Guide: stats (Resistance, Hull Form, Stability, Floatability...)

[Evil4Zerggin]

What are stats?

Stats apply modifiers to your ship. They range from 0-200; additional stats beyond either end have no additional effect. Modifiers from stats (mostly) stack multiplicatively with each other and with other modifiers ("tech", including components), i.e. final value = base * product(100% + stat modifier) * (100% + sum of tech modifiers). Modifiers from stats have a linear relationship with the stat.

To make things more confusing, modifiers can be applied to the stats themselves.

Some stats simply apply 1:1 to the obvious value, so I won't list those here.

Target Signature

Modifiers are listed at 0 → 100 stat. In theory you can move twice as far by reaching 200, but most stats are hard to get up that high.

• +0% → +60% chance to be hit. At one point this was a huge factor, but now it mostly just takes the edge off the penalties for using triple turrets, though they're still a tough sell.
• +0% → +55% distance to be spotted.

Target Signature comes solely from components.

Resistance

• +40% → -40% damage from guns. This reduction can get pretty massive at late game.
• +30% → -20% damage from torpedoes.
• -35% → +75% ricochet chance. Base ricochet chance is between 0 and 60% depending on angle. Note that HE shells and shells with penetration greater than twice the armor's perpendicular thickness will never ricochet.

Resistance is primarily based on the hull. +27.5% is available from techs (percent, not absolute Resistance) and a bit more from components. Naturally, BBs have the most with Austria-Hungary being the best at up to 112.

Hull Form

• -55% → +55% acceleration.
• -85% → +85% turn rate.
• +35% → +0% slowdown from structural damage.
• +90% → -20% engine weight. Note that only the base Hull Form from the hull applies and not any modifiers to Hull Form from components or tech. This reduction can get pretty massive at late game.
• +65% → -35% maintenance. This doesn't matter now, though at these numbers it could make a dramatic difference in the campaign.
• -50% → +15% speed at max turning rate. This is phrased strangely, I haven't been arsed to mine the details so far.
• -35% → +20% rudder shift speed.

Also based primarily on the hull. +30% is available from techs. There are high hull forms among all ship types, provided you are of the right nation: French BBs (up to 119), British BCs (up to 125), Italian cruisers (up to 124), and the Shimakaze hull (115) have the highest values of their type.

Stability

• -50% → +25% accuracy.
• +75% → -25% accuracy penalty from waves.
• -80% → +30% accuracy bonus from cruise speed.
• -35% → +35% accuracy penalty from turning.

The third primarily hull-based stat. +25% is available from techs. Heavier hull types tend to have more of this.

Floatability

• +50% → -50% flooding chance.
• -50% → +25% flooding repair.
• +45% → -2.5% flooding spread.
• +55% → -35% slowdown from flooding.

The fourth primarily hull-based stat. +22.5% is available from techs, and some more from components. Again, heavier hull types tend to have more of this.

Weight distribution

These are Longitudinal Weight Offset, Transverse Weight Offset, Pitch, and Roll. Modifiers for these are 0 at 0 stat. I won't go into every modifier, but here are a couple:

• Accuracy suffers -30%, -40%, -25%, and -25% respectively at 100 stat.
• Acceleration suffers -90%, -90%, -75%, and -75% respectively at 100 stat.

Wing turrets can really hurt! Edit: It looks like these are capped at 100, not that you'd ever want to let things get that out of control.

Communications Range

This gives +0% → +250% flagship near/far range. At start there is a -95% modifier to Communications Range (the stat, not the flagship range directly), but in 1897 the Radiotelegraph technology reduces this penalty to -25%, and components can start increasing the modifier to this stat. The base range is 1800m for a 5% accuracy bonus, and 3500m to avoid a 15% accuracy penalty. This comes from towers.

Damage Control

• +0% → +175% water pumping.
• +0% → +300% fire extinguishing.
• +0% → +300% module repair speed.

This comes from towers.

Smoke Interference

• +0% → -30% accuracy.

Comes from funnels, but is subtracted by most towers.

Engine Efficiency

• -95% → +50% acceleration.
• -95% → +15% acceleration at high speed. I haven't mined what this means exactly.

This is based on the ratio of funnel capacity to horsepower. This is limited to 100.

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by Evil4Zerggin

[disc]

Fantastic information, thank you!

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Evil4Zerggin]

9 hours ago, Skeksis said:

I would like to know more about roll, If this is possible.

Good question. As I interpret the code, it is computed as follows:

1. Every hull has a center of buoyancy (CoB), which is a single fixed point on the hull.
2. Compute the "moment of inertia" relative to the CoB. However, this isn't the true moment of inertia. Loop over all parts of the ship and sum:
   1. relative_position = part_position - CoB
   2. abs_relative_position = abs(relative_position)
      • abs is taken component-wise.
   3. sum += normalize(abs_relative_position) * sq_magnitude(abs_relative_position) * part_mass
      • Equivalently: sum += abs_relative_position * magnitude(abs_relative_position) * part_mass
3. Divide by the mass of the hull. I think this includes everything that isn't associated with a placed part, e.g. hull, belt/deck armor, engines/boilers, torpedo belