Got it: ASW depth ratings in RHS

[el cid again]

OK - it is my fault for believing what I was told about code: "range" does matter - if 0 or a small value the weapon won't work

Otherwise our values all seem to work - well - and are a delight to watch - as you can see them working.

I used the following depth ratings:

From British practice (copied by Japan - the first value was originally 300 feet pre war)
other nations generally use similar values (exept USN)

Pattern 2 small DC = 500 feet
Pattern 4 small DC = 600 feet
Pattern 9 small DC = 900 feet
Pattern 14 small DC = 1000 feet
Squid ASW mortar = 600 feet

From USN practice
Pattern 2 and 4 Large DC = 600 feet
Pattern 8 and 13 Large DC = 1000 feet
Hedgehog = 300 feet
Mousetrap = 300 feet
Mark 24 torpedo = 600 feet

For Japan
3 inch ASW mortar 150 feet
15 cm ATW DC 500 feet

[el cid again]

Issues:

1) The DC weapons hit too often. We may need lower values - and this is hard to do - how can you get less than accuracy values in single digits - including 1? But the number of shots being 1 grossly moves in the right direction.

2) ATW may not work - ever - in any form - jury still out. Not sure why - since there is no "direction" to them - but it may be the depth ratings.
The model may not work with reality - ATW are shallow attack and a good sub dives too deep for them to actually hit (even though they would work if they did hit). If the game assumes "instant max depth" - the sub is never near the surface for them to be used.

[el cid again]

It is typical GG design: statistical. The depth of a sub is more or less represented by one of the endless series of die rolls in his routines.
SOMETIMES ATW work. Just as sometimes DC work. They have advantages - higher accuracy in some cases - and disadvantages - less depth and less effect when they hit. Our effect values may be too high - but I have preserved the stock system pending a better understanding of how to modify it. A Hedgehog - or Mousetrap using Hedgehog projectiles - has an effect = 35 = weight of charge in pounds. This is small compared to a DC - but the firing of 20 projectiles (or 8 for a Mousetrap) helps accuracy get up.

However - the absolute rate of damaging and sinking subs is still fairly high. If this is the case with stock values for effect - and we only shoot one shot per ship - it is no wonder that shooting many shots per ship in the past was so lethal.

The key here is to understand the "range" field - which can not really be range - but has apparently a dual function - and this was not explained to us. We were told "range does not matter" - so we set it to a relative value proportional to range - with 0 for DC - implying you must close to target. But that isn't the system: it uses values in the hundreds. Certainly not hundreds of miles or hundreds of thousands of yards - I think it means depth in feet.

[Buck Beach]

Does this mean that the shots previously were being fired but just didn't hit so no Ammo was expended? Does your tests reflect they are now using the DC AMMO? Is it one DC used equals one hit (highly unlikely)?

[el cid again]

No and yes.

No - they were not dropping - because DC had a depth of 0 - I thought it was "range = 0" -

Yes - they now do expend ammo - and one shot per shot - and every time.

Understanding the range field means depth was the key.

I think weapon depth and sub depth and die rolls are all combined in a system - the sub has no actual depth - chance determines the outcome - but the greater the depth of the weapon - the better its chance is - and the greater the depth of the sub - the less chance the weapon has. Depth is like accuracy - the bigger the better - as it were. But 0 means no chance at all.

[el cid again]

I was wrong Buck: I CAN partly fix the air ASW problem. By uniformly rating bombs at the same accuracy = the lowest accuracy already in the system - for any aircraft NOT using that bombs of that accuracy (30 kg and 50 kg) - we reduce the chance of a hit - often dramatically.
Kates or Bettys or Nells using 250 kg bombs in ASW patrols will have accuracy divided by 13 (correction 7.5). Allied heavy bombers using 500, 1000 or larger bombs will tend to divide accuracy by a factor of 20 or more. Even the case of Mavis and Emily - using 100 kg bombs - will reduce by almost half. The amount of change depends on the device - but these ratings varied by a monsterous 22,500 per cent - which is outrageous and more than unreasonable - so a reform to a standard must have various impacts depending on how big the device rating was before. Using a value that we know works means we have not gone too far either. We might reduce it still farther bye and bye - if we find hit rates are too high. But it is a good point to start with.

