Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Evil4Zerggin

Members
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

77 Excellent

About Evil4Zerggin

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just finished the new set of missions. I don't claim to have done them absolutely optimally, but apparently I did them good enough. German Raiding Squadron. I went for More Funds. You really don't get much money on this one. I think this scenario might demonstrate more than any other just how expensive high-tech components are. Trying to reach the magic 39 knots for the maximum Target Fast Speed bonus will inevitably bankrupt you. So I went the opposite direction with a bunch of unarmored minimum-cost CLs. An easy win, though it took a while due to the sheer number of enemy transports. Dreadnought vs. Heavy Cruisers. I picked More Funds. 12" guns are still favored by the accuracy table. Not much to say here, you can easily out-gun and out-armor them so just don't get torpedoed. Wounded Beast. I went for the guns. Despite the briefing, your BB will be pulling most of the weight: your CA is heavily outgunned, and your BCs are at the mercy of the AI ship designer. 18" guns do seem to do a disproportionate amount of damage compared to smaller guns, especially in a stern chase which you will usually end up doing. Cruisers Needed. I picked More Funds. Nothing fancy in terms of tactics, just run your BB away while your CLs rush up and dump fish. The enemy BB is relatively easy to hit so you don't need to get ridiculously close; besides, you need to spread the hits out in order to flood the BB out. I'd have to re-read the damage model code to be sure, but it seems to be similar to Alpha 4 where a BB can absorb an infinite number of torpedoes without sinking if they all hit the same spot.
  2. I did not find any evidence in decompiled code that flooding is affected by speed. Though this could easily change in the upcoming Alpha.
  3. The multiplier seems to start at 100%, so you would need a total of -100% modifiers to get immunity, which would usually require IMO unconscionable sacrifices. If my interpretation of the code is correct, you are only at risk of ammo detonation if the penetration exceeds 150% of the turret armor, even for "barbette" hits. Though the new Alpha may bring changes.
  4. I've also been converted to the no-barbette school of thought (for Alpha 4 anyways). The trouble is that the +22.5% weight increase also applies to the armor you put on the turret, so instead of Barbette IV you could have just made the turret armor 22.5% thicker---actually, even more than that since Barbette IV also increases the weight of the gun itself but thickening the armor doesn't.
  5. I suppose it would have been clearer to say "counts multi-hit salvos as only one", though if I had meant the other interpretation I would have said "counts only multi-hit salvos as one".
  6. No? Counting multi-hit salvos as zero gives a smaller result than counting them as one, which gives a smaller result than counting them as the number of shell hits.
  7. Actually, now that you mention it, it's more complicated than I first thought. Most games seem to model HE shells as being contact fused and creating an isotropic explosion when they hit something. However, now that I think about it more, this doesn't make much sense physically: I'm told that even relatively modest thicknesses of armor can block "pure" explosions in air. The bursting charge is only perhaps 10-25% of the weight of even a HE shell, so a large fraction of the shell's energy is kinetic rather than explosive, and would still be directed along the direction of travel. A shell doesn't simply vanish when it explodes, the shell body becomes fragments, and those fragments will primarily be traveling in the original direction. Even HE shells can penetrate some armor, and they could be equipped with timed fuses rather than contact fuses. So perhaps modeling a HE shell more like an AP shell with more damage but less penetration is actually more accurate, though in this case I would expect penetration to be affected by azimuthal angle as well. On the other hand, I would still expect some penetration lateral to the direction of travel due to the explosive charge, assuming it fuzes at least close to the ship. Fires/holing only applies to penetrations, overpenetrations, torpedo hits, and ammo detonations. The one exception is that non-penetrating deck hits can still cause deck fires.
  8. We have three different probabilities here: @arkhangelsk computed the probability of at least one shell hitting. This is IMO the value implied by the word "any". @PainGod computed the probability of exactly one shell hitting. @supershanks computed the average number of shells hitting. Why are these different? Because of the possibility of multiple shells in the salvo hitting. These are not counted at all under #2, which is why it's smaller than #1. Meanwhile, #1 only counts multi-hit salvos as one, which is why it's smaller than #3.
  9. You could try unpacking and repacking the Unity resources if you really want. Though that is kind of a pain. Shell hit location First, determine whether it is a side or deck hit. Whether a shell hit strikes the side or deck is determined as if the shell were hitting a "L" shape made of a vertical section and a horizontal section, with the horizontal (deck) being twice as large as the vertical (belt). Then, determine whether it hits a part (tower, funnel, turret, etc.) or the hull. For parts, the weight is proportional to the Target Signature contributed by the part. Each hull has an effective Target Signature for this purpose. If the shell hits the hull, it will hit one of the top row of sections if it is a deck hit, and one of the other two rows if it is a side hit. The azimuthal aspect determines the likelihood of sections being hit fore to aft. The three center columns are most likely to be hit when broadside with a weight of 1. When end-on they have a weight of 0.5. The two columns outside of that are most likely to be hit when 22.5 degrees off the closest end. When hit from end-on they have a weight of 0.857 on the close end and 0 from the far end. On the broadside they have a weight of 0.571. The two most extreme columns are most likely to be hit from end-on, with a weight of 1 there on the close end. Their weight drops to zero when within 30 degrees of the far end. On the broadside they have a weight of 0.4.
