Matrix Games Forums

The coordinator for CHS said I should post a proposal for comment.

I propose to modify data for ship classes and individual ships by name for all nations.

The biggest problem is related to fuel/cruising speed/range data. Most ships seem to be rated for only 2/3 of their actual fuel requirement. But in spite of needing less fuel, they typically can go much farther than they really could go at a cruising speed slightly higher than they really could go. For ships actually built, service data is generally available. For ships not built, design data is generally available. This is not too hard to estimate for the missing cases from similar ships of the same nation.

This fuel/speed/range problem is exaggerated by some kind of error which caused most ships to have the wrong fuel data under their individual names. The field has the class fuel value about half the time, but about half the ships (in all scenarios) have the range value INSTEAD of the fuel value, a much bigger number. I am not sure what the code does with this value? But a bigger number surely is not a good thing. This is often a very much bigger number.

The next problem is armor. There are a number of minor errors, and two major ones: tower armor for both sides is more or less fictional with very rare exceptions. Ships with no tower armor are shown with large values, ships with large values are shown with none! And even ships that have modest values still usually have fictional modest values. Second, Japanese cruisers almost always have only 25mm of armor on the face - see Conways - see Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War - and many other references. [The exception is Katori class with 50 mm]. Similarly, the 6 inch guns on Yamato have 25 mm. WITP gets this wrong. Sometimes there are similar errors for allied ships as well, and sometimes other armor values are wrong. Since this data is pretty well known, it is easy to fix - and I already have done the data entry.

Third, I want to add a few ships. There is an Allied CL sent to the Pacific about January 1942 not listed for example. And I think the ships that were building or ordered when the war began should be present - let players cancel them. Thus you might end up with six Iawa class battleships, 4 Yamato class battleships, and one Montana class - she could complete just barely in time to be useful early in 1946 if she laid down in USS Missouri's graving dock upon launch of the earlier ship. And other ships are wrongly classified. Brazil Maru is sister to Argentina Maru - but one is an AP and the other an AK. BOTH are 21 knots ships and both can convert to a CVE.

Finally, I am testing a mechanism that may permit players to control if a ship converts to a carrier (or whatever) or not? It seems to work so far. IF it works, then you get to decide if a CL is converted to a CVL, or not, and you could convert as many or as few as you like - after a certain date. Historical conversions only, of course, in the sense it must at least have been designed (sometimes a ship was sunk before it was actually converted - see Brazil Maru).

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The coordinator for CHS said I should post a proposal for comment.

I propose to modify data for ship classes and individual ships by name for all nations.

The biggest problem is related to fuel/cruising speed/range data. Most ships seem to be rated for only 2/3 of their actual fuel requirement. But in spite of needing less fuel, they typically can go much farther than they really could go at a cruising speed slightly higher than they really could go. For ships actually built, service data is generally available. For ships not built, design data is generally available. This is not too hard to estimate for the missing cases from similar ships of the same nation.

Endurance data is the most widely missing statistic for ships - especially smaller ships and merchant men. Second is fuel, which is also complicated by multiple figures (normal, full load, emergency full load, using ballast tanks, etc).

One of the problems with setting endurance is cruise speed. Game mechanics only give two speeds and the original Matrix scenarios set a standard of 15 knots for warships and 12 knots for merchant/auxiliary ships. Actual endurance figures are given for varying speeds and the scenario designer is faced with two options:
1. Set cruise speed and endurance to historical figures (where available). This will force task forces to move at the cruise speed of the slowest ship as there is no in-game mechanism to find a best task force speed.
2. Offset the cruise speed to 12 knots/15 knots and figure/estimate the appropriate endurance. Power/fuel consuption data is very hard to find so this is more estimate that figure.

In CHS we have already strayed from 15/12 knots in some cases. Again, this is only a small challenge for a human player who can carefully select the ships for a task force. The AI ignores cruise speed in ship selection.

This fuel/speed/range problem is exaggerated by some kind of error which caused most ships to have the wrong fuel data under their individual names. The field has the class fuel value about half the time, but about half the ships (in all scenarios) have the range value INSTEAD of the fuel value, a much bigger number. I am not sure what the code does with this value? But a bigger number surely is not a good thing. This is often a very much bigger number.

