Duds for shells and bombs

[Cavalry Corp]

Ranger - Thanks.

Well if this is happening then it will still continue. My dud rates will be lower than what is historically suggested anyway ( and that seems to be pretty high and over10%, we are way below that but doing the final 3 runs maybe today).

Certainly I do not want after 100s of hours spent PBEM and research and endless data input and checks for people to not want to play because the dud rate is too high by 1 or 2% when after all they have got used to a rate of probably 0. But on the other hand they have got used to TT rates of min 10%. No one really knows the dud rate for a TT, even less so than Bombs as TT do not wait around unexploded. Even when these weapons were developed they were very expensive and I understand test firing was very rare. But 10% would be about right it seems with the higher rates for some earlier on...

Cav

[Cavalry Corp]

Ranger - There are hits on belts, I sometimes wonder about those as near misses but that only happens on armoured ships?

So guys... I have knocked this around for days, I have come to the conclusion there seems to be some hard coding going on that is reducing duds on the PH attack, maybe all attacks for bombs?

After trying several levels, ended going back to almost what was just higher than my initial guess. Historical levels for bombs were probably over 10% ( 15% on the 800KG AP) but even allowing for the hard coding at that level we may not get a reasonable PH result. And 5% and less does nothing really...

So I have settled on the following for now.

AP/SAP dud rate 8%
GP dud rate 7%
800KG AP dud rate 12%

I did 5 new runs of PH with this but the dud rates as shown by watching the CR show rates between 1.5 and about 3%.

It is quite amazing how variable the PH attacks are. But my mod I usually sink 1 OR 2 BB but have seen 0 and max 3. But all are damaged to need big repairs.

I think I will leave this alone now as we have something in place that is better than before - like all the best things it need to be adjusted maybe as we go along in some proper games. Dud data can be applied during patches but even if a change is needed I doubt players would ask for more than 1 or 2% and it does affect both sides. Agree late war JPN may have a higher dud rate on bombs but I cannot see it being much... maybe I will look at that later its a lot of work for very small gain.

Naval Guns over 4 inch have a dud rate of 2% with a few (usually guns 5 inch+ with very high ROF) that research says had higher dud ate a bit higher but they benefit from much better ROF/ Accuracy. Did not want to change anything else in case it changes AA values too much.

Cav

[PaxMondo]

Cav,

Thanks for sharing. I know how much effort it takes to check these types of things.

I have often wondered if there isn't something(s) in place to constrain the day PH attacks. I say that because, as your testing shows, the variance in outcomes isn't really that high. If you compare it to outcomes of say a Manila Day 1 strike, the variance there can be quite high (depending upon the assets assigned).

But it is what it is. And truthfully, it doesn't really have a ton of impact upon the overall outcome. Without those CV's in PH on Dec 7th, it really doesn't matter much how many BB's you knock out of service that day. Right?

[Cavalry Corp]

I agree with this.

In the game if a value in some fields is set at less than 10 it does some odd things - But that is not just PA attack. In my tests the results are pretty much always lower than the indicated % ( bombs and TT) but we do not know if the game is doing anything else with the figures. The PH attack seems to have some special hard code treatment but I am pretty happy with my results and they feel credible.

I have found my results pretty good on other attacks, I think they add a bit of spice an tension ( the facility for dud is there so it should be used) and will have the mods out in just a few days?

I have one variant with one CV Saratoga in PH. She gets sunk only about 1 time in 3, but then again think about if it were sunk they would try an raise as they did the BBs.

Also remember the game uses the wrong TT for the PH attack (it uses a generic TT for Jap planes) but the right TT is actually in the stock game data but just not used - I did corrected that but did pimp up that TT a touch as it seems a bit weak.

When the mod is out you can take a look around - I really do value any comments.

Cav

[PaxMondo]

Cav,

Looking forward to seeing it.

I did not know about the special PH torp. what is the device # for the PH torp?

Thanks!

[Cavalry Corp]

Pax,

The PH and TFZ was the type 91 type 2, this TT is in the data base but not used and the game for J TT is very lazy ( but highly detailed on allied TT!). In my mod we use the V1 Kate with the correct TT but I did pimp it up a little bit as it needs to be for the PH attack - its does not matter too much as newer planes do not use it anyway. Stock uses a generic type for almost all planes I think. Mine follows a plausible path of developments. Mainly after watch infinite U tube vids on ships and planes - where things disagree I used an average and always with a look at the game as do not want to introduce something which causes unwanted effects.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTJAP_WWII.php

I put a host of ships outside PH and put the Kates on Bomb only naval, guess what hey still used TT , so that attack is hard coded in some way.

DUDS
Ran the attacks again and again, the dud rates seem to be around 4-5 maybe 6%, much less than the setting I put in but it feels about right and I am pretty happy with it. It seem that values at les than 10 cause the game to further down play the value - same happens on land units I found.

ARMOURED HANGER CV
I also re tested my armoured hanger formula (mainly for UK armoured carriers- which are very undervalued in stock) - coming out really well now as I have CV with armoured hangers at deck armour + 50% of the hanger. This means that J 250KG SAP bombs will not (generally I think) penetrate the deck but still cause fair damage.

Mod will be out very soon and I value any comments - remember its hypothetical. But should be plausible accepting more economic ability of both sides abut less technology at the start with more at the end.

ttScreenshot 2024-04-01 111922.jpg (407.97 KiB) Viewed 150 times

101Screenshot 2024-04-01 112126.jpg (156.85 KiB) Viewed 150 times

1Screenshot 2024-04-01 111727.jpg (172.86 KiB) Viewed 150 times

Cav