Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread

 
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 >> AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/12/2011 6:27:12 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 850
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
Thought I would put this up to get some feedback and discussion going on changes I've been working on over the past 1.5 years for the second generation of Alternate Washington Naval Treaty scenarios; some of these will no doubt find their way into an adaption for Scen 1 and 2 or DaBabes.

Note that all the changes here are broad concepts, not specific change lists, which would be impossible given that the project constitutes a ~75% reconstruction of the database (only thing not really touched is bases and leaders/pilots so far).

The project is based on DaBabes scenario 28 as a baseline, and has evolved from there. Many of the things here were made possible thanks to the efforts of JWE and michaelm, so many thanks to them for that.

There is currently a 'test' scenario in development consisting of an alternate history Marianas battle, which will hopefully be released later this month. This scenario feature most of these changes, and has been used to fine tune many of them. I will look at following it up with more ‘small’ scenarios, both historical and alternative, in hopes of letting people get a feel for the changes as I work on finishing the campaign versions.

Theres a lot to go through, so Ill probably do one section at a time whenever I have time for it.

DEVICES

The core of the changes, devices have seen probably the most work, which is reasonable seeing as they make everything tick.

Naval/DP Guns
Some of you may have seen my post in radar gunnery thread where I outlined these changes, but I will do so again here as briefly as possible.

Every single naval and coastal defence gun has been redone, with a consistent formula and system used for calculating both accuracy and penetration values; my plan is to release the spreadsheet I have used for this in due time in case anyone wishes to scrutinise it or use it for their own changes.

Almost all the devices are now named in a format as follows;

(Bore)/(Length) (Model) (Elevation/Purpose) (Modifiers)

For example, the United States 16 inch gun on the Iowa's would be;

16in/50 Mk7 45* ++

Whereas the Japanese 12.7cm Type 89 would be;

12.7cm/40 T89 AA -=

In detail;
(Bore) is the bore diameter of the weapon, in appropriate units for that country.
(Length) is the length of the weapon in calibres.
(Model) is the designation used for the device.
(Elevation/Purpose) is the maximum elevation of the weapon, or if it is a DP or AA gun.
(Modifiers) are a series of symbols at the end of the device name, with different meanings; there can be up to 3 of them, and they are described below. These are included so the player has some feedback on his weapons systems; they could easily be omitted from the final display.

The first is the 'fire control quality' modifier, and represents the overall quality of FCS associated with the weapon. This has pronounced effects on the weapons accuracy for both anti-air (AA) and anti-surface (ASu) purposes. This can vary a lot depending on the platform (merchants tend not to rate too highly, for example), the date and the nationality of the system.

The second is the 'rate of fire' modifier, and represents how the weapon ranks up against others of its kind in terms of RoF. The easiest example here is the 5in/38 Mk12 in its many variants; the BB EBR mounts have the best cycle and acquisition times, followed by the slightly slower DD and CA/CL mounts. Even worse than these are the open mounts used on some of the older DDs. This modifier along with rate of fire has a very significant impact on AA accuracy, and a lesser one on ASu accuracy.

The last symbol if present is always hash '#', and represents a weapon that has undergone an ammunition upgrade. Examples of this include the new shells issued to US battleships in late 43/early 44 which increase penetration of those weapons by ~10%.

The first and second symbol's use the same system for representation, which is as follows;

^ is Excellent
+ is Good
= is Average
- is Poor
. is Terrible

So if you see a weapon rated as a ^=, you can easily deduce that this is a weapon with an excellent FCS and average ROF for its model (for example one of the main battery guns on one of the USNs rebuilt standard BBs).

As mentioned before, anti-air and anti-surface accuracies have been split, as has the effect value for AA, which is now based on explosive volume rather than direct shell weight. As a result, some weapons have been brought more in line with their historical capabilities, and I illustrate this with the destroyer guns of the IJN and USN.

In the stock scenarios the IJN 12.7cm/50 in its various forms rates an accuracy of 59 for both ASu and AA (same for all the versions); historically this was a rather inadequate weapon, with only the Type D being a solid DP gun. Its anti-surface capabilities were not particularly great either. Under the new system, the Type B merits a 39 for ASu and a 38 for AA accuracy. The later Type D gets a 44 for ASu and a 48 for AA.

