Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager will be launching on SteamCome and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another update
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: New AP projectile

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: New AP projectile Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: New AP projectile - 4/25/2011 10:04:59 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Well, it seems there is general Device 746 75mm Infantry Gun, which represents all types of Regimental guns (mainly Type 41 Mountain Gun). But during checking those Devices I have discovered, that actually ALL Japanese 75mm guns have different muzzle velocity, which should influence chance of hitting moving targets (tanks mostly). I have no idea, how Hard Attack is calculated, it seems it is 26 for most cases, which do not represent difference in guns. I got Device 1157 75mm Pack Howitzer, as foundation. It have Hard Attack 27, and muzzle velocity 381 m/s, so by simple calculation:
75mm Pack Howitzer 381/27=14.1111111111
14.(1) will be basic modifier, for calculations for different muzzle velocity speeds. Changes for Hard Attack:
Type 41 Mountain Gun 435/14.1111111111=30.8267716535
Type 94 Mountain Gun 355->25.157480315
Type 95 Field Gun 500->35.4330708661
Type 38 510->36.1417322835
Type 90 683->48.4015748031
It seems, that actually I got Type 90 almost right, during first change. It seems also, that most of Japanese Guns should be slightly better, of course none of it is even close to standard AT guns.
In late 1942 production of Device 746 will be switched to similar gun, but with better penetration. Now, should it be 75mm (according to Wikipedia), or 100mm (according to TAKIs site)? Field Guns had it at 120 already, while Mountain types at 40.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 31
RE: New AP projectile - 4/28/2011 9:54:23 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
During research I have found another reference for shaped charge modification:
quote:

HEAT rounds for these old infantry guns made them semi-useful anti-tank guns, particularly the German 150 mm guns (the Japanese 70 mm and Italian 65 mm infantry guns also had HEAT rounds available for them by 1944 but they were not very effective).


Actually wikipedia page, about 70mm Type 92 Battalion Gun says nothing about this projectile, however US Field Manual lists "hollow charge AP" in Model 41 (1908) 75-mm infantry gun, and in some cases"High explosive (long pointed shell)", which supposed to indicate special projectile, with modified aerodynamics giving longer range. I have not found, when they were introduced. Most guns in-game seems, to have listed ranges. Only Device 756 15cm T89 Gun seems to have slightly too short (20k, while manual says 22k, or even 27k).

Now, when will be exactly available for them by 1944?

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 32
RE: New AP projectile - 4/29/2011 5:05:44 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
I took a look, and it seems, that unit supply requirements is simply ONE point for every Device (and HALF for disabled), so consumption will not be greater, because squads are bigger.

Also, changing armament of ship class will not change armament of ships beginning in this class (although probably will change it during upgrade). There is some DDs, which begin game with early 12.7cm guns, so they can be left without San-Shiki, however larger ships have first upgrades FAR too late (after mid-1943). I have found only 2 CA classes, and 2 CVs, which can be safely kept without San-Shiki, as they upgrade no later, that mid 1942.

I think, I will give Shaped-Charge for 75mm Regimental Gun a while, after British became active in Burma (probably month, after Chindits arrive).

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 33
RE: New AP projectile - 5/1/2011 4:16:46 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
I am not going to repeat, what I have written here, but I have made initial calculations.

Scenario 1:
There is 1643 Army pilots on map, at the first turn, there is 967 Navy pilots on land, and 709 aboard ships.

I have made rough calculations on number of 2-pilot planes:
There is 330+23 (plus is reserve) Army 2-engine bombers, and 256+81 Navy.
There is 135 Army transport planes, and 32+2 Navy.
And, there is 50+13 patrol planes.

Also, there are 99 Army bombers in pools, and 46 Navy, 29 Transport planes, and 6 Patrol planes.

That gives 616 planes, with 2-pilots in Army, and 486 in Navy.

The result is good for Navy, but Army initial pool shrinks to only 241 pilots! And there is already around 500 free slots to fill in on-map units!

I have also got initial 2-pilot planes production, and was going to subtract it, from monthly pilot gains, but there is 23 SALLYs, and 34 LILYs, and with only 62 army pilots in December 1941, that would shrink it to 5.
So, even not cutting extra for 2-pilot planes, will keep Army reinforcements pretty tight during 1942 (in January 1942 Army training will jump to over 2700 per year).

I am not sure yet, what to do with experience levels, as it is possible to set in separately in every year. It seems, that taking 1/10th of flying hours will do nicely, but there is need to also include on-map training.

Here is graph of experience decline, and initial pilot pools for pure Scenario 1, and modified Scenario 1.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 34
RE: New AP projectile - 5/3/2011 9:17:45 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Well, I cranked the historical numbers. I made rough estimation of ratio of 2-pilots planes to 1-pilot planes, and subtracted it from monthly pilot numbers. 1941-1942 was pretty easy, but I did not want to search exact Navy:Army/Year production, so later estimations are pretty crude.
It is made on current-year production (when they actually beginning of training), not future year estimation. As a result, it is lower, as with war progression more fighters were produced, at the cost of heavier bombers.

