Naval Gun Penetration

[treespider]

Japanese Specifications

See Report 0-19.

[JWE]

Good stuff, Spidey, thank you. Can maybe yank and crank and find some body weights for some shells off that data. Will probably have to use shell weight and extrapolate for most, but can do some from your data and use those as a basis. Geez, don't ya just hate fiziks.

Really like the "short" 8" data. Gun parameters don't quite work within the game curves, but I'll do some serious regression based on that data and see what happens. Always appreciate your thoughtful and relevant input. Good stuff, Spidey, and thank you again.

Ciao. J

[Big B]

Hmmm, long thread.

John, isn't that what I started you guys on months ago?

As some of you may have guessed - I don't post anymore.

B


PS... I would say don't 'GIVE' anyone anything - stay with the numbers come hfLL or high water ....

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Big B
Hmmm, long thread.

oh, yeah.

John, isn't that what I started you guys on months ago?

Not really. Something different. Looks at relative relationships and nominal effectivity. Using Nathan's algorithm to establish uniformity and consistency.

As some of you may have guessed - I don't post anymore.

Me neither, really. Hard to find a thread that's not juvenile. I kinda like it here.

PS... I would say don't 'GIVE' anyone anything - stay with the numbers come hfLL or high water ....

I don't 'GIVE' anything. I crank math, and it is as it is. May tweak some stuff to make it play within the game parameters, but won't give gratuitous gifts.

Ciao. John

[akdreemer]

what minimum range are you using for the game value in computing penetration?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Japanese Specifications
See Report 0-19.

Good news Spidey, we actually got it finished in time. Woo - hoo!!
We did a major push on pen, acc adjustment on the magilla; a few range and eff things, too, where things were out of whack. I think we got lucky and these will be in patch-2. Jap stuff helped. Thanks.

[oldman45]

Is this going to have any effect on the ranges the ships appear to want to fight?

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Big B
Hmmm, long thread.

oh, yeah.

John, isn't that what I started you guys on months ago?

Not really. Something different. Looks at relative relationships and nominal effectivity. Using Nathan's algorithm to establish uniformity and consistency.

As some of you may have guessed - I don't post anymore.

Me neither, really. Hard to find a thread that's not juvenile. I kinda like it here.

PS... I would say don't 'GIVE' anyone anything - stay with the numbers come hfLL or high water ....

I don't 'GIVE' anything. I crank math, and it is as it is. May tweak some stuff to make it play within the game parameters, but won't give gratuitous gifts.

Ciao. John

Damnation, I just caught up with this thread. Good thing I am a math goob , i could actually follow what was being said, at least to some extent [:)]

I am sorry that Big B , and maybe JWE, do not post as often in the general threads. More knowledgeable players posting in the forums would be nice.

But I would also prefer you guys continue to work on the game itself I guess [;)]

[hueglin]

In terms of the surface combat model being a little"fuzzy", didn't Tankerace tweak the code for War Plan Orange? Has anyone on the AE team looked at using the WPO code changes he made, in order to make a more realistic model?

[PaxMondo]

[quote]ORIGINAL: JWE

Editor numbers are fun, but those are the ones everybody "demands" must be acording to their version historical. ...
Need to know how the code works in order to efficiently "prettify" the field values.
[quote]

Precisely. I don't care what actual numbers are input, want to see the results work out. The model is what it is. As been mentioned in these boards many times, Gary puts a lot of randomness into his alogrithms for (what I beleive are) very good reasons: people seem to think that the bigger/better always wins out. Reality is far from that. Bigger/better adjusts the odds slightly in your favor. All the other myriad variables are still bigger (morale, surprise, luck, ...)

Great info in this thread. Thanks for sharing it. Helps a ton.

Does the air to air penetration model work in a similar fashion, or is it entirely different?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Does the air to air penetration model work in a similar fashion, or is it entirely different?

Don't know. Air model belonged to Elf, michaelm, and timtom. On a scale of 1 to 10, if my efforts on the Nav side could reach 6 or 7, their efforts on the Air side would reach 30 or more. Likely doesn't work in a similar fashion, but since it's irrelevant to Nav imperitives, it's ... irrelevant.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: JWE

Oh, heck yeah! There's really 2 parts to the game, the editor numbers, and the code. Everyony gets them confused and thinks they are the same thing.

