Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Ship Maneuver Field

 
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 >> Ship Maneuver Field Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Ship Maneuver Field - 8/3/2019 5:07:23 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16786
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
During a comprehensive review of ship class data, focused on making durability
consistent (and that based on full load displacement, the only meaningful standard
as taught by US Navy damage control schools - from which I hold a Gold Certificate
- meaning best in class), I found some amazing maneuverability values.

Originally an amphib sailor on the last APA ever built (for USN, and probably in
all nations), I strongly object to rating landing craft with extremely high maneuver
values. In the first place, even alone (which is not how landing craft normally
are employed), they maneuver like a shoebox. That is, poorly. But operationally,
a landing craft is NOT ABLE TO MANEUVER AT ALL. If it is to succeed in its combat
mission during an assault landing, the landing craft MUST remain in line with
the reset of the craft in its wave. If it does not do that, the craft will not
"hit the beach" together - and the enemy will concentrate fire on them, one at a time,
the closest one to the beach first. When they beach and drop the bow ramp, this is
particularly effective. [See the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, the only film
remotely doing a good job showing what an assault landing is like?]

This was so important that each craft has 3 sailors on board. It only takes one sailor
to steer a landing craft. No need for a mechanic, you are not going to fix the engine
during a landing. Anyone can throw a line if you are coming alongside. So why three?
Because sticking your head above the (hopefully) armored steering position likely will
get you killed. Someone has to take over steering the boat. It must be a sailor, not
the troops, who are needed when you hit the beach. Three makes it probable at least one
will still be alive when you hit the beach! So why would a sailor step into the blood
of the previous cox'n (the boss of a boat is a coxswain). Because if you do not, the
troops will shoot you! THEY know that they have no chance if someone is not keeping the
vessel in the line. Which is to say - the boat is NOT free to maneuver at all.

There are other anomalies, but that is the worst one.

So what should the maneuver value be?

Maneuver probably should relate to rate of change of position. This at first blush seems
to imply maximum speed limits maximum maneuver rate. A small vessel, particularly if
designed for maneuvering, might get a multiplier. For example, if a large ship gets
maneuver = maximum speed, a small fast ship (e.g. a destroyer) might get maneuver =
2 x maximum speed. Perhaps an intermediate fast ship (e.g. a light cruiser) might get
1.5 x maximum speed. One might also vary individual ratings for cause. Thus, USS Alaska
class BC - with their terrible turning radius - might be rated as large ships are -
Maneuver = Maximum Speed - or even Maneuver = 0.75 x Maximum Speed - to make them
worse than battleships - which they were. A class noted for outstanding maneuverability
might get a slightly higher multiple than normal for its category.

Requesting thoughts, opinions or any information about the "standards" used by AE
nominally. [The problem is, lacking formal definitions in a manual, people entering data
do not generally know what the standards are, even if they once existed. So data in the
database is inconsidtent, and no person ever reviewed new class data as an editor would
do in a professional organization - to insure consistency with the standard, even if
there was one.] But if there IS a theory nominally officially used - I want to know what
it was?
Post #: 1
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/3/2019 5:16:05 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
Why do you go from an APA to a Landing Craft? They are not the same thing.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 2
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/3/2019 5:40:51 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3546
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
Also, abstraction

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 3
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/3/2019 6:01:42 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5261
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
Hopefully you recognize that an APA is larger than the typical landing craft.

A landing craft has plenty of room to maneuver. There is no requirement that the formation be so tightly held that every boat touches down in the same instant and by all appearances in various photos it would seem that there is somewhere between 25-50 yards between boats. The USN often used USCG personnel to coxswain their landing boats AND to train USN personnel how to handle their boats in the surf which constituted the principle danger facing any boat in a landing (drowned soldiers function quite poorly when they wash up on the beach). The surf ALWAYS hits landing boats from the rear as they approach the beach (or the lagoon) and moving relatively fast and in the same direction as the boat causes the boat's rudder to have much less effect than is normal. Many USCG personnel had spent years learning how to handle their boats in the surf at the lifeboat stations along the US coast. Recognizing this and the likely need for amphibious landings the USN started a training program for coxswains (with USCG personnel) and even conducted practice landings before Pearl Harbor (units of 1 MarDiv and 1 InfDiv).

