Device Review: RHS Microupdate x.782 uploading

[el cid again]

A query about surface gunnery (in CHS) has resulted in a review of surface guns in RHS.

I found the 75mm SP gun and the Short Gun to be grossly under-rated in terms of "accuracy" - and both were increased to 120.


120 mm 10 Year Type AA gun was also badly underrated - and increased to 100.

6 pdr CD gun increased to 90.

10 in CD gun increased to 25.

3 inch / 25 SP short gun increased to 120.

24 cm Type 45 Howitzer increased to 30.

14 inch CD gun increased to 22.

149/150 mm CD/FLD gun increased to 45.
ALLIED 6 inch Howitzer increased to 50.
150 mm Type 96 Howitzer increased to 50.
ALLIED 60 pounder Gun increased to 50.
ALLIED 152 mm Howitzer increased to 50.
ALLIED 152 mm Gun Howitzer increased to 45.
ALLIED 155 mm Howitzer increased to 50.
ALLIED 155 mm Gun increased to 45.

105 mm Type 92 Field Gun increased to 70.
ALLIED 105 mm Howitzer of less range increased to 80.
ALLIED 122 mm Howitzer of less range increased to 75.

75 mm Type 38/95 Field Gun increased to 90.
ALLIED 75 mm Field Gun of greater range increased to 80.
ALLIED 76 mm Howitzer of same range increased to 90.
ALLIED 76 mm Field Gun of greater range increased to 80.
ALLIED 25 pdr Howitzer of greater range increased to 80.
ALLIED 3.7 inch Howitzer of less range increased to 95.
ALLIED 4.7 inch Howitzer of same range increased to 90.
ALLIED 4.5 inch Field Gun of greater range increased to 75.


75 mm Type 41 Improved Mountain Gun increased to 100.
ALLIED 75 mm Mountain Gun with same range increased to 100.
ALLIED 75 mm Pack Howitzer with more range increased to 95.
ALLIED 18 pdr Howitzer of same range increased to 100.

70 mm Gun-Howitzer increased to 120.

24 cm Type 90 Rail Gun increased to 30.

30 cm Type 7 Long Howitzer increased to 24.
30 cm Type 7 Short Howitzer increased to 25.

70 mm Pack Howitzer increased to 120.
ALLIED 75 mm Infantry Gun increased in range and to this value (posted below).

90 mm AA gun increased to 140.

3 inch AA gun increased to 120.

3 inch / 20 cwt AA gun increased to 130.

76mm / 55 AA gun decreased to 130.

4.7 inch Model 57 AA gun increased to 110.

85 mm KS-12 AA gun increased to 130.

3.7 inch Mark I AA gun increased to 120.

12 inch CD mortar increased to 20.

3.7 inch Mark VI AA gun increased to 125.

80 mm Bofors AA gun increased to 130.

5.9 inch 40 CD gun increased to 50.

5 inch / 51 SP CD gun increased to 60.

4.7 inch CD gun increased to 70.

75 mm CD gun increased to 80.

[Dili]

Thats bit optimistic if you didnt offset, a 300mm gun with a 2,4 rpm?

[el cid again]

I also considered range. The 30 cm guns have a fantastically short range! Hard for artillerymen to miss over such ranges actually.

[Dili]

Direct fire?

[JeffroK]

[font="times new roman"]How short is short range?[/font]
Type 7 30cm Howitzer

Short Barrel

Introduced Year : 1918
Caliber : 305 mm
Barrel Length : 5.015 m (L16)
EL Angle of Fire : 2 to +73 Degrees
AZ Angle of Fire : 360 Degrees
Shell Weight : 398.7 Kg
Muzzle Velocity : 400 m/sec
Weight : 59.217 ton
Range : 11,750 m
Production Qty : 10

Long Barrel

Introduced Year : 1918
Caliber : 305 mm
Barrel Length : 7.22 m (L23)
EL Angle of Fire : 2 to +73 Degrees
AZ Angle of Fire : 360 Degrees
Shell Weight : 398.7 Kg
Muzzle Velocity : 500 m/sec
Weight : 97.7 ton
Range : 14,800 m
Production Qty : 20

[Dili]

[:D] well...

