why the Range of torpedoes were not historical?

[sudwind]

ex) 61cm Type 93 Torpedo : In game - 20.12km In real - 22km/52knots 33km/41knots 40km/36Knots
21in MK 18 Torpedo : In game - 9.14km In real - 5.5km/45knots 13.5km/26knots


It seems that there is some reason(=mechanisms betweem Accuracy and Range) but I cant find it. Any ideas about it?[&o]

[Dili]

For Type 93 because at 40km the game engine doesn't give much chances to hit which btw if perfectly in accordance with reality. No idea about the other, but i doubt it had only 2 speeds so widely separated. Could be another version.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: sudwind

ex) 61cm Type 93 Torpedo : In game - 20.12km In real - 22km/52knots 33km/41knots 40km/36Knots
21in MK 18 Torpedo : In game - 9.14km In real - 5.5km/45knots 13.5km/26knots


It seems that there is some reason(=mechanisms betweem Accuracy and Range) but I cant find it. Any ideas about it?[&o]

1. This is relevant to the game code how?

2. What is the basis for the assertion that AE has it wrong?

3. OK, you're a dev for a day. Of the various numbers you provide, which is the one you would apply? You only get to insert one range datum point per torpedo. Make the choice relevant to the game code.

Alfred

[sudwind]

Hi. Alfred.

I appologize that I used the words are misleading and inappropriate. What I really want to ask is "Is there anything to consider when I modify the figures(Accuracy and Range, penetration and Range) of Torpedoes (or Naval Guns)."

For example, DBB and Original have different Accuracy fugures of Type93 Torpedoes. But I failed to find 'the reason why this happen' and "any debate or account about the 'correlation between Accuracy and Range'(or correlation between Penetration and Range)" in forum.

So I want to know about the "Correlations" and "The way to use and calcurate it"

[szmike]

Afaik labels (penetration, accuracy, etc.) are not the same in real life as in game engine, so the values are adjusted for them to make sense within game code. They cannot be treated literally as they are labeled.

[DanSez]

ORIGINAL: sudwind

Hi. Alfred.

I appologize that I used the words are misleading and inappropriate. What I really want to ask is "Is there anything to consider when I modify the figures(Accuracy and Range, penetration and Range) of Torpedoes (or Naval Guns)."

For example, DBB and Original have different Accuracy fugures of Type93 Torpedoes. But I failed to find 'the reason why this happen' and "any debate or account about the 'correlation between Accuracy and Range'(or correlation between Penetration and Range)" in forum.

So I want to know about the "Correlations" and "The way to use and calcurate it"

Been a lurker more than a poster for most of those discussions but I recall at least one comments (from Simon I believe) who mentioned nerfing the 'Long Lance' for reasons that they modeled and felt more reflective of the DBB game mod. The change is intended as are the many changes they made to air frames as well.

I am playing two PBEM games (Stock Scenario 2 and Relutant Admiral 8.1 which uses a lot of DBB as the basis) and I can see a very noticable differnce in the early Japanese sub attacks, more misses, and a few more hits-no explosions.

<<edit>>
that would be
Symon (user name)
I did a few searches without any luck so far.
I would look for his post in the Design and Moding sub folder back about 2-3 years ago.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: DanSez

ORIGINAL: sudwind

Hi. Alfred.

I appologize that I used the words are misleading and inappropriate. What I really want to ask is "Is there anything to consider when I modify the figures(Accuracy and Range, penetration and Range) of Torpedoes (or Naval Guns)."

For example, DBB and Original have different Accuracy fugures of Type93 Torpedoes. But I failed to find 'the reason why this happen' and "any debate or account about the 'correlation between Accuracy and Range'(or correlation between Penetration and Range)" in forum.

So I want to know about the "Correlations" and "The way to use and calcurate it"

Been a lurker more than a poster for most of those discussions but I recall at least one comments (from Simon I believe) who mentioned nerfing the 'Long Lance' for reasons that they modeled and felt more reflective of the DBB game mod. The change is intended as are the many changes they made to air frames as well.