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 4
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/5/2019 8:59:00 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline
There is a slight cognitive and semantic dissonance happening here. The word “maneuver” is nothing more than a convenient label for a data field in the database editor. The OP seems to believe it has universal applicability, in all contexts, to all vessels, in all cases, and must therefore conform to real-world expectations. This is simply not so.

In an over-arching context, the data field values are the bases of context specific computations on the ability to avoid fire (conventionally, a miss probability). In certain contexts (specific TF-tagged groupings in specific combat algorithms) it functions as maneuver, in a comparative manner. In other contexts (other TF-tagged groupings in other specific combat algorithms) it functions as a quazi-size parameter. There are five different algorithms that use this data value, in five different ways. So trying to arrange the values, uniformly, according to some real-world perception of “maneuverability” is an exercise in futility that will result in failure, often in unanticipated and spectacular ways.

Matt

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 5
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/6/2019 2:32:19 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4615
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
So mvr is mostly how easy it can avoid being hit which includes size - all other things equal it is easier to put a torpedo in a bigger ship than a small one.
Interestingly maneuver will have also to take in account ship paint = camouflage :)

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 6
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/6/2019 3:06:48 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16786
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Why do you go from an APA to a Landing Craft? They are not the same thing.


You are, of course, correct. But my APA carried (normally) 22 landing craft.
Always a dozen LCVPs in paired davits - 3 pairs per side. Usually 9 LCM-6
on top of deck shelters or on the main deck (depending on location). It
was possible to replace 2 LCM-6 with 1 LCM-8 if we needed to beach very
heavy vehicles - for example - very large tanks).

So I did what specialists do - assume everyone is familiar with my specialty.
For a specialist, it is obvious that an APA sailor knows about landing craft.

Sorry

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 7
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/6/2019 3:58:54 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16786
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Hopefully you recognize that an APA is larger than the typical landing craft.

A landing craft has plenty of room to maneuver. There is no requirement that the formation be so tightly held that every boat touches down in the same instant and by all appearances in various photos it would seem that there is somewhere between 25-50 yards between boats. The USN often used USCG personnel to coxswain their landing boats AND to train USN personnel how to handle their boats in the surf which constituted the principle danger facing any boat in a landing (drowned soldiers function quite poorly when they wash up on the beach). The surf ALWAYS hits landing boats from the rear as they approach the beach (or the lagoon) and moving relatively fast and in the same direction as the boat causes the boat's rudder to have much less effect than is normal. Many USCG personnel had spent years learning how to handle their boats in the surf at the lifeboat stations along the US coast. Recognizing this and the likely need for amphibious landings the USN started a training program for coxswains (with USCG personnel) and even conducted practice landings before Pearl Harbor (units of 1 MarDiv and 1 InfDiv).


You are quite correct about much of what you say, other than thinking that I confuse a 10,000 ton APA with
a small landing craft - or in your ideas about landing craft in an assault landing. I assumed (always bad)
that it was obvious an APA sailor was exposed to landing craft.
Actually, I arrived as a seaman, and there were too many electronics technicians, so I birthed with the assault
boat division (until a birth opened up in my area). [This is a confession that USN by the 1960s had forgotten
the lessons of war. Specialists should not have been together in one area, lest one torpedo, shell or missile
could wipe out too many of them, crippling the ship in that specialty.] I learned a good deal from the boat
crews. It was "the worst job in the Navy" - the place that would be felons were sent (if given a choice
between prison and military service). THEY didn't forget the lessons of combat. In particular the rule
that surviving a single assault landing as a landing craft crew member in any capacity must result in immediate
promotion!

USCG is FAR BETTER at teaching boat handling than USN normally is. [It is also far better at designing
small ships, and generally at handling any sort of ship in foul weather, on the average.] There are numbers of
reasons for this, some historical, some geographic. USCG operates extensively on the Great Lakes (where I
grew up), and weather there is often remarkably bad. [I found the Pacific duty less interesting than Atlantic
duty, because of the typically passive weather. The Atlantic hurricane season can be very exciting.] The USCG
also operates in Alaska (now abandoned by the Navy - NONE of our current ships is fitted for operations in cold
waters - something ALL were fitted for in the Cold War era - apart from technical posts - a radio intercept
station - a research station - USN has ZERO bases in Alaska - but is thinking about returning to Adak. I used
to fly to Adak to support the base there back when there was one.] Alaska is a place where vessels run into
trouble in bad weather regularly - and it is USCG that sails or flies to help them. You cannot get those familiar
with USCG operations in places with bad weather (I live in Alaska just as I grew up with homes on Lake Superior
and Lake Huron) to say anything bad about Coasties. I have one other perspective. Only two ratings in the USN
still went aloft in the 1960s - mine being one of them (to service antennas). The age of sail being gone, there
are few sailors which developed foul weather skills by the 1960s, particularly on large ships. Instead, they
pass the word over the 1 M C (Navy talk for the ship speaker system) every 5 minutes

"All hands stand clear of all weatherdecks due to high winds and heavy seas" - so no one is lost overboard.
But for signalmen and electronics technicians, that was the signal to go to the 05 level (the highest deck)
and "play." No officer is going to go up there in dangerous conditions. It also has the best view of the
sea. Our main deck was fully 20 feet above the sea. In 40 foot (or larger waves) that means the wave height
is twice as far up as the main deck is! Better to be up high, above them, if you want to see well, and not
to be at risk of washing overboard. Learning to walk on a wet and pitching deck was actually worth doing.
When something went terribly wrong (e.g. a Mike 6 = LCM-6 landing craft - weighing more or less 60 tons loaded
and at least half that unloaded - breaks loose) it wasn't the deck hands they call. It was "those crazy guys
who like heavy weather. You must anticipate, before it happens, the precise moment the craft will stop
moving, before it starts moving again in the opposite direction due to the pitching of the ship. You only have
a moment to attach a line - on a cleat high over your head (the craft is on deck - not in the water) - so
you can begin the process to haul it somewhere to lash it down. My greatest challenge was in Hurricane Faith
(1967 if memory serves) when an ECM antenna needed servicing. Never mind standing orders (no officer can
countermand a standing order - it is not lawful to do so and you may in theory disobey it), I was ordered aloft
three times! Each time, I came down because "work" was almost impossible. It was so cold you must wear gloves,
but you cannot work with tiny screws except with bare fingers. You lost all feeling in 5-10 seconds. So you
had to use visual feedback to know what your fingers were doing. After a few minutes, you were at severe risk
of tissue damage due to frostbite. You had to lash yourself to the king-post (the antennas are near the top of it
on a bar so small few notice it) - so your hands were free. At that height the motion of the post is very large.
But my chief kept saying "you have to fix it - nobody else can - so it has to be you". [So much for acquiring
esoteric skills. You may have to use them!]

But this is just background. I know that what it takes to swim or drop aboard a sinking vessel in the Bering Sea
in a storm to effect the rescue of terrified or injured sailors is far worse. I am just trying to say I have
a clue what cold, wet and extreme energy of moving water and metal means.

And the Navy DID - when it was smart - ask for USCG training in boat handling. Stuck between movements once
I was sent to a hurricane reaction unit at Little Creek. A maintenance job for the technicians, insuring all the
emergency comm gear works, since it was not really in use, it was pretty boring. So they made us study other
kinds of storm skills, and it was USCG they put in charge of that. For cause.

But as for landing craft, things are really complicated, in part for reasons you bring up (there may well
be waves pushing you as you approach the beach). There may well be cross currents. But regardless, you
really do have to stay in line or the soldiers will be slaughtered. The soldiers know this, and they really
do insist you steer properly. Which means stick your head up above the shield of the steering position so
you can see. Which means that any bit of flying metal is a problem.