[el cid again]

These are just about the shortest range 12 inch guns in modern history. It is so short one might classify them as "always firing at point blank range". Not quite - it is always short range. These are ranges that - over water or clear terrain - actually DO permit direct fire - because you can see the target. [The range to the horizon at sea level is 8 nautical miles, or 16,000 yards - basic training for sailors. You can see large targets considerably farther away - but they are "hull down" - partially below the visual horizon. At this range - you can see the entire target.]

For anyone not exposed to classical, optical artillery fire control methods, in the age before electronic rangefinders, it was perfectly possible to put a shell through a specific window. IF the target can be seen, one fires a "ranging round" - which then gives the real range under these conditions. To the degree one was off, one misses the target. The observer than corrects - "left 50, drop 100" - and "walks in" the "spotting rounds" until the target is hit. If the target is small and fragile, that is all. If the target is large or hard, one then calls for "fire for effect" centered on the last ranging round. One usually specifies how much fire too - as in "a battery six, fire for effect" (meaning the entire battery is to fire rather than one weapon, and each weapon is to fire six rounds). This methodology works quite well - and is defeated mainly when the target cannot be seen - or otherwise is protected by many feet of concrete or other material - or by armor.

[el cid again]

I have found an amazing mixed bag of values. Some AA weapons

the 3 inch 20 cwt gun

the standard 3 inch AA gun

the Soviet KS-12 85mm AA gun

and the Japanese 75mm Type 88 AA gun -

all rated so low as to be practically useless - an order of magnitude or more too low.

Other weapons were rated highly.

Same for CD weapons.

Same for land artillery.

I expect this "leveling of the playing field" will result

1) In higher AAA losses and damage

2) In higher CD losses and damage

I WISH it would result in more effectiveness for land units with artillery in land combat, but it is unlikely to be enough to notice. Firepower has little impact on our combat routines. I HOPE it has SOME impact here as well. If infantry is the Queen of Battle, artillery is the King.


In any case, comparable weapons ought to have comparable ratings.

And these quick and dirty values - to get into the right ball park - are an invetation to make suggestions for better values.

[Dili]

These are just about the shortest range 12 inch guns in modern history. It is so short one might classify them as "always firing at point blank range". Not quite - it is always short range. These are ranges that - over water or clear terrain - actually DO permit direct fire - because you can see the target. [The range to the horizon at sea level is 8 nautical miles, or 16,000 yards - basic training for sailors. You can see large targets considerably farther away - but they are "hull down" - partially below the visual horizon. At this range - you can see the entire target.

 
It's time to ditch any hopes for RHS.
 
 
 
 

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Dili

These are just about the shortest range 12 inch guns in modern history. It is so short one might classify them as "always firing at point blank range". Not quite - it is always short range. These are ranges that - over water or clear terrain - actually DO permit direct fire - because you can see the target. [The range to the horizon at sea level is 8 nautical miles, or 16,000 yards - basic training for sailors. You can see large targets considerably farther away - but they are "hull down" - partially below the visual horizon. At this range - you can see the entire target.

It's time to ditch any hopes for RHS.


Speak for yourself, friend.......

[Dili]

True

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

These are just about the shortest range 12 inch guns in modern history. It is so short one might classify them as "always firing at point blank range". Not quite - it is always short range. These are ranges that - over water or clear terrain - actually DO permit direct fire - because you can see the target. [The range to the horizon at sea level is 8 nautical miles, or 16,000 yards - basic training for sailors. You can see large targets considerably farther away - but they are "hull down" - partially below the visual horizon. At this range - you can see the entire target.

It's time to ditch any hopes for RHS.

Now that is helpful. Interesting that you still had any hopes - given the number of things you seem to dislike.

