Data to insert in DB?

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

You may not do this for super heasvy guns - we tried - but the effect values are too high - if they work for surface combat they kill way too many planes. These weapons were used - but not with effect - there is no know instance where they caused a kill or damage - and while probably it happened - it should be very low in effect - and our system here won't let us do that unless we made the device ineffective for surface combat.

An interesting tidbit I found in "SMALL ARMS, ARTILLERY AND SPECIAL WEAPONS OF THE THIRD REICH - AN ENCYCLOPEDIC SURVEY" by Terry Gander and Peter Chamberlain states that the 305 mm guns om Helgoland had their mountings modified for a maximum elevation of 70 degrees and that they were used at long range against bomber "boxes". They are said to have achieved "kills", e.g four on January 4th, 1944. I don't know if this story isn't anecdotal - never heard of it before.
In the same book there is a section about a Skoda project for a 240 mm AA gun for the Navy. Intended for coastal installations, it was a twin turret weighing 600 tons with barrels 79,4 calibres long, a maximum elevation of 90 degrees, firing 205 kg shells at a rate of eight per minute to a ceiling of about 36.000 m (roughly 120.000 feet) and a maximum range of 48.000 m (about 52.500 yds). Design work apparently dropped after 1942. They also say that the barrels would probably have been "shot out" after a single day's use.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


A few land devices may be added at the bottom but they will not produce, will not have effetive pools, and I find often do not work at all.

I've made a private mod where I've defined land-based devices in slots 550-570, and they certainly get produced, they collect in pools, they upgrade earlier devices in a normal fashion, they seem to count for AV, and they certainly are combat-effective (at least AA guns shoot down aircraft, and I think I've seen CD devices from that range fire at ship targets). Has anybody else tested this?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: el cid again

You may not do this for super heasvy guns - we tried - but the effect values are too high - if they work for surface combat they kill way too many planes. These weapons were used - but not with effect - there is no know instance where they caused a kill or damage - and while probably it happened - it should be very low in effect - and our system here won't let us do that unless we made the device ineffective for surface combat.

An interesting tidbit I found in "SMALL ARMS, ARTILLERY AND SPECIAL WEAPONS OF THE THIRD REICH - AN ENCYCLOPEDIC SURVEY" by Terry Gander and Peter Chamberlain states that the 305 mm guns om Helgoland had their mountings modified for a maximum elevation of 70 degrees and that they were used at long range against bomber "boxes". They are said to have achieved "kills", e.g four on January 4th, 1944. I don't know if this story isn't anecdotal - never heard of it before.
In the same book there is a section about a Skoda project for a 240 mm AA gun for the Navy. Intended for coastal installations, it was a twin turret weighing 600 tons with barrels 79,4 calibres long, a maximum elevation of 90 degrees, firing 205 kg shells at a rate of eight per minute to a ceiling of about 36.000 m (roughly 120.000 feet) and a maximum range of 48.000 m (about 52.500 yds). Design work apparently dropped after 1942. They also say that the barrels would probably have been "shot out" after a single day's use.

That last is a classic indicator of ultra high performance guns. Almost anything is possible - Bull worked on satellite launching by gun - and Sweden orbited the first satellite that way long before the aerospace era (ever heard of the Swedish Cannon?). Not for research - or even military operations - but to show the gun could reach any target Germany cared about. I believe in AA guns - they are about 100 per cent better now than in WWII - they work vs missiles- and they are more reliable than missiles. The Helgoland case may be why Japan believed in them: they copied Long Lance from a failed RN experiment noticed during a trip to UK.

[Historiker]

I still don't know how much ammo ships should carry...

Moreover:
One can convert AKs to AS, AR, etc. I guess that means "convert to ship of slot xy", no? So what are the slots that ships convert to? Is it possible to let them convert to something different? So is it possible to let ships convert to CL (Aux Cruisers) or CVE (converted merchants)? If yes, is the time for refit always 180 days or can I change this somehow?

[Historiker]

When Cruisers and DDs are equipped with Mines, is it possible to use them normally for minelaying?

[el cid again]

There are two ways to convert: special ships in hard code may update on certain dates or by player menu options;

also you can say an upgrade to any class is a different class.

I mostly do the latter - and I date set the upgrade so it does not appear too soon - but it will upgrade too fast (usually).

In RHS many ships may become CVEs for example - AP, LSD, AO - etc.