Contrast this to the USN 5in/38 Mk12 EBR, which as a result of attempting to model its AA capabilities tends to suffer from being too good at anti-surface work, particularly in the very early AE databases where it had an accuracy value of close to 200. In the current database its rated as 62 for both AA and ASu, making it only marginally better than the IJN weapon. Under the new system the 5in/38 Mk12 += which is a common destroyer variant, rates a 58 for ASu and a 74 for AA accuracy. This is more in line with its historical capabilities, and it shows in tests.

Penetration values have been redone using values from Naval Armour and Ballistics (which is in turn based on Nathan Okuns work) as a baseline, with minor alterations as needed. They are all calculated against the same standard, which is US Class A armour. Armour quality modifiers have been moved to the actual armour values of ships.

In general penetration values tend to be slightly higher than in stock, which serves to both make larger ships more vulnerable (a Kongo class BB getting shot up by USN cruisers was almost impossible in the original system) and make surface combat always carry a risk if facing equal forces.

As an example, the US 16in/50 Mk8 has gone from 828 in stock to 966 here (before the ammo upgrade), while the IJN 20cm/50 3YT-2 has gone from 291 to 342 here.

I'm happy to provide details on any specific weapons people want to look at.

Lastly, CD guns, which use the same system, though their designation replaces the modifiers with a 'CD'. These weapons were rather varied in stock, and in many cases with inconsistent data; this is now corrected, and in general these weapons remain something you want to avoid, particularly anything in the 6 inches and upwards category.

AA Guns
Like Naval guns all AA weapons have been revised; this includes both the large caliber land-based AA guns, which use a formula similar to that used for ship-based DP and AA weapons, as well as the smaller shipbased and land-based automatic weapons like the 40mm and 25mm. For these weapons, I used a formula similar to DaBabes calculation for them, along with adapted values for anti-surface actions.

Like Naval guns, ship-based light AA devices include modifiers, though the system is much simpler; the weapon name is followed by a +/=/- to indicate the quality of the mounting and its associated fire control. This only applies to mountings that used fire direction, pedestal mounts like the HMGs and 20mm do not use this system.

In addition, the Japanese 25mm has been split into 3 different versions for the single, twin and triple version with appropriate accuracies to reflect the inefficiency of the triple mounting.

In general, AA is much more effective than in stock, particularly for the allies, though this is also largely caused by the better AA accuracy and effect values for DP guns in addition to changes to light AA. As a recent example, a carrier clash in the test scenario saw me loosing ~130 aircraft to AA as the Japanese compared to some ~15 for Allies. This is in August '43.

Torpedoes
A conversation with csatahajos earlier this year about the incredible strength of aerial torpedoes against even very large battleships led to an experiment where I cut their effect values in half. This has yielded very good results, as the smaller 18" aerial torpedoes are no longer as devastating as before against large targets, while the larger torpedoes retained most of their power.

However, recent results have led me to experimenting with using 75% instead of 50% of effect for these weapons, but I am unsure if this will be final. I may opt to use 50% for aerial and 75% for surface and submarine weapons.

Regarding surface launched weapons; like guns these will come with a rating for accuracy using the simplified +/=/- system to represent quality of torpedo directors on the ship (mostly old DDs getting a -, most getting the =, and USN late war systems with radar used for torpedo direction getting a +). Like the older AltWNT scenarios, wakeless torpedoes like the Long Lance and electric torpedoes receive a small bonus to their accuracy values.

Aerial Bombs
I was experiementing with some changes to these earlier in the year, but JWE's work for DaBabes forms the basis for the current changes here; for those unfamiliar with it, the changes cut bomb effect values in half, along with changing the formulae for anti-soft and anti-armour values considerably.

My own tests with these changes gave me the feeling that while the air-to-ground issues were resolved, the effect of these weapons against ships was now too low; as a result I am now testing a system of effect at ~60% for GP, ~45% for SAP and ~30% for AP of bomb weight, compared to DaBabes original values of ~50%, ~30% and ~15% respectively. Anti-soft and anti-armour values will continue to use DaBabes formulas.

Aircraft Weapons
These have seen 2 major sets of changes; the first was the recalculation of all effect, accuracy, etc values based on my own formulae, from basic data like shell weight, explosive filler, muzzle velocity, etc. Accuracy is a function of ballistic properties and rate of fire (the 'lead hose' effect), while effect is calculated as 'weight of fire', a function of shell weight, rate of fire and HE content. Like with naval changes, the goal was to create a framework that would calculate values for these that did not fall too far outside the original games data set. This way, any new fictional weapons or weapons not included in the original database could be added and would fit right in.