And once again - it is the principle that fields ought not be radically inconsistent that you dislike! So it is OK for some devices to be rated 10 or 20 times higher than similar devices? If we go with that, you would still have hopes?

And once again - history seems not to be a consideration. The first time we faced those guns, they broke the back of two US/Allied corps in 20 minutes! [80,000 men - or more - faced them - although not 80,000 men enjoying good supply - at least they had magnificent heavy guns in support - up to 14 inch. But UNFORTIFIED Japanese heavy guns won the field, and everyone present on both sides knew it, and knew it within a few minutes.] But - no - don't let bringing up the heavy guns have any meaning. And - no - let some AA guns be wroth 20 times others. Same for CD guns. THAT is the path of "Dili's hope."

Ironic also that the first tests indicate that, for the first time, we may have got AAA attrition into the right ball park. Having found some devices would never fire because they had zero ceiling, and some because of other definition errors, and having decreased aircraft durability ratings, I had made progress - but never quite got there. But testing is also not a standard worthy of "Dili's hope." Got it.

I am open to constructive suggestions. And - indeed - this is an unintended tangent because I LISTEN to what users post in the Forum. [In this case, a complaint about 24 cm guns not being able to fire with effect in a CD situation] I do not see why we all must waste our time with pure pessimism? You got something useful to say? Please say it. I have no need to defend these numbers. It is a vast brew cooked over years by many people, in the main unguided by published standards, something RHS has strived to achieve. There were lots of problems of this sort. But if you must defend the indefensible - horribly inconsistent device ratings - don't waste our time.

[el cid again]

The Allied Infantry Gun needs a new range: 3 vice 1. And its accuracy at that range = 120.

[Dili]

Well cruiser data, supply sinks . This was just the last drop.

[el cid again]

What cruiser data are you talking about? I spent man-months correcting ship data - in every sense. RHS cruisers are more likely to have correct range, speed, fuel, armament than you will find in the data set as it was when I began.

Might this be a reference to the "ultra light cruisers"? That is a technical device to get certain kinds of ships to act more aggressively. Code thinks that a CL should behave like a wolf - but some auxiliary should not. So how do we get a raider out of an AP or AK? I tried this for ML as well - but it failed to work properly - and we had to back it out. I think it is a reasonable workaround - a raider with cruiser caliber guns is not only cruiser like - we even call it a cruiser (as in "armed merchant cruiser"). Otherwise one might call it a "destroyer" I suppose - but that does not sound as right - and implies "faster than a cruiser" - which would be rather misleading. Having a "cruiser" with no armor - and there are a few very like that which no one disputes are cruisers - is not causing the ship to be over useful in my view. [A Katori "training cruiser" is unarmored except for her gun mountings, which, strangely, have MORE armor than any 5.5 inch gun on any other cruiser - go figure]

As for supply sinks, that is a workaround that at last is working quite well. So well that when/if Matrix takes out the problem (too many supplies at resource centers) we will keep them around in rump form for their DESIREABLE effects (so uncontested major locations don't fall undamaged into enemy hands, so immobile civil air units can have support that won't move where military operations find desireable, etc). If you are still upset with them, you clearly neither care about the "AKs to burn" problem, about "free forward supply" making offensives too easy, or the fact that we have managed to substantially solve the problems generated by the workaround. It is working so well I believe you will find that at some stage we are going to get a better economic model - so they won't be required as such - because too many supplies forward prevents any reasonable approximation of a simulation of the campaign. If supply sinks offend you - by all means stop thinking about RHS. It is at the heart of the mod to treat logistics seriously, and it will always be in all RHS scenarios until they no longer are needed because we get soft control of resource centers (or something similar).