  10. Special effects A section is either on fire or not, and either holed or not. Modules are either damaged or not. There are no degrees in-between. All sections damaged by a hit roll for fire/holing at the specified chances. Larger ships are less likely to suffer from these effects; chance is multiplied by 5 / (1 + displacement / 5000), i.e. inversely proportional to hit points. Chances depend on the size of the shell, but not damage directly. Generally this means that the shell base damage will matter, but not modifiers such as super-heavy shells, explosive type, etc. The chances specified lie somewhere between 9" and 10" shells. This is also the chance for torpedoes regardless of size. Fire The following hit types have a chance of starting fires: Shell pens and overpens (10% base chance). Deck hits (12.5% base chance). Torpedo hits (15% base chance). Ammo detonations (2000% base chance). HE shells have 25x (!) chance of fire. Sections on fire take 0.2% of the baseline hit points per second, or 1.34 damage per second. This can be reduced by up to 65% by bulkhead slider. Comments in the source imply this is supposed to be 0.2% of the actual hit points rather than of the baseline hit points, but I'm not convinced. If I'm right, larger ships will take longer to burn down. Destroyed sections can be on fire, but fire damage does not spread directly to other sections, though the fire itself can. Fires last at least 15 seconds. After this, they go out immediately if the section is at least 80% full of water, or with ~2.2% base chance per second otherwise. This is not affected by bulkhead slider. The mean fire duration without modifiers is thus just over 60 seconds. Fires have a ~2% chance to spread per second. This can be reduced by up to 65% by bulkhead slider. The middle setting for bulkhead slider is the minimum necessary to clearly put out fires faster than they spread on average (in the absence of additional modifiers). Below this, your best hope is that you only suffered a single fire and it was put out before it could spread. Flooding Only underwater sections can be holed. The following hit types have a chance of holing: Shell pens and overpens (0.25% chance). Torpedo hits (10% chance). Ammo detonations (1500% chance). Damaged sections are up to 5.75x times more likely to be holed depending on their damage level (after any damage from the hit is applied). Holed sections take in 1.99 units of water per second, where the water capacity of a section is proportional to its hit points and a 20000 t ship's section has 100 capacity, but tracked independently from damage proper. This can be reduced by up to 48% by the bulkhead slider. Similar to fire, comments in the source imply this is supposed to be 1.99% of the actual capacity rather than an absolute 1.99 but again I'm not convinced. Holing lasts at least 40 seconds. After this, the hole is patched with ~0.3% chance per second, with bulkhead slider providing up to 2.5% chance more. Other bonuses only multiply the base 0.3% chance and not the additional chance from bulkhead slider. Holed sections that are at least 20% full of water start adding water to adjacent underwater sections that are less full than they are. This happens at 7/8 of the rate of the primary flooding. This additional water is not subtracted from the holed section. Only the water is added; the holing itself does not spread. Pumps remove ~0.28 water from each section per second. This can be increased by up to 40% by the bulkheads slider. Holed sections can be pumped, but completely destroyed sections cannot be pumped. Module damage These are engines (x3), rudder, conning tower, fire control. Chances of module damage are as follows: Shell pens and overpens: 50% Pens and overpens to main tower: 1.35% chance of damaging conning tower, else 1.35% chance of damaging fire control Torpedo hits: 75% Ammo detonation: 160% Rudder is only 0.8x as likely to be damaged. Larger ships are less likely to suffer from module damage; chance is multiplied by 5 / (1 + displacement / 5000), i.e. inversely proportional to hit points. Engines and rudder have a ~0.5% chance per second each to be repaired. Modules in completely destroyed or flooded sections cannot be repaired.
