Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Evil4Zerggin

Members2
  • Posts

    169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Evil4Zerggin

  1. 25% the penetration in comparison to AP performance. There have also been numbers/mechanic changes since v90 when this was written, so this may not hold exactly today.
  2. Cheap (so you can build more of them) Max tonnage Max op range
  3. This happens because ship "hit points" is proportional to tonnage + 5000. So even a 200t TB counts as having 5200t worth of HP. IMO it would be better to have hp proportional to tonnage^x where x is somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3. This is still sublinear but not as disproportionate at the low end.
  4. Update: I was wrong, auto-generate fleet is better, it gives you way more ships than you could afford using a manual build. v94 favors heavy ships in a blockade even more than v91. Make sure to fill your ship's tonnage; unused tonnage doesn't help blockades.
  5. There is some RNG involved, but on average it is determined by power projection ratio. In turn power projection is primarily determined by heavy ships and op range.
  6. I agree with respect to real life, I'm just saying how things are coded right now. I believe one torp launcher is currently worth more than twice a 20" turret. My guess, other than this just being a plain oversight, is that DDs are very disadvantaged by the armor multiplier, so they decided to increase torp contribution to massive levels to compensate.
  7. There is no 1920 start yet. From the blog post: Though it is possible (though not guaranteed) that beating 1910 will make 1920 ready-to-go when it is implemented in a later update.
  8. You don't need to build CL/DD at all. Shipyards aren't essential, but I've generally found the limiting factor after the game starts to be crew rather than funds, so if the war drags out the shipyards can help a bit.
  9. 1. Choose Auto-Generated fleet. 2. Finances. Max crew training and transports and build shipyards. Set tech to zero, it's expensive and tech won't help you at all in this timeframe. 3. Ship design. Basically we need to optimize for two things: the blockade calculation and the battle auto-resolver. For blockade, heavier ships are worth more per ton. So pick the heaviest ship you can, probably a BB. Then, max op range. The battle auto-resolver is less important since the blockade can win the war on its own. Still, you want to make sure that you win auto-resolves as much as possible, which gives you VP directly, and more importantly, reduces your casualties, making it easier to maintain the blockade. Make sure you have: A lot of single torpedo launchers (including underwater), which are highly valued by the auto-resolver. You don't need torpedo size, ammo, or multiple tubes per launcher, just a lot of launchers. High numerical armor. It doesn't have to be balanced, you can just slap on 50" belt and call it a day. You can invest some weight into speed if you have cheap engines, but it's not essential. Guns, accuracy, bulkheads, balance, detonation chance etc. aren't worth worrying about. Just pick the cheapest components so you can afford a lot of tonnage. Example design: 4. Playing the game. Just auto-resolve all battles while building as many max-size BBs as funds/crew allow. (Note that at current the auto-crew won't un-mothball ships, so dropping below zero crew pool means you'll need to manually add crew.) Eventually you'll blockade the enemy into a revolution and win the war. Britain has an easier time at blockades due to their larger economy, but I've gotten this to work with Germany as well.
  10. IIRC each section has 100 "hit points" regardless of ship size; instead, incoming damage is divided by a factor proportional to tonnage + 5000. I'm not sure why they didn't just give bigger ships more hit points instead of dividing incoming damage.
  11. Repair cost should be prorated for < 1 month worth of damage, spending 2 million to repair 0.5% damage is kind of bad.
  12. It looks like whenever you beat a campaign start, it unlocks the one 10 years later.
  13. This is addressed at the devs; they are the only ones who can make this a change (unless someone edits the binary but I'm not going to go that far).
  14. It's in the Unity editor, not the game itself.
  15. Event 36 Another round of fighting has broken out among several forum members. What is your view? It is deplorable that it seems impossible to stop the fighting in this region. (+1 tension to random forum members) I wonder what they are serving for dinner at the flag officer's mess? (+1 tension to random forum members) This is no doubt due to the meddling of XX. (+2 tension to a forum member of your choice)
  16. The sources I could find in a brief search seem to imply that New Jersey employed only her 5" batteries against the trawler, but are ambiguous about which weapons were employed against Maikaze. Regardless, they do agree that both Iowa and New Jersey engaged the fleeing destroyer Nowaki with their 16" batteries at well beyond 5" range, straddling but not scoring any hits at the extreme range of 35,000+ yards.
