British and German subs will gain more survivability - while Japanese, French, Thai and American ones will gain about 50 per cent. I am very excited about this - and I hope to find a sub/ASW oriented person to test this variation.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

As for submarines, I have long agreed with you.

The Allies DO get better ASW ratings - for lots of reasons:

1) It is hard code - ASW is better for some "nations" than others - and worst for Japan

2) The Allies get more ASW ships

3) The Allies get radar on ASW ships sooner

4) The Allies get effective ahead throwing weapons

to which in RHS add that

5) You get blimps (to be added to AE too)

6) You get dedicated ASW aircraft - with ASW weapons as such - and even a new kind of ASW sensor (MAD) - the Japanese also get MAD but the Allies get it sooner and in bigger numbers

But what that means is that ALL subs are way too easy to sink - and sub life is so poor they might not build subs if it was that bad. I long thought there was no solution for this. But a new kid in the Forum - Historiker- invented a solution - and I have developed it. It will be out in a day or two. Subs will be a lot more survivable now. While I did try to reduce weapon effects already - it was not enough. I was considering radical measures to reduce it more (drastic effect reductions, adding armor) - until Historiker's idea. Now I am going to work with changing durability to exatly what it is supposed to be - but never was. We will use durability defined by depth - the actual depth subs could go to in battle - and not the mixed standards of operating depth (which is mixed because of real differences in national standards). This means that all subs will be harder to sink, but relative to each other, all subs will be more relatively correct in their survivability. In particular, Dutch, British and German subs will gain more survivability - while Japanese, French, Thai and American ones will gain about 50 per cent. I am very excited about this - and I hope to find a sub/ASW oriented person to test this variation.

Is that the subs are built to the stock standard option and then upgraded to a higher durability option I have seen discussed? I do like your group DC into patterns which is how they were really used. Part of the problem is the hard code where every ASW capable ship takes a shot at the sub. If say a CV had a screen of 6 DD's and a sub made an attack. All 6 DD's are not going to abandon their position in the screen and attack the sub. It would be limited to one or two ships that were closest to the sub. After all, there might be more subs out that.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

if your attempting to mod ASW, there are only two variables that matter, the DUR value of the sub class, and the Range value of the ASW device (Depth Charge, Hedgehog etc). The former variable isn't a good way to do it...because DUR also impacts build times for subs, repair time, and VP generation.

I reduced ASW effectiveness in my current set of Nikmod scenarios. TF's are less able to pattern bomb a sub into serious damage (which in game terms is almost as good as a sinking since SYS greatly impacts a subs ability to operate effectively) JoeW.....a matrix programmer with many hundreds of hours of playtest time and who's jelous of my charming abilities with the ladies, liked it enough that it might have found its way into AE.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: el cid again

As for submarines, I have long agreed with you.

Is that the subs are built to the stock standard option and then upgraded to a higher durability option I have seen discussed? I do like your group DC into patterns which is how they were really used. Part of the problem is the hard code where every ASW capable ship takes a shot at the sub. If say a CV had a screen of 6 DD's and a sub made an attack. All 6 DD's are not going to abandon their position in the screen and attack the sub. It would be limited to one or two ships that were closest to the sub. After all, there might be more subs out that.

There is more to what I have changed: specialized ASW small craft - PC, SC etc - come in pairs. These are carefully crafted units - and while they get to use ALL their guns in surface action or for AA fire - they only use ONE ship's ASW suite - but get to use it for TWICE as many shots. Thus - in effect - ASW attacks are made one vessel at a time - but two are tied up- and they have a better chance of still having DC later in a long voyage if they have been unable to rearm.

GG uses a semi-abstract model. So I think "DD fails to detect" means

EITHER "DD fails to detect"

OR "DD was not assigned to try" - it was instead assigned to go on with the rest of the ships - and not trying means it failed to detect.

The addition of an ASW mission may mean that there is a form in which ALL DD / ASW vessels would try.