In RHS I also use a completely different mechanism for important ships: you get the ship on the right date by the scenario you choose. Thus - Shinano is a CV in CVO - a BB in BBO - or a completely different CV in EOS. [The historical CV had about 42 planes in its air group - monsterous for its expense - and a function we cannot represent in the game. But the same hull can be a 96 plane CV - and is in EOS family.]

The special cases are slot specific - and it is basically the class slot that matters. But for some special cases - e.g Chitose and Chiyoda and Ise and Hyuga - ship slot also matters. Worse - you must NOT use these slots if you do not want these effects to happen in your mod.

Similarly - respawn is a slot specific thing. To know what slot works for what - see stock scenario 16 - the slot Essex is in is a respawn for carriers - you can rename it and it works fine - same for Brooklyn - etc - for Chitose and Ise - same same - the slots are the stock slots. Also for the convertable AK to AR - these depend on the slots those ships classes are in - and for example there is no historical IJN AD - so I leave the slot stock uses empty so you cannot have any. I don't let carriers or cruisers respawn - so those slots are empty. But I do let Chitose reform - and many minor vessels - so those slots are the same as stock.

[el cid again]

Ammunition is not done as a single thing - but a field for each weapon. How many "shots" does that weapon have?

For a gun - divide total rounds (war roungs - not illumination or other special cases ) PER MOUNTING by six.

For torpedoes - usually one - for Japan two IF there is a reload magazine - and this by mounting - many ships could not reload all mountings.

For ASW - the pattern size is the number of "tubes" - and the number of patterns is the number of "shots" - for each weapon. Typically this is six for a pre war ship - and may be 12 for a late war ship. That is, an early ship may drop a pattern of 2 DC six times (12 total DC) - but a good DE will drop patterns of ten a total of twelve times (120 DC). If the ship has a Hedgehog or similar weapon - it usually can shoot one shot for every DC pattern. If you know different for a given case - use the real data.

For light AA weaopns - a poor ship has 12 shots - and a rich one 36 shots - while a normal ship has 24 shots. A merchant ship gets 12 - or even less sometimes. An auxiliary flagship for use in an offensive landing (Allies only) - AGC - gets 36.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

When Cruisers and DDs are equipped with Mines, is it possible to use them normally for minelaying?

Apparently they need to be classified properly: AMCs that lay mines should be called ML,
cruisers CML (or CLM) - and destroyers DM. That way code implements mine options for you.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There are two ways to convert: special ships in hard code may update on certain dates or by player menu options;

also you can say an upgrade to any class is a different class.

I mostly do the latter - and I date set the upgrade so it does not appear too soon - but it will upgrade too fast (usually).

In RHS many ships may become CVEs for example - AP, LSD, AO - etc.

In RHS I also use a completely different mechanism for important ships: you get the ship on the right date by the scenario you choose. Thus - Shinano is a CV in CVO - a BB in BBO - or a completely different CV in EOS. [The historical CV had about 42 planes in its air group - monsterous for its expense - and a function we cannot represent in the game. But the same hull can be a 96 plane CV - and is in EOS family.]

The special cases are slot specific - and it is basically the class slot that matters. But for some special cases - e.g Chitose and Chiyoda and Ise and Hyuga - ship slot also matters. Worse - you must NOT use these slots if you do not want these effects to happen in your mod.

Similarly - respawn is a slot specific thing. To know what slot works for what - see stock scenario 16 - the slot Essex is in is a respawn for carriers - you can rename it and it works fine - same for Brooklyn - etc - for Chitose and Ise - same same - the slots are the stock slots. Also for the convertable AK to AR - these depend on the slots those ships classes are in - and for example there is no historical IJN AD - so I leave the slot stock uses empty so you cannot have any. I don't let carriers or cruisers respawn - so those slots are empty. But I do let Chitose reform - and many minor vessels - so those slots are the same as stock.

I know that, thank you. But my question was:
When I choose at a 5000+ cargo space AK "convert to MLE", does it convert to any MLE or does that mean to witp "convert to slot xy"? In the second case, this would mean I could let the player choose i.e. whether to change an AK into an Auxiliary Cruiser, so a special class of CL.
I would like to add the option for players of both sides to convert AKs into CVEs and Auxiliary Cruisers - and this might be an option for that!
In this case, I must make the CVE either very small or raise the building time from 180 days - and is there any option to do exactly this?