In practical terms, the theoretical speed of a landing craft does not apply to a loaded landing craft forced to
cope with waves and currents. If the boat formation commander were to order full speed - then boats could not
stay together. Some are loaded differently. Some have less than perfect hull conditions. So the effective
speed is the practical cruising speed of the slowest craft - which a good formation commander should be aware of
(or there will be stragglers). That does not mean you won't have to use full power - you will - when you have been
knocked out of position by a wave. It means you better have more power available or you won't get back into
position. All in all, I did not find the boat crew's description of their job in an opposed landing to be
one I wanted to apply for! [The "application" process normally was to be busted for cause down to this,
"the worst job in the Navy"]. Boat crew were considered expendable, and 3 were assigned to steer a single
craft, because odds were, if you didn't assign 3, there would not be even one left by the time they hit the
beach (if under fire).

Oh yeah - one more experience. Once we (USN) got in an argument with the Russians over a Norwegian island.
We were sent with two companies of Marines embarked to "ask" an entire battalion of Soviet Naval Infantry
to "please go home." Unsupported - no warships in company - no air cover. [That is, WE were expendable -
the Russians had to let us win or we would lose. It was a "demonstration" of will - you cannot keep NATO
territory without a fight. In law, the will to defend a territory is a requirement to own it. If you won't,
it isn't yours.] But the Marine commander (Lt Col Breckenridge, USMC, son of a medal of honor winner) decided
to go in "as strong as possible" - so he attached our landing party as an extra squad. [In those days,
USMC trained landing parties in a special school - and a regulation landing party was a USMC squad]. So I got
to hide in the bottom of a landing craft while it crawled ashore (at maybe 5 or 6 knots to the good) - hoping
that the Russians decided to accept our "invitation" to leave. They wanted to make us sweat, so they held off
until just moments before we hit the gravel that passed for a beach. Then they flew away in the largest
helicopters in the world - the Mi-6. I served as the party radioman. Indeed - technicians are nominally
forbidden to be on landing parties (lest they be killed). But the ship's captain reasoned "if the radioman
is a technician, he can fix the radio if it breaks." Nonsense - no parts - no test gear - now power to run
test gear or a soldering iron - no time or place to work - you are not going to fix anything in an assault
landing! But a captain is second only to God on a Navy ship. You don't tell him "nonsense." You say
"yes sir!" As a mere seaman, I was the "most expendable" - so I got the task until some more junior guy
was transferred to the ship. By then I was a "combat veteran" - and as a result - later on a new ship with
a green crew - I had to train and lead a landing party. But I came to grasp what infantry is, and why
it is important? And why a single soldier in a small unit is more or less at the mercy of larger forces
which will determine the outcome of the day!


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 8
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/6/2019 4:07:21 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16786
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

So mvr is mostly how easy it can avoid being hit which includes size - all other things equal it is easier to put a torpedo in a bigger ship than a small one.
Interestingly maneuver will have also to take in account ship paint = camouflage :)
Rather, maneuver should mainly be to avoid shell hits - also bomb hits. It also should relate to

While I agree that maneuver should mean "how easy it is to avoid being hit" -
that is NOT related to your being too shallow in draft to avoid a torpedo. SIZE should dictate that.
Matrix tried to write algorithms to factor that in (from Uncommon Valor on) - but never got them
quite right. It is too easy to hit a small vessel with a torpedo.


avoiding torpedoes BY MANEUVERING ALONE - if you are not deep enough to be hit - a different
branch should render the hit as a miss. But maneuver is mostly "distance over water per unit of time"
with (as I conceive it) a multiplier for a ship with a very good turn radius (= unpredictability of
which direction you will go in?). Which I why I propose that

speed = maneuver rating

Multiply x 2 for a very maneuverable small vessel (e.g. destroyer)

Multiply x 1.5 for a very maneuverable large vessel (e.g cruiser)

Modify slightly (up or down) for a ship with special considerations (thus USS Alaska is
not rated as a cruiser - because it has an awful turning radius - worse than most large ships)

