Separation of propellents, and explosives.

[Hangar18]

Disclaimer: this is outside my lane, I am not an expert in this discussion.

With all the talk about how some of the powders are not actually propellents, but explosive filler. Maybe it would be best to separate these into separate categories? Obviously this would require a bit of balance tweaking, but we're so early on in the process that it should not really be a concern. 

I guess the main argument for this is propellents can't influence things like damage, that's purely a product of the type, and amount of filler. It could, however influence penetration as a function of velocity. 

What say the community?

Edited December 30, 2019 by Hangar18

[ston5883]

I would be ok with separation of the two. It would take some major number changes and some balances. Ships could end up weighing more once you figure in weighs from propellant, shell type, and shell filler. 

[Cptbarney]

Should have Filler type, Propellent type and fuze type (where avaliable) for peeps to choose. Although i suppose it could make things more complex and harder for the devs to balance (maybe a sub category inside the propellent tab?)

Also different effects for the relevant stuff above so being able to figure out what is what is a lot more efficent. Plus you can have different effects for each one (even if they are slight) and sound effects too.

[akd]

Propellants as a per ship design choice makes very little sense to me.  My general impression is that as new and improved propellants were developed, they tended to be used generally, not tailored to specific ships or missions.  The same could perhaps be said about explosive filler, but at least that entails a lot more trade-offs that make for meaningful design choices, as does the design of the shell and fuzing itself.  But combining propellants and explosive fillers into a single choice is completely nonsensical, as these were attempting to accomplish very different goals.

[Skeksis]

On 12/31/2019 at 2:55 AM, Hangar18 said:

What say the community?

New players with general knowledge will/does find this 'combine' component confusing, I did!

It's definitely an area of realism that Dev's can improve on by separating propellant's and explosives. It shouldn't upset balance either since all values would be move into there respective propellents or explosives component, should be just a UI issue.
 

[skg02]

It would be helpful for devs to clarify a little more on what is what in our choice of ammo "explosives" as they are now.

I can track Lyddite, and Cordite ok - the latter seems more like a propellant certainly than a shell filler. But what is "High TNT" - is that TNT with RDX in it? Tube Powder certainly is traceable and its German, but why does that mean heavier, less ammo det chance, and better penetration?

I'd be happy with the devs just giving us more of their rough note research and interpretation on this and why they named stuff the way they did, or just bullet point a little more info so we can follow their logic a little more, maybe include the emphasis of a choice such as "Cordite II - mostly propellant oriented." or "Lyddite - composed mostly of picric acid".

The questions get more and deeper on this once you pick up and read something like Naval Ordnance and Gunnery for the US Navy.

[DougToss]

The gunnery model needs a lot of work. The more sources you read, analyse and disseminate in posts, the more you bring that to the attention of the community, and hopefully the devs. 

[skg02]

3 hours ago, DougToss said:

The gunnery model needs a lot of work. The more sources you read, analyse and disseminate in posts, the more you bring that to the attention of the community, and hopefully the devs. 

The strength of the one I quoted is that its a late war (1944) training manual and it walks you through and breaks down all the parts that go into naval munitions and fire control.

I've had an interest in WW2 ships for over 40 years - built a bunch of 1/700 waterlines even in jr. high, but this game has really made me realize how shallow my real knowledge was. The really essential books for this game as base source are two of Friedman's earliest ones I think:

One on firepower: Naval Firepower

One in general on battleship design - this one should be foundational to anything going on in this game I think - its even got equations and graphs on which designs were established, and a BS check methodology for checking stated info: Battleship Design and Development You can almost use this book practically to design ships.

Assuming those are two of your sources of knowledge too?

I just got this one:Naval Weapons of World War Two, so planning to read through it for the propellant-bursting charge questions as well. Still also getting through the others - as well - a lot to absorb 🙂.

What I'd hope is devs would open up a little more than they've done already on their though processes and make use of the knowledge here on the board more than they've done. People like yourself, Roachbeef, and Steeltrap to name a few that stand out to me. 

[DougToss]

3 hours ago, skg02 said:

What I'd hope is devs would open up a little more than they've done already on their though processes and make use of the knowledge here on the board more than they've done. People like yourself, Roachbeef, and Steeltrap to name a few that stand out to me. 

I'd like that too. If you go back to the first few pages of this board, @Nick Thomadis responded to nearly every thread. In the early days of the board, the Devs were willing to post details on the mechanics, changes and to engage in back-and-fourth with the community. I'm not saying we get a vote, that's absurd, but community engagement goes a long way. 

The community is here and ready and able to help out, I wish we'd be better utilized. Not only for the feedback, but the amount of research done by members here is pretty staggering.

I wish I knew why there was a change. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by DougToss