Accuracy all devices.

[miv792]

In what is measured the accuracy of the guns and all devices? in printf?

[Big B]

is that from a mod - or stock data base?

[miv792]

2 scenario of it this device. Just want to bring precision guns and bombs to real figures. This interest that the coefficient for accuracy.

[Big B]

Well, originally in WitP, accuracy was a function of Rate of Fire. For artillery, it was the ROF in rounds per minute, while aircraft cannon were all the square root of the ROF.
A 20mm Orelikon gun has a ROF of 450 rounds per minute, how 90 relates to 450 in the old system is a mystery to me (in the old days it would ave been either accuracy 450, or 21 [square root of 450]).

[JuanG]

Accuracy at this point is pretty much dimensionless, and how you derive it depends on the device in question and what factors you choose to account for. Symon/JWE has posted the equation he used for anti-surface accuracy of naval guns somewhere, though obviously as the factors relevant to the accuracy of a light AA gun like the 20mm are entirely different, that would not be applicable here.

A good place to start is to take one of the stock scenarios or DBB are work your way back from the figures to get an understanding of how the numbers come about. I do this looking at 4-5 devices as a reference and plotting real data relevant to their performance (so in this case RoF, MV, possibly train/elevation rate factors, etc.) against the values given in game. Then its pretty much up to you to decide how to tweak those (because you feel they need changing or don't agree with the weightings) or what to give new devices (because you're trying to add new things) or both.

Sorry if thats not all that helpful, but unfortunately it is pretty much a case of experiment and learn, as we have no way of knowing exactly how the game uses these values. All we can do is look at what the experts have given us and try to make sure we don't stray too far off in fear of breaking the game.

EDIT:
Here is the thread dealing with anti-surface values for naval guns; tm.asp?m=3343291&mpage=1

[miv792]

Thank you very much. And how is calculated precision bombs?

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: miv79
Thank you very much. And how is calculated precision bombs?

There is no game mechanism to calculate precision bombing. There is no such algorithm. Better to ask how big is your winkie?

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: miv79

Thank you very much. And how is calculated precision bombs?

What kind of precision bombing? todays like or WW2 dive bombing?
If the later then setting a dive bomber gives all you need.


Another option could is to designate that weapon as missile, i am not sure if accuracy works for missiles but you might try play with it too.

[miv792]

Well, what about precision bombing, I got excited. Just interested in how to increase damage by ground forces and at the same time that it did not affect the ships. Just a game of aviation significantly reduced damage from air bombardment. Read somewhere that during the raid SB-3, 12 bombers destroyed the only living force of 386 people. Also strange that during the raid of a large crowd bombers sometimes with good weather and no air defenses to counter fire dies little man.

[Dili]

Why not affect the ships?

[miv792]

I want to increase the effectiveness of the bombs by ground forces and that this increased efficiency was not affected by ships.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: miv79

I want to increase the effectiveness of the bombs by ground forces and that this increased efficiency was not affected by ships.

The way to do that is to use two different bombs, one for anti-ground and one for anti-ship. Look in the threads in scenario design and in the various Beta release notes to see the documentation on how to do that. Basically you use a setting in the aircraft's payload section in the scenario file for specifying different weapons for different missions.

[Dili]

Yes, what witpqs says is the best option.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: miv79

I want to increase the effectiveness of the bombs by ground forces and that this increased efficiency was not affected by ships.

The way to do that is to use two different bombs, one for anti-ground and one for anti-ship. Look in the threads in scenario design and in the various Beta release notes to see the documentation on how to do that. Basically you use a setting in the aircraft's payload section in the scenario file for specifying different weapons for different missions.

Further to what witpqs has said. The OP should read my posts in this recent thread.

tm.asp?m=3712728&mpage=1&key=alternate%2Cbomb

Alfred

[Big B]

[X(] LOL

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: miv79
Thank you very much. And how is calculated precision bombs?

There is no game mechanism to calculate precision bombing. There is no such algorithm. Better to ask how big is your winkie?

[miv792]

What is this word? winkie

[Dili]

A word that in this context means pen*s. Replace * with i .

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Dili

A word that in this context means pen*s. Replace * with i .

You mean Apple is making an iWinkie? [X(]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: miv79
Thank you very much. And how is calculated precision bombs?

There is no game mechanism to calculate precision bombing. There is no such algorithm. Better to ask how big is your winkie?

This brings a smile. I once studied the tech manual for the Norden Bombsight -
which is posted online somewhere. There were an astonishing number of variables:
it was a very complicated calculation. And, operationally, virtually worthless!
We found that high altitude bombing (we can "put a bomb in a pickle barrel" was
the exaggerated saying) was subject to wholly unpredictable cross winds - even
if you could see the target. Over Japan - you could not even see it 80-85% of the
time (depending on whose data you use). Which is why Gen Lemay developed (illegally
and against standing orders from JCS) a firebombing concept: you didn't have to
see the target if it was subjected to a firestorm! Japanese cities had many
buildings made of wood and paper. Start enough fires you get a weather system -
hot air rises - sucking in more cool air at low altitude - fanning the fire to
the point it will ignite anything that burns, even steel. It will not go out until
it runs out of fuel. The firebombing of Tokyo in April 1945 was the worst bomb raid
of all time - even by grossly understated measures you normally read. I met a
US demographer there in 1968 who tried to figure out realistic numbers: he started
with the population of the city before and after the raid, and then subtracted the
number of people who showed up in adjacent districts. [All the records were destroyed
and most of the people who would collect statistics were killed or disabled. Most
of the bodies were also destroyed - preventing counting.] There are great uncertainties
in the data, but it cannot be less than 250,000 and may be over a million - with the
mean in the 600-800 k range. Anyway - don't put too much stock in "accuracy" of bombing
from high altitude. The solution requires on board command guidance - a human pilot
or an autopilot that listens to a sensor or commands from somewhere else that is tracking
the bomb/missile - whatever it is.

If anyone cares about my "illegally" comment, look up FM 21-10 - possibly the best short material
on the matter even today. If you really want a full treatment, formally done in a scholarly
sense, ask the Library of Congress for a paper "Are US Nuclear Weapons Legal?" [The answer is
complex. Nothing outlaws nuclear weapons per se. But there is a grave risk their use
would violate legal requirements of the law of land warfare, and treaties like those
forbidding modification of the climate.]

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Dili

A word that in this context means pen*s. Replace * with i .

You mean Apple is making an iWinkie? [X(]

New markets [:)]