Naval Combat Data - not RHS

[JWE]

OK, so we've gone through subs and anti-subs; who's up for what the code has to say about the little things like facing and ammo in the context of Naval Combat?

Ciao. John

[Nemo121]

The BEST bang for the buck in surface combat TFs comes with 4 heavy units ( same gun range for all their heavy guns - so don't mix 16 inch and 14 inch together ) and 4 DDs for anti-DD/PT work.
 
If you are happy with less then 2 BBs or matched CAs + 4 DDs is about as low as I'd go.
 
With IJN CLs you need a minimum of 2 CLs and 6 DDs ( all with good guns ) to go up against Allied DDs and early-war CLs. You can simply forget about going up against late-war CLs and CAs with IJN CLs.
 
 
As always the BEST unit to kill enemy ships with is your torpedo bomber.

[Dili]

Well apparently there will be no gun duds. Maybe it is accounted in hit probability but not all weapons are equal.

For example in WITM i got a problem. British have some very heavy rounds to have better deck penetration at limit range while other lighter rounds of same gun have less weight, also Italians and some British guns favour high muzzle velocity . It is dificult to find a way to account for that. Unless the code makes something. I dont know anything about the way the system works. I only know we should put maximum values for armor,range,penetration.

Big guns against tiny ships should have more problems to explode.

There isnt Gun tube life to stop the Bombardment deluge and overwork naval combat, tough i heard there will be something that will stop that. I hope not at expense of tactical abilities. No specific rounds for bombardment too.



----------------------------------------------------

Will be weapons director exist and be hit?
Will be there an FCS bonus for blind night fire? It is not same thing of having a radar.

Finnaly hope that doesnt happen like with tiny aircraft bombs and hope small Naval rounds still can make extensive damage(not necessarely critical in floatation and engine but critical in fighting ability damage). I felt in WITP that too many weapons still worked while fires ravaged and the ship was almost going under.

Sea State/Weather affects hit probability?

Will float planes if in a ship can be hit?

Catastrophe Damage if Japanese torpedos explode? (i know there isnt way for the commander to sent them to the bottom before in case of aerial attack)


Just some thinking, might get more.

-Edit- After some level of Flotation damage the ship should get a downgraded hit probability to account for different attitude.

[JWE]

Nope. None of that.

What I'm talking about is how the present game engine shoots the different ship's weapons and how that relates to the number in the ammo field.

Have no idea what you or Nemo are talking about.

[Dili]

Well i am sure you have an idea. It just wasnt what you were expecting as an answer. I still cant fathom what you want specifically.

The number in amno field is rougly 1/10 of IRL ship rounds. Other than that i cant say much more since i didnt made a deep analysis of a naval combat with accounted expended rounds for each facing Vs combat time, surprised or not surprised forces etc. Is that what you are after?

[JWE]

Golly. I was just asking if people were interested in knowing how the present game engine shoots the different ship's weapons and how that relates to the number in the ammo field. Sounds like you folks already have that pretty well wired.

Ciao.

[Dili]

Oh okay. I didnt understand that you were offering information, now that i reread the first post i can see how you said it. If you have any further information i am interested.

[Nomad]

I'm interested, give out some info. [8D]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Well apparently there will be no gun duds. Maybe it is accounted in hit probability but not all weapons are equal.

For example in WITM i got a problem. British have some very heavy rounds to have better deck penetration at limit range while other lighter rounds of same gun have less weight, also Italians and some British guns favour high muzzle velocity . It is dificult to find a way to account for that. Unless the code makes something. I dont know anything about the way the system works. I only know we should put maximum values for armor,range,penetration.

Big guns against tiny ships should have more problems to explode.

There isnt Gun tube life to stop the Bombardment deluge and overwork naval combat, tough i heard there will be something that will stop that. I hope not at expense of tactical abilities. No specific rounds for bombardment too.


Dud rate can be worked into accuracy. Number of hits per number fired is pretty automatically going to get you there. Just remember - a "shot" is more than one shell. A Japanese I boat carried only 17 rounds of 5.5 inch - I round that to 18 and give it 3 shots - 6 shells per shot.
But we don't really know the assumption of WITP designers - and it was not consistently applied in the data. Most subs had outrageously too many shots - if the values on surface ships are correct.