The whole goal was to get the exact number of pilots, in exact year they appeared, so as game-engine works numbers may seems strange.

Mainly, the quantity jump was possible, because time of training was reduced. In 1941 (pre-war), pilots were getting 2 years of theoretical preparation (and 6 months of basic flying), after that 1 full year of flying.
In 1942 it was cut to 1.5 years of theory (probably also with basic flying), and 8-10 months of flying after that.
As numbers shows, maximum decline in-game experience for fresh pilots should be 5 points, as getting it bigger makes strange situation, where last months 10-12 class cadets were more experienced, than fully-trained fresh recruits.

In 1943 Army resigned from advanced training, and made special units to teach it after-graduation. This is the moment their experience falls. In September 1944 fuel shortages seriously hampered overall training, so from that moment both branches lose experience.

Here is modification. Branch, initial pools, and then experience, and monthly numbers. 1945/1946 numbers are simple halving, as there are no data about possible planes production, as war have ended before cadets could graduate.

ARMY. 800 40 165 35 155 30 750 30 350 25 175 25 90
NAVY 1350 40 130 35 165 35 620 35 310 30 155 25 75

I really hard searched for every possible pilot for Army, as initial calculations shown only 241 free pilots. It seems, that there was recently opened Pilot School in Manchukuo. Initial number of pilots was 30, and from 30 August 1940 there was regualr teaching. Hard to tell, what was number of cadets, but since there was mutiny of around 100 cadet-pilots in January 1941, conclusion shows, that during 4 months of 1940, on average, it should be at least 25 (25*4=100). So initial Army pool is increased by this number, but it was still not enough...

Luckily, there was also Manchukuo National Airways, paramilitary organization, which was mainly flying for IJArmy anyway (and have some volunteer-fighters), it should be possible to recruit them, as transport pilots in-case of emergency. Simple calculation shows, that organization had, at least, 43 1-pilot, and 24 2-pilots planes, not-used-by-Japan (as I do not have any date, when planes were acquired, so Japanese types could be delivered after war started).
Considering also, that there was Imperial Japanese Airways, mostly owned by government, and its civilian operation were suspended in January 1942, and there was also China Airways, they should easily provide 200-250 possible transport pilots, in case of emergency. So initial pool of 800 Army pilots seems reasonable (and if you are getting it below 200, you surely had to draw extra pilots into transport units, anyway).

So here are final numbers. You can also see, that actually IJArmy have NEVER more airmen, than IJNavy. It is also clear, that they were unable to train more, than IJNavy in any year. Hard to tell, what it says about pilot numbers (as BETTYs had really large crews), but even, when pilot numbers for IJArmy were greater, it could be only by small margin.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 35
Manchukuo Air Force - 5/5/2011 4:55:51 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
To keep closer to history, I get few modification for Manchukuo Air Force. All 3 fighter units begin game with 25 experience, which seems strange, as filling it with reserve pilots automatically make them better (reserve have 35 exp in stock). It seem they were created year-by-year, and since they have plenty time to train, I have modified them with decreasing experience, so 1st get 35, 2nd 30, and 3rd left at 25.

Also, I have added average commander 1st Lieutenant Uta (anyone know his name?), commanding 1st IMAF, and there is also 2Lt Sono-o Kasuga pilot with 40exp, arriving in 2nd IMAF in mid-1944. This is first Manchukuo pilot, who successfully rammed B-29.


Now, in-game analysis of pilot number changes:
It seems, that during whole 1942 it is IJNavy, who have more trained pilots, as a consequence it should get main effort in this period. It means, that it will be ZERO, which should be main fighter, and suddenly it seems, that not hurrying TOJO into development have historical reasoning, as IJArmy had simply not enough trained pilots to fight any serious actions in 1942.
As a side note, it seems that Allied strategy should now concentrate on beating IJArmy Airforce in 1942, because it is good chance to knock it into defensive for few months.

But even after 1943 boost, both branches are almost equal in numbers, until end of the war. Anyway, just look at graphs, Navy numbers rise during whole conflict, while Army stays the same, until 1943, and then even drops! And indeed, Army loses are greater at the war beginning phases.
Here is reminding of link to my source.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 36
RE: New AP projectile - 5/6/2011 5:29:48 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
All this talk about Ki-44 made me wondering, and it seems that...

Every source writes something completely different


Anyway, one thing is clear - there was 40 planes of TYPE I produced, since January 1942, and to simulate it in-game, player would have to put some factory into production of outdated model, so... I just set the date of KI-44 TOJO one month earlier. It is already on map, so not, that it will be some extra useless short-time airframe.

