DP Gun question

[vettim89]

Just to be devil's advocate here, in a multiple target environment one quad may be better than four singles because of time of engagement. If a single 40 mm starts firing at a target a max range, it will take some time for the gunners to start hitting the target and then an additional time before the target is knocked down if it is at all. A quad mount will not only track the target quicker due to a higher volume of lead but will have a higher kill rate than the single once its on target.

[JWE]

No. A quad set of barrels is approximately 3.2 x the effectivity of four single barrels.

The game is not irl. The game does not care about irl. I'm sorry I even started this. Am going boat racing now.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Just to be devil's advocate here, in a multiple target environment one quad may be better than four singles because of time of engagement. If a single 40 mm starts firing at a target a max range, it will take some time for the gunners to start hitting the target and then an additional time before the target is knocked down if it is at all. A quad mount will not only track the target quicker due to a higher volume of lead but will have a higher kill rate than the single once its on target.

ORIGINAL: JWE

No. A quad set of barrels is approximately 3.2 x the effectivity of four single barrels.

But the question I raised is that 3.2x (or 2.8) vs a single target or is it simply in general?

In other words is a single Quad mount 3.2 times as effective as 4 single mounts vs multiple targets?

I guess I shouldn't be be obtuse ...what I am getting at is the effectivity rating that is applied has to account for how the code interprets the data.

Is the engagement resolution micro or macro?

In a micro situation you test individual mounts against individual targets...and a Quad may very well be 11.2 times as effective vs a single target when compared to a single barrel...or 3.2 (or 2.8) times as effective as 4 single barrels....against single targets.

However in a macro resolution you may 6 aircraft attack at once and the attack is resolved as a group... the single Quad may only able to engage and destroy 2, 3, or 4 aircraft....whereas a single mount could only engage and destroy 1 or 2 aircraft. However because there are 4 single mounts the defender could potentiallly engage and destroy all 6 attackers, whereas the single Quad may only be able to engage and destroy 4.

Way back when in ASL days there was an interesting article and analysis done of the various ways to attack in a firephase... The question revolved around whether it was better to launch one big firepower attack of 32 or conduct 4 separate engagements of 8 each.... in that system depending on the quantites separate was sometimes better.

The game is not irl. The game does not care about irl. I'm sorry I even started this. Am going boat racing now.

No need to be sorry...hope you enjoy the race.[;)]

[akdreemer]

Thanks JWE, I understand what your trying to show me. I knew that it would not b a perfect 4x for a quad, so thanks for you insights.

witpq, I understand the dynamics of AA rapid fire guns and I know that their paths are defined to be inside a cone determined by a number of factors, including, but not limited to, vibrations, barrel whip, and projectile defects, thus we have CEP's, which will overlap a bit. However, not knowing how the game reacted to changes I figured making one change at a time and chose effect. If what I am doing creates real problems, then at least we will know that it is not viable.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Just to be devil's advocate here, in a multiple target environment one quad may be better than four singles because of time of engagement. If a single 40 mm starts firing at a target a max range, it will take some time for the gunners to start hitting the target and then an additional time before the target is knocked down if it is at all. A quad mount will not only track the target quicker due to a higher volume of lead but will have a higher kill rate than the single once its on target.

ORIGINAL: JWE

No. A quad set of barrels is approximately 3.2 x the effectivity of four single barrels.

But the question I raised is that 3.2x (or 2.8) vs a single target or is it simply in general?

In other words is a single Quad mount 3.2 times as effective as 4 single mounts vs multiple targets?

I guess I shouldn't be be obtuse ...what I am getting at is the effectivity rating that is applied has to account for how the code interprets the data.

Is the engagement resolution micro or macro?

In a micro situation you test individual mounts against individual targets...and a Quad may very well be 11.2 times as effective vs a single target when compared to a single barrel...or 3.2 (or 2.8) times as effective as 4 single barrels....against single targets.

However in a macro resolution you may 6 aircraft attack at once and the attack is resolved as a group... the single Quad may only able to engage and destroy 2, 3, or 4 aircraft....whereas a single mount could only engage and destroy 1 or 2 aircraft. However because there are 4 single mounts the defender could potentiallly engage and destroy all 6 attackers, whereas the single Quad may only be able to engage and destroy 4.

Way back when in ASL days there was an interesting article and analysis done of the various ways to attack in a firephase... The question revolved around whether it was better to launch one big firepower attack of 32 or conduct 4 separate engagements of 8 each.... in that system depending on the quantites separate was sometimes better.

