This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
IMHO threads like this are good - and we all can still try to have proper and good mannered discussion! [:)]
Leo....sometimes i honestly think you deliberately egg on flame threads. Perhaps you find them amusing. Certainly a good number do which is part of the problem but thats the Internet for you, and why tight moderation is required for a serious historial discussion. You've been here long enough to know better.
Nik, but what do you suggest instead Nik?
No discussing of such matters at all?
Where else would we talk about this?
For example I thought about asking about gunnery statistical analysis for about 10 days now - I posted it here today when this thread was alredy opened with similar agenda...
Leo "Apollo11"
Leo, there's nothing wrong with having these discussions at all. The key to doing it successfully is clearly identified by Mynok:
Correct...and my apparently poorly made point is that we can have these discussions if we all agree to ignore the troll. If you respond to it however, troubles will ensue almost assuredly.
Leo....sometimes i honestly think you deliberately egg on flame threads. Perhaps you find them amusing. Certainly a good number do which is part of the problem but thats the Internet for you, and why tight moderation is required for a serious historial discussion. You've been here long enough to know better.
Nik, but what do you suggest instead Nik?
No discussing of such matters at all?
Where else would we talk about this?
For example I thought about asking about gunnery statistical analysis for about 10 days now - I posted it here today when this thread was alredy opened with similar agenda...
Leo "Apollo11"
Leo, there's nothing wrong with having these discussions at all. The key to doing it successfully is clearly identified by Mynok:
Correct...and my apparently poorly made point is that we can have these discussions if we all agree to ignore the troll. If you respond to it however, troubles will ensue almost assuredly.
exactly. Leo, you've been around long enough to know Diehl's agenda and methods. The discussion itself, especially one such as this, which was a direct game related question by LST was perfectly legitimate. Engaging a troll knowing how it'll de-evolve, how it will end only to be repeated on the next thread that touches on similar criteria, is why threads like this de-evolve in the first place. Your smart enough to know this and you've been on this board long enough to know the troublemakers.
For example I thought about asking about gunnery statistical analysis for about 10 days now - I posted it here today when this thread was alredy opened with similar agenda...
Leo "Apollo11"
Leo, there's nothing wrong with having these discussions at all. The key to doing it successfully is clearly identified by Mynok:
Correct...and my apparently poorly made point is that we can have these discussions if we all agree to ignore the troll. If you respond to it however, troubles will ensue almost assuredly.
exactly. Leo, you've been around long enough to know Diehl's agenda and methods. The discussion itself, especially one such as this, which was a direct game related question by LST was perfectly legitimate. Engaging a troll knowing how it'll de-evolve, how it will end only to be repeated on the next thread that touches on similar criteria, is why threads like this de-evolve in the first place. Your smart enough to know this and you've been on this board long enough to know the troublemakers.
And now, gentlemen, if we could resume LST's well-intentioned query and discussion? Leo, your salient contributions would be useful here now as well.
[Naval gunnery is a little more complex than just looking a historical performance. The biggest problem with using history is that you
need the targets and firing ships to do exactly the same thing for it to be indicative of what would likely occur again. This is a huge
variable that directly effects performance.
Such is the problem of hitting a moving target, from a moving target, when your unguided shells take over a minute to get to their
destinations. Fire control radar won't help. It all depends on the skill and luck of your gunnery officer as he lays down projected
plots of the target. Who cares where the target is now - it all depends on where he is going and radar is little better than two
eyeballs when you are at ranges over 20000 yards due to the plotting involved. Your target can see you fire and if he doesn't want to
get hit he will adjust his course and speed. Over the next 60 seconds with speeds of 18-30 knot variation, course changes of 90 degrees
or more - it would be utterly miraculous to score a hit from using just 8-9 different firing solutions which would be 2x too many if you
were doing your best to catch him.
The technique for hitting a maneuvering target was called “a rocking ladder”.
As a given, own motion was cancelled, which required stable platforms to determine your own true motion, not just where you thought you were going (yaw). Next target motion was analyzed based upon past motion to determine the point in space where the target would be if there were no future changes in past motion. Then, based upon the speed and potential maneuverability of the target, you can visualize a cone (in three space, on a flat surface a triangle) that is the locus of all possible future target locations as a function of time-of-flight of your shells.
The firing ship then fires a number of salvos at the highest possible rate with the range “laddered” to cover the ranges of the target future location locus along-track (note that each salvo has a different time basis for computing that locus) and the azimuth “rocked” to and fro to cover the future target locus cross-track.
In the time period here and assuming that the fire control system was capable of collecting and processing the required data, it was quite possible to guarantee a straddle against a battleship at 20k yards using this technique because a battleship just isn’t that maneuverable. Against a destroyer it depends on the skill and luck of the gunnery officer since he cannot cover the entire target locus so he guesstimates the salvo patterns. However note that a British Town class cruiser would expect to be able to guarantee such a straddle at about 12k yards against a DD since the RoF was so much higher.
