Admirals Edition Naval Thread II

[Yamato hugger]

As did the high command.

[m10bob]

In an AAR thread, the narrative of a sea battle indicated a particular DD sunk a particular enemy ship.

QUESTION: Will the program remember that particular victorious ship in some way,(experience points,etc.??)

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In an AAR thread, the narrative of a sea battle indicated a particular DD sunk a particular enemy ship.

QUESTION: Will the program remember that particular victorious ship in some way,(experience points,etc.??)

No. This is transitory information, displayed at time of occurence.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In an AAR thread, the narrative of a sea battle indicated a particular DD sunk a particular enemy ship.

QUESTION: Will the program remember that particular victorious ship in some way,(experience points,etc.??)

No. This is transitory information, displayed at time of occurence.

Thank you Don.....I love the more detailed narratives.....

[Dili]

Thank you Don.....I love the more detailed narratives.....

Doesn't witp tools make that possible? i bet that they will be developed for AE too.

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thank you Don.....I love the more detailed narratives.....

Doesn't witp tools make that possible? i bet that they will be developed for AE too.

Isn't it a part of AE?

[vettim89]

The subject of MS durability came up in Cathartes' AAR. I was reviewing some submarine war patrol logs that avaailble online (Mostly USS Wahoo) and would come up with these observations:

1. The TT dud rate seems to be about spot on. Numerous references to duds, broaching, and misses that should not have been (assuming depth problems)

2. The WITP damage routine probably does not a give realistic portryal of TT damage even if it gives realistic outcomes, By that I mean MS probably sink as a result of TT attacks but the war patrol logs almost consistantly depict sinkings occuring with hours of being hit if not nearly immediate (numerous references to target broke apart and sank in three minutes, target went low in the bow and diasappeared in seven minuts,etc)

3. A point was made that a single TT should not sink a MS. The war patrol logs depict a different picture with anything under 6000 tons going down from a single hit if the warhead actually exploded. Larger MS went done with two or more hits. Again, the sinkings were almost immediate.

So I am happy to see MS durability go down in AE as it seems to be in keeping with the historical record. I was just wondering about how quickly it will happen. Will we see more submarines actually see their targets sinking? This has some game play implicatiosn as if I know the sub sank the MS, I am not going to put it on a pursuit course the next turn. Also with the changes in FOW, I would assume those ships actual seen slipping beneath the waves will give a more accurate report. Or will they?

[wild_Willie2]

Will subs now finish of unescorted targets that they hit instead of hitting it with a single torp and then just continue their journey as if nothing has happened....

[JWE]

Ok, what you must understand is this is a computer game and it will not unfold as an irl replay.

The naval game engine shoots (applies) a data value (torp, or whatever) against a target value (durability, or tonnage, or whatever). The engine has no clue, and doesn’t care, what the nice little textual name is for the target.

In AE, we adaptively defined the ability of various ship types to resist shell/torpedo attacks depending on a host of characterics. Merchies ‘ought’ to sink after a couple torps in the belly, but they won’t always. Merchies that have been Navalized will be harder to sink.

“Most” merchant hull adaptations will be easier to sink than correspondingly similar warship designs of corresponding tonnages, but not all. Should be ok.

Upside, it’s all in tables, so if it requires tweaks, it’s simple.

Downside, it’s all in tables, so if you dork with values without knowing the algorithm, your looking at the black hole event horizon.

[Anonymous]

Hello
I think I understand how the editor data is important for running the game. This makes much sense to me. What is the black hole event horizon if I change things?

MO

[witpqs]

So don't cross the beams. Good safety tip.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: Osterhaut

What is the black hole event horizon if I change things?

This was intended as humor. What he means is that if you start editing these values without fully understanding every nuance of how those values are used and will actually play out in the game, the results may not be what you expect and could be really bad.

The "black hole event horizon" refers to the astrophysics concept that there is a point sufficiently close to a black hole where nothing, not even light, can escape the gravitational pull of the black hole, at least from a classical view. But that's only being used as a metaphor/analogy.