The game is not irl. The game does not care about irl. I'm sorry I even started this. Am going boat racing now.

No need to be sorry...hope you enjoy the race.[;)]

To take it on step further I would argue that when a multi-mount would only fire at on target at a time using all its barrels, there would be no 1 barrel for this target and one for that. Thus if presents mass fire instead of individual fire. It would be all or nothing. Single mounts are more flexible

[vettim89]

I thinking we are dancing around the same question which has to do with how the code views it. When confronted with multiple attackers, does the code give each weapon mount a shot at each incoming aircraft or does the could divide the avaialble mounts between the incoming aircraft? If the former than a quad mount is superior as it would have a better chance of killing each incoming aircraft; if the latter then 4 x single mounts may be more effective as more aircraft would be engaged even if teh % kill was lower. In modern naval warfare there is a tactic known as rollback where the attack saturates the defender with more targets thatn the systems can handle at one moment. While the defenders systems may be very effective at killing individual targets, if there are more targets entering the engagement window than the system can shoot at then some will get through.

My college statistics class is so far away from me now. I used to know the formulas for computing such things. A probability table would give you the answers here. For instance if you were flipping a coin you would say the chance of getting heads is 50%. But if you flipped a coin four times there would be a table that would tell what the percentage chances would be for geting heads once, twice, thrice of even four times. This is the kind of information hidden deep in the code that we can only discover by trial and error

[Dili]

In other words is a single Quad mount 3.2 times as effective as 4 single mounts vs multiple targets?

Can't be one size fits all, it depends on weapon and target.

When confronted with multiple attackers, does the code give each weapon mount a shot at each incoming aircraft

If that then there wouldn't be any saturation possible. Btw, never heard that tactic called "rollback", i always have heard and written as saturation attack.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: treespider
No need to be sorry...hope you enjoy the race.[;)]

No worries, just had a gazillion, trillion things to do, and no time to do any of them. Was racing around like a headless chicken. Tested two new kites, nice!

Like it does for all other combat calculations, the game shoots a slot's worth of data at a target. JuanG has found that the total flak rating is the number in the slot's Num column, times the effect of the listed weapon. That's total, but don't forget attacks come from different directions (front, back, left, right) so sometimes, only the front ones shoot, or the right side ones, or ...

The number in the Turrets column is for damage accounting; it just gives the number that is subtracted from the Num column if a weapon gets whacked.

[Dili]

The number in the Turrets column is for damage accounting; it just gives the number that is subtracted from the Num column if a weapon gets whacked.

Thanks.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: vettim89
I thinking we are dancing around the same question which has to do with how the code views it.

Vettim89, you just won the all expenses paid, 6 hour trip, to byew-tee-ful downtown Tijuana, along with a two week, post-visit, course of antibiotic and antiviral drug treatments at Dr. Daksuramanagathian's I-Can-Cure-It Clinic, Mortuary, and Memorial Gardens in Redlands.

JuanG has determined that the flak rating is the number of barrels in the Num column, times the Effect of the weapon from the device definition.

I know this is boring and repetitive, but maybe, just maybe, it means something?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: vettim89
I thinking we are dancing around the same question which has to do with how the code views it.

Vettim89, you just won the all expenses paid, 6 hour trip, to byew-tee-ful downtown Tijuana, along with a two week, post-visit, course of antibiotic and antiviral drug treatments at Dr. Daksuramanagathian's I-Can-Cure-It Clinic, Mortuary, and Memorial Gardens in Redlands.

JuanG has determined that the flak rating is the number of barrels in the Num column, times the Effect of the weapon from the device definition.

I know this is boring and repetitive, but maybe, just maybe, it means something?

Thanks all, answered most of my question. Now I shall see what difference mounts vs individuals actually has. I will let you all know when i get some hard data.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Dili

In other words is a single Quad mount 3.2 times as effective as 4 single mounts vs multiple targets?

Can't be one size fits all, it depends on weapon and target.

When confronted with multiple attackers, does the code give each weapon mount a shot at each incoming aircraft

If that then there wouldn't be any saturation possible. Btw, never heard that tactic called "rollback", i always have heard and written as saturation attack.

Thinking on it, you are correct. "Rollback" actually refers to the tactic of aiming the initial attacks at the escorts so that follow on attacks have a better chance of hitting the high value target in the center of the formation

[Knavey]

My head is about to explode...but this is some pretty interesting stuff.