I am playing two PBEM games (Stock Scenario 2 and Relutant Admiral 8.1 which uses a lot of DBB as the basis) and I can see a very noticable differnce in the early Japanese sub attacks, more misses, and a few more hits-no explosions.

<<edit>>
that would be
Symon (user name)
I did a few searches without any luck so far.
I would look for his post in the Design and Moding sub folder back about 2-3 years ago.

Either very few or none of the IJN subs used the Long Lance IIRC.

[DanSez]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: DanSez

ORIGINAL: sudwind

Hi. Alfred.

I appologize that I used the words are misleading and inappropriate. What I really want to ask is "Is there anything to consider when I modify the figures(Accuracy and Range, penetration and Range) of Torpedoes (or Naval Guns)."

For example, DBB and Original have different Accuracy fugures of Type93 Torpedoes. But I failed to find 'the reason why this happen' and "any debate or account about the 'correlation between Accuracy and Range'(or correlation between Penetration and Range)" in forum.

So I want to know about the "Correlations" and "The way to use and calcurate it"

Been a lurker more than a poster for most of those discussions but I recall at least one comments (from Simon I believe) who mentioned nerfing the 'Long Lance' for reasons that they modeled and felt more reflective of the DBB game mod. The change is intended as are the many changes they made to air frames as well.

I am playing two PBEM games (Stock Scenario 2 and Relutant Admiral 8.1 which uses a lot of DBB as the basis) and I can see a very noticable differnce in the early Japanese sub attacks, more misses, and a few more hits-no explosions.

<<edit>>
that would be
Symon (user name)
I did a few searches without any luck so far.
I would look for his post in the Design and Moding sub folder back about 2-3 years ago.

Either very few or none of the IJN subs used the Long Lance IIRC.

yes, well that would be a factor...
still in my fuzzy brain I have an echo reading a post about Japanese torps being nerfed a bit for the DBB model
and I do see a difference in the two games I am playing, although that is just two data points of a thousand potential variables but I should not have used the term Long Lance. So much to learn, ao much to remember
(rattle that brain around a little more in my head)

thanks for the clarification, I would rather (eventually) to get my references correct

[US87891]

Note from John (Symon, or JWE, if you are looking for references).

"Didn't nerf any one side. We don't do that sort of thing. All torpedoes, of every nationality, had data fields recalculated and adjusted to better fit within the 'mean' of calculation expectation values. There were way too many +2 and +3 sigma results, and proportionately more +1 than -1. Judicious math was indicated. Every torpedo, of every nation was run through the exact same math model to give self-consistent results. The 61cm type-93 might have 'smaller' specs in Babes than stock, but so does everything else. Proportion remains. The 61cm type-93 is still more powerful, to exactly the same degree, than others.

Please tell the IJ fellow that the editor device screen is nothing but a GUI window that hosts gobs of info from a universe of devices, land, sea, and air. Data fields have an arbitrarily assigned "LABEL" that means nothing except to identify the variable a particular code piece is looking for. Correlation depends on the particular code subroutine for a combat modality. That is the heart of the game system and cannot (will not) be revealed. This sort of thing is what Babes was all about; self-consistent centering of data across multiple combat modalities such that they 'fit' within expectation values of the code."

Range and duds were not changed afaik.

Matt

[DanSez]

ORIGINAL: US87891

Note from John (Symon, or JWE, if you are looking for references).

"Didn't nerf any one side. We don't do that sort of thing. All torpedoes, of every nationality, had data fields recalculated and adjusted to better fit within the 'mean' of calculation expectation values. There were way too many +2 and +3 sigma results, and proportionately more +1 than -1. Judicious math was indicated. Every torpedo, of every nation was run through the exact same math model to give self-consistent results. The 61cm type-93 might have 'smaller' specs in Babes than stock, but so does everything else. Proportion remains. The 61cm type-93 is still more powerful, to exactly the same degree, than others.

Please tell the IJ fellow that the editor device screen is nothing but a GUI window that hosts gobs of info from a universe of devices, land, sea, and air. Data fields have an arbitrarily assigned "LABEL" that means nothing except to identify the variable a particular code piece is looking for. Correlation depends on the particular code subroutine for a combat modality. That is the heart of the game system and cannot (will not) be revealed. This sort of thing is what Babes was all about; self-consistent centering of data across multiple combat modalities such that they 'fit' within expectation values of the code."

Range and duds were not changed afaik.

Matt

Much appreciation for the reply.
Nerf was the wrong word to use.
Would it be correct to say "all of the torpedo data was re-calculated"?
Thanks

[Rising-Sun]

Well it can be done, but the codes will have to be re-written. The captains will have to decide to launch those torps at maximum range and very low chance to hit. Up close on fast, better chance to hit. Also noticed the Japanese have second reloads on those torpedoes and the Allies doesn't, that is for surface warships that carry them.

I would say, long lance shooting into the harbor would be better options than naval engagement. Esp for the subs, there no telling what they might sink in the harbor. Maybe a train lol.

[Dili]

Long Lances are not fired from Submarines.

[Rising-Sun]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Long Lances are not fired from Submarines.

But it can be done though. Anything is possible.

[Reg]

But 75 years of hindsight says that it wasn't......

[Dili]

Long Lance was 1000kg heavier.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Long Lance was 1000kg heavier.

As a former diving officer, what's ten or twelve extra tons, far forward on the trim moment arm, between friends?

More difficult, the Long Lance required pure oxygen to run, which required an oxygen plant on the surface ships that carried it. A sub has LOTS of spare space for a highly-explosive O2 plant. If not, just rip something out, like the sonar shack.

And it burned OIL. Oil. Wow. A single loose drop in the piping together with pure O2 and . . . boomski. Cleaning the piping for a propulsion upload took 4-5 days on a surface ship with lots of space and manpower.

I'm not even sure they would fit in sub tubes, but hey, it's the perfect submarine weapon system otherwise.

[witpqs]

I thought I remembered the information on this forum being that it took different (larger) tubes.

[Dili]

Submarine torpedo Type 95 was also O2+Kerosene like Long Lance so that is not the reason. Reason is probably exclusively the size/weight that is an increase of more 60% weight, 650mm instead of 533mm diameter. The weight implications is more than just the torpedos and reloads weight, since means also stronger torpedo tubes and handling devices to cope with more 60% weight.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Submarine torpedo Type 95 was also O2+Kerosene like Long Lance so that is not the reason. Reason is probably exclusively the size/weight that is an increase of more 60% weight, 650mm instead of 533mm diameter. The weight implications is more than just the torpedos and reloads weight, since means also stronger torpedo tubes and handling devices to cope with more 60% weight.

From what I can find the Type 95 depended on them installing a highly-dangerous compressed O2 tank on the carrying subs. Otherwise, loss of flask pressure or any routine maintenance that caused loss of pressure would make the weapon useless. Then, they discovered that pure O2 in a submarine environment meant zero lubricating oil on moving parts in the fish (previously mentioned boomski), which led to corrosion, which led to weapon failure. So they re-re-modded the Type 95 to use 35% O2, and thus lost much of the range advantage the thing was designed to achieve.

Add to that that the fish had a bearing-wiggle error of over 100 yards at 6000 yards run, and it was pretty useless against anything but tight convoys shot at in a shotgun fashion. Long range in general wasn't useful until homing systems came into play.

I also learned that the surface Long Lance led to loss of a CA after air attack that would have otherwise done minimal damage set them off in the tubes. Well done, IJN!

[Dili]

Yes it a well known case that one of Chikuma class cruiser was probably saved because the commander choose to jettison the torpedoes just before a bomb hit precisely in their place.