Special Case: for a very slow vessel (initially below 15 knots; open to suggestions)
there is NEVER a multiplier. You cannot change position far enough to matter to evade most
WW2 era salvos of shell fire (the default normal case). If you are very slow (as a landing
craft is) you are simply a target. This puts some meaning into the nickname of the LST
"Large Slow Target." Although to most an LST is a small ship, to an amphib sailor, it is
indeed "large" - because it is bigger than the landing craft - which are indeed "small."
Anyway - slow vessels don't get rewarded for turning because the displacement over water per
minute of time is too small to evade being hit. Using speed is also nice because it nicely
ties the fire control problem to speed - whatever it is - relative to other vessels with
a different speed - in direct proportion to speed. Thus a faster vessel benefits - even if
only slightly faster - in direct proportion to speed - which nicely fits the greater amount
of distance in that same minute of time.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/6/2019 4:24:50 PM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 9
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/7/2019 9:23:54 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16786
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Supplimental: Lines must be drawn at some point.

I propose to define basic categories by ship size rather than by ship type.

Thus for "destroyers" in previous discussion, I now propose "ships under 4,000 tons
full load displacement" for the small ship category which gets 2x Maximum speed
as the maneuverability rating. This may be modified for ships and vessels with
a box type hull, with maximum speeds below 15 knots, or otherwise unable to maneuver
well (such as barge and tug combinations) so the multiple is just 1x.

For "cruisers" in previous discussion, I now propose "ships from 4,001 tons to
10,ooo tons full load displacement." It might be called "lighter cruisers" but
it includes a host of other types. This category gets 1.5 times maximum speed
as the maneuverability rating. Again, unless the maximum speed is below 15 knots,
or it is basically too hulky - as with a drydock, in which case the multiple is just 1x.

For "battleships" in previous discussions, I propose "ships over 10,000 tons full
load displacement" and it includes all types of vessels. This category gets 1x
maximum speed as maneuverability rating.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 10
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/8/2019 7:37:41 PM   
Moltrey


Posts: 127
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Virginia
Status: offline
Have to admit I didn't read the whole thread ECA. Not berating your interests either, I have my own "hot buttons". The grognerd in me is interested.

But I think the short and correct answer is the Devs have to fish or cut bait. At some point the law of diminishing returns stands firmly in your path. I think programmers and developers ignore it at their collective peril.
Hence the reply from AD of "Abstraction".
Perhaps not the most historically accurate portrayal, but alas, there are (were in this case) genuinely bigger "fish" to fry.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 11
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/22/2019 12:37:01 AM   
engineer

 

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline
Actually, I like the basic idea. I'm wondering about lumping everything into one big bin of over 10,000 tons displacement. Historical anecdote, the Lexington and Saratoga used to anchor off Waikiki until the navy blasted a new wider channel into Pearl Harbor in the 1930s since they were too unhandy to navigate the old channel.

Observations:

1) This puts the bigger cruisers, battleships, and carriers into the same bin.

2) I seem to remember photos of either the Yamato or Musashi cutting pretty tight circles while under air attack at Leyte Gulf. Does that suggest some sort of formation penalty and then this threads heads off to a whole bunch of underlying code that a simple modder can't get access to through the editor. The formation factor really came out in the landing craft discussion, too.

A couple of ideas:

1) Split the big ships into more bins. Maybe 10k to 20k tons and 20k to 50k and then 50k+
2) Add separate length penalty for long ships like the Lex and maybe the really big liners/troopships/AMCs. That seemed to the problem getting the Lexington into Pearl, she was almost half again as long as the Colorado. but Lexington wasn't near 50% the displacement.


(in reply to Moltrey)
Post #: 12
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/22/2019 3:39:06 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4615
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Everything end in a formula or the current fashion: algorithm :)

For example large tactical radius had impact in the chances a ship could escape torpedoes. But note that there are destroyers with tactical radius of a battleship

Some tactical radius of British ships

Nelson 670yd
KGV 960
Furious 1320
Ark Royal 1010
Illustrious 1050
Eagle 800
Dido 600
Fiji 750
Kent 1040
Southampton 780


For submarines it would include also how fast it submerges being over 30-40sec is bad. Also the tower size.