  11. I started looking at decompiled code. General This is from v68. Most constants have the capability to be overridden from their defaults via a configuration file, and many are. It's always possible I've misinterpreted something in the code, if you see something you think is off, let me know and I'll take another look. Armor/Penetration Fire control has armor equal to the main deck for both side and top hits. Turrets have side and top armor for side and top hits respectively. Secondaries and conning tower have the designed armor for both side and top hits. Towers and funnels have no armor. Penetration has a random factor, currently +/- 16%. HE shells have 33% of the penetration of AP shells, but don't suffer from azimuthal angling or ricochets. AFAICT they are affected by range/fall-of-shot effects to penetration though, which is a bit odd. The listed belt/deck penetration already takes into account angle of fall, so only the azimuthal angle further increases the line-of-sight armor thickness for side hits. This only applies to hits to hull sections. Part hits (turrets etc.) do not benefit from azimuthal angle. If penetration is 4x the armor thickness after angling, the AP shell will never ricochet. Otherwise, ricochet chance is nearly linear with azimuthal angle up to 70 degrees off normal, at which point 60% of AP shells will ricochet. Turret hits have 40% chance to ricochet regardless of angle. There is no such thing as athwartship armor, all side hits are assumed to be literally side hits, so it is impossible to penetrate the central belt sections with AP at extreme angles. However, bow and stern hits don't benefit from the full angle (only 30% for the very ends and 70% for the sections second from the end), so with enough raw penetration they can always be penetrated even at perfect bow/stern aspect. If penetration is 5x or more the armor thickness after angling (but not less than a certain small value), the shell does an overpenetration for 55% damage. Otherwise, if penetration is greater than armor thickness after angling, the shell does a full penetration for 100% damage. Otherwise, if penetration is greater than 77.5% armor thickness after angling, the shell does a partial penetration for 37.5% damage. Otherwise, the shell is blocked. Ammo detonations If a section with a turret or secondary takes a penetration, overpen, or torpedo, and penetration is greater than 150% of the turret or secondary armor thickness, there is a chance of ammo detonation. Azimuthal angle is not counted. Bigger shells are more likely to detonate, reaching a maximum at 13" shells. Base detonation chance for large shells is 1 in 5. An ammo detonation is equal to 1350 shells' worth of damage; this can be reduced by up to 40% by number of bulkheads. Taking damage Hull sections appear to have "hit points" dependent only on displacement. (Internally hull section damage is stored as a percentage, and these "hit points" divide the percentage of health taken, but this is functionally equivalent to hit points.) If my math is correct, the hit points of each section are equal to (1 + displacement / 5000) * 134.2 in terms of gun damage units as seen in the ship designer. Internally, 20000 t displacement is used as the baseline, or 671.1 hit points per section. If a part (turret etc.) is destroyed, remaining damage spills over to the parent hull section. If the damage exceeds the section's starting hit points, it will spill over to another section. Damage is only 85% as effective outside the original section. The spillover damage travels from section to section, selecting randomly from the closest unvisited sections at each step. Each section visited subtracts its entire starting hit points from the remaining spillover damage. In other words, a fully destroyed section absorbs just as much spillover damage as a pristine one. This tends to greatly limit the range of spillover unless the ship is very small or an ammo detonation is involved. Displayed damage is expressed in terms of percentage of hull sections, so e.g. 350 damage = 3.5 hull sections destroyed. Though part hits might have some double-counting in the display. Ships are sunk if any of the following are true: 80% of total hull hit points are depleted. 77.5% of hull sections are on fire. 65% of total floodable volume is flooded.
  12. I think size penalty is a better primary solution (though speed can help, just some of the problem right now is that it's too easy to make ultrafast BCs, and I think a quadratic increase in difficulty to hit with speed is more plausible than the capped-hyperbolic that we currently have). Right now the chance to be hit is proportional to 1 + displacement / 26500 tons*, which means that size only really matters for BBs. As far as displacement goes, a 200t TB is currently only 37% harder to hit than a 10000t cruiser based on its displacement alone. * I haven't confirmed this by datamining yet but I don't expect it to be too far off. I agree, and in fact I'm not convinced these "zero relative movement" assertions make sense even on paper. The whole fire control problem is one of producing accurate plotting---it's circular to say "assuming we have accurate plotting, we can have accurate plotting." Or in the parallel-30-knots case: the entire problem is to determine whether both ships are moving at exactly the same speed and exactly parallel, as opposed to separating or closing at X degrees, or one ship traveling Y knots faster than the other.
  13. Thanks for the votes of confidence! I started to do proper datamining, and it turned out my curve-fitting was exactly correct, except the CL displacement power is actually 0.603 rather than 0.6. I'll probably be taking a closer look at the source code in the coming weeks.
  14. And the displacement and speed powers: BB: 1.01 displacement, 2.3 speed, in other words HP requirement is proportional to displacement^1.01 * speed^2.3. 1.01 displacement power slightly favors smaller ships; since Target Ship Size heavily favors smaller ships, this means small BBs are favored overall. 2.3 speed power is lower than I seem to remember in Alpha 3, which would be a relative boost to faster ships or a relative penalty to slower ships. BC: 1.01 displacement, 2.51 speed. Same story for displacement as BBs. The speed power is a bit higher than for BBs but high speed is still a bargain considering the way Target Fast Speed currently works. CA: 0.28 displacement, 4.06 speed. Way out of line. With only 0.28 displacement power, bigger CAs are heavily favored by engine weight. But going fast is hugely penalized. CL: 0.6 0.603 displacement, 3 speed. DD: 0.6 displacement, 2.8 speed. TB: 0.7 displacement, 2.8 speed. These three are pretty close to the simple quadratic drag + uniform ship scaling model which would give 0.67 displacement power and 3 speed power.
  15. Looked more closely at Hull Form: Only the base Hull Form matters for HP per engine/boiler weight. Tech and component modifiers to Hull Form say they change the engine/boiler weight modifier, but they do not. Each point of Hull Form away from ~82 gives a 1.1% bonus/penalty to HP per engine/boiler weight. This stacks multiplicatively with other modifiers. Ship types seem to have an extra multiplier to HP per engine/boiler weight. For most ship types this is only around 1.13, but for DDs it is nearly 5, and for TBs it is over 9.
×
×
  • Create New...