I assume you mean the data in the editor. This is correctable. However there does seem to be some in-game control that prohibits very small endurance figures. This is most noticable in PTs.

The next problem is armor. There are a number of minor errors, and two major ones: tower armor for both sides is more or less fictional with very rare exceptions. Ships with no tower armor are shown with large values, ships with large values are shown with none! And even ships that have modest values still usually have fictional modest values. Second, Japanese cruisers almost always have only 25mm of armor on the face - see Conways - see Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War - and many other references. [The exception is Katori class with 50 mm]. Similarly, the 6 inch guns on Yamato have 25 mm. WITP gets this wrong. Sometimes there are similar errors for allied ships as well, and sometimes other armor values are wrong. Since this data is pretty well known, it is easy to fix - and I already have done the data entry.

Another area that was contentious during CHS data collection. WITP class data entry only provides a single value for each main armour group - belt, deck, tower. Data for these values are very complex (minimum, maximum, over-magazines, multi-level, tapering, etc) so isolating a single value is sometimes difficult. A number of errors have been pointed out in these values and I am sure there are many more so this is a good area for a full review.

Third, I want to add a few ships. There is an Allied CL sent to the Pacific about January 1942 not listed for example. And I think the ships that were building or ordered when the war began should be present - let players cancel them. Thus you might end up with six Iawa class battleships, 4 Yamato class battleships, and one Montana class - she could complete just barely in time to be useful early in 1946 if she laid down in USS Missouri's graving dock upon launch of the earlier ship.

Since the allies do not have a production system I am reluctant to move into the non-historical completions. Construction resources spent on a "could have been" ship would not have been available for a historically-completed ship so simply adding the additional hulls seem wrong.

What cruiser, by the way?

And other ships are wrongly classified. Brazil Maru is sister to Argentina Maru - but one is an AP and the other an AK. BOTH are 21 knots ships and both can convert to a CVE.

I am confused by this. In CHS 1.06, Argentina Maru (ship #1362) and Brazil Maru (Ship #1363) are both classed as Brazil Maru Class Transports (Class #679). Historically Argentina Maru was converted to escort carrier Kaiyo. Brazil Maru was sunk before she could be converted. In CHS, both of the large liners are present and Kaiyo is also included. This was originally done as it is only a small stretch and Japan could use the help. If any correction should be made, it would be removal of either Argentina Maru or Kaiyo.

Finally, I am testing a mechanism that may permit players to control if a ship converts to a carrier (or whatever) or not? It seems to work so far. IF it works, then you get to decide if a CL is converted to a CVL, or not, and you could convert as many or as few as you like - after a certain date. Historical conversions only, of course, in the sense it must at least have been designed (sometimes a ship was sunk before it was actually converted - see Brazil Maru).

Conversion of ship types using the upgrade function works very well. The problem is airgroups. A ship that has an air group prior to conversion must somehow shed it and a ship the gains an airgroup by conversion (like Brazil Maru would) must acquire one (or else just be another ferry carrier). It is possible for a human player to handle these complexities but they are beyoud the AI.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The coordinator for CHS said I should post a proposal for comment.

I propose to modify data for ship classes and individual ships by name for all nations.

The biggest problem is related to fuel/cruising speed/range data. Most ships seem to be rated for only 2/3 of their actual fuel requirement. But in spite of needing less fuel, they typically can go much farther than they really could go at a cruising speed slightly higher than they really could go. For ships actually built, service data is generally available. For ships not built, design data is generally available. This is not too hard to estimate for the missing cases from similar ships of the same nation.

Does this mean that we can select what speed we want to cruise at? How will you handle the documented cases of in service speed/endurance being significatly less than peacetime or even designed? Will there be a mechanism to account for enviromental factors such as fouling of the hull, which can have the effect of both reducing top speed and decreasing endurance, sometimes up to 15%?

This fuel/speed/range problem is exaggerated by some kind of error which caused most ships to have the wrong fuel data under their individual names. The field has the class fuel value about half the time, but about half the ships (in all scenarios) have the range value INSTEAD of the fuel value, a much bigger number. I am not sure what the code does with this value? But a bigger number surely is not a good thing. This is often a very much bigger number.