Changelog is pretty long, so I put it here (It is actually RTF, so it may looks strange in some portions, just change its type to RTF). Scenario 1 is uploaded at post #4.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 37
RE: New AP projectile - 5/8/2011 1:54:14 AM   
dwg

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

I have discovered, that actually ALL Japanese 75mm guns have different muzzle velocity, which should influence chance of hitting moving targets (tanks mostly).


Only if their crews don't know how to lead the target.

Even if they aren't taking lead into consideration, let's look at the reality and try to figure out whether the muzzle velocity is a significant factor. Say we have two guns, Gun A with 250m/s mvel, Gun B with 500m/s mvel.

Assume a target at 500m, a nice typical battle range, though unreasonably long range for built-up or forested areas.

Gun A's shell will arrive at the target 2s after firing.
Gun B's shell will arrive at the target 1s after firing.

Not really that much of a difference for the guy at the receiving end.

Now let's assume a moving target at the same range. For maximum difficulty, we'll assume it is moving across the lime of fire at 90 degrees to give the maximum rate of change of angle of aim. Let's also assume it is moving at 20mph (unreasonably high for many armoured vehicles). In 2s it will have moved 20*1600/3600*2=17.7m, in 0.25 seconds it will have moved half that, or 8.8m.

In other words, even for the exceptionally low velocity Gun A, and in the worst case, the target is likely to have moved barely three times its own length (a Sherman was a fraction under 6m) between the gunner pulling the lanyard and the shell arriving at the target, for Gun B it will have moved half that. And that's for the worst case, for any other direction of travel the actual shift in angle/shift in the point of aim falls off rapidly.

Muzzle velocity isn't a significant factor for firing against ground targets, they simply don't move fast enough for it to matter at battle ranges. It is significant for penetration of AP shot, but that's already factored into the gun statistics.

< Message edited by dwg -- 5/8/2011 2:13:38 AM >

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 38
Royal Thai Air Force - 5/8/2011 11:03:45 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Scenario 6 is uploaded in post #6.
I am feeling, I should have tested those 12mm AA Rockets, as even developers think, they are not working. To be sure, I gave them 10 effect (from previous 0).
Also, there is 10 extra Naval pilots. I do not know, how many really died during Pearl Harbor attack, but I know at least one accident, where pilot crash-landed on some forgotten island, and started small revolution there (which actually leaded directly to isolation of all Japanese-descendant-USCitizens)

Now, I have thought about Royal Thai Air Force

It will add almost 150 planes. Some bombers, and fighters, which can be useful in initial Burma attack, and will be in range of most Burma bases, to fight on air-superiority.
It seems, it will be complicated. All Thai bases should be under ONE perma-restricted command, so their air units could not move. But I do not think, it is possible to add another Area Command. There is already one Air Support unit, so only one another, smaller could be added, and probably another Air HQ, maybe static.

In other words - probably too much work.


Here is 1st Lieutenant Uta. I do not know even, what nationality he was, so not going to guess his name (Heck, maybe they all had names beginning on X, for example?).



quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

I have discovered, that actually ALL Japanese 75mm guns have different muzzle velocity, which should influence chance of hitting moving targets (tanks mostly).


Only if their crews don't know how to lead the target.

Even if they aren't taking lead into consideration, let's look at the reality and try to figure out whether the muzzle velocity is a significant factor. Say we have two guns, Gun A with 250m/s mvel, Gun B with 500m/s mvel.

Assume a target at 500m, a nice typical battle range, though unreasonably long range for built-up or forested areas.

Gun A's shell will arrive at the target 2s after firing.
Gun B's shell will arrive at the target 1s after firing.

Not really that much of a difference for the guy at the receiving end.

Nevertheless difference exists, and for similar error in aiming one gun will hit the target, while other will miss. Your calculations assume 100% hit probability, which is unreachable even during non-hostile training.
Also, as you can see in my calculations, US Pack-Howitzer have better statistics, than comparatively much faster Japanese Guns. Why is it? Advanced laser optics? Also, all pure AT Guns have Hard Attack at least THREE times of normal guns. So, what exactly Hard Attack represents?
And lastly, those numbers are still too small to even scratch Sherman




Attachment (1)

(in reply to dwg)
Post #: 39
Ho-301 - 5/16/2011 7:40:44 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Well, no takers on Scenario 2 number of Japanese pilots, lets make some educated guesses:
It seems logical, that Japan could begin expanding its pilot program, before war started, it means that 2300 Naval, and 2700 Army pilots per year, could begin training in 1941. Considering linear expansion, half of this difference could be added to initial pools. That would leave them only slightly smaller, than Scenario 1 stock numbers.
Allow Japan to reach its projected, over 30000 trained pilots per year, in 1943, or 1944. That would mean 2500 pilots per month, but subtracting extra co-pilots for bombers, that would leave us pretty close to mid-war Scenario 2 numbers, which are currently 1615 (Army) + 680 (Navy) = 2295.