Bottom line - I think a paraphrase of JWEs comment would be "Don't touch these things unless you really, really know what you're doing - and even then, think twice."

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
So don't cross the beams. Good safety tip.

[:D][:D] LOL [:D][:D]

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Osterhaut

Hello
I think I understand how the editor data is important for running the game. This makes much sense to me. What is the black hole event horizon if I change things?

MO

You'll find time distortion to be an issue [;)].

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Ok, what you must understand is this is a computer game and it will not unfold as an irl replay.

The naval game engine shoots (applies) a data value (torp, or whatever) against a target value (durability, or tonnage, or whatever). The engine has no clue, and doesn’t care, what the nice little textual name is for the target.

In AE, we adaptively defined the ability of various ship types to resist shell/torpedo attacks depending on a host of characterics. Merchies ‘ought’ to sink after a couple torps in the belly, but they won’t always. Merchies that have been Navalized will be harder to sink.

“Most” merchant hull adaptations will be easier to sink than correspondingly similar warship designs of corresponding tonnages, but not all. Should be ok.

Upside, it’s all in tables, so if it requires tweaks, it’s simple.

Downside, it’s all in tables, so if you dork with values without knowing the algorithm, your looking at the black hole event horizon.

IRL, the primary measure of resistance to torpedo hits was water-line area, not tonnage--hull breaches effectively flooded the entire depth of the hull, so the effect was proportional to the floor area of the compartments flooded. Warhead damage was proportional to the 2/3 power of the warhead weight. WWI-era warships were about half as resistant to torpedoes as WWII. Carriers (of all nations) were about 2/3rds as resistant as gunships of the same date and waterline area. Your generic 2200-ton WWII destroyer had about a 50% chance of sinking when hit by one standard torpedo.

[JWE]

Yeah, I noticed that IRL has quite a few real things in it. But my shrinking ray isn’t perfected yet, and I still can’t get the world to fit in my computer case. “If at first you don’t succeed, Mr. Wint” … “Try, try, again, Mr. Kidd” [:)]

Don’t be too concerned about the use of the term tonnage. It’s just a convenient label for a data variable in the editor. It has somewhat to do with displacement (not gross) but it is subject to much additional mathematical manipulation. I.e., it ain’t really tonnage.

[witpqs]

I read of one case (I believe it was in The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17) where the torpedo struck right on a beam and didn't penetrate hardly at all before exploding. There was only minor flooding. So retaining the ability for outliers to be generated is a good thing.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I read of one case (I believe it was in The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17) where the torpedo struck right on a beam and didn't penetrate hardly at all before exploding. There was only minor flooding. So retaining the ability for outliers to be generated is a good thing.

Exactly what we're trying to achieve. For tankers that get blown up by a single torp on the Murmansk run, there's always an Ohio that don't settle on the bottom till she gets to Malta. If you must, simply must, have everything happen just like IRL, buy a book. Otherwise, I think AE is pretty close to the percentages.

Thanks for your support witpqs. I think you get the concept.

Ciao. John

[witpqs]

Definitely have my support. I love to read about history, but when it comes to strategic games historical capabilities, et al is where it's at.

One real problem with many of the things modeled in WITP (and other games) is that they happened infrequently enough to give really good statistics to go on. Carrier battles are a great example. There's been lot's of great discussion and learning about Midway, but it only happened once. It's hard to really refute the "one in a million" conclusion, even though many things we know lobby against it being that lucky an outcome.

Far from seeking to start a Midway debate, my point is that modeling some outliers is easier because there is lots of data to go on (like with merchant ship sinkings), while in others cases you guys have to make the best educated estimates you can about what is frequent versus what is an outlier.

[JWE]

Frankly bro, I am in awe of the developers of this game. They have the ability to keep the engine in one side of their brain, and IRL in the other, and can actually make them work together.

I think you will like what they came up with.

John