The next problem is armor. There are a number of minor errors, and two major ones: tower armor for both sides is more or less fictional with very rare exceptions. Ships with no tower armor are shown with large values, ships with large values are shown with none! And even ships that have modest values still usually have fictional modest values. Second, Japanese cruisers almost always have only 25mm of armor on the face - see Conways - see Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War - and many other references. [The exception is Katori class with 50 mm]. Similarly, the 6 inch guns on Yamato have 25 mm. WITP gets this wrong. Sometimes there are similar errors for allied ships as well, and sometimes other armor values are wrong. Since this data is pretty well known, it is easy to fix - and I already have done the data entry.

Third, I want to add a few ships. There is an Allied CL sent to the Pacific about January 1942 not listed for example. And I think the ships that were building or ordered when the war began should be present - let players cancel them. Thus you might end up with six Iawa class battleships, 4 Yamato class battleships, and one Montana class - she could complete just barely in time to be useful early in 1946 if she laid down in USS Missouri's graving dock upon launch of the earlier ship. And other ships are wrongly classified. Brazil Maru is sister to Argentina Maru - but one is an AP and the other an AK. BOTH are 21 knots ships and both can convert to a CVE.

So the Allies will have some control over ship production?! I like the idea of eliminating the mandatory respawn feature to one that would allow for user control over reneming. i would like to see the Montana class added... [&o] Will the include the many japanses ships that were planned but never constructed being available for building?

Finally, I am testing a mechanism that may permit players to control if a ship converts to a carrier (or whatever) or not? It seems to work so far. IF it works, then you get to decide if a CL is converted to a CVL, or not, and you could convert as many or as few as you like - after a certain date. Historical conversions only, of course, in the sense it must at least have been designed (sometimes a ship was sunk before it was actually converted - see Brazil Maru).

Bring it on....[&o]

Third, I want to add a few ships. There is an Allied CL sent to the Pacific about January 1942 not listed for example. And I think the ships that were building or ordered when the war began should be present - let players cancel them. Thus you might end up with six Iawa class battleships, 4 Yamato class battleships, and one Montana class - she could complete just barely in time to be useful early in 1946 if she laid down in USS Missouri's graving dock upon launch of the earlier ship. And other ships are wrongly classified. Brazil Maru is sister to Argentina Maru - but one is an AP and the other an AK. BOTH are 21 knots ships and both can convert to a CVE.

There was also the USS Canberra II (CA-70) which isn't even included in the game.

el cid again,

Are you looking at the CHS data or the original scenario 15 data?

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

i would like to see the Montana class added... [&o]

This is my take on the Montana when she came down the slipway. It's non-CHS, as you might be able to tell.

And here she is, after her second of two refits:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And here she is, after her second of two refits:

I like, but can I make some suggestions, by late war the navy was switching over to twin 20mm on a one to one replacement. I would make half of her 20mm's twins with same total mounts. Add a quad 40mm on turret B and C. Deck armor is light, it totaled 9.96 inces inboard and 10.35 outboard. Even with the degradation due to being on mutible decks she should at least have 200mm. She had a 16.1 inch belt inclined 19 degrees which is the equivalent of 21 inch effective. She should have at least 2 SG and a SC at least. The stas for the 5/54 are incorrect, I posted them in a precvious thread. It appears that whoever created them used the 5"/38 Mk 12 stats, the armor for this maount was 2.5".

Mind if I steal that, Terminus and Alaskan? [8D] She looks mean!

(Alaska and Guam are not built in my mod, since the US already has the Lexington BCs to counter the non-existent IJN battlecruisers, and I needed SOMETHING for the US to spend that capacity on.. [;)])

Interesting info about the 5/54 and Canberra II as well, thanks.

Here's an updated version, implementing Alaskan's suggestions. Aside from the belt armour (that would give her a rating of 533!). Bit too much for my mod...

Very cool.

BTW, is that new interface art?

*makes ooh, aah noises*

Steal away...

The "new" art is just for the ship data screens. I picked it up from Spooky's; can't off-hand remember who did it, but I think it might have been Subchaser.

I see, and thanks. [:)] I'll credit you of course.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Here's an updated version, implementing Alaskan's suggestions. Aside from the belt armour (that would give her a rating of 533!). Bit too much for my mod...