Thinking about earlier TOJO introduction. There are actually only two goals, to keep in mind:
1) Experimental unit in China should have spare planes, to allow it actually be in use. Especially with PDU off. That would suggest, that TOJO should be introduced as soon as possible
2) To avoid possibility for player, to use early model introduction, as jump point for earlier model II introduction. Since research seems to be capped at around 30 units, no matter how much planes you researching in ONE factory, it seems safe to set early model 3 MONTHS EARLIER.


And, speaking of TOJO:
Ho-301 seems to be very interesting weapon. Not much gun, but it actually resembles Bazooka. Its projectile is almost rocket-like, and have quite a lot explosives inside (identical number to 40mm Bofors). It is actually hard to find Bursting Charges for other air weapons. I have found only VYa-23, Ho-301 weights 3 times more, and have 4 times more explosive material. So, since VYa is rated at effect 5 in database, Ho-301 should be more than this. On the other side, I see not much reason, to give it any large penetration values, so I would say, Ho-301 should have 3-4 penetration, and effect 6+.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 40
RE: Ho-301 - 5/17/2011 1:34:39 AM   
dwg

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor
Ho-301 seems to be very interesting weapon. Not much gun, but it actually resembles Bazooka.


"but the muzzle velocity was a very low 230m/s and the ten round magazine gave a firing time of just 1.3s. These characteristics meant that the weapon could only be used for one attack, pressed home at a suicidally short range. It was not a success." 'Fighting Guns', Anthony G Williams

If a weapon wasn't a war winner, there's generally a very good reason for it. Equally you need to compare like with like. The Ho-301 was an anti-bomber weapon, the VYa was an anti-tank weapon for the Il-2, the Ho-301's shells could be thin-walled for maximum explosive effect against lightly armoured aircraft, the VYa's had to be considerably more robust to punch the armour on tanks and other AFVs. The Ho-301 squeezed as much explosive in as possible to achieve its effect by blast alone, the VYa used a heavier shell and less explosive to achieve its damage by both kinetic effect and by blast. Individual stats do not tell the full story.

The naval equivalent of this would be comparing SAP and Common. Common might be good against unarmoured targets, but against sufficently armoured targets will leave little more than scorch marks on the surface. You need SAP to penetrate the plate and get the explosive, even if a lesser amount, to where it will do some good.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 41
RE: Ho-301 - 5/18/2011 9:28:05 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Well, initial calculations for Scenario 2 pilots:
There are more planes on-board, and pools are greater. Considering gradual expansion program in 1941, I got 1022 Army pilots (without Manchurian, and civilian pilots), and 994 Navy pilots in pools. Navy pilots numbers are actually shrinking!

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg
If a weapon wasn't a war winner, there's generally a very good reason for it. Equally you need to compare like with like. The Ho-301 was an anti-bomber weapon, the VYa was an anti-tank weapon for the Il-2

Yup, VYa is not good for comparison, but as I said, I could not find any reference to Bursting Charge of air weapon with similar caliber. If you have such data go ahead, and show them. We will extrapolate from them.

In-game Aircraft guns are rated on 4 main statistics:
Range, Accuracy, Penetration, and Effects
Few samples:
179 23mm VYa Cannon 5 18 3 5
1915 40mm Ho-301 Cannon 2 2 6 4
188 20mm Type 99 Cannon 5 22 3 4
There is also Hard/Soft attack, but it seems to be similar to Penetration(*10)/Effect.

Bombers, in theory, have 0 maneuverability, but still, hits from Ho-301 are extremely rare, so even if it would have 1mil Effect, it still be almost useless, as it can not hit anything, with accuracy 2.

Now, thinking of it, it seems questionable, that VYa Cannon, designed exactly for anti-tank ground attack, have same penetration, as Japanese 20mm Type 99.

(in reply to dwg)
Post #: 42
China - 5/22/2011 10:24:09 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
I wanted only to change Hard Attack for Chinese 75mm Gun, as it seems they were using some Bofors model. However, it seems, that only 72 such guns were sold to them, and the model in editor have range of 12, which is really high, for 75mm. I started to dig, discovered, that in-game they upgrade to 105mm, but I have found no model of 105mm artillery, which is listed, as used by China...

Anyway, after finding few pages, I actually thought, that it was in-fact lend-lease, and should be some documents about it. And, surprise, surprise, there is detailed data, about all weapons send to China. None 57mm AT Guns are reported, almost none 105mm, but there is some 155mm. Anyway, some numbers, up to 30 June 1946. After plus it is number of ammo "boxes" send:

bazooka 580 + 2018

Not even enough to give 1 to every battalion in front.

Rifle Grenade Launcher 2266 + 11424 + 1200AT Grenades

Pitiful number

M1 52469

Yup, Garand. Maybe for 5 Divisions.