As an example of changes, here are a few weapon comparisons. Changes are shown as X->Y, where X is the stock value and Y is the new value. Values with no arrow remain the same;

.50 Browning MG
Range 4
Effect 3
Penetration 2->5
Accuracy 29->31
Anti-Armor 20->10
Anti-Soft 3->4

7.7mm Type 89
Range 3
Effect 2
Penetration 1->2
Accuracy 27->23
Anti-Armor 10->4
Anti-Soft 2->4

20mm Type 99
Range 5->4
Effect 4
Penetration 3->6
Accuracy 22->18
Anti-Armor 30->11
Anti-Soft 4->5

20mm Hispano (MkII)
Range 5
Effect 4->5
Penetration 3->8
Accuracy 26->25
Anti-Armor 30->15
Anti-Soft 4->6

Once again, if anyone would like to see a certain weapon compared, just ask.

The second change I mentioned is to seperate out defensive weapons from others, mainly as a way to deal with the excessive capability of heavy bombers to shoot down large quantities of fighters, even at night.

Defensive variants of a gun are marked with an * for those mounted in powered or ball turrets, and a *- for those mounted in flexibile positions. Those in turrets have their accuracy value reduced to half, and those in flexible mountings have it reduced to a third. This has given very good results in testing, as bombers can still drive off attackers by weight of fire, but shooting down fighters is less common, though it still happens, especially using capable bombers like the B-17 or B-29.

AIRCRAFT

One of the first things I did when I started on Mk2 was creating a spreadsheet to handle aircraft data, and to automatically calculate things like Extended and Normal ranges, Endurance, as well as useful non-game data like fuel efficiency and drop tank range effects which I could use to make sure all the data was sensible.

Ranges
A lot of ranges were tweaked a little, and of course any new aircraft or non-historical models just had them extrapolated. The general pattern for ranges in stock is that Normal is 75% of Extended, which is ~70-95% of Maximum depending on aircraft type (though note that the game automatically halves Ext and Normal ranges since they involve a return trip. I chose to keep these ratios, though I did consider dropping the Ext/Normal ratio to 60% or so since it would push up Ops losses as a result, but so far there does not seem to be a need for it. As a general rule Extended was set as 80% of Maximum, with the except of recon aircraft which are at 95% and bombers with space for internal fuel which are at 70-75%.

Service Rating
Service ratings were completely redone, with all seeing increases. An interesting discovery I made while working using the .csv files is that although service rating is capped at 5 in the editor, if a value greater than this is used on a .csv and the scenario repackaged, the game will happily recognize that value. Im still doing tests on this, but if it works as advertised, then the likely values for service ratings will be something like below. Note that these are just guidelines, every plane will be asessed individually.

3 - Radial Single Engine (F4F, etc)
4 - 'Difficult' Radial Single Engine (A7M, B5N1), Radial Twin Engine (A-20, Ki-48), Inline Single Engine (Spitfire, Ki-61)
5 - Large Radial Twin Engine (B25, G4M, Ki-21), Inline Twin Engine (P-38), Jet-Prop Hybrids (FR-1)
6 - Four Engine (B-17), Jets (P-80)

I should note that the differences between 4 and 5 for example are much lower than those between 2 and 3, because of how SR works. What happens is that the SR is used to divide 100 to work out how much wear the aircraft can take before it needs maintenance; this is visible on the Planes tab of a squadron. So SR3 is 33, SR4 is 25, SR5 is 20 and SR6 is 16/17. As a result, I might even push up the upper end of the scale to SR8, which is 12/13. Probably something that needs a lot of testing.

My ongoing game with csatahajos uses the early version of this with everything rated from 3 to 5, and it has a noticable but realistic effect on sortie tempo; its possible to stage strikes with 100% operational squadrons, but dont expect to do so for several days in a row, availability will quickly drop to ~70-80% for single engine bombers, and less for the bigger stuff. Couple this with Babes style AV support limits for real fun.

Maneuverability
Another thing that I had issue with was the marked difference between the way MVR values for the allied and japanese planes varied. Take for example a comparison of the F6F-3 and the A6M5. The F6F-3 is rated as 17-17-17-17-14, with the A6M5 as 29-29-29-23-17. This just seems off, especially as even though both aircraft had superchargers, decreasing air density would result in reduced maneuvering ability even if engine power was unaffected; instead the values are constant until the critical altitude is reached and then drop off.

