Hedgehogs & Mousetraps & Bears, Oh My - Not RHS

[Dili]

Doh! i was giving dud rate to naval guns( and sometimes they got more than torpedo dud rates) and aerial bombs and tought of tweaking aerial combat with that. I suppose that is not in cards for AE?  Btw thanks for the information.

[witpqs]

So maybe the only thing worse than hard-coding is secret hard-coding. [:(]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

So maybe the only thing worse than hard-coding is secret hard-coding. [:(]

Hard-coding is one of those things that causes the blood of software engineers to boil. If you follow the evolution of programming language standards, you'll discover that somewhere between 30 and 50% of the changes have to do with discouraging hard-coding. It is the one practice that more than any other makes software maintenance hard.

[el cid again]

Not documenting at all - not documenting completely - not updating what documentation is done - and not organizing well with lots of comments in some known language - are all other ways to make life miserable for code maintainers or modders. We have most of this - depending on the routine - and the apparent savings (which also is real savings up front) is always an illusion in the long term - although you can shift the cost to other people or later in time.

IF you have data - like dud rates - or facing - or anything else - always put it in the data base. Sooner or later it may be used. Joe Wilkerson once wrote "you get the data right - and I will get the code right." Good programmers will at least think about using fields available to them - and the more interest - the more they think. When Russian ships got added to mods - Matrix rewrote the code to make them part of the package (at first we had to lie and call them French - and use a prefix in the name - SN for Soviet Navy - to make them work). Lots of things have been added or modified - and many of them because of demonstrated interest in the community. Also - it is good practice - if you looked up the data - and there is a place to put it- put it there - even if someone says it won't be used. It is possible it IS used too - undocumented code may have been written they don't know about.

[Dili]

Yes i have first British bombs at war start, USA BB's specially 16"/45 Mark 6  in Torch(20% dud) all with big dud penalties, also  bigger the gun gets more dud rate since they have more chances to go trough soft skin without exploding . At war start in Europe  British 250 lb MK IV GP  and 500 lb MK IV GP  bombs had a dud rate of 10-15%, i suppose that happened in Pacific too since i dont think they replaced stocks.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yes i have first British bombs at war start, USA BB's specially 16"/45 Mark 6 in Torch(20% dud) all with big dud penalties, also bigger the gun gets more dud rate since they have more chances to go trough soft skin without exploding . At war start in Europe British 250 lb MK IV GP and 500 lb MK IV GP bombs had a dud rate of 10-15%, i suppose that happened in Pacific too since i dont think they replaced stocks.

Every shell out there has a dud rate. For naval guns in the game there is no a 1 to 1 ratio to hits for shells expended. Indeed each 'round of ammo' in that a ship expends in the game represents from 10 to 20 rounds fired. I see no real benefit to naval guns having a dud rate unless each shell that is expended is accounted for. For bombs an torpedoes, however, a dud rate makes perfect since.

[JWE]

Nope, the only dud rate is for torpedoes. Reason is that historically US torpedoes sucked for a certain period of time, then got better (turned off the mag exploder thingy), then got better (made the contact exploder pin out of real steel), and then got really better.

Dud rates for other stuff wasn’t significant enuf to compel a “dudrate” calculation. You are just gonna have to live with it.

You are just gonna have to live with it in the AE world as well. Just think Roger Bacon, and Thomas Aquinas.

Ciao. John