SMG 63251 + 171795
Bren 23798
MG .30 6738

Now, that is enough to give every Commander in squad.

Boys AT Rifle 6129

Greatest surprise, it seems British found use for them, when they rearmed to PIAT. It is actually enough, to increase Hard Attack of Chinese in later squads.

2pdr 78 + 397,220
37mm 1669 + 1,938,812
81mm mortar 1260 + 13700
75mm gun 125
75mm pack howitzer 637 + 3,163,064
25pdr 62 + 96,896
155mm 36 + 108,000
F/105mm Howitzer 2 + 767,65

Whatever "F" means. Ammunition number is very high, but those data do not account for in-theater transfers. It seems quite a lot 105mm was transfered from DEI, but this was probably in 1945, not 1942.

Anyway, it would be nice if someone have added all those 75mm Guns, 81mm mortars, and 37mm AT Guns, which arrives in Chinese reinforcement units. Otherwise I will probably cut numbers in half, and then divide by number of months to get real "production".

Also, there was quite a lot of AA guns, but they are used in-game in like 3 ways, with several upgrades, and it is too complicated to dig it.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 43
RE: China - 5/25/2011 10:31:24 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
I only wanted to slightly increase AT strength for China, however looking closer, things does not look good.
They are armed with German 37mm PaK, however it seems it is modeled after PanzerGrenade40, which Chinese could not use, as their cooperation with Germany ended, before it reached production.

I have divided China lend-lease deliveries on 3 phases:
Pre Burma-Road closing, where heavy equipment can be delivered,
Airlift only, where only light equipment is delivered
Ledo-Road, again heavy equipment can be delivered

So, China begins war with standardized 75mm Field Gun, and gets 16 more per month, until 5/42. Also it begins war with 48 German 15cm sFHs, and gets 6 crappy WWI 155mm 1918 guns, until 5/42.

After this, only 75mm Field Howitzer (7, was 6), and 37mm AT Guns (16, was 6) are delivered.

In 2/45 105mm Guns begin deliveries, at 12 per month.


More statistics:
1,163,500 AT Grenades, together with 6129 Boys AT Rifles, should be enough to increase Hard Attack of 43 squad to 15.
Closer look, reveals, that there was 2018 Bazookas, and 580 belts for them, plus 376,900 M6A1 Rockets send, enough to equip 100 Divisions with ammo (but not enough launchers). This suggest again, that Bazookas were transfered in-theater, so 45 squad, should have standard 75 Hard Attack.

Changes:
Serious air-transport began at September 1943. Also, since Commonwealth troops begin rearming at January, it should be time for them, to exchange all those Boys Rifles. Chinese squads begin upgrade at September 1943, and have 15 Hard Attack, and 15 (one more point) Soft, and "weight" (extra man for Boys, or 60mm mortar).
45 squad is available, after Ledo Road is open, since it was in late January, it is moved to February 1945. "Weight" is 15, and Hard Attack changed to 75.
81mm Mortars deliveries increased to 12 (was 8), "LL" MMG squads increased to 17, with no pool (was 18 pool, 10 production)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 44
Useless planes - 5/28/2011 7:27:40 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
There is quite some of weird Japanese plane models, which are either never used, or only appear as kamikaze in 1945. I have put Ka-1 actually on-map.
The second plane is SUSIE DB. It seems, there was still 68 planes used in second-line duty, at the war beginning. In game pool is empty, and no unit uses it. There is also not reason to actually produce it, so plane is defined in database, but never used. I just added pool, but for PDU OFF games to actually use this plane, I changed both Japan-based DB units to use SUSIE, at the game beginning.

Scenario 32 is ready. Lots of changes again. 2 air-guns, 1 new leader, 9 new air-groups, and China.
Problem with China is weird upgrade path. They begin game with 48 German 15cm guns, which are actually better, than old-WWI-crap they get as lend-lease, so lend-lease guns upgrade to German types. It should work, despite dates being backwards. Also, both of those guns ultimately upgrade to 105mm, available in 1945, because deliveries of 155mm quickly ends, and units will simply run out of replacements.
This is also reason I have not changed Independent Artillery Units to 155mm. If they begin game with them, after destruction, there could be not enough heavy guns to fill them to full strength, until 1945, so they will be useless.

Here is readme from Scenario 32. Actually it is .RTF, so can looks weird in simple txt.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 45
How much does Infantry Division weights? - 6/1/2011 8:56:26 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Although, it seems that LSDs should have their air-groups upgraded to Ki-76, which is actually defined in database (although does not produce), in mid-1944 (Akitsu Maru got arresting gear installed then). I can not put is as an upgrade for Ka-1, because then all air-groups could upgrade (and there is no crappiest plane, than Ka-1). The solution will be to withdraw airgroups, and return them equipped with Ki-76. But that needs replacement planes, and nobody is going to produce that crap. Well, I could add a pool for it, but is it worth, for 1 extra hex, for purely ASW plane? Any FP is better in this role anyway.

