Shell Weights are far too Heavy

[KhalAl]

The normal, heavy, and super heavy shells in this game are far too heavy for their relative gun calibres, and the shell weights in game at the moment would imply very long shells.

Looking at some examples in the game (Explosives set to "High TNT"):

16 inch in-game:        Light = 930 kg         Normal = 1,224 kg       Heavy = 1,592 kg           Super Heavy = 1,775 kg

20 inch in-game:        Light = 1,519 kg       Normal = 2,170 kg       Heavy = 2,822 kg           Super Heavy = 3,147 kg

Already the "Normal" 16 inch shell is the same approximate weight as the real life 16 inch Super Heavy shell used by the United States. The Heavy and Super Heavy shells seem impractically heavy for their gun calibres. This seems to be the case with all gun sizes in game.

It's quite straight forward to get an approximate weight of shell for a given gun calibre. For instance I calculated some realistic approximate weights for the two examples given above to illustrate how the in-game weights seem greatly exaggerated: 

16 inch realistic:       Light = 931 kg       Normal = 1,035 kg        Heavy = 1,138 kg          Super Heavy = 1,241 kg

20 inch realistic:      Light = 1,819 kg      Normal = 2,021 kg       Heavy = 2,223 kg         Super Heavy = 2,425 kg

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by KhalAl

[Shneemaster]

Does the in-game shell weight include the propellent?

[Cptbarney]

It should do, the A-150s gun were due to have 2000kg shells and yamatos guns had shells that weighed 1350kg, so it makes sense really.

A lot of things are wrong weight wise, and also gun ranges are also lower especially later on in the years in the game compared to real life. Plus we don't have the ability to adjust barell length nor put in different types of fuzes or shell types either (APC, APCB, APCBC, SAPC etc.)

[KhalAl]

19 hours ago, Shneemaster said:

Does the in-game shell weight include the propellent?

I’m not so sure about the in-game weight including propellant, as that would make the “Light” shells very light for their calibre. For example the 16 inch Light shell, if the weight included propellant, the shell would end up being something like ~ 600-700 kg, which seems a bit too light for a 16 inch naval rifle, and would render having 16 inch guns somewhat redundant: you may as well have 14 inch guns with normal shells. For example the British 929 kg shell used in its 16”/45 Mark I guns was considered light weight for the calibre. Also, it doesn’t make make much sense to include separate propellant charge bags as part of the projectile weight.  

Edited March 1, 2021 by KhalAl

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

Again, the biggest thing to remember is that UA:D is "historically based" and "realistic." It's not a game made to be "historically accurate" or "tactical realism/simulation." Yes there are things that when compared to real life seem absurd or even impossible (like the examples of a ship's draft that you provided in your other post), but the campaign has been the major focus of the dev team for a while now, and small (even seemingly insignificant) details like realistic shell weights probably won't be fixed or looked at very closely.

The way the shell weight is set up now helps the dev team simplify the game mechanics/game creation because each shell weight is just a percentage more/less than that of the "normal" shell weight and it's the same way across all playable nations. On the other hand, if they went through and made shell weights more realistic, think of how many different shell types/values they would have to put in for every nation's guns. Not to mention, some guns go up to mark 5, so that would possibly be 20 different shell weight values (4 weights for 5 different grade of gun) just for one gun, and that results in a total of 380 different shell values for a single nation: 20 different shell weights across all 19 gun sizes from 2" to 20", and that is before you consider whether or not propellant is included in the weight calculations, and there is about 12 different propellant choices...do the math to figure out what that number is. Then, you must realize that every nation usually used it's own specific shell weights for each caliber of gun (the Japanese did however use British-made 14" shells as some of their ships were manufactured/designed by the British) and so then the math becomes (before figuring in the effects, if any, of a propellant choice): 380 shell weights times however many nations are in game...assuming every nation has guns that go from mark 1 to mark 5. Now, unless I'm wrong, there are currently 9 nations in-game, so assuming every nation has guns that go from mark 1 to mark 5 and 380 different shell weights per nation, that would be 3420 different shell weight values in total. (I do realize that not every gun goes up to mark 5, but those that don't are mostly the larger caliber battleship-sized guns)

TL;DR   The current shell weight system is likely to simplify the game or make it easier to develop/change. Yes there will be minor details that are wrong or missing, but in the end, Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts isn't a game made for "realism" or "tactical/true-to-life simulation," it's a "historically based" and "realistic" game.

