Creating HMG unit

[Rommel3]

el cid again/ After reading your post, I'm very interested in your RHS MOD. Especially Device issue. In your Mod, All Anti soft value is quite low compare to Official, CHS.

You said square root something. If you explain this mor detail, I will be appreciate it.


And penetraton is high in your Mod. I dont know whether WITP system applly distance/penetration matter or not.

[el cid again]

JWE: I am not sure how "I think you are on the right track" warrants a "whoa" - but I still think you are on the right track. I do think that many formations of IJA are support light. In fact, I just redid engineers, and was able to demonstrate by head counts this must be the case for them. IF present in a hex with support elements, these units will function a great deal better!

I was referring to supply itself. In CHS supply just appears at every resource center - wether or not it really should. And the supply model is such that it can be anything whatever - vacuum tubes for your radio ? shells for your heavy guns? no problem whatever! CHS ALSO has actual supply itself appearing at many points - for many reasons. RHS cut that back to special cases ( tiny numbers at fishing ports is the main on map example - otherwise it is limited to map edge hexes where supplies "enter" the map ). In addition, it has things that "eat" the supplies at resource centers - in competition with military units - so if you are not doing what the British really did - run supply IN to Malaya - you are going to run out. In stock and CHS Malaya needs NO supply whatever - nada - and it feeds both defenders and invaders without prejudice! The system we are playing with in RHS not only eats the Allied supplies at the start, it insures damage at major resource hexes (even if undefended in a military sense) - so the invaders won't get a lot of supply any time soon - and eventually it eats their supplies in the same sense it started eating Allied supplies. Thus both sides are forced to import supply.

Yamashita was offered five divisions. He accepted only three - on the basis he could not feed more. Players who send too many troops and too few supplies will have the same problem. Note, however, that artillery does not consume enough ammunition (it is the majority of what an army in combat eats) - so the game burdon is not as high as it should be. Becauase the system simply does not demand enough combat supply.
But it is actually quite good at demanding normal supply - and also it does increase this for combat. Just not enough.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

A Browning M2 12.7 mm HMG should have a range = 1, ROF = 750,
effect = 10, ceiling = 4000, penetration and anti-armor values = 15,
anti-soft value = 3 and a load cost = 4.

The M2 Browning HMG came in three versions basic versions in WWII: Air cooled, water cooled, and aircraft mounted. All three had different rates of fire:
M2 HB was up to 450 rpm
M2 water cooled uo to 600 rpm
M2 aircraft mount 750 rpm

Which version is the above figures for?

With simple sights i doubt very seriously that anyone is going to hit an aircraft at an altitude over 1000 feet.

First of all, some technicalities:

1) In WITP ground support comes in at 2000 feet. So an mg that does not reach 2000 feet might as well not be in the game for AAA purposes.

2) For this function (and most functions) range in WITP is in thousands of yards. Thus a range of 1 needs to be associated with a ceiling of 2000 to 4000 feet - or something is out of whack. That is, 2000 feet rounds up to 1000 yards. 4000 feet rounds down to 1000 yards. 1000 feet would round down to a range of zero - and 5000 feet would round up to 2000 yards.

3) We want to give a .50 greater effective ceiling than a .30. Since aircraft altitudes are almost always in thousands of feet (200 feet is one exception to this) - using values of 2000 and 4000 - both associated with a range of 1 (000 yards) - is a way to make the .50s more effective.

4) Note that some of this is not obvious to users. Settings do not matter in certain situations - code forces you to fly at certain altitudes - whatever you set - on certain types of missions. Thus you may THINK you are flying ground support at some other altitude - because that is what you said to do - just all your pilots disobey orders 100% of the time!

5) Another factor - IRL - is the range of tracers. That is the REAL practical limit on range. No matter how good you are - without electronic tracking - if you cannot tell where you are shooting - you cannot correct.
Tracers tend to burn out at much greater ranges than 1000 feet - so good gunners at least have the potential to correct onto the target. In the one case that really matters - an airplane attacking near your position - you have the ideal situation: constant bearing decreasing range. You don't have to correct for crossing at all. Just get the elevation right and the plane is going to run into your stream. I can teach anyone to do that in a single session. In 1968 - as a quick and dirty "point defense system" (after what became Vulcan/Phalanx had been specified - in two versions - 20mm for 'war emergency' and 30 mm for long term - so the system is designed for the GAU-8 which at that time did not exist) I proposed .50s for ASCM application. After tests with Marines, they shelved the idea of Phalanx!!! Took 11 years - and even then we only got the 20 mm version - although the 30mm gun had been built and the system could handle it!!! But tests indicated about 80% PK per gun on a non-jinking closing subsonic target.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

el cid again/ After reading your post, I'm very interested in your RHS MOD. Especially Device issue. In your Mod, All Anti soft value is quite low compare to Official, CHS.

You said square root something. If you explain this mor detail, I will be appreciate it.


And penetraton is high in your Mod. I dont know whether WITP system applly distance/penetration matter or not.

First, to begin at the end, in any system by this designer, there are lots of die rolls. Yep - bet on it - penetration is a function of luck - and range - and probably lots of other things as well. [Every time we get something explained the code looks impressive in ways no one ever suspected]

Second, the general theory is this: WITP "effect" is simply shell weight in pounds! Well - a shell only hits ONE point. How many times can you destroy a single point? How many guys - or vehicles - are near a single point? For an area target - a soft land unit is an area target - several guys spread around - the effect is proportional to the square root of weight - because that is the way explosives work. If you drop a 15 inch shell on em - say at Singapore (or a 14 inch at Manila) you do get more effect than if you just shoot a 75mm - but not in proportion to the weight - in proportion to the root of the weight - just as it should be.

[Rommel3]

el cid again/ So The formula is,


Is it Right?

MG bullets are quite small and light compare to Gun shells. But What about Rate of fire?
I think more than one shells would be fired for the one day battle.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
JWE: I am not sure how "I think you are on the right track" warrants a "whoa" - but I still think you are on the right track.

I'm very sorry Cid, it was a poor choice of words. Whoah was merely an exclamatory, kinda like an Ah Ha!! All Right!! or WoW!! Sorry if you thought it was negative, absolutely no negativity meant.

I do think that many formations of IJA are support light. In fact, I just redid engineers, and was able to demonstrate by head counts this must be the case for them. IF present in a hex with support elements, these units will function a great deal better!

I was referring to supply itself. In CHS supply just appears at every resource center - wether or not it really should. And the supply model is such that it can be anything whatever - vacuum tubes for your radio ? shells for your heavy guns? no problem whatever! CHS ALSO has actual supply itself appearing at many points - for many reasons. RHS cut that back to special cases ( tiny numbers at fishing ports is the main on map example - otherwise it is limited to map edge hexes where supplies "enter" the map ). In addition, it has things that "eat" the supplies at resource centers - in competition with military units - so if you are not doing what the British really did - run supply IN to Malaya - you are going to run out. In stock and CHS Malaya needs NO supply whatever - nada - and it feeds both defenders and invaders without prejudice! The system we are playing with in RHS not only eats the Allied supplies at the start, it insures damage at major resource hexes (even if undefended in a military sense) - so the invaders won't get a lot of supply any time soon - and eventually it eats their supplies in the same sense it started eating Allied supplies. Thus both sides are forced to import supply.

Yamashita was offered five divisions. He accepted only three - on the basis he could not feed more. Players who send too many troops and too few supplies will have the same problem. Note, however, that artillery does not consume enough ammunition (it is the majority of what an army in combat eats) - so the game burdon is not as high as it should be. Becauase the system simply does not demand enough combat supply.
But it is actually quite good at demanding normal supply - and also it does increase this for combat. Just not enough.

Don't know about supply. I haven't wanted to dink with the game system too much. Too many things are inter-related and I'm very hesitant about opening any cans of worms. All that me and my group are doing is tweaking values in a standard game context. By standard I mean stock-Matrix or stock-CHS.

Besides, there are so many other people, like yourself, that seem very willing to take various bulls by the horns. Hopefully some of our stuff can be ported into other major mods.

Ciao. JWE

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

el cid again/ So The formula is,


Is it Right?

MG bullets are quite small and light compare to Gun shells. But What about Rate of fire?
I think more than one shells would be fired for the one day battle.

Hi Rommel,

Like much in this game, it ain’t quite so simple, but “Effect” is not the same as “Anti-Soft” IMHO. It appears that the “Effect” field value is applied against a target that has a “Durability” rating, while the “Anti-Soft” field value is applied against a soft target’s population. A very long winded explanation of the scenario editor fields, that reveals more ignorance than information goes like this:

The editor screen is just a database panel where the names of the data fields are fixed. The data in the fields very often have different meanings than the “name” of the field would suggest. Also, fields may or may not be used by particular weapons. It all depends on the “Type” of device: Torpedo, DP Gun, Naval Gun, Aircraft Weapon, AFV, Squad, etc …

The “Accuracy” field means “accuracy” for Aircraft Weapons, ASW and Mines. It means “ROF” for Naval, DP and AA Guns, and “speed” for torpedoes. It seems that AA fire in naval combat might be different from AA fire in ground combat and that “Accuracy” might mean ROF, or it might mean “accuracy”, depending; Brother Nik is the AA deity and might provide a better answer.

Most devices only use a sub-set of the 10 different fields. Even though the other fields may have data in them, it may not be extracted and used by the various combat algorithms. Although many arty devices have “Effect” and “Accuracy” values, I do not believe these are used in the bombardment phase of the ground combat model, just the Range, Anti-Soft, Anti-Armor and Load Cost fields. The “Effect” and “Accuracy” values might be used when firing on an unloading assault TF, but I’m not sure.

The various combat models appear to be formalized and quite structured. They seem to depend on the situational phases of the game. A device, identified as an AAMG (AA Gun-Type), seems to be able to fire at targets other than aircraft in certain situations, but doesn’t seem to do so in ground combat.

I guess what I’m saying is that we, generally, really don’t know how all the different combat modalities function. Until we are able to determine who does what to whom, and when, we will be groping in the dark as to whether an AAMG with both an “Effect” and an “Anti-Soft” value is able to function in both roles.

Note to the Cid, or anyone else; please begin a thread, with a sticky, that collects all we know about the Device database fields and how they function in the various combat models.

Ciao. JWE

[jwilkerson]

The editor screen is just a database panel where the names of the data fields are fixed. The data in the fields very often have different meanings than the “name” of the field would suggest. Also, fields may or may not be used by particular weapons

You've essentially discovered Joe's 17th Law of Datamodelling.

"The definition of a data element is determined by how it is used, not by its name."

A case in point. There is a field in the code called "capacity". The comments beside the initial definition of this field say "used for port expansion". Hum, ok. But I saw this field being used in the ground combat calculations (a lot) so I had to dig further. Turns out this field is first populated from the editor field called "capacity". Turns out that field is called on the screen "hq_type". Turns out this contains data from 1 to 109. Turns out the editor manual actually explains the hq_type field fairly well ... like a 0 for a basic corps HQ ... or a 100 for a command hq ... with an additive from 1 to 9 for the range of the hq. So a 1 is really a 0+1. But anyway, I finally had my explaination of what the check 0<capacity<20 in the code meant ... it meant, is it a corps hq ? !!!

Like I said just another example of JWE's point that the data do not necessarily mean what the name of the data might indicate, so walk warily through the process and use similar devices when building new ones. And test !!!

[Rommel3]

Hi JWE,
Thanks for the informative reply. According to your post, It's better to Leave the official Device database fields alone,&nbsp; untill we get enough inform.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

Hi JWE,
Thanks for the informative reply. According to your post, It's better to Leave the official Device database fields alone,  untill we get enough inform.