Here is movie from tests of Ka-1. First on land, then supposedly on Akitsu Maru. Clearly it lands onboard without any additional equipment.
Hard to tell date, Ka-1 is two-person version, so it is not yet converted. Description says it is original model. If it is Akitsu Maru (I think there is steam exhaust during start, does Akitsu Maru had catapult?), probably one of specialists, can say if it was after conversion (moving tower far to side, and adding arresting gear).


Anyway, I always wanted to check initial Armament pool. Simple test, with turned off Armament Factories, shows that Infantry Division (77th, which is slightly on better equipped side) costs exactly 1567 points. There should be extra 14 Divisional sets in pool, and 14*1567=21,938, is pretty close to in-game, and even more, while I counted on less actually. However other calculation shows, that in 1943 Japan produced 24 Divisional sets. 24*1567=37,608. Dividing on DAILY Armament production: 37,608/650=57.8584615385. Yearly IRL production is reached in-game in only 58 days! It seems, that game production should be lowered at least 6 times!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 46
Maru-Yu - 6/11/2011 8:19:01 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
I implemented all Maru-Yus. There was 39 of them produced, while game have only 10. Also I have revised their armament, and entry-ports. They arrive at Kobe, while:
Yu-I class was produced at Kasado, which seems to be island west of Hiroshima. In-game terms actually Tokuyama hex.
Yu-1001 class was produced in Kaita, which is short trip east of Hiroshima.
Yu-2001 class, was produced in Tsukishima, which is outskirts of Tokyo.
Yu-3001, was produced in Jinsen, which seems to be China coast province, opposite Korea. So I put them at Singapore.

Also they got 33, not 22 Durability (test depth 330 ft). Yes they are now much more expensive. Also capacity was streamlined. They have overall comparable load, but can take much more troops.

Also D-1 type SST have added torpedo tubes. And similarly changed capacity. Check post#4.

Changelog in file:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 47
RE: Maru-Yu - 6/15/2011 7:27:55 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Changing 10cm DP gun, into "best Japanese DP Gun", was harder, than I thought. It seems, that 40mm ship Bofors have quite low accuracy, so to keep with fact, that MG should have better hitting probability, than DP gun, I only increased 10cm accuracy by 10.

Anyway, accidentally I have found, mentioned earlier Army Document, about Japanese Airborne Troops. Text is mostly the same (I think document is slightly longer), but it have ALL drawings included. One of them is diagram for SNLF Parachute unit. It is clear, there is GD squad, with 4 "knee mortars" in platoon, and platoon have 48 soldiers, so I should reduce squad size from 18 to 16 in my MOD.
Surprisingly, Army Parachute platoon have only 40, not 60 soldiers. It is possible HMGs were moved to higher command.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 48
Kamikaze NATE - 7/2/2011 8:24:55 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
My next plan was to add Shinano, as a possible conversion for BB chassis. I was counting on some brilliant ideas in Shinano topic, but it seems that there is no easy way, except things we all already know.
However Shark7 suspicion about conversion of LCD to CVE seems to be good idea. Problem is ship will lose its landing bonus, but it is easy way to finally convert its patrol airgroup into Ki-76.

Also, I have found, that NATE in Kamikaze role could be equipped with up-to 1005 lbs of explosives. I can not find now this reference, but most pages actually shows even 1100 lbs. Since now it have 500 bombload, and I do not think Fighters use this value anywhere, except as kamikaze damage calculations, I will increase this. Also it should be probably changed for Ki-79 (NATE trainer version).

Maybe 500 is just typo for 500kg? BETTY and B-29 seems to have bombload in lbs though.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 49
RE: (Almost ) Historical MOD - 7/10/2011 2:20:05 AM   
Halsey


Posts: 4922
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Indianapolis Indiana USA
Status: offline
bump...

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 50
RE: (Almost ) Historical MOD - 7/11/2011 12:32:09 AM   
Halsey


Posts: 4922
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Indianapolis Indiana USA
Status: offline
bump...

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 51
RE: Kamikaze NATE - 7/16/2011 8:33:02 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
I am wondering if those 10000 ton CVEs, are those special CVEs armed with DCs, or upgraded LCDs, and should the latter have expanded capacity to 12, after converting to CVE?

Also, maybe their airgroups should have possibility to upgrade into KATEs, from Ki-76? But what about torpedo ordnance?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 52
RE: Kamikaze NATE - 7/23/2011 8:39:45 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Continuing TOJO problem (the MAIN is this experimantal unit in China, which stays 9 months WITHOUT any replacements):
I see yet another solution (also available for those artillery spotter planes, later rearmed with DC).
I think it is possible to set Replacements rate for Japanese planes, if I will set some future engine for Ki-44, it will be impossible to produce any, before Ki-44 II will enter production. And to avoid possible advantage of upgrade research, I will just NOT put Ki-44 into any upgrade path.