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

When Cruisers and DDs are equipped with Mines, is it possible to use them normally for minelaying?

Apparently they need to be classified properly: AMCs that lay mines should be called ML,
cruisers CML (or CLM) - and destroyers DM. That way code implements mine options for you.

Apparently they need to be classified properly: AMCs that lay mines should be called ML,
cruisers CML (or CLM) - and destroyers DM. That way code implements mine options for you.

How can I create CMLs?
Will DM (and DMS) fight weaker than usual DDs or retreat faster?

If I change a AMC from CL (as in RHS) to ML, it won't fight as intense as before, no?
Moreover: How can I assure that a AMC sinks enemy merchants when engaging them? I've never read about an AMC not sinking an enemy merchant that was slower than the AMC if the AMC wasn't sunk itself.
But in witp I've made the experience that merchants often survive engagements with smaller surface wessels - especially when they had only a few small (15cm or smaller) guns.
I might create a more powerful or more accurate 15cm gun for AMCs, but in this case, the AMCs might get more powerful than usual cruisers which is nonsense...

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There are two ways to convert: special ships in hard code may update on certain dates or by player menu options;

also you can say an upgrade to any class is a different class.

I mostly do the latter - and I date set the upgrade so it does not appear too soon - but it will upgrade too fast (usually).

In RHS many ships may become CVEs for example - AP, LSD, AO - etc.

In RHS I also use a completely different mechanism for important ships: you get the ship on the right date by the scenario you choose. Thus - Shinano is a CV in CVO - a BB in BBO - or a completely different CV in EOS. [The historical CV had about 42 planes in its air group - monsterous for its expense - and a function we cannot represent in the game. But the same hull can be a 96 plane CV - and is in EOS family.]

The special cases are slot specific - and it is basically the class slot that matters. But for some special cases - e.g Chitose and Chiyoda and Ise and Hyuga - ship slot also matters. Worse - you must NOT use these slots if you do not want these effects to happen in your mod.

Similarly - respawn is a slot specific thing. To know what slot works for what - see stock scenario 16 - the slot Essex is in is a respawn for carriers - you can rename it and it works fine - same for Brooklyn - etc - for Chitose and Ise - same same - the slots are the stock slots. Also for the convertable AK to AR - these depend on the slots those ships classes are in - and for example there is no historical IJN AD - so I leave the slot stock uses empty so you cannot have any. I don't let carriers or cruisers respawn - so those slots are empty. But I do let Chitose reform - and many minor vessels - so those slots are the same as stock.

I know that, thank you. But my question was:
When I choose at a 5000+ cargo space AK "convert to MLE", does it convert to any MLE or does that mean to witp "convert to slot xy"? In the second case, this would mean I could let the player choose i.e. whether to change an AK into an Auxiliary Cruiser, so a special class of CL.
I would like to add the option for players of both sides to convert AKs into CVEs and Auxiliary Cruisers - and this might be an option for that!
In this case, I must make the CVE either very small or raise the building time from 180 days - and is there any option to do exactly this?

Ship conversion is not well modeled - and there is no way to make the time be what you want it to be. Everything is slot oriented - so yes - what you put in the MLE slot would appear - and confuse players who expected an MLE to be what they get when they ask for one. There should be no ability of players to convert massive numbers of AKs to CVEs - or many other things for that matter. An AR takes vast amounts of time and captial - if you count machine tools, major cranes, specialist training - as you should - and never can be mass produced even. CVEs were mass produced exactly once - by Henry Kaiser - each hull built to purpose - all at one shipyard. This was impossible anywhere outside the USA - and even so was limted to 50 hulls. Players would convert hundreds - and it is not really meaingful to give them such options.

[Historiker]

Which slots are that?

I know this problems, but as the name stays the same, there is the possibility to control whether house rules about converting are obeyed. So one may well limit the conversion by HRs... For those who don't want that, one can create a second similar scenario without that conversion option.

And what do you think, how many players install a totally new mod with new map needed etc. without reading any hints about how to use it?
If they don't and get an AMC instead of an AD - that's not my problem...

[Historiker]

One more thing:
Let me guess: It is impossible to let CLs and CVEs (MAC-ship) still transport cargo and personell?