This is your fault (meaning to your credit) - I was thinking about your idea - can we make it better? And so I looked at the data - and found this incredible variation - which must be wrong. Instead of proceeding at once, I posted a thread, asked Matrix, asked USAF, and looked up more detail design air model games. It is now certain: this data was based on ignorance of ballistics. Many things affect accuracy, but bomb weight isn't one of them.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I was wrong Buck: I CAN partly fix the air ASW problem. By uniformly rating bombs at the same accuracy = the lowest accuracy already in the system - for any aircraft NOT using that bombs of that accuracy (30 kg and 50 kg) - we reduce the chance of a hit - often dramatically.
Kates or Bettys or Nells using 250 kg bombs in ASW patrols will have accuracy divided by 13. Allied heavy bombers using 500, 1000 or larger bombs will tend to divide accuracy by a factor of 20 or more. Even the case of Mavis and Emily - using 100 kg bombs - will reduce by almost half. The amount of change depends on the device - but these ratings varied by a monsterous 22,500 per cent - which is outrageous and more than unreasonable - so a reform to a standard must have various impacts depending on how big the device rating was before. Using a value that we know works means we have not gone too far either. We might reduce it still farther bye and bye - if we find hit rates are too high. But it is a good point to start with.

This is your fault (meaning to your credit) - I was thinking about your idea - can we make it better? And so I looked at the data - and found this incredible variation - which must be wrong. Instead of proceeding at once, I posted a thread, asked Matrix, asked USAF, and looked up more detail design air model games. It is now certain: this data was based on ignorance of ballistics. Many things affect accuracy, but bomb weight isn't one of them.

Thank you Sid. My only intention is to assist in the limited way I can.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I was wrong Buck: I CAN partly fix the air ASW problem. By uniformly rating bombs at the same accuracy = the lowest accuracy already in the system - for any aircraft NOT using that bombs of that accuracy (30 kg and 50 kg) - we reduce the chance of a hit - often dramatically.
Kates or Bettys or Nells using 250 kg bombs in ASW patrols will have accuracy divided by 13. Allied heavy bombers using 500, 1000 or larger bombs will tend to divide accuracy by a factor of 20 or more. Even the case of Mavis and Emily - using 100 kg bombs - will reduce by almost half. The amount of change depends on the device - but these ratings varied by a monsterous 22,500 per cent - which is outrageous and more than unreasonable - so a reform to a standard must have various impacts depending on how big the device rating was before. Using a value that we know works means we have not gone too far either. We might reduce it still farther bye and bye - if we find hit rates are too high. But it is a good point to start with.

This is your fault (meaning to your credit) - I was thinking about your idea - can we make it better? And so I looked at the data - and found this incredible variation - which must be wrong. Instead of proceeding at once, I posted a thread, asked Matrix, asked USAF, and looked up more detail design air model games. It is now certain: this data was based on ignorance of ballistics. Many things affect accuracy, but bomb weight isn't one of them.

Maybe it is comparing apples to oranges but do you think that is possible to also find a solution to the excess effectiveness of the TF ASW attacks. Not the same solution but a similar approach by taking apart the data and searching for more errors.

Looking at the original weapon numbers and Ammo loads on board, from my uneducated view it seems there is too much given up by the Pattern weapon concept (shots fired and number of DC runs). Not to mention the rich diversity of original equipment.

[el cid again]

The pattern concept is far more valid and will certainly reduce the effect of ASW TFs - wether or not by enough remains to be seen?

The diversity issue is somewhat bogus:

1) It was more apparent than real - Japanese DC were copies of RN ones - and used the same depth settings - so the difference is substantially cosmetic in device name

2) Even in the case of real differences between DC - the functional difference was close to nil. It takes a lot of difference in charge to matter a little. Thus - the model I use here - large and small - is remarkably good. It matters far more how many you drop than if there is a slight size variation.

3) With the addition of depth settings - which change with pattern - we de facto have added more kinds of DC. It is ambiguous if we use the same DC with a deeper setting or a different DC altogether? Both are modeled - and equally well - but you do get to have the later - larger patters work deeper - and that is diversity - although the fact is masked by not having a model number in the name.

4) When we get more slots - I will rework using model numbers and very tiny variations in effect - in rich detail. I cannot work outside the box we have to play in.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The pattern concept is far more valid and will certainly reduce the effect of ASW TFs - wether or not by enough remains to be seen?

Zero hits through 4/11/1942 is a damn good start at being reduced.

The diversity issue is somewhat bogus:

1) It was more apparent than real - Japanese DC were copies of RN ones - and used the same depth settings - so the difference is substantially cosmetic in device name

2) Even in the case of real differences between DC - the functional difference was close to nil. It takes a lot of difference in charge to matter a little. Thus - the model I use here - large and small - is remarkably good. It matters far more how many you drop than if there is a slight size variation.

3) With the addition of depth settings - which change with pattern - we de facto have added more kinds of DC. It is ambiguous if we use the same DC with a deeper setting or a different DC altogether? Both are modeled - and equally well - but you do get to have the later - larger patters work deeper - and that is diversity - although the fact is masked by not having a model number in the name.

4) When we get more slots - I will rework using model numbers and very tiny variations in effect - in rich detail. I cannot work outside the box we have to play in.

[el cid again]

What is the rate when the depth rating - not explained to us - is set properly? That is the germane question.
You need to use 7.94 or later to answer that.