I have also found, that:
quote:

Ki-51 200 kg (441 lb) bombs (normal operations); 250 kg (551 lb) for suicide operations


Ki-51 now have 450 bombload, so another small change.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 53
RE: Kamikaze NATE - 7/30/2011 8:54:33 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
I was seeking statistics of 12cm Short Japanese Gun, as its data are something contradicted, but I have discovered, that there is actually name of Technical document at Naval Weapons page.

First part - large guns.
Second part - MGs.


Ceilings of Japanese AAMGs. 13.2 mm seems to NOT have such high value (it had reported over 10k). To compare, datas from database, Scenario 1.
Name, maximum ceiling, effective ceiling. Below Device number, name, and in-game ceiling.

25mm 18044.619 9842.519
1682 25mm Type 96 AA Gun 7000

40mm Bofors 26246.719 9842.519
729 40mm T05 AA Gun 9800

40mm Vickers 12600 9900
1714 40mm Type 91 AA Gun 8000

13.2mm 12960 4950
1683 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG 3200

7.7mm Vickers 9900 3000
721 7.7mm T99 AAMG 2100


Also, I have found this table in first document. It seems explosive charge in different projectiles could have bigger difference, than I previously thought. The most shocking is 8cm, as difference is over 4 times!

I have made a simple calculations. By taking projectile with lower charge, as basic 1, for effect=weight*modifier. For Anti-soft, I have recalculated projectile weight by ratio of charge. It seems excessive for other effects, so I have taken sqrt of those values. Results:

12/40 4 kg = sqrt(4) basic modifier
12/50 7.7 kg = sqrt(7.7)/sqrt(4)=1.3874436925511607946739728946111 modifier of bigger charge
*50.6=70.759628320109200528372617625167 recalculation of effect for projectile weight
50.6*7.7/4=97.405 - 9 antisoft

10/50 4.13 kg
10/65 6 kg 1.2053151055354617346279684591064
*28.6=34.472012018314205610359897930442
28.6*6/4.13=41.549636803874092009685230024213 - 4 antisoft

12cm/45 5.27 kg
12cm/45 AA 5.55 kg 1.0262216767303599240653494203791
*44.97430148574=46.153603080472820318257198000758

8cm/40 0.93
8cm AA 3.91 2.0504392395944867900929935152353
*13.2056895048815=27.07746394671011760990023575355

The biggest difference seems to be 12/50, as it have in-game Effect of 51, and after recalculation it is 71, but still, it is lower, than next, bigger caliber 14cm.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 54
TOJO again - 7/31/2011 11:16:38 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
OK, overall TOJO plan:

It begins "production" from January 1942, with replacements rate of 4, until September, or October (that will give historical 40 planes).
It will not be in any upgrade path.
It will use Kayaba Argus engine. Not very historical, but by changing engine availability date, I can change actual production potential of early TOJO model. Currently it is set to May, maybe I even move it one, or two months. That way early TOJO model will be available as replacement from January, and production can be available few months before IIa model.
Still, with PDU off that leaves not much choice, because only ONE unit can use this model.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 55
RE: TOJO again - 8/13/2011 7:09:21 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Heh, somehow I can not delete old file from previous post...

So, here is Scenario 6 (numbered as 36).
Additional changes:
SNLF Para troops lose 2 men, and 2 rifles. Now they have "size" 16.
Ki-44 TOJO production modified. It begin small replacements in January 1942, and its engine is available at 6/42. Also it gets Service Rating of 2 (of similar reasons, that P-40 of AVG), and it is NOT in any upgrade path. Researching it does nothing for availability date of Ki-44 IIa model.
Second VAL model have recalculated range, and is better than First model.
Two planes have slightly bigger bombload for Kamikaze "duties".
Few longer Naval Guns have recalculated effect.


I am actually not quite sure of 8cm gun, as difference seems to be too great between two models, but I am actually predicting, that 8cm/40 Gun should have LOWER effect, as it have really small amount of Explosive Charge. I would have to compare this projectile with other nations.

It seems actually, that all Japanese Merchant Guns are far too generous in effect calculations. This is why, quite lots of players observe weird effect in artillery duels between merchants, and submarines.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 56
RE: TOJO again - 8/20/2011 9:12:56 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Not good. The closest Allied Naval Gun to 8cm, is 3 in, which best Bursting Charge is at 0.34 kg. That is 3 times lower, that smaller Japanese 8cm Gun. Obviously hard to compare.

The next plan is to streamline all cavalry squads. It seems some of them include weight of horses, and some do not. Since now, every squad uses only ONE Armament Point, time to make cavalry excessively expenisive in terms of replacements, and transport space.

