Matrix Games Forums

First -
note that sometimes endurance times cruising speed / 60 = maximum range
other times it does not

Second -
note that, for example, the same C-47 will be listed with a different durability or maneuverability value
in different slots - but as load and other data are the same - it seems otherwise to be the same plane

I think the data set needs to be checked for consistency - and if we have so many slots -
why not have different performance between an RAF Dakota, a USAAF C-47 and a USN R4D?
Since they ARE different. RAF and USN flew slower - and got more range.
Not to mention the Li-2 - which has a lower load as well as lower cruising speed - to help with range
(offsetting greater weight for the top turret and different engines etc)

It looks like there is a ratio between ferry range, extended range and normal range -
but wether these are fixed formulas, or actual data to be entered - is not yet clear?
Also - is it just used to determine range circles - or does code use endurance and make its own
calculation of what is normal range?

There was constant ratio in WITP, but it does not seem to be the case in AE.
Planes with identical standard/extended range, can have different maximum range.

But yeah, with so much statistics there should be difference. Especially, that in most cases, it will be only fluff.


What actually needs a closer look, is weapons statistics, especially those non-standard (like Ho-301). Some MGs used only HE shells, other specialized AP. It does not seem to make difference in HARD/SOFT ATTACK. Maybe even bombs can use revision. Different fuses developed later etc.

For example 16"/50 Naval Gun used really bada** AP projecile, but its other shells were pretty standard size.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

There was constant ratio in WITP, but it does not seem to be the case in AE.
Planes with identical standard/extended range, can have different maximum range.

But yeah, with so much statistics there should be difference. Especially, that in most cases, it will be only fluff.


What actually needs a closer look, is weapons statistics, especially those non-standard (like Ho-301). Some MGs used only HE shells, other specialized AP. It does not seem to make difference in HARD/SOFT ATTACK. Maybe even bombs can use revision. Different fuses developed later etc.

For example 16"/50 Naval Gun used really bada** AP projecile, but its other shells were pretty standard size.

20mm cannons as well...

In game, they're identical in everything but accuracy.

japanese:
type 99: 22
type 99-2: 23
ho-3: 26
ho-5: 28

These look OK in relation to each other, to me...

others:
HS404: 20
MG151: 21 (!)
MG FF: 16
Hispano: 26
ShVak: 24
B-20: 24

...and now they dont! Somehow, the best 20mm cannon in the game is the Ho-5, when the most destructive one(and the one that had nowhere near the worst accuracy or rate of fire), the MG151/20, is the second worst! And to top it, the Japanese Oerlikon "cheap copies" are all better than both MG FF(/M) and 151.

Related reading: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Japanese cannons Ho-1/2, Ho-5 and Type-99, as rated, all fall behind MG151/20, MG-FF, Hispanos and Soviet ShVak and B-20, unlike in the game. Not that I have any idea how great a statistical efficiency difference there is between an accuracy 21 and accuracy 22 gun but still. [:)]

In WITP, which almost certainly applies here, accuracy is a peculiar jargon term for
rate of fire! Firepower is the product of effect and accuracy. There WERE
(and I suspect still are) inconsistencies in that effect was badly applied. Effect
SHOULD be strictly related to shell weight (in the WITP world, a modder might
want to tamper with it for some super duper shell reason). And that seems
to have been learned, so effect inconsistencies were ironed out. But one of the
big programmers just wrote that there are always errors. And information theory
says the same - for any large data set - errors creep in. In WITP the error rate
was monsterous: in AE it is merely common.

In RHS we decided to use .30 cal effect = 1, .50 cal effect = 2, everything bigger
effect = multiple of the weight of a .50. That way, 8 x .30 cal or 4 x .50 cal were
equal in effect - something that seems to reflect real world practical experience.

ORIGINAL: Erkki
Somehow, the best 20mm cannon in the game is the Ho-5, when the most destructive one(and the one that had nowhere near the worst accuracy or rate of fire), the MG151/20, is the second worst! And to top it, the Japanese Oerlikon "cheap copies" are all better than both MG FF(/M) and 151.