Yeah, I guess so. I'm pretty dumb when it comes to this stuff; I know a "little", but only in one small area of expertise. I would really, really, really ... ... really, like to have a thread where we can all compare notes on what we know, or think we know, about the editor fields and how they are relevant to combat modalities.

I'm very sorry that I can't wrap all this up in one blanket regurgitation, but I guess that's the way it goes. I appreciate your interest in this and other game issues and hope you continue to push the envelope. Whatever you discover, please post it so the rest of us can take advantage of what you find.

Ciao. JWE

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

A Browning M2 12.7 mm HMG should have a range = 1, ROF = 750,
effect = 10, ceiling = 4000, penetration and anti-armor values = 15,
anti-soft value = 3 and a load cost = 4.

The M2 Browning HMG came in three versions basic versions in WWII: Air cooled, water cooled, and aircraft mounted. All three had different rates of fire:
M2 HB was up to 450 rpm
M2 water cooled uo to 600 rpm
M2 aircraft mount 750 rpm

Which version is the above figures for?

With simple sights i doubt very seriously that anyone is going to hit an aircraft at an altitude over 1000 feet.

First of all, some technicalities:

1) In WITP ground support comes in at 2000 feet. So an mg that does not reach 2000 feet might as well not be in the game for AAA purposes.

I have no problem with this, the .50 was not designed for anything more than anti-strafing accrding the the US Army Ordnance dept in WWII. ANd strafers do come in at 100 feet and leave at 1000.

2) For this function (and most functions) range in WITP is in thousands of yards. Thus a range of 1 needs to be associated with a ceiling of 2000 to 4000 feet - or something is out of whack. That is, 2000 feet rounds up to 1000 yards. 4000 feet rounds down to 1000 yards. 1000 feet would round down to a range of zero - and 5000 feet would round up to 2000 yards.

Altitude value in the AA field is in 1000 of feet. I am not concerned about its horizontal range as in the jungle or any built up terrain it is rare that you see more than a couple of hundred feet.

3) We want to give a .50 greater effective ceiling than a .30. Since aircraft altitudes are almost always in thousands of feet (200 feet is one exception to this) - using values of 2000 and 4000 - both associated with a range of 1 (000 yards) - is a way to make the .50s more effective.

Okay this is a vlaid point.. seeing how that we are unable to have vlues in anything but multples of 1000's

4) Note that some of this is not obvious to users. Settings do not matter in certain situations - code forces you to fly at certain altitudes - whatever you set - on certain types of missions. Thus you may THINK you are flying ground support at some other altitude - because that is what you said to do - just all your pilots disobey orders 100% of the time!

Yep, states so right in the manual.

5) Another factor - IRL - is the range of tracers. That is the REAL practical limit on range. No matter how good you are - without electronic tracking - if you cannot tell where you are shooting - you cannot correct.

This is of course if you can see your tracers in daylight to any discernable distance. Also, except for the water cooled version, it is not possible to have a sustained rate of fire for the M2 much more than 150rpm or risk overheating. Thus you might get at most a couple of tracers every burst, not some sustained hosing effect. Additionally, with only 250 round belts you are much more likeley to be out of ammo than targets. Why if the .50 was so darned effective that the US Navy was in such a big hurry to replace it with 20mm.

Therfore at 1000 feet effective range you will punish the strafers which is what the gun was designed for.

[el cid again]

There is something to be said for your attitude. In simulation we are dealing with averages - the average gun in the hands of an average user with average training in average conditions. On the other hand, we also have to deal with limits - and related other issues. I am very reluctant to do away with the AA value of light machine guns - for two unreleted reasons:

1) These are actually part of the designed AA defenses of ships and specialist AA units - on both sides - and in third countries. US Army and Japanese army AA units, for example, all contain AAMGs, and the US Army has a great number of them. While it is clear the pre - war thinking that these would be adequate was less than correct for conditions that occurred by mid war - I don't think it was complete nonsense either. I think there needs to be some statistical chance - particularly when the number of guns is large - as with a US AA unit. If we set ceiling too low - we mess this up and make it never be so.