Also, since I am able to supply whole development of New Caledonia area with occasional AKL (for, like 5 bases), I have decided to finally take a look at cargo spaces of transport ships:

I have exported my Scenario 32, into WITPloadAE, and put 3 rules into new calculations. I have took into consideration whole capacity of ship (troops, bulk, and liquid possible loads), and compared it to ship tonnage:
1) If sum of all cargo is LOWER, that HALF of ship tonnage, I keep the old value
2) If this sum is HIGHER, than ship tonnage, I cut bulk capacity by HALF
3) Otherwise capacity is cut by 1/3rd

There are no changes in troop, or liquid capacity. Only bulk. It is all made in one simple query:
=IF(S2+T2+U2<V2/2,T2,IF(S2+T2+U2>V2,T2/2,T2*0.66))

This is my Scenario 32, so few CAs, and CVs use different Guns in initial models, but since those guns have identical statistics in stock, there should be no difference, except name.
If anyone wants to make modification in his Scenario, just put query into empty column at second line (2), and pull it down. Then paste values into T column.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 57
Transports capacity change - 8/20/2011 9:36:43 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
It seems this change will not interfere with initial TFs. Supply amount is not as ridiculously high, and every LCU still fit into their transports.

Now, speaking of animals, support squad can represent several men, but where are exactly whole supply train of Division? There should be thousands of horses/mules, and carts. If Motorized Support is supposed to represent trucks, basic support should also represent whole "leg transport". That would be trouble for small units, but I am actually thinking about increasing load cost of support, to make it equal to Motorized Support, at least (it seems load is the only difference between them, and now Motorized is at great disadvantage).
Also, AVGAS should be delivered by dedicated fuel trucks, damaged planes should be pulled by dedicated trailers, all this should be incorporated into Aviation Support weight, so I am thinking about increasing of its weight also.

The end result should be much longer loading/unloading time, which should help somehow with ships allocation, as more will be needed to haul goods, and more will be kept in port services for longer.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 58
PILOTS AXED! - 8/21/2011 10:11:12 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
I remember, that lowering cargo capacity disabled some conversion capabilities, because it is hardcoded to IIRC over 3500 (?) capacity. Maybe even some AKEs become now too small? Anyone have list/link what types are affected? Seems easy enough to fix, just putting appropriate value before lowering capacity.

First experiment:
Support squad "weight" set to 20. It seems the only problem is Guam Invasion Fleet, which left behind most of Base Force, but it seems to be something with loading algorithm, as there is plenty (7k) space left on transports. They just decided, that troop capacity is more important. With 18 problem still occurs.

I am also thinking about increasing Engineer weight. Those are masons, carpenters, etc. and should need some specialized equipment (like saws, and wheelbarrows ), so increasing somehow their weight seems appropriate. The overall goal is to force transport ships to waste weeks in unloading "tails" of LCUs, and in that way force more transport ships to be used in other tasks.

Another shot:
pilot axing. Players complain, that named inexperienced pilots show up in squadrons. Easy fix:
Every pilot, which have LESS, than 70 exp, and arrive AFTER 420201, shows up in pool, no unit.
You can use this magic line:
=IF(AND(D3<70,F3>420201),0,E3)

or my file. Again, this is from my Scenario 32, so it have 2 extra pilots at the end.

It actually seems, that main skill is around +/-3 (or probably 5), of defined experience, so maybe I should set it at 75?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 59
RE: PILOTS AXED! - 9/3/2011 8:08:55 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
After some testing, it seems there is no additional byte for enabling xAKs conversion, so I would have to keep their capacity at 3k, to allow for such conversion. I am not sure if pure AKs also have this ability, so I have included them also.
I did not want to actually check, if AKEs will lower their possible maximum reloads, by comparing new values to rearming table, so I just left all AEs, and AKEs at their old values. Now I am wondering if the same should be made to all AGs, ADs, and ASs...

Formula now is kinda long, and it will be even longer for AD/AG/AS:
=IF(AND(S2+T2+U2>V2/2,C2<>58,C2<>45),IF(S2+T2+U2>V2,IF(AND(P2=2,OR(C2=82,C2=56),T2>2999,T2/2<3000),3000,T2/2),IF(AND(P2=2,OR(C2=82,C2=56),T2>2999,T2*0.66<3000),3000,T2*0.66)),T2)
I have left capacity unchanged, if it is EXACTLY at HALF of tonnage, because there is Allied xAP, which have troops, and bulk exactly at half.

Also, initial test for load changes of common support:
Support 10->20
Engineers 8->12
Aviation 8->10

First problem is Guam invasion fleet, but it have few xAKs, which have troops conversion available, so converting them in database fixed the problem.
Second is small 2 AKL Aviation Unit in Babeldaob. There is similar unit, which fits its transport, but the other uses 2 smallest AKLs, and did not fit them. However, it seems there is some additional transports in port, and exchanging one of the smallest AKL, with larger from port, will fix the problem.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: New AP projectile Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.164