Source is mostly Friedman: Naval Firepower with a number of other sources all jumbled together in my head. And yes, those mechanical analog computers could really do that in real time.
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
And now, gentlemen, if we could resume LST's well-intentioned query and discussion? Leo, your salient contributions would be useful here now as well.
sure.
I have a question regarding fire control devices like gunnery radar, directors etc. (I have searched the forum and found threads on this topic, but no definite answer).
I know that these things are not modelled as devices (i.e. like guns, mines etc.) in the game.
But is there something in the code that models these things, making Allied gunnery more precise later in the war than early-on (factors like crew experience considered equal)?
Since I have not yet managed to play AE past 1942, I have no experience...
"Fire Control" is modeled by device in the sense that different radar 'devices' have different capabilities in the editor. However LST you are correct in that it's also abstracted within the code. In AE, changes were made to eliminate the old stock/early AE aspect of radar aided surface combat that allowed full Blindfire shooting even in 1942. The code was altered so that in the early part of the game visual confirmation is first required after detection by radar in surface combat. Late war era allows (with randoms) Blindfire situations. After all die rolls/randoms factors are thrown in there remains room for variation so don't expect automatic Surgio Straits in 1944. Game doesn't work that way. Never did. Never will. GG believed in variation. Tweaking/changing the code was not nor ever was/will be a simple matter of saying "I want it to do this in X type situation, that in Y type situation" Its a hard adjustment to make as a dev.....esp when one isn't a coder. Thats the way it is. JWE could elaborate more elequently on the subject than I.
I drove this alteration. JoeD made it happen with input from DonB under supervision by JWE.
I think a simple way to implement the RADAR portion of GFCS would be to add a few Fire Control Radars as either surface or air search radars. Very short range and significant effect. These could them be added to late war classes and class upgrades to represent improvements in fire control radar. See http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
Hopefully the optical portion is already represented in the calculations.
I drove this alteration. JoeD made it happen with input from DonB under supervision by JWE.
Thanks. From what I've seen to date, I like how it works.
in 42/43, once is while, the allies will really get the upperhand in a night battle and pummel the IJN to oblivion. Otherwise, mostly its a slight favor to the IJN. Then in '44 night shifts to the allies and stays there. All meeting my expectations ...
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
And now, gentlemen, if we could resume LST's well-intentioned query and discussion? Leo, your salient contributions would be useful here now as well.
I think a simple way to implement the RADAR portion of GFCS would be to add a few Fire Control Radars as either surface or air search radars. Very short range and significant effect. These could them be added to late war classes and class upgrades to represent improvements in fire control radar. See http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
Hopefully the optical portion is already represented in the calculations.
Interesting!
BTW, if implemented would such device (i.e. surface or air search radars - very short range and significant effect) also implicitly "contain" (or "simulate") the actual electro-mechanical computer that did the calculations?
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I think a simple way to implement the RADAR portion of GFCS would be to add a few Fire Control Radars as either surface or air search radars. Very short range and significant effect. These could them be added to late war classes and class upgrades to represent improvements in fire control radar. See http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm
Hopefully the optical portion is already represented in the calculations.
It wouldn’t be that hard to do it for the USN, but looking at all the different national capabilities, game implementation would be very painful.
Currently the Allies get a radar kick in late ’43. Given how the algorithm works, the kick is across the board: better Detect, better Acc in Nav combat, better Acc in AA combat, just better all around. It’s a wrap-up of Mk-51s, VT fuses, new scopes, all that stuff. It’s an abstraction.
Could do FC radar. There’s an editor type that could be used for it. But to do that, all the current combat modules would have to get vetted and the present radar algorithm stripped out for Nav combat and replaced with an FC modifier, and every single Nation would have to have their own default (in the absence of a device). And it wouldn’t work for AA-VT, so there’s another horror show waiting to happen.
I do like FC radar. I would dearly love to see it. Have some thoughts and am sending you an emial.
If you do a shipboard FC radar algorithm, would that also throw off the night fighters with radar and radar types at air bases to provide raid warning?
Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.
If you do a shipboard FC radar algorithm, would that also throw off the night fighters with radar and radar types at air bases to provide raid warning?
No, because there is no shipboard FC radar algorithm, so doing one would have to dial down through all those things and a few gazillion others besides, which is why it's such a bear to do. We are talking at least a man-year or two of programmer time and a fundamental change to the game algorithm.
As much as I, or Don, or Michael, or Joe, or anyone else, would like to do this, it is simply not in the cards. I am really sorry, but there is no hope, here.
Note sure if this should go here or in the scenario forum seperately, but since I think theres food for thought here for everyone, Ill put it here. Apologies in advance if its kinda long.
Actually the effects of FC radar and other factors on improving accuracy is something I have sort of tried to work into my scenarios; there was a little of it in the first set of AltWNT, but the ones Im working on now are a little more radical.