Edited March 1, 2021 by HistoricalAccuracyMan

[Skeksis]

5 hours ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:

The current shell weight system is likely to simplify the game or make it easier to develop/change. Yes there will be minor details that are wrong or missing

But splitting propellants and explosives is on the UI side, once a user has selected, the values merge to form the same singular struct the game mechanics use in the battle (probably?). Mixing and matching would just fill that same game struct with different values.   

And as on the UI side (designer tool) there’s very little to do to make those sorts of changes but on the player side it’s quite a leap in the perception of reality - which defines this genre.

While I’m one who understands simplification, in this case I think splitting propellants and explosives is very doable and something that should have been done awhile ago, it’s been a common request from day one and now there's a dedicated new guy for the UI so why not!

But I'll also go one step further and split 6-7 inch shells (and lower) out and into its own element, to create a secondary category (with propellants and explosives combined - a shell). This would need a new struct in the battle instance for those calibers to draw from but definitely no performance issues and all doable.      

Edited March 1, 2021 by Skeksis

[Cpt.Hissy]

"To simplify the game" does not justify adding in absolutely absurd values. That in best case should be some average values typical for the thing in question.

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

@Cpt.Hissy I don't like the "absurd" values anymore than you or anyone else does/doesn't. But in the end, I'm not the one who made the game nor is there anything I can do about it. As the saying goes, "I didn't make the rules, I just have to play by them."

[Skeksis]

1 hour ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:

"I didn't make the rules, I just have to play by them."

But we can bend them – through modding.

Such things as weights should be all moddable, Dev’s should consider modding very seriously, modders would create an historical accurate weights mod, weights is definitely something that should be moddable.   

[Cptbarney]

1 hour ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:

@Cpt.Hissy I don't like the "absurd" values anymore than you or anyone else does/doesn't. But in the end, I'm not the one who made the game nor is there anything I can do about it. As the saying goes, "I didn't make the rules, I just have to play by them."

Too be fair we are still in alpha, probs mid-alpha at this point. Along with internal issues, things got pushed back. So this patch Alpha 11 should of been some months ago and we should be either seeing the release of core patch 1 now or announcement about core patch 2 idk.

Im just going to assume they are advanced placeholders for now.

[DeadlyWalrus]

8 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Too be fair we are still in alpha, probs mid-alpha at this point. Along with internal issues, things got pushed back. So this patch Alpha 11 should of been some months ago and we should be either seeing the release of core patch 1 now or announcement about core patch 2 idk.

Im just going to assume they are advanced placeholders for now.

Very much this.  It makes no sense to spend a whole lot of time finely balancing the exact values in the ship builder when the entire system is under active development and is subject to substantial change.  

[Saxxon]

I think you are right, as I recall the super heavy 16" was 2700lbs, which is right around the 1224kg you cite.  I do know that without increased shell capacity in most of the missions ships fail utterly - either the player running out of ammo, or the AI gets low and stops shooting letting you just pick them off at will without fear of retaliation at fairly close ranges because they won't fire until they get some magical % to hit.  This makes several missions waiting games - loiter at long range while the AI pisses away its ammo with a 1-2% hit chance, then close in and pummel them at 10-20% while they don't shoot back.

[Cptbarney]

Good example of why we need engagement ranges for the AI so they dont just sit at max range only, but also move in as well too immunity zones or higher accuracy percent's plus also sends ships off to create a crossfire situation which would make it quite interesting to fight against really.