I like it. The Montana was the first US battleship designed to be protected against the US 2700lb AP fired from the 16"50. The designed immunity zone was 18,000 to 32,000 yards, which can only be accomplished by a side belt of 21 inches on a 60 degree aspect. Angling the armor was a common way of increasing the ballistic protection using thinner plates. If I remeber correctly US mills were only able to produce class A armor up to 16" thick. There was also a 1" sts backing which should add aome additional armor, probably atleast 20mm. Also, the 5" turret did have 2.5" armor, primarily as a counter balance for the long 5" gun barrels.

The problem is that the engine doesn't account for angled armour. Otherwise I'd obviously like to use it, but it would be a huge, and ultimately futile exercise to go through all the ship classes with a magnifying glass to see if this class or that class had angled armour. I'd like to think that my take on the Montana is pretty bad-ass.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The problem is that the engine doesn't account for angled armour. Otherwise I'd obviously like to use it, but it would be a huge, and ultimately futile exercise to go through all the ship classes with a magnifying glass to see if this class or that class had angled armour. I'd like to think that my take on the Montana is pretty bad-ass.

And why not? Just kindding, but in thsi case there is irrefutable documentation. No need for magnifying glasses...[:D] At least make sure the secondaries have their appropriate 2.5" of armor. The Montana's would have kicked butt. I have this old DOS based tactical naval computer game called action stations. In it the designer modeled just about everything. The graphics are simplistic but the results are very realistic and historically plausible. I modelled the Montana and the Des Moines class CA's and had them fight the best the Japs could throw at them.. Great game I sometimes break out when i have a need for some nice hairy slot night actions.

That's just a HUGE increase in armour for the 5" turrets... From 5 to 60!

Endurance data is the most widely missing statistic for ships - especially smaller ships and merchant men. Second is fuel, which is also complicated by multiple figures (normal, full load, emergency full load, using ballast tanks, etc).

In general, I have this information. In general, I have the actual service values for ships actually built, although only design values for ships never completed. It appears to me that several kinds of problems exist with existing values:

1) In some cases, no value was known, so they just copied data from a similar ship. Probably took an existing ship, copied it, changed its weapons, and renamed it.

2) In some cases, the default cruising speed (15 knots for warships) was used, and the range data was not modified because the ship had a different speed.

3) In some cases, some other kind of error occurs, because the values are grossly fictional.

Where the data is not known, it can be calculated from similar ships with similar engines. This is not a linear calculation, and should be done by someone with proper reference materials about ship design/performance. But it is not rocket science and it is not hard to do.

One of the problems with setting endurance is cruise speed. Game mechanics only give two speeds and the original Matrix scenarios set a standard of 15 knots for warships and 12 knots for merchant/auxiliary ships. Actual endurance figures are given for varying speeds and the scenario designer is faced with two options:
1. Set cruise speed and endurance to historical figures (where available). This will force task forces to move at the cruise speed of the slowest ship as there is no in-game mechanism to find a best task force speed.
2. Offset the cruise speed to 12 knots/15 knots and figure/estimate the appropriate endurance. Power/fuel consuption data is very hard to find so this is more estimate that figure.

In CHS we have already strayed from 15/12 knots in some cases. Again, this is only a small challenge for a human player who can carefully select the ships for a task force. The AI ignores cruise speed in ship selection.

Good comments. Given the focus of CHS I think we should use actual values. Note that some ships cruise at very high speeds - and if you select them you will benefit from that in your TF.

Another area that was contentious during CHS data collection. WITP class data entry only provides a single value for each main armour group - belt, deck, tower. Data for these values are very complex (minimum, maximum, over-magazines, multi-level, tapering, etc) so isolating a single value is sometimes difficult. A number of errors have been pointed out in these values and I am sure there are many more so this is a good area for a full review.

The manual is clear. The MAXIMUM value is to be used. Presumably the effectiveness of the protection scheme, and the strength of the hull, are factors in "durability" ratings. [Thus Katori, virtually unarmored, is "very strongly built" and should have better durability than a normal ship that is unarmored.] Sometimes the ONLY armor is over the magazine. But since the system is set up for Maximum - that still counts. I use the sum of all armor decks and include the effect of angles as derived from ships plans.