Because of michael and JWE's efforts to get AA accuracy split from surface accuracy, a lot of avenues opened up with regards to experimentation here, without 'borking' anything too badly.
When I was first playing around with this, I learned that a ship upgrade could swap even large weapons like a 16in turret without any damage (unless you specifically define damage in the editor). This is wonderful, because it lets us update devices on ships without problems.
The approach I've taken is to completely rework the accuracy values for all the weapons, dealing with ASu and AA seperately. To illustrate lets look at a few devices. The Iowa's 16in guns are as follows (early, mid and late 44);
The first bit is obvious, bore diamater and length in calibers, as is the second, the weapons model/mark. Here I had to truncate some things like the Japanese '3rd Year Type' in 3YT, etc, because we can old have 20 characters on a device name. How I wish it was 30.
The second is maximum elevation, and all weapons list either this or a DP or AA designation, mostly for consistency. It helps keep things like the Nevada and New Yorks 14in/50s seperate. And its just nice to know.
The last two (or three) symbols represent the guns fire control quality and rate of fire modifiers, in that order, and the hash indicates an ammo upgrade (in this case the new AP shells issued in late 44).
The symbols go from
^ Excellent
+ Good
= Average
- Poor
. Terrible
In the context for fire control quality, they represent the overall quality of the FC system used for the weapon, along with any other factors (apart from platform type) that might affect it (such as casemate guns suffering a penalty). These tend to get better as the war goes on (especially for the US).
For rate of fire, it represents how the weapon stacks up against others of its kind in terms of ROF; here the Mk7 gets a + since its faster firing than the older Mk5 on the Colorado class.
Lastly, platform type affects accuracy also; the main batteries of battleship and heavy cruiser sized vessels get a bonus due to the increased stability, longer base length rangefinders and their height, etc.
These are used in calculating the guns accuracy values for ASu and AA; ASu accuracy is mostly dependent on FC quality, with rate of fire being secondary. AA accuracy requires both.
So, to see some changes in action, lets look at a few weapons;
US 16in/50 Mk7 was 20 accuracy in Scen 1, its now 41 with the ++ variant, and 44 with the ^+ variant.
US 14in/45 Mk was 20 in Scen 1, it begins at 37 as an ==, and then upgrades to 40 as += and 42 as ^= as the war goes on.
IJ 41cm/45 3YT was 19 in Scen 1, it is now 37 as an ==.
US 5in/38 Mk12 EBR was 62 in Scen 1 for both AA and ASu. It is now 54 ASu and 68 AA as a =+, and ends up as 61 ASu and 78 AA as an ^+.
IJ 12.7cm/50 3YT-TB was 59 in Scen 1 for both AA and ASu. It is now 39 for ASu and 38 for AA as a --. The TD variant on the later destroyers was also a 59 both both in Scen 1, it is now a 44 for ASu and 49 for AA as a =-.
Generally, both US and Japanese ships start with 'average' ratings for their FC (with the exception of certain units like the Japanese DDs and old CLs which rate a 'poor'). US ships quickly move up an notch to good in most cases, with early-mid 44 bringing a second increase to excellent. A few Japanese ships merit a good towards the end of the war. Most merchants, auxiliaries etc merit terrible or poor ratings.
You may notice that the accuracies in general are a tad higher, with most falling in the 30 to 55 range for ASu and the 30 to 80 range for AA. The ASu values are a definate improvement, and a similar range has been used even in my older mods for the larger guns, which brings their value in surface combats up a tad. The AA changes are more recent, but so far seem promising.
Obviously, there are some things (like ship maneuverbility) which need to be tweaked to deal with the range, but thats the sort of detail that belongs in the scenario forum.
An even more granular version is of course possible, but I drew the line here, simply because some things like the 5in/38 ended up with over 20 variants (base ring vs open/shielded, BB mounting vs CC/DD mounting vs DE mounting).
While I initially intended these just to be a system for my own alternate history scenarios, I have been considering doing a Scen 1 and 2 port of them, along with maybe a DBB port is JWE is okay with it.
If anyone would like the spreadsheet or more information, drop me a PM.
tldr; gun device accuracies can be tweaked to represent different performace, including fire control systems.
If you do a shipboard FC radar algorithm, would that also throw off the night fighters with radar and radar types at air bases to provide raid warning?
No, because there is no shipboard FC radar algorithm, so doing one would have to dial down through all those things and a few gazillion others besides, which is why it's such a bear to do. We are talking at least a man-year or two of programmer time and a fundamental change to the game algorithm.
As much as I, or Don, or Michael, or Joe, or anyone else, would like to do this, it is simply not in the cards. I am really sorry, but there is no hope, here.
Which is what I hazarded a guess about. That it would take a few years of working to code to bring something like that around and it might also create all sorts of issues with other fixes that have been created by you all.
Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.
[/center]