What you have NOT done in this thread is indicate why you are unhappy with the concept of redefining this field? Making similar devices (say AA guns or CD guns) have similar values is clearly a good idea. Extending that to guns that are not CD guns or AA guns is slightly more radical: but it seems unfair that a ship firing at a land unit won't have similar values as a land piece does - and why should CD guns be different when firing at land units or naval ones? [Indeed, they cannot be different - since only one value can be assigned]. We pretty much have to standardize land guns on the same scale as CD/naval guns - or have no standard at all - and wildly strange combat outcomes. Now if you dislike a particular rating - and have a specific suggestion as to what would be better (that isn't 5% or 10% of the right range) - that is worthy of consideration. If you have a broader objection - say "we should adopt the land scale for all guns - including naval and CD guns" - that too is worthy of consideration. But just "I don't like it, and all is hopeless" is not a way to influence the process - which is a response to a Forum request a technical problem be examined. I take requests seriously - and when justified I try a solution. If we don't like it I modify it - until we do. But I never ignore the problem. Saying "I don't like this" WITHOUT a SOLUTION for the problem is a waste of time and electrons.

[Dili]

We already discussed that (cruisers). Dont make your post full of noise the issue is your argument for accuracy of a 300mm Mortar with a almost 800lb round. It just shows to me your are not being serious unless you give a big hike to all artillery including ships...  But dont waste time with me in practice while i have followed it i dont really have time for RHS or WITP except editing witm40.

[el cid again]

We are uploading a microupdate at this hour which includes a revised device file with the values posted above. Tests indicate it has a minor impact on AA combat. It is likely to have a significant impact on CD combat vs ships. It may have a slight impact on land combat - but not as much as it probably should have - because firepower is not as important as it ought to be in the land combat system.

This update also includes reworking some more Allied aircraft for ROC / maneuverability data in Level 7 (ONLY) plus more aircraft eratta (including two FAA types with too much durability in particular). It includes x.781 microupdate and that may be skipped. It should be installed on top of x.78 comprehensive update.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Dili

We already discussed that (cruisers). Dont make your post full of noise the issue is your argument for accuracy of a 300mm Mortar with a almost 800lb round. It just shows to me your are not being serious unless you give a big hike to all artillery including ships...  But dont waste time with me in practice while i have followed it i dont really have time for RHS or WITP except editing witm40.

Gee Dili, as much as I like you, I gotta wonder why you bother to enlighten us with such colorful (albeit off the wall) negative comments?

Since you are a talented modder yourself, you can make any corrections you wish, in threads concerning YOUR mod??


"If you wish to see how hard a man can fight, take away his avenue of retreat"..Sun Tsu

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

We already discussed that (cruisers). Dont make your post full of noise the issue is your argument for accuracy of a 300mm Mortar with a almost 800lb round. It just shows to me your are not being serious unless you give a big hike to all artillery including ships...  But dont waste time with me in practice while i have followed it i dont really have time for RHS or WITP except editing witm40.

You are confused. This isn't about a mortar. For the moment I have drawn the line at mortars - and not one is included in this update. These are heavy artillery pieces. Mortars SOMETIMES are treated like artillery - and big ones almost always are - but smaller ones are often infantry weapons. IRL both mortars and artillery can be used in similar ways - but here I am making the simplifying assumption that mortars fire "barrage fire" and artillery fires aimed fire - direct or indirect but observed. Since we cannot have both do both - it seems a reasonable way to divide things up.

Further - we have not changed a single value re ships. So you really are confused about what is going on - never mind we said clearly what was up - and listed every last instance for you to read. I have no clue HOW you got so confused - and I have not waited for you (because you were not contributing anything I could use). The data set is now issued. It COULD be changed - we plan a x.783 update - and if you have some SPECIFIC suggestion - that means you must put numbers on the suggestion and justify them in some way - they could be worked in. Of course, only if there is some hope for RHS.

If you do not think I am serious - about anything and everything - you have no clue about my personality. I take everything literally and seriously. I might be wrong - but you will find far more cases where I have corrected such things than you have fingers and toes - because I can be corrected. But it takes more than mere expression of displeasure. What is your problem - and what addresses the issue in a better way? Answer such questions and I will take you seriously. UNLESS you do that, I don't have the option. I cannot use "Dili is unhappy" as a reason to change a value - even if I wanted to - what would I change it to?