(in reply to engineer)
Post #: 13
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/22/2019 4:06:01 PM   
engineer

 

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline
Thanks, Dili. Your input suggests that the answer is archival research class by class in favor of algorithms, at least for warships where class information is accessible.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 14
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/22/2019 7:01:18 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4615
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
I don't think that is practicable due to lack of available information for many ships. I think algorithm is the less worse option, tweaking the end result as information arrives.

Edit: neither the tactical radius is everything, size matter for example, it easier to hit a big ship than a small one.

< Message edited by Dili -- 8/22/2019 7:10:57 PM >

(in reply to engineer)
Post #: 15
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/25/2019 7:35:47 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16786
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I have had the same thoughts. My next iteration will add a category for ships of 40,000 tons plus:

this will be 90% of the full speed rather than 100%. This is based on study of some of the large
ship values in stock. They were less than full maneuverability but not a lot less.

The logic is that the rate of change of position is somewhat more predictable, making it easier
for torpedoes, guns and bombs to hit (or any of those that look at maneuverability in their routines).



quote:

ORIGINAL: engineer

Actually, I like the basic idea. I'm wondering about lumping everything into one big bin of over 10,000 tons displacement. Historical anecdote, the Lexington and Saratoga used to anchor off Waikiki until the navy blasted a new wider channel into Pearl Harbor in the 1930s since they were too unhandy to navigate the old channel.

Observations:

1) This puts the bigger cruisers, battleships, and carriers into the same bin.

2) I seem to remember photos of either the Yamato or Musashi cutting pretty tight circles while under air attack at Leyte Gulf. Does that suggest some sort of formation penalty and then this threads heads off to a whole bunch of underlying code that a simple modder can't get access to through the editor. The formation factor really came out in the landing craft discussion, too.

A couple of ideas:

1) Split the big ships into more bins. Maybe 10k to 20k tons and 20k to 50k and then 50k+
2) Add separate length penalty for long ships like the Lex and maybe the really big liners/troopships/AMCs. That seemed to the problem getting the Lexington into Pearl, she was almost half again as long as the Colorado. but Lexington wasn't near 50% the displacement.




(in reply to engineer)
Post #: 16
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/25/2019 7:37:31 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16786
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I agree here too. I want simple algorithms that do not require excessive research time.
While an engineer can simulate calculate almost anything, we have thousands of classes
and variations of classes to enter data for.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

I don't think that is practicable due to lack of available information for many ships. I think algorithm is the less worse option, tweaking the end result as information arrives.

Edit: neither the tactical radius is everything, size matter for example, it easier to hit a big ship than a small one.


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 17
RE: Ship Maneuver Field - 8/26/2019 10:31:16 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1786
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Supplimental: Lines must be drawn at some point.

I propose to define basic categories by ship size rather than by ship type.

Thus for "destroyers" in previous discussion, I now propose "ships under 4,000 tons
full load displacement" for the small ship category which gets 2x Maximum speed
as the maneuverability rating. This may be modified for ships and vessels with
a box type hull, with maximum speeds below 15 knots, or otherwise unable to maneuver
well (such as barge and tug combinations) so the multiple is just 1x.

For "cruisers" in previous discussion, I now propose "ships from 4,001 tons to
10,ooo tons full load displacement." It might be called "lighter cruisers" but
it includes a host of other types. This category gets 1.5 times maximum speed
as the maneuverability rating. Again, unless the maximum speed is below 15 knots,
or it is basically too hulky - as with a drydock, in which case the multiple is just 1x.

For "battleships" in previous discussions, I propose "ships over 10,000 tons full
load displacement" and it includes all types of vessels. This category gets 1x
maximum speed as maneuverability rating.

You know, since it is possible to dump whole data category into EXCEL, and change it there, you can just write formula, since both weight, and speed of Ship Class is already known, to get more linear results.

Something like this:
MODIFIER = 2.0 - (Ship Weight / 20000)

You can probably also factor class, capacity, and even fuel field for further modification. All in one nice formula, which should do half of the work for you.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Ship Maneuver Field Page: [1]
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

0.191