Related reading: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Was MG151 the MG, with mine-type projectile?
Those are actually excellent tables! Although I do not understand why whole weapon weight should be taken into consideration. Was it like, it is better to install 4 .50 MGs, rather than 37mm Gun?
Anyway, I am wondering if Incidentary shells, should be given greater effect. Mythbusters clearly showed, that normal projectile have no chance in exploding petrol, even during direct hit.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In WITP, which almost certainly applies here, accuracy is a peculiar jargon term for
rate of fire! Firepower is the product of effect and accuracy. There WERE
(and I suspect still are) inconsistencies in that effect was badly applied. Effect
SHOULD be strictly related to shell weight (in the WITP world, a modder might
want to tamper with it for some super duper shell reason).

I realized that, when I have changed large Naval Guns to DP. They showed in DP database, with ROF equal to 1/10th of accuracy.
Anyway, there are several statistics for Gun:
Range, Accuracy, Effect, Hard Attack, Soft Attack. Last two not used much, but they actually can be wildly different, without much influence on the game.

But the problem is the same, as with Naval Guns (and rockets). HE shell will explode on impact, and should have greater effect, based both on weight, and explosive material.

HE should have more effect but less penetration than AP or SAP shells do.
HE effect is approximately proportional to the square root of shell weight -
one might also consider the effects of the specific explosive but, unless
exceptional, it is fairly good modeling to assume they are roughly similar.
Penetration is predictable with a formula - I forget - pretty reliably. So if
the weapon is mainly for use against armored ships, use AP shells, and
give it formula penetration. But if a weapon is mainly for land bombardment,
give it less penetration (half, 2/3, something consistent) and greater effect
than AP of the same weight would have.

I am not sure I follow your comments on weapon weight? Effect is proportional
to SHELL weight. But - yes - weapon weight does matter in terms of getting it
in the plane. So four .50s are just about the same as eight .30s - in terms of
you could mount one or the other in the same plane because of weight limits.
And it turnd out they had about the same effect on the target - higher ROF and
more guns giving the 8 .30s about the same chance of destroying the target
as the 4 .50s. Which is why I think a 30 should be effect = 1 and a 50 effect
= 2.

The 2/3rds rule came from two places--first, on land, the lethal area of an artillery shell is approximately proportional to the square of the shell diameter, and the shell diameter is approximately the cube root of the shell weight. The other place was a Soviet systems analysis of naval weapons effectiveness. That estimated the resistance of a ship to the damage done by penetrating shells, bombs, mines, or torpedoes to be to a first approximation proportional to the waterline area of the ship, and the damage done by each of those weapons and ship types was proportional to the 2/3rds power of the weight of the explosive charge, with different weapons types having different constants of proportionality.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

HE should have more effect but less penetration than AP or SAP shells do.
HE effect is approximately proportional to the square root of shell weight -
one might also consider the effects of the specific explosive but, unless
exceptional, it is fairly good modeling to assume they are roughly similar.

Actually, problem is with amount of explosive, not their quality.
Take a look at MG-151. Shell could have from 3.6g, up to 18.6g explosive material! And it all in the same gun, with the same caliber. So obviously, the one with 18.6g flling should be much more effective, that the one with 4-6g.

Penetration is predictable with a formula - I forget - pretty reliably. So if
the weapon is mainly for use against armored ships, use AP shells, and
give it formula penetration. But if a weapon is mainly for land bombardment,
give it less penetration (half, 2/3, something consistent) and greater effect
than AP of the same weight would have.

That is actually not issue, as I doubt Soft/Hard Attack is used in the same segment, as Naval/Air. So weapon can pretty safely use different ammunition for land bombardment (different Hard/Soft Attack).

I am not sure I follow your comments on weapon weight?

I was refering to page under link. There are tables with comparison of Air Guns there.

Effect is proportional
to SHELL weight. But - yes - weapon weight does matter in terms of getting it
in the plane. So four .50s are just about the same as eight .30s - in terms of
you could mount one or the other in the same plane because of weight limits.
And it turnd out they had about the same effect on the target - higher ROF and
more guns giving the 8 .30s about the same chance of destroying the target
as the 4 .50s. Which is why I think a 30 should be effect = 1 and a 50 effect
= 2.

But that is only for smaller shells, without explosive filling. With larger, things beginning to get interesting, as there is possibility for lots of configurations with primer, and amount of explosives.