2) AA in general is not effective enough in this model. By reducing durability I have increased it. By giving AA units detection gear I have increased it. By giving guns with no ceilings a setting greater than 0 I have increased it. And by increasing the number of guns in many units I have increased it. Nevertheless, it remains true that:

a) We are grossly understating the number of guns in theater;
b) We are not yet seeing realistic AA attrition rates - even vs just MG opposition - although it is better than it was (and a few players are complaining - particularly when they fly in low - as an anti-air warfare guy I take that as a sign we are moving in the right direction).

IF we get this right players are going to agonize about sending in ground support. And they should. Even in 1982 it was found that light MG not set up for AAA work were of value against jets - and British ships ended up being coated with them - from the troops. My own experience and studies from the 1960s indicated this should not be a surprise - but few people expected it.

AA is an attrition weapon. IF you put ANYTHING in the sky - there is a chance of damage. My favorite "light AAA weapon" is an NVA one from the Viet Nam war. It came in two marks, and was undoubtedly the most inexpensive and least sophisticated weapon in its class of all time:

A specialist weapon for defense of a target when conditions - usually geographic - sometimes combined with other defenses - meant you could predict the approach path of an attack - say on a bridge and the planes had to come down a valley - the basic "projectile" was simply rocks!
The "projector" was - industrial dynamite! The "fire control system" was a man, laying on his back, looking strait up, a measured distance from the bridge (or whatever). When the planes passed over the man, he hit the detonator, which was connected by telephone wire to the dynamite - thus being jam proof.

This "Mark I" weapon actually worked. But not content with that, NVA engineers went one step farther. To increase lethality, the tied the rocks in pairs with piano wire! The chance of hitting the wire was more than an order of magnitude greater than the chance of hitting either rock - and when you hit the wire you guaranteed you would ALSO be hit by one of the rocks - a fraction of a second later - meanwhile the wire was sawing something - or bending something - or getting injected in a turbine.

Not that this worked at "thousands of feet" - but that amazingly primitive technology works. Taught by a Marine to use a WWI British concept called "indirect rifle fire" (pretend a body of riflemen is an artillery battery, and call the shots like you do artillery - if they aim together you can SEE the place they hit the ground in most terrain types) - I decided that you could also use rifles against aircraft. Never got to try it - but imagine my surprise when I learned - after the war - the ENEMY did do just that! A grossly exaggerated version of this is in the opening scene of Air America. Even so, it is believed this technique (not however involving single shots), accounted for numbers of Allied aircraft. It was also believed, at the time, that a .50 was "better than nothing" as a point defense weapon - although again a sea skimmer does not fly at "thousands of feet."

I really do not think it is safe to fly above a large number of hostile machine guns - and some low risk should be the case. Even when you use 20mm and 25 mm guns, the risk is entirely statistical - and in several senses. But the statistical risk can be very great: it is not really safe to approach a late WWII warship - no matter which of its batteries is operational. There is a very real sense in which the kamakaze (a problem never solved by USN - and Jim Dunnigan says still would be a problem today) and the unmanned missile (see the German use of these in particular) were the "solution" to the problem of intense AA. But intense is not entirely a function of electronics: we learned the hard way in Viet Nam that ancient "pattern shots" were still dangerous - when we defeated aiming devices. [You might oversimplify this by saying the defense puts up a wall and the attacker must hit it at some point].

And then there is the law. IF .50s are not effective against airplanes, and we admit it, we can't have em any more!


One final point: The Czechs devised a "better heavy mg" using a bigger caliber - and the Russians (and their customers) widely adopted it. But the PLA has now developed a true .50 cal - which is more effective than the "heavy heavy" as it was sometimes called. This weapon is not almost universally mounted on PLA vehicles for AA use - and I don't think they are doing this to instill a sense of false bravado in the troops. And PLA is not training - or sighting - these modern .50s only for strafers.