For a guy with no time for RHS, you spend a lot of it typing. And wasting the time of all who read and/or respond. It would be better if you wasted no time on "hopeless" RHS UNLESS you have something constructive to say. And every time you do - I at least will take it seriously. Because that is who (or how) I am. It is completely useless to say I am not serious - it isn't even true - it probably breaks the rules of the board (because it isn't respectful) - and it has zero chance of contributing anything. If you have a problem - assume we are ignorant - and explain to us what your problem is? I find that someone who cannot express an issue in plain English does not understand the issue. I don't care if this or that "feels" wrong. I sometimes think you object to change period! You PREFER inconsistent data to consistent data - or so it seems. You never say "well - we must change something - but I prefer this case to that case" - you just object to change and stop. Well - we cannot make things better that way.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

A query about surface gunnery (in CHS) has resulted in a review of surface guns in RHS.

I found the 75mm SP gun and the Short Gun to be grossly under-rated in terms of "accuracy" - and both were increased to 120.


120 mm 10 Year Type AA gun was also badly underrated - and increased to 100.

6 pdr CD gun increased to 90.

10 in CD gun increased to 25.

3 inch / 25 SP short gun increased to 120.

24 cm Type 45 Howitzer increased to 30.

14 inch CD gun increased to 22.

149/150 mm CD/FLD gun increased to 45.
ALLIED 6 inch Howitzer increased to 50.
150 mm Type 96 Howitzer increased to 50.
ALLIED 60 pounder Gun increased to 50.
ALLIED 152 mm Howitzer increased to 50.
ALLIED 152 mm Gun Howitzer increased to 45.
ALLIED 155 mm Howitzer increased to 50.
ALLIED 155 mm Gun increased to 45.

105 mm Type 92 Field Gun increased to 70.
ALLIED 105 mm Howitzer of less range increased to 80.
ALLIED 122 mm Howitzer of less range increased to 75.

75 mm Type 38/95 Field Gun increased to 90.
ALLIED 75 mm Field Gun of greater range increased to 80.
ALLIED 76 mm Howitzer of same range increased to 90.
ALLIED 76 mm Field Gun of greater range increased to 80.
ALLIED 25 pdr Howitzer of greater range increased to 80.
ALLIED 3.7 inch Howitzer of less range increased to 95.
ALLIED 4.7 inch Howitzer of same range increased to 90.
ALLIED 4.5 inch Field Gun of greater range increased to 75.


75 mm Type 41 Improved Mountain Gun increased to 100.
ALLIED 75 mm Mountain Gun with same range increased to 100.
ALLIED 75 mm Pack Howitzer with more range increased to 95.
ALLIED 18 pdr Howitzer of same range increased to 100.

70 mm Gun-Howitzer increased to 120.

24 cm Type 90 Rail Gun increased to 30.

30 cm Type 7 Long Howitzer increased to 24.
30 cm Type 7 Short Howitzer increased to 25.

70 mm Pack Howitzer increased to 120.
ALLIED 75 mm Infantry Gun increased in range and to this value (posted below).

90 mm AA gun increased to 140.

3 inch AA gun increased to 120.

3 inch / 20 cwt AA gun increased to 130.

76mm / 55 AA gun decreased to 130.

4.7 inch Model 57 AA gun increased to 110.

85 mm KS-12 AA gun increased to 130.

3.7 inch Mark I AA gun increased to 120.

12 inch CD mortar increased to 20.

3.7 inch Mark VI AA gun increased to 125.

80 mm Bofors AA gun increased to 130.

5.9 inch 40 CD gun increased to 50.

5 inch / 51 SP CD gun increased to 60.

4.7 inch CD gun increased to 70.

75 mm CD gun increased to 80.

Are you sure that you knew what you were doing when changing accuracy values for 'Army Type' weapons? You gave them up to 10 times their former ROF/min.

Just in case you didn't notice: 'Army Weapon', 'Coastal Gun', 'DP Gun', and 'AA Gun' devices have different functions in the game and need different 'accuracy' values to function properly.