The same 2 aircraft under the new system I use are as follows; 24-22-20-18-14 for the F6F-3, and 31-28-25-20-13 for the A6M5. These are probably the most fluid part of the changes to aircraft right now, and have gone through about 6-7 iterations so far, with more to come as I get a chance to do more testing. In brief, I try to account for wing loading and general manuverability (the base value), the effects of super/turbochargers (fall off with altitude, point of steeper falloff), along with the effect of reduced air pressure resulting in less manueverability, with acrobatic aircraft suffering more.

An intesting side effect of testing this was that the stratospheric sweep effect is much less noticable, especially in the early war; even an unlayered CAP will do resonably against them, though layered is always better. I have yet to see how it plays out with late-war aircraft like the P-51H, etc.

Production and Research
Without going into too much detail on industrial changes, suffice to say that as a result of Japan having less HI overall, each point invested into aircraft will be that much more 'expensive'. This, coupled with the fact that the repair cost for each engine factory type can be different (from ~1000 supplies for Ha-33/35, to ~3000-4000 supplies for late war versions), should allow a more realistic representation of the limitations faced historically.

When it comes to R&D, I identified 2 main things that caused unrealistic results as Japan; the first was the sheer number of R&D centers, meaning you could easily afford to use 5-10 on an aircraft you really wanted, each at the 'optimum' size of 30-40. By cutting the number of R&D centers to two dozen or so, the player is forced to be much more selective about what to research, assuming realistic R&D is on of course. The second was the crazy ability to 'upgrade' an R&D plant without damage to any plane in an upgrade path. This was dealt with by removing the natural upgrade paths for all IJ aircraft; the ones ones where a shift like that is permitted is within subvariants (Ki-44-Ia to -Ib and -Ic), or when moving to an 'alternative version' (G4M1 to G4M1-L).

----------------------------------------------

Thats it for today; Ill look at aircraft related devices more when I update this, followed by land and industrial changes. That will probably be followed by changes to ship classes, and lastly aircraft.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 1/26/2012 11:56:34 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios
Post #: 1
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/12/2011 6:56:18 PM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1145
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
Suscribed !!!

Buena suerte !!!

Estimated timeline for Mk2 scenarios ??



(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 2
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/12/2011 7:01:21 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11071
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Wow. Good to see you hard at work Juan. Will be keeping up...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 3
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/12/2011 7:01:21 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 850
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
Not certain at the moment; as said the 'pilot' or 'test' scenario should be out later this year; it is complete apart from land forces and transports for them (which believe it or not is actually the easy bit!). Its currently being played back and forth between myself and csatahajos both as a test of features, a learning experience and a break from our main Ultimate BB campaign.

I would not except a complete grand campaign until spring, although a Scen 1 or 2 adaption with most of the changes should not be too much work; the main one is going through all the ship classes and reworking the durability and armour values to conform to my models, as well as double checking other data like endurance and fuel capacities to make sure they're sensible.

Thanks for the kind words John; I've been doing my best to follow the great progress you're making with both RA and Perfect War.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 12/12/2011 7:04:06 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 4
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/12/2011 7:13:36 PM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1145
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
Thanks for the info.

A bit OT Question: How the Ultimate BB Scen works at PBEM ?? I played it as allied against the IA and the poor japs still have almost all theirs BBs but don't use them !!!

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 5
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/12/2011 7:18:17 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 850
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
To be honest AI-play was a secondary consideration for the first set of scenarios, and some of them no doubt broke the AI in some way. I can only guess at why they dont use their battleships, probably the AI scripts dont ask for that level of force to be applied.

The good news is that the campaign scenarios for Mk2, of which there are 2 planned to begin with (a hybrid BB/CV variant, and a Ultimate BB successor) will come in 3 flavours; PBEM (with all the 'goodies' for both sides, more on this later...), and a AI-friendly variant for each side with some aids to get the AI to be more of a challenge (things like linking certain conversions into the upgrade path of ships so the AI will use them, since it is incapable of conversions).

< Message edited by JuanG -- 12/12/2011 7:19:15 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 6
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/12/2011 7:22:32 PM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1145
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
Thanks. Good luck with the Mk2 

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 7
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/12/2011 7:31:53 PM   
csatahajos

 

Posts: 701
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline
Hi traskott,

being the allied opponent for Juan I can tell you that the PBEM version of Ultimate BBs is a very nice break from the stock game. Surface fights are really as it should and with more focus on big gun ships one learns to value CVs even more (as there are less of them). Funny to see the two navies fight it out with Claudes and Buffaloes, so CV attack planes are sort of in a "bomber always gets through" mode.