Editor numbers are fun, but those are the ones everybody "demands" must be acording to their version historical. They are pretty, however, and if the point is to show people a "pretty" OOB, the editor will let you do that. But, the code don't care about pretty, so a historically precise set of editor fields (according to opinion) would probably bugger the game; but what the hey, most historico Nazis don't actually play, so they can make all the "pretty" OOBs they want - they won't work, but they will be 'pretty".
Need to know how the code works in order to efficiently "prettify" the field values.

This is rather disappointing to know that any of our tweaks out here (to erroneous data entries, missed OOB, etc) that we care to make with the editor have no value? Hope I am misinterpreting your statement above.

If you are making changes to entry dates, fleet assignments, wrong guns, or wrong facings, then no problem -- I would hope.

I think he is talking specifically about what might be called naval gun fan boys. Or the folks who get upset if the squad numbers for a regiment don't match historical numbers. I know I asked about the latter one, and got a very nice reply from JWE.

Consider the thread as a free education in how to mod the gunnery numbers in the editor, so that they play well with the code. I have no interest in taking that on in this massive game. Given what I read in this forum. I think the modding is in more capable hands than mine. But the process is instructive for modding other games as well. I already have the navweapons site bookmarked, and I will add the panzerwar site as well.

[JWE]

Thanks very much Central Blue.

And in keeping with the title of this sub-thread, I'm doing my best to show how and why things can be (or have been) modded so that they play well with code. It's much like the # of squads thing. For a US company, 9 squads of 13 is pretty much equivalent to 10 squads of 12. Similarly, a Japanese company could have 4 squads of 13, or 3 squads of 17. This assumes, of course, that firepower is also proportionately allocated. They are all equivalent, and all perfectly historical, so which do you choose?

Ah! .. that's where the game algorithm comes into play. When you populate the squads out into regiments and divisions, they become the basis for AV. In one "historical" view, you could have a Japanese regiment of 144 squads bearing down on a precisely equivalent Marine regiment of 81 squads. Bad juju. So run equivalency up and down, and you get the equally "historical" view of 108 Japanese squads bearing down on a precisely equivalent Marine regiment of 90 squads. Much better. It's going to be the relative firepower of the respective units that determines whether or not contact is made. Japs have more AV, US has more firepower. Woof, ain't that just as it was?

So there's 2 corners to the paradigm. But there's more. For each and every additional squad, gun, tank, tankete, whatever, you need another Support squad, which impacts troop count, load/unload, atoll population, you name it.

Realize I have been a bit short and sharp with the "My 'historical' OOB says 9" people, but things really have to be put in perspective.

Same thing applies to the ship weapons. We are trying our best to square the circle on those.

All I can do is define data in a smooth and uniform (and hopefully realistic) manner, so that code changes can be done to a stable and determinable baseline.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Thanks very much Central Blue.

And in keeping with the title of this sub-thread, I'm doing my best to show how and why things can be (or have been) modded so that they play well with code. It's much like the # of squads thing. For a US company, 9 squads of 13 is pretty much equivalent to 10 squads of 12. Similarly, a Japanese company could have 4 squads of 13, or 3 squads of 17. This assumes, of course, that firepower is also proportionately allocated. They are all equivalent, and all perfectly historical, so which do you choose?

Ah! .. that's where the game algorithm comes into play. When you populate the squads out into regiments and divisions, they become the basis for AV. In one "historical" view, you could have a Japanese regiment of 144 squads bearing down on a precisely equivalent Marine regiment of 81 squads. Bad juju. So run equivalency up and down, and you get the equally "historical" view of 108 Japanese squads bearing down on a precisely equivalent Marine regiment of 90 squads. Much better. It's going to be the relative firepower of the respective units that determines whether or not contact is made. Japs have more AV, US has more firepower. Woof, ain't that just as it was?

So there's 2 corners to the paradigm. But there's more. For each and every additional squad, gun, tank, tankete, whatever, you need another Support squad, which impacts troop count, load/unload, atoll population, you name it.

Realize I have been a bit short and sharp with the "My 'historical' OOB says 9" people, but things really have to be put in perspective.

Same thing applies to the ship weapons. We are trying our best to square the circle on those.

All I can do is define data in a smooth and uniform (and hopefully realistic) manner, so that code changes can be done to a stable and determinable baseline.

JWE and Central Blue, I have neither the background nor the mental capacity to analize the subject discussion (and I might say the interest) and so as not to clutter this thread with off topic issues I will move my concerns to a separate thread