Note that in some cases NON ASW ships also attack - because they had DC - and if they exist - they are in RHS. This is done by code too - but any non DE, DD or PC is given a very low chance of success - which is also right.

The new system (not yet out) is more or less as you asked in your opening sentence: subs are built to a low durability standard WITH ZERO speed - so players are encouraged to let them stay put. One day later they upgrade to a version with correct durability and a small amount of system damage (representing training in my mind - a brand new ASW ship is not perfect on the day it is comissioned). Existing subs when the game begins already have the revised rating. These new ratings mean subs are harder to repair - I have no problem whatever with that - they are complex and expensive and need unusual parts - and they will have high victory point ratings - which I can tolerate. Now they are hard to sink they probably ARE worth more vp. I would not rate them purely by durability for vp value - but that is hard code and I cannot change it. This is a compromise and I like it a lot (I think - speaking before testing).

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: vettim89
I decided to take on the Cartwheel project. As someone who has never modded the game, I have some quick questions.

I don't find an ASW strength anywhere in the Database Editor. Is ASW capacity assigned by Nationality? If not where does the ASW value come from?

Those that have modded the aircraft values: are your mods to make the game performed to get better results from aTa combat or because you feel the original values were historically wrong?

In terms of the game code; ASW ‘strength’, as you see it on the ship screen, is the sum of the number of ASW weapons that a ship has in her weapons definition. An ASW weapon is any entry in the “device” portion of the Editor, that is identified as “Type = 20 – ASW”. The number of each ASW weapon is defined in the “Num” field of the Class definition of any ship in the Editor. So, if you have a ship belonging to a class that has 2 Mk VII DC rails hanging off the stern, the game code gives you an ASW rating of “2” for all ships belonging to that class.

The only difference between an ASW rating of 2, 4, or 18, is how many times the code will apply the ASW attack factors against the defending submarine. The code has an arbitrary “% to detect” routine that cannot be changed by adjusting editor values. It has a ‘% to detect base’ calculation that is adjusted by a set of arbitrary percentage changes depending on the “Nationality” and “Year”; the US gets a benefit that increases as time goes on.

% detect is hard coded and cannot be changed. The probability of a kill can be adjusted in the editor by increasing the number of ASW weapons (thereby increasing the ASW ‘strength’) in the “device” load-out of a desired ship class. The individual % kill doesn’t change, but you have a few more throws of the dice.

Hope this helps you.

[el cid again]

One wonders how you know that? Still - thanks.

This means we unintentionally made ASW less powerful by combining all DC into a single mounting - or for a two ship PC - combining BOTH ships into one mounting. Thus a ship without ahead throwing weapons should show up with ASW value = 1 in RHS - I will check - I am skeptical of this. If it has ahead throwers - it will show up as a 3 - usually - since there are usually 2 ahead throwing mountings - but sometimes only one - and unless we created a dual device we need to separate them (lacking slots for more ASW weapons). You only get one throw of the dice for a ship - or a two ship PC pair - in RHS. On the other hand - that weapon may have 10 or 12 DC in the pattern - and code usually lets you roll the dice 2 or 3 times per ship (not sure why - it varies from 1 to 3 times - but if ANY ship is successful - you go around again).

Edit: I checked: it is the number of tubes that shows up. A Japanese DD with a single ASW mounting aft showing 4 "tubes" has an ASW value of 4 - so more or less it is the pattern count that shows up. In this case - it was probably 2 DC racks each dropping twice per pattern. The ammo is 4 - so there are 16 DC total - but the ASW value = 4.


EDIT EDIT - I was wrong - the DC count is DC count - so we changed nothing by putting them all one one line. It is what it is. If you have different lines for side (K guns or Y guns) and racks - or all one - machts nichts.

[DuckofTindalos]

He knows it because he's on the AE naval team and the ASW rating = number of ASW devices thing hasn't been changed for AE.