WHat really changed a lot is surface combat and I can tell you from past experience is waaay better than it ever was before, thanks to Juan's relentless efforts.

< Message edited by csatahajos -- 12/12/2011 7:32:43 PM >


_____________________________



Art by Wayne Scarpaci
http://www.artbywayne.com/

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 8
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/12/2011 7:36:49 PM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1145
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
Thanks Csatahajos. Good to know it. :) 

(in reply to csatahajos)
Post #: 9
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/13/2011 12:17:20 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2539
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Dontblinkyoullmissit, GA
Status: offline
Hi, Juan...
Are you maintaining the data you postulated in May 2009 regarding tonnages, size limitations, et. al?  I am still working with an AltWNT format as well and would be interested to see how your changes could filter into what I am doing?

Paz;


_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 10
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/13/2011 1:00:22 AM   
House Stark

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/30/2011
Status: offline
Great news! I've been mainly playing on your mods since I got the game, and am definitely looking forward to seeing the new versions.

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 11
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/13/2011 1:58:19 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 850
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Hi, Juan...
Are you maintaining the data you postulated in May 2009 regarding tonnages, size limitations, et. al?  I am still working with an AltWNT format as well and would be interested to see how your changes could filter into what I am doing?

Paz;



If you mean with regards to the treaties, then yes; there are a few minor tweaks to them, mainly to SS, DD and CA/CL tonnages in the London treaty, but the overall limitations are the same.

The first campaign scenario released will be something of a hybrid between the BB and CV variants, though probably closer to the BB variant. It will also be somewhere between the regular and enhanced versions in terms of technical advancement on Japans side.

I have more or less complete build-lists for both sides in the pre-war period so if you'd like I could email you with them; I'd rather not start posting them here since this is meant to be general design concepts rather specific OOBs. Theres a few things I still need to work out for Japan in terms of shipyard allocation in the 30's, but nothing that should alter things too much.

As usual, you and everyone else is free to use what they want from here, including the spreadsheets for naval guns, springsharp->AE ship design, etc that I'll be putting up as things progress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: House Stark
Great news! I've been mainly playing on your mods since I got the game, and am definitely looking forward to seeing the new versions.


Thanks for the support; will do my best to get these finished as soon as possible.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 12/13/2011 2:02:38 AM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 12
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/14/2011 2:02:39 AM   
Commander Cody


Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
Juan: Mucho gusto! I liked your CV variant very much.

Keep up the excellent work.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 13
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/14/2011 2:10:29 PM   
moonraker


Posts: 481
Joined: 7/14/2004
From: Swindon,Wilts. UK
Status: offline
Looking forward to Mk II Juan. Have played the Enhanced CV version of Mk I to June 44 as the Allies and found it very enjoyable

_____________________________

Packard Bell S3840 imedia Desk Top - 4GB DDR3 Ram - Geforce GT 630 4GB - Windows 7 Home Premium - Wired Keyboard and Mouse - 22 inch HD Monitor

(in reply to Commander Cody)
Post #: 14
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/14/2011 7:03:04 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline
Hello Juan. John is not fully active anymore. He is working on a project for a book contract. It seems the scent of compensations for certain competence has turned his head elsewhere. He asked me to maintain Babes and keep my thumb on the game pulse, and like an idiot, I agreed. I have worked closely with John on development of the Babes scenarios. Have seen your work and think it is excellent. John has the highest respect for your work. We should exchange informations. I would like to see your spreadsheets. I think you have much to contribute.

I would like to start engaging with people I don't know. Please PM me and I will return my personal email address. Communicating with you folks outside the constraints of this forum can help me get to know you like John does.

Mathias Norton

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 15
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/14/2011 9:08:37 PM   
che200


Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: online
They got John as well :-(

At this rate none of the dev team will remain

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 16
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/15/2011 3:12:58 PM   
csatahajos

 

Posts: 701
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline
Currently playing the Scenario near-final version, this time me as Japan (we usually play the other way around), suspense is building, the other side's cards are not revealed yet, anly some air bombardment on Kusaie island by his 4E bombers and also some sweeps over the Somlomon's. But we expect massive surface action and heavy air attrition battles soon, so some reports and screenshot to follow ;).

< Message edited by csatahajos -- 12/15/2011 3:13:22 PM >


_____________________________



Art by Wayne Scarpaci
http://www.artbywayne.com/

(in reply to che200)
Post #: 17
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/15/2011 11:00:27 PM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1145
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
It would be very interesting see the screenshots 

(in reply to csatahajos)
Post #: 18
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/24/2011 1:35:04 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 850
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
Apologies for the delay, but I couldn't seem to find a suitable moment to sit down and write this over the past week.