  17. Iowa and New Jersey were involved in one surface engagement, in which Iowa sank the light cruiser Katori and New Jersey the destroyer Maikaze and a trawler. Granted, hardly a clash of titans.
  18. For comparison, here's Rule the Waves's announced officer plan: IMO a copy-paste of Age of Sail's officer system is unlikely---the surrounding campaign systems are not similar enough for this to really save any work.
  19. Crew Quality goes from -15% to +30% accuracy (net x1.53) and +15% to -20% reload time (net x1.44 RoF), for a net of x2.2 effective firepower. That's a lot, but the cost of crew is quite huge as well; if you use Lanchester's Square Law as a back-of-the envelope estimate, this justifies up to about a 48% increase in cost, or equivalently a 32% decrease in quantity, which the cost of the crew often exceeds. Still, I often find myself going for highly-trained crews since I'm not a patient admiral, and highly-trained crew means faster battles with fewer ships to micromanage.
  20. +1. They aren't terrible but I wouldn't consider a big handicap if I were prevented from using them. Even so, on many ships they are only viable because secondaries can't be flash fired (though they can detonate).
  21. Not sure why the table has such a dropoff at that range. Though you can't actually reach those ranges with 14" guns in-game (since maximum range is a separate calculation from both penetration and trajectory).
  22. Thompson "F-Formula"/kinetic energy/square model At the other extreme of models cited by Okun is the Thompson "F-Formula" All-Purpose Armor Penetration model, which is also the latest of the cited models. In this model, the penetration is proportional to the square of the velocity normal to the armor surface. This thus assigns a stronger effect to the angle. Under this model, the implied penetration against a plate normal to the shell's trajectory would be computed from the side and deck penetrations as side + deck, and the implied angle of fall as arctan2(sqrt(deck), sqrt(side)). Here the "sag" in the implied normal penetration plot is reduced, since this model expects oblique angles to be penalized more than the linear model.
  23. Line-of-sight/momentum/linear model I'll leave the comparison to empirical real-world data to others. However, I will use the game's table to produce implied normal penetration and angle of fall using a couple of theoretical formulas. The first is the line-of-sight model, where the effective penetration is multiplied by the cosine of the impact angle (or equivalently, the effective armor thickness is divided by the same). The shell is imagined to penetrate a fixed distance in a straight line regardless of impact angle. In terms of the historical formulas compiled by Okun, assuming that we simply take the velocity component normal to the armor, this corresponds to models where the penetration is linearly proportional to the velocity normal to the armor, i.e. "Fairbairn" and "Krupp KC vs. Uncapped AP Projectiles". (This doesn't necessarily imply that these models had the same imagined physical mechanism in mind, just that they produce the same result in this case.) Under this model, the implied penetration against a plate normal to the shell's trajectory would be computed from the side and deck penetrations as sqrt(side*side + deck*deck), and the implied angle of fall as arctan2(deck, side). What's with the "sag" in the implied normal penetration curves? There's two possible causes (not mutually exclusive). One is that the game's tables could be off, but I don't have an opinion on that at time of writing. The other is that the formula could be off. The "sag" in the middle coincides with the implied angle of fall being close to 45 degrees, i.e. not near normal to either the belt or the deck. Thus, this would imply that oblique angles do a better job of deflecting shells than the line-of-sight model predicts. Notably, this is contrary to the "shell normalization" mechanic used in World of Tanks and World of Warships---effectively, the shell is being anti-normalized.
  24. Base penetration values Base penetration values are defined using a precomputed table and linearly interpolated with respect to range. Here are plots (re-rendered using higher resolution and different linestyles than the first time): These do not include modifiers from gun Mark (between 0.935x to 1.33x; there's also a slight additional dependence on diameter but this is negligible), nor penetration modifiers from techs/components. But these affect all shells close to proportionally so it doesn't matter much. Vertical shell trajectory is computed separately using a different formula and has no causal effect on penetration. The actual angle of fall only affects belt/deck hit chance, not penetration. Horizontal trajectory (i.e. azimuthal impact angle) does affect penetration for AP but not HE, using a line-of-sight thickness model (i.e. multiply penetration by cosine of the impact angle, with normal = 0 degrees).
×
×
  • Create New...