Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by Dili »

That but also being less detectable at night.

I noticed that my link in one of older post was wrong: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.htm

For USA:
In the mid-1920's, both the Naval Powder Factory at Indian Head and the DuPont Co. developed flashless powders. The Powder Factory had also obtained good results by mixing flash-reducing chemicals with the conventional powder charge. Flashlessness, however, was gained only by an increase in the amount of smoke, which was unacceptable to the fleet as it interfered with searchlight illumination and fire control. By 1928, BuOrd had stopped work on flash suppression. With the advent of radar in World War II, smoke became less objectionable and the fleet was willing to accept considerably more smoke in order to obtain a significant reduction in flash. At the time the request for flashless powder was received, BuOrd had already accumulated large inventories of smokeless powder. In order to prevent this material from being discarded, some means of converting it into acceptable flashless charges had to be found.

From Regiamarina link in my older post:
The moon had just set; reducing the general illumination and depriving Ajax of the backlight that made the Italian ships, stand out. Not equipped with flashless gunpowder, the repeated flashes from Ajax's guns blinded her crew with every salvo. Nonetheless, at 0230 Ajax's gunners finally hit the elusive Artigliere and hit her hard, killing the flotilla commander, Captain Margottini and bringing her to a halt.

User avatar
akdreemer
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:43 am
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Contact:

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by akdreemer »

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Dili
5- It eventually can be tweaked by Ship crew Night Combat ability values, by either downgrading those that dont have flashless powder or by increasing the night abilities of those that have.
So ... if you don't have flashless powder ... what? ... your night vision goes away? ... it somehow degrades the charges in the bag? ... it makes your radar look for a Carl's Jr? ... downgrade why??
Not knowing how the game determines sighting/visibility this is moot. Even 'flashless' powder left a flash, if somewhat less that regular. I am more interested in how gun accuracy is affected by range and environmental factors. Or is it?

Lets say a typical 6" gun has a range of 24k yards. Is accuracy affected by range, which it should be.

There are probably at least 40 factors that can affect accuracy of naval guns.

Some include range, radar, visibility, maneuvering (or lack of), being fired upon by several targets, rate of fire, shell dispersion, etc. etc.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by el cid again »

It is clear from testing that range matters. First - at long ranges - guns with less range do not shoot at all.
Second - and this is nice - at long ranges the chance of a hit are much reduced. It may be the chances are in the
right ball park too. Close range hit rates do seem to approach whole number percentages - 2 to 5 - they should be
- assuming there are several rounds per "shot" like the Manual says.
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by Nomad »

So JWE, where is the info? did cid sidetrack another thread?
User avatar
mlees
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:14 am
Location: San Diego

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by mlees »

Pardon my ignorance. I assume that gun "facing" is used in surface combat. Is that correct?
 
If it is:
 
How does the combat engine determine which side the enemy is on? (Port/Starboard/Forward/Aft arcs)
 
Does it recalculate facing indepently for each combat round?
 
Does the previous rounds facing influence the new calculation?
 
--Facing should change little, at long range, but have a higher chance to do so at closer range or at night.--
 
I had in mind a "chase" battle, like Dogger Bank, only where just the forward facing guns of the pursuing ships get to shoot, and the aft facing guns of the pursued get to reply. Facing should stay the same throughout the battle, until the chased force is deemed to have succesfully disengaged.
 
Then compare that to a battle in Iron Bottom Sound, where the battle lines of both sides twist and snake about, potentially changing facing arcs multiple times over the course of the whole battle.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Nomad
So JWE, where is the info? did cid sidetrack another thread?
Way sorry pal, been working on some AE issues and haven't had time to come play.

Got the code, and have looked at it superficially, but should have a good take available soon.

Who is cid?

Ciao. John
User avatar
mlees
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:14 am
Location: San Diego

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by mlees »

cid = el cid again, creator of posts #9, 16, 23.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: mlees
cid = el cid again, creator of posts #9, 16, 23.
Heard of him, but he's on my sewage treatment green button list.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by el cid again »

Which is too bad for all - since only respectful and open information exchanges serve the community well. After experiencing much worse attitudes from Terminus - and ending up with him as a contributor of art and ideas - I refuse to give up hope that JWE might not come to terms with what is right as well. His ASW thread is responsible for an unintended RHS revision 7.9 - and I have given him credit - in spite of the fact he threatened to have me banned from the board for having anything to do with his threads. I don't understand his hostility any more than I understood Terminus - but nothing ever dismays me. If North Korea can come in from the Cold - and Lybia already did that - anything is possible.
User avatar
akdreemer
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:43 am
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Contact:

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by akdreemer »

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It is clear from testing that range matters. First - at long ranges - guns with less range do not shoot at all.
Second - and this is nice - at long ranges the chance of a hit are much reduced. It may be the chances are in the
right ball park too. Close range hit rates do seem to approach whole number percentages - 2 to 5 - they should be
- assuming there are several rounds per "shot" like the Manual says.
Several rounds per shot is a safe assumption. I went and modified max ranges, lowering them, for naval guns based upon caliber which kept destroyers firing at BBs at 19k yards. So far we are into early 43 in the game and the mods appear to work well and has given the intended consequence.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by el cid again »

The manual says this somewhere. I used I boats for a datum point: they carried 17 rounds. I rounded this to 18 - and to give them 3 shots said "a shot = 6" Many other classes of warships worked out very well - often perfectly - if one assumes six shots per round - so someone else did that before I saw the data.
User avatar
akdreemer
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:43 am
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Contact:

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by akdreemer »

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The manual says this somewhere. I used I boats for a datum point: they carried 17 rounds. I rounded this to 18 - and to give them 3 shots said "a shot = 6" Many other classes of warships worked out very well - often perfectly - if one assumes six shots per round - so someone else did that before I saw the data.
"a shot=6" might be fine, but I used 'a shot=10' which also seems to work just fine for larger caliber guns. But there are too many possible variables out there in the game code.

How does it compute how many shots a ship gets per round? Is this maybe based upon how much ammo it has? If so then increasing the amount of ammo a ship gun has would allow it to shoot more shots thus hitting more often which could skew the results.

Getting a handle on how much ammo a ships has is also fraught with difficulties. For instance the 5"/25 secondaries aboard the US cruisers had a secondary task of providing flares for night combat. Should this ammo be excluded from the totals. Larger caliber guns almost aways carried a mix of AP and HC shells. How do we take this into account, or can we?

So nothing is ever as simple as 'one size fits all'.

el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Naval Combat Data - not RHS

Post by el cid again »

The devil is indeed in the details.

I don't count illumination - or ceremonial - or other non damaging rounds.

I do think a uniform standard is required. Giving subs too many shots combined with code tendency to fight on the surface so that subs would get sunk in suface battle all the time. Reducing it really helped. But going with 10 rounds per shot would mean subs get only 2 shots - seems a bit low - at least in the I boat case. I like uniform definitions - battle rounds divided by x - and there as long as the number is in the range of 5 to 10 - or probably 4 to 12 - it is going to work well enough. Just where to draw the line is the modder's art - and I don't mean to imply that 6 is better than 5 or 7 in any decisive sense - because it isn't.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”