Once again, thanks for support; the game csatahajos and I were playing is drawing to a close so I should be able to put up some examples of the fun stuff that happened in a later post. For now, more changes, looking at aircraft weapons. Ill follow these up with other air devices (rockets and ohkas/bats) later, then look at industry.

DEVICES

Aircraft Weapons

These have seen 2 major sets of changes; the first was the recalculation of all effect, accuracy, etc values based on my own formulae, from basic data like shell weight, explosive filler, muzzle velocity, etc. Accuracy is a function of ballistic properties and rate of fire (the 'lead hose' effect), while effect is calculated as 'weight of fire', a function of shell weight, rate of fire and HE content. Like with naval changes, the goal was to create a framework that would calculate values for these that did not fall too far outside the original games data set. This way, any new fictional weapons or weapons not included in the original database could be added and would fit right in.

As an example of changes, here are a few weapon comparisons. Changes are shown as X->Y, where X is the stock value and Y is the new value. Values with no arrow remain the same;

.50 Browning MG
Range 4
Effect 3
Penetration 2->5
Accuracy 29->31
Anti-Armor 20->10
Anti-Soft 3->4

7.7mm Type 89
Range 3
Effect 2
Penetration 1->2
Accuracy 27->23
Anti-Armor 10->4
Anti-Soft 2->4

20mm Type 99
Range 5->4
Effect 4
Penetration 3->6
Accuracy 22->18
Anti-Armor 30->11
Anti-Soft 4->5

20mm Hispano (MkII)
Range 5
Effect 4->5
Penetration 3->8
Accuracy 26->25
Anti-Armor 30->15
Anti-Soft 4->6

Once again, if anyone would like to see a certain weapon compared, just ask.

The second change I mentioned is to seperate out defensive weapons from others, mainly as a way to deal with the excessive capability of heavy bombers to shoot down large quantities of fighters, even at night.

Defensive variants of a gun are marked with an * for those mounted in powered or ball turrets, and a *- for those mounted in flexibile positions. Those in turrets have their accuracy value reduced to half, and those in flexible mountings have it reduced to a third. This has given very good results in testing, as bombers can still drive off attackers by weight of fire, but shooting down fighters is less common, though it still happens, especially using capable bombers like the B-17 or B-29.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 19
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/24/2011 4:49:16 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Very interesting work, Juan, although your example of flak effectiveness seems to indicate excessive boost.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 20
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/24/2011 5:10:31 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 850
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Very interesting work, Juan, although your example of flak effectiveness seems to indicate excessive boost.


The flak level has been revised up and down quite a bit; I suppose I should have mentioned that total losses in that engagement were close to 700 for each side.

Here are the total and flak losses in our current game; note that the Japanese ones are subject to FoW but should be reasonably accurate.

B6N2 - Total 243 - Flak 33
D4Y2 - Total 186 - Flak 37
D4Y1 - Total 61 - Flak 11

TBM-1C - Total 250 - Flak 17
SB2C-1 - Total 125 - Flak 22
SBD-5 - Total 92 - Flak 18

The US flak losses are proportionately higher, but this is because the IJN lost a lot of strike planes to my CAP.

As said, nothing is set in stone, the point of this thread is to explain changes and concepts and to get debate going. What should flak losses be in late '43 in your opinion? How about in '45?

< Message edited by JuanG -- 12/24/2011 5:14:09 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 21
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/24/2011 6:48:21 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
These figures look quite reasonable.

For Vals in late 1943 I, approaching from the position of historical accuracy, would expect around 20% losses to flak for small groups (6-8 or less), 10% or less for large groups (numbers, assuming there are skills and opportunity to utilize them, is really one of the most important factors in battling flak, both through dividing enemy attention, and through active suppression). That's from the number of planes who got to make attack runs For Betties or Kates around 30-40% and around 15-20% respectively. That's assuming typical Solomons invasion convoy, ususally with no ships bigger than a DD around. Against major combat TFs lossses should be significantly higher, maybe doubled, while use of more modern planes should reduce losses, but there is a definite shortage of test cases here.

For 1945 lone stragglers generally had very little chance of surviving warships' flak and returning to base, maybe 10-20%, mostly in cases they managed to approach undetected, and small groups fared little better, but it is very hard to say anything definiteve for large groups, because very few, if any, ever got through CAP historically.



