Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891
Have a proposal for the Babes people. Artillery is on a proportional basis so why not aerial bombs? I see the artillery proportionality going with a standard. Why not have bombs go against the same standard? A 500 lb bomb only has 150lbs of explosive, and the its kill mechanism is the same as a large caliber mortar round. Can there be something done to unify this?

Matt

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Way Cool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

A 500 lb bomb only has 150lbs of explosive, and the its kill mechanism is the same as a large caliber mortar round.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yep, I got about the same info from a long time AO Tech at Pendleton. Seems the Brit '39-'42 GP series came in at around 29-31% fill/weight. Their '42-'45 MC series was about 47-49%. The early USN Mk-12 and M43 were both about 49% and all of the Joint AN types were 51-53%. Not to worry, there's OrdPubs for every bomb in the game. Won't do anything without consulting primary source material.

Got hold of a copy of Christie's papers and the first Munitions Effectiveness Manual from '47. This puppy has everything; analysis math, the raw data, graphs charts, younameit. Lot different from the ones I used in the 60s and 70s and way, way different from the alphabet soup crap they use today. Overlays, kill mechanism, and kill level coutours for bombs are remarkably similar to big bore mortars. Think @Matt is on to something. Only real notable difference is in the psi contours, but those are compensated by secondary fragmentation. This is way cool stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1
How much explosive depends on the type of bomb. 150 lbs is not far off for a semi-armor piercing bomb (the US 500 lb SAP AN-M58 had 160 lbs of TNT). A 500 lb general purpose (GP) bomb would have about 250 - 275 lbs of explosive, and a 500 lb AP bomb would probably have about 70 lbs of explosive. The level and type of damage would also depend on the type of fuze. A delay fuze would dig a crater, which would be handy if you need to penetrate a bunker or damage a runway, but the crater contains the blast damage. AP or SAP would normally have a long delay fuze, because penetration is what they do. At least in US practice, the fuze in a GP bomb would depend on the mission.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
There's two measures of bomb Kaboom, Effect and Anti-Soft. They aren't interchangeable, and are processed differently depending on the combat algorithm. There's Ground Attack, Port, Airfield and City Attack. Some use one parameter, some use the other, some use both. So all we can do is tighten it up a bit and make it smoother.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

Have a proposal for the Babes people. Artillery is on a proportional basis so why not aerial bombs? I see the artillery proportionality going with a standard. Why not have bombs go against the same standard? A 500 lb bomb only has 150lbs of explosive, and the its kill mechanism is the same as a large caliber mortar round. Can there be something done to unify this?

Matt

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1
How much explosive depends on the type of bomb. 150 lbs is not far off for a semi-armor piercing bomb (the US 500 lb SAP AN-M58 had 160 lbs of TNT). A 500 lb general purpose (GP) bomb would have about 250 - 275 lbs of explosive, and a 500 lb AP bomb would probably have about 70 lbs of explosive. The level and type of damage would also depend on the type of fuze. A delay fuze would dig a crater, which would be handy if you need to penetrate a bunker or damage a runway, but the crater contains the blast damage. AP or SAP would normally have a long delay fuze, because penetration is what they do. At least in US practice, the fuze in a GP bomb would depend on the mission.

If wishes were knishes I'd never go hungry but there ain't no hooks for fusing or damage modalities. So we're stuck with the single choice between GP and AP/SAP depending on AltDevice/AltUse attributes. There's no way to add cratering, bunker busting, etc.. so penetration, fuse delays, and such, are a non starter in game terms, except for Pen values in Naval Attacks.

There's two measures of bomb Kaboom, Effect and Anti-Soft. They aren't interchangeable, and are processed differently depending on the combat algorithm. There's Ground Attack, Port, Airfield and City Attack. Some use one parameter, some use the other, some use both. So all we can do is tighten it up a bit and make it smoother.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
have a crude rendition of this in my mod for both effect and acc. works ok. John of course can produce a more mathamatically awesome rendition of it. He smart......He makes things Go. I can't add.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
[ed] hey Nik, give me a shout with your rendition data. I'll shoot you the complete algorithm and the results, but it would be good to check it against what you might already have. Ciao.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Okey dokey then, bombing model is finished. Tests out very well.

Part of it is very similar to Nik's approach (great minds, yeah? ) so City, AF, Port bombing will give proportionally smoother results.

The other part of it nestles perfectly into the Arty algorithm, and gives very proportional results vis a vis a hard humping battery, in game terms. So, no more of this 'bomb a Chinese Corps into oblivion" crap. Lots of other 'crap' has been addressed and redacted by judicious choice of variable scope.

Think this might just float ya'lls boat. It definitely works for us. Will be up on the website tomorrow, for both BabesLite and DaBigBabes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk
There is any posibility of rolling it in a already running Dababes game?

Only the device list is altered....

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk
There is any posibility of rolling it in a already running Dababes game?

Only the device list is altered....

Yes, sir. It can update ongoing games. In PBEM, Japan has to run its turn first with the new data, then the Allies. And both have to have the same file and answer yes to the start query. But that's it.

Both BabesLite and DaBigBabes have been updated with this and nothing else since the map thing back in October; other data is good since August; Lite bomb update on Nov.22, DBB bomb update on Nov.23, so if you download on or after those dates you should be good to boogie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk
There is any posibility of rolling it in a already running Dababes game?

Only the device list is altered....

Yes, sir. It can update ongoing games. In PBEM, Japan has to run its turn first with the new data, then the Allies. And both have to have the same file and answer yes to the start query. But that's it.

Both BabesLite and DaBigBabes have been updated with this and nothing else since the map thing back in October; other data is good since August; Lite bomb update on Nov.22, DBB bomb update on Nov.23, so if you download on or after those dates you should be good to boogie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk
There is any posibility of rolling it in a already running Dababes game?

Only the device list is altered....

Yes, sir. It can update ongoing games. In PBEM, Japan has to run its turn first with the new data, then the Allies. And both have to have the same file and answer yes to the start query. But that's it.

Both BabesLite and DaBigBabes have been updated with this and nothing else since the map thing back in October; other data is good since August; Lite bomb update on Nov.22, DBB bomb update on Nov.23, so if you download on or after those dates you should be good to boogie.

Thanks for heads up! Almost forgot to update my ongoing DaBigBabes.