I think the normal AP or SAP round should be used for range, accuracy and effect values - since code won't let us pick and choose. That some round is longer ranged, has more effect, etc is not what matters - the normal case is what we should use in this simple model.

We might be able to make small ships more vulnerable by making them less durable.

Joe posted in an AE thread there is to be no modeling of directors at all.



----------------------------------------------------

Will be weapons director exist and be hit?
Will be there an FCS bonus for blind night fire? It is not same thing of having a radar.

Finnaly hope that doesnt happen like with tiny aircraft bombs and hope small Naval rounds still can make extensive damage(not necessarely critical in floatation and engine but critical in fighting ability damage). I felt in WITP that too many weapons still worked while fires ravaged and the ship was almost going under.

Sea State/Weather affects hit probability?

Will float planes if in a ship can be hit?

Catastrophe Damage if Japanese torpedos explode? (i know there isnt way for the commander to sent them to the bottom before in case of aerial attack)


Just some thinking, might get more.

-Edit- After some level of Flotation damage the ship should get a downgraded hit probability to account for different attitude.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Sid - learn to use Quotes or do not use it at all!

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I'm interested, give out some info. [8D]

Okey dokey.

Your wish is my command. First thing is define how the present game engine shoots the different ship's weapons . From that, it's easy to get to ammo.

Gimme a day to pull the data together, and we will take a voyage of discovery together.

Ciao. John

[m10bob]

Not completely off topic, but if any penalties were ever given to the WITM mod, the Italians surely deserve it, since their navy did NOT use smokeless powder, and like like tracers, that had a 2 way dis-advantage.

[Dili]

It is not smokless powder, it is flashless powder. The italian doutrine was to avoid fighting at all in the night. From what i know neither Italians or the British issued flashless powder for big guns http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.htm. In Regiamarina 8" and over didnt had flashless powder. An example of a combat were both sides didnt had flashless propellant: http://www.regiamarina.net/engagements/ ... ero_us.htm

[Monter_Trismegistos]

IIRC USS Boise did NOT use flashless powder during Cape Esperance battle. You want penalize her?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Dili
It is not smokless powder, it is flashless powder. The italian doutrine was to avoid fighting at all in the night. From what i know neither Italians or the British issued flashless powder for big guns

Seeing as how the game engine doesn't really care, is there any rational reason for considering flashless/smokeless powder?

Just curious. Ciao. John

[el cid again]

Probably it determines the range for the gun.

[Dili]

Seeing as how the game engine doesn't really care, is there any rational reason for considering flashless/smokeless powder?
Just curious. Ciao. John

I didnt tought of how to implement any kind of performance degredation at night since i didnt found good enough information to consider it, all info i have got was contrary to that, it was m10bob that came with that issue. From what i know(not much) only US employed flashless propellant in big gun ships and after 2 years of war. So that is possibly an issue more relevant for Pacific then Mediterranean which maybe can means a crew with better/less night score for those ships that have/havent it.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Dili
I didnt tought of how to implement any kind of performance degredation at night since i didnt found good enough information to consider it, all info i have got was contrary to that, it was m10bob that came with that issue. From what i know(not much) only US employed flashless propellant in big gun ships and after 2 years of war. So that is possibly an issue more relevant for Pacific then Mediterranean which maybe can means a crew with better/less night score for those ships that have/havent it.

Didn't quite understand. Could you do that in Russian, maybe [:D] or perhaps American English [:D]

Just don't understand.

Ciao.

[Dili]

I am sorry.
1- I didnt bring the issue.
2- I didnt found evidence that supported m10bob claim, but i am open to contrary evidence.
3- From what i know about propellants(not much) only US Navy employed flashless powder in BB guns(some classes) and since mid war.
4- Ergo thats might be an issue for Pacific War not Mediterranean.
5- It eventually can be tweaked by Ship crew Night Combat ability values, by either downgrading those that dont have flashless powder or by increasing the night abilities of those that have.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Dili
5- It eventually can be tweaked by Ship crew Night Combat ability values, by either downgrading those that dont have flashless powder or by increasing the night abilities of those that have.

So ... if you don't have flashless powder ... what? ... your night vision goes away? ... it somehow degrades the charges in the bag? ... it makes your radar look for a Carl's Jr? ... downgrade why??