< Message edited by FatR -- 12/24/2011 6:58:43 PM >


_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 22
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/31/2011 11:59:33 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Naval/DP Guns

As mentioned before, anti-air and anti-surface accuracies have been split, as has the effect value for AA, which is now based on explosive volume rather than direct shell weight. As a result, some weapons have been brought more in line with their historical capabilities, and I illustrate this with the destroyer guns of the IJN and USN.

In the stock scenarios the IJN 12.7cm/50 in its various forms rates an accuracy of 59 for both ASu and AA (same for all the versions); historically this was a rather inadequate weapon, with only the Type D being a solid DP gun. Its anti-surface capabilities were not particularly great either. Under the new system, the Type B merits a 39 for ASu and a 38 for AA accuracy. The later Type D gets a 44 for ASu and a 48 for AA.

Contrast this to the USN 5in/38 Mk12 EBR, which as a result of attempting to model its AA capabilities tends to suffer from being too good at anti-surface work, particularly in the very early AE databases where it had an accuracy value of close to 200. In the current database its rated as 62 for both AA and ASu, making it only marginally better than the IJN weapon. Under the new system the 5in/38 Mk12 += which is a common destroyer variant, rates a 58 for ASu and a 74 for AA accuracy. This is more in line with its historical capabilities, and it shows in tests.

Hi,

The whole of your project seems very interesting, but how do you manage to split the accuracy of the DP guns ? The Editor still shows only one field for me.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 23
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/31/2011 1:44:44 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 850
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Hi,

The whole of your project seems very interesting, but how do you manage to split the accuracy of the DP guns ? The Editor still shows only one field for me.



They cant be changed in the editor; only the 'primary' (Anti-surface in most cases) values are visible in the editor.

Extract the scenario files with witploadae, and you'll find the devices file has a couple of extra columns dealing with 'secondary' values.

This capability was added a while back in the beta patches, here is the original thread by JWE; http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2874609

Also, apologies for the lack of updates, but I fell ill shortly after Christmas and am only partially recovered, and have lacked the energy to write them out.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 12/31/2011 4:09:15 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 24
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/31/2011 3:32:44 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
Thank you, I didn't know that feature.  In fact, I never use Witpload, but now I will. :-)

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 25
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 12/31/2011 4:07:38 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 850
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Thank you, I didn't know that feature.  In fact, I never use Witpload, but now I will. :-)



I can honestly reccommend it; I find CSV files are very easy to work with, but then again I'm something of an excel junkie...

The editor is great for quick changes and final checks to make sure everything looks good, especially for aircraft and ship device assignments which arent as intuitive in CSV.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 26
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 1/1/2012 11:02:27 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
The thing that buggers me the most in the editor is the difficulty to compare two devices/ship classes/locations, etc.  At least a spreadsheet allows to see much more at a glance.  I just hope I won't fail the import...

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 27
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 1/10/2012 12:26:39 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1918
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
Just bumping the thread to see where the mod stands and if it is still on target for February?

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 28
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 1/26/2012 11:52:32 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 850
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
Some more for you guys, I apologize for the delay, but my attention managed to get diverted into other things for a while. Then when I dropped back in here I got distracted catching up on the ongoing debate regarding the beta changes and air model, etc, etc.

My two cents on the issue is that I dont think there is anything fundementally broken in the system, but that the data used in stock isnt necessarily ideal for creating realistic results, leading to issues like too high operational tempos, etc.

So, in light of that, and since the last post was on aircraft weapons, I thought I would make this post about the changes to aircraft themselves, as well as air production, research.

AIRCRAFT

One of the first things I did when I started on Mk2 was creating a spreadsheet to handle aircraft data, and to automatically calculate things like Extended and Normal ranges, Endurance, as well as useful non-game data like fuel efficiency and drop tank range effects which I could use to make sure all the data was sensible.

Ranges
A lot of ranges were tweaked a little, and of course any new aircraft or non-historical models just had them extrapolated. The general pattern for ranges in stock is that Normal is 75% of Extended, which is ~70-95% of Maximum depending on aircraft type (though note that the game automatically halves Ext and Normal ranges since they involve a return trip. I chose to keep these ratios, though I did consider dropping the Ext/Normal ratio to 60% or so since it would push up Ops losses as a result, but so far there does not seem to be a need for it. As a general rule Extended was set as 80% of Maximum, with the except of recon aircraft which are at 95% and bombers with space for internal fuel which are at 70-75%.

Service Rating
Service ratings were completely redone, with all seeing increases. An interesting discovery I made while working using the .csv files is that although service rating is capped at 5 in the editor, if a value greater than this is used on a .csv and the scenario repackaged, the game will happily recognize that value. Im still doing tests on this, but if it works as advertised, then the likely values for service ratings will be something like below. Note that these are just guidelines, every plane will be asessed individually.

3 - Radial Single Engine (F4F, etc)
4 - 'Difficult' Radial Single Engine (A7M, B5N1), Radial Twin Engine (A-20, Ki-48), Inline Single Engine (Spitfire, Ki-61)
5 - Large Radial Twin Engine (B25, G4M, Ki-21), Inline Twin Engine (P-38), Jet-Prop Hybrids (FR-1)
6 - Four Engine (B-17), Jets (P-80)

I should note that the differences between 4 and 5 for example are much lower than those between 2 and 3, because of how SR works. What happens is that the SR is used to divide 100 to work out how much wear the aircraft can take before it needs maintenance; this is visible on the Planes tab of a squadron. So SR3 is 33, SR4 is 25, SR5 is 20 and SR6 is 16/17. As a result, I might even push up the upper end of the scale to SR8, which is 12/13. Probably something that needs a lot of testing.

My ongoing game with csatahajos uses the early version of this with everything rated from 3 to 5, and it has a noticable but realistic effect on sortie tempo; its possible to stage strikes with 100% operational squadrons, but dont expect to do so for several days in a row, availability will quickly drop to ~70-80% for single engine bombers, and less for the bigger stuff. Couple this with Babes style AV support limits for real fun.

Maneuverability
Another thing that I had issue with was the marked difference between the way MVR values for the allied and japanese planes varied. Take for example a comparison of the F6F3 and the A6M5. The F6F-3 is rated as 17-17-17-17-14, with the A6M5 as 29-29-29-23-17. This just seems off, especially as even though both aircraft had superchargers, decreasing air density would result in reduced maneuvering ability even if engine power was unaffected; instead the values are constant until the critical altitude is reached and then drop off.

The same 2 aircraft under the new system I use are as follows; 24-22-20-18-14 for the F6F-3, and 31-28-25-20-13 for the A6M5. These are probably the most fluid part of the changes to aircraft right now, and have gone through about 6-7 iterations so far, with more to come as I get a chance to do more testing. In brief, I try to account for wing loading and general manuverability (the base value), the effects of super/turbochargers (fall off with altitude, point of steeper falloff), along with the effect of reduced air pressure resulting in less manueverability, with acrobatic aircraft suffering more.

An intesting side effect of testing this was that the stratospheric sweep effect is much less noticable, especially in the early war; even an unlayered CAP will do resonably against them, though layered is always better. I have yet to see how it plays out with late-war aircraft like the P-51H, etc.

Production and Research
Without going into too much detail on industrial changes, suffice to say that as a result of Japan having less HI overall, each point invested into aircraft will be that much more 'expensive'. This, coupled with the fact that the repair cost for each engine factory type can be different (from ~1000 supplies for Ha-33/35, to ~3000-4000 supplies for late war versions), should allow a more realistic representation of the limitations faced historically.

When it comes to R&D, I identified 2 main things that caused unrealistic results as Japan; the first was the sheer number of R&D centers, meaning you could easily afford to use 5-10 on an aircraft you really wanted, each at the 'optimum' size of 30-40. By cutting the number of R&D centers to two dozen or so, the player is forced to be much more selective about what to research, assuming realistic R&D is on of course. The second was the crazy ability to 'upgrade' an R&D plant without damage to any plane in an upgrade path. This was dealt with by removing the natural upgrade paths for all IJ aircraft; the ones ones where a shift like that is permitted is within subvariants (Ki-44-Ia to -Ib and -Ic), or when moving to an 'alternative version' (G4M1 to G4M1-L).


Comments and questions on the above would be appreciated. I will explain industrial changes in more depth next time, and might dabble into shipbuilding aswell.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 1/27/2012 10:27:04 AM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 29
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 1/27/2012 8:03:26 PM   
House Stark

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/30/2011
Status: offline
That's an interesting solution to the air model's problems. The inability to fly mass sorties every day is certainly going to change things, but it sounds fun. And you say that the strato-sweeps are no longer an issue? That sounds good because the HR of "second maneuver band as max alt" doesn't seem like it would work too well with your maneuverability values.

I can't wait to see what you've done with industry, and especially shipbuilding/naval OOBs.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread Page: [1] 2   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

0.145