[el cid again]

No one memorizes slots. I explained - look in stock - and you will find them. They never change. In fact - quoting a programmer at Matrix - "There is an unbelievable amount of hard code. Vast numbers of slots have it." And Andrew and I independently concluded we needed to convert CHS (and RHS using it) back to stock slots except for cause - and then we were officially told the same thing - nothing else will produce a workable mod we were told. Unless you know what a slot does - by testing that particular slot - you will often get very bad behavior. Like a static unit that marches to a hex that used to be in China - never mind your map or that the unit cannot move. I had many such units - and had to find slots safe to use for them. Even empty slots - I thought they must be safe right? - often have such code. It would take a decade to safely and predictably use every slot - just in the location file.

A modder should consider the way the design is structured - if players are to find the product friendly. I try to do things for cause - historical and technical causes - and document them openly - as a courtesy. No one said I had do have standards or try to be reasonable though - there is no cop on this beat. I trust players more than Matrix does - but you cannot expect players to understand every little thing about history or technical data - never mind about a game system that isn't documented - unless you help them by writing a manual they will expect things to mean what they say - and that is not a silly idea - but a user friendly one.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

One more thing:
Let me guess: It is impossible to let CLs and CVEs (MAC-ship) still transport cargo and personell?

Almost right. Some CVEs are gigantic tankers in their own right. So I give them their real range (35000 miles or so) and fuel (like a tanker) - and at least they can refuel escorts - so in that one way - they become replenishment oilers at least.

The cargo of a CL is defined - period - and only in fast transport mode. It is always the same. "Load" means number of planes for a CL.
Subs are different - 1 to 3 is the number of planes - 4 plus is cargo - on a wierd logrithmetic scale - so 250 (the highest value) = over 22000 tons - wierd I admit - but I did not write the code.

A Dutch grain carrier merchant aircraft carrier - still able to carry grain - is not possible. Neither is Shinshu Maru - able to carry planes, small craft, troops and cargo - in various combinations - and land them without port facilities more efficiently than other ships. Not an option here - we must pick a function. Since lots of ships carry cargo - I pick another function - command - and it looks like an AGC won't carrry anything but a HQ - never mind its "cargo capacity" setting.

[Historiker]

I'm a little bit addled: In stock, the naval guns don't have anti-soft or anti-armor. Although, they have an effect against other ships and an effective naval bombardement. However, in RHS where effekt and penetration are compareable, I felt that bombardement was much to weak.


Why should naval guns have armour? They get their armour in their turrets, so why have they armour?


What's the load cost of naval guns? Only the weight of the muzzle or something else?

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

One more thing:
Let me guess: It is impossible to let CLs and CVEs (MAC-ship) still transport cargo and personell?

Almost right. Some CVEs are gigantic tankers in their own right. So I give them their real range (35000 miles or so) and fuel (like a tanker) - and at least they can refuel escorts - so in that one way - they become replenishment oilers at least.

The cargo of a CL is defined - period - and only in fast transport mode. It is always the same. "Load" means number of planes for a CL.
Subs are different - 1 to 3 is the number of planes - 4 plus is cargo - on a wierd logrithmetic scale - so 250 (the highest value) = over 22000 tons - wierd I admit - but I did not write the code.

A Dutch grain carrier merchant aircraft carrier - still able to carry grain - is not possible. Neither is Shinshu Maru - able to carry planes, small craft, troops and cargo - in various combinations - and land them without port facilities more efficiently than other ships. Not an option here - we must pick a function. Since lots of ships carry cargo - I pick another function - command - and it looks like an AGC won't carrry anything but a HQ - never mind its "cargo capacity" setting.

That's a good Ideo with the CVE, this would give them at least some sort of sense like a MAC-ship.
How can I calculate the load that a number on subs mean? I.e. the Deutschland/U-155 from WW1 was able to carry 1000t of load, which load is that in witp for a sub?
What happens if I give a CL a load of 2000 - is it able to carry 2000 FPs?

[Historiker]

Can I fit usual AAA on ships as well as in land units?
Can I use naval guns on land (as shore battery)?

[Historiker]

Ships must be below 3000 to be Japan, 3000 or above to be Japanese.

I don't understand that.

[Historiker]

Both RC and TR have been used for bombing missions, too. How can I simulate this?
I guess that a RC with bombs will only be able to inflict damage when it attacks a detected ship, no?
A TR with bombs will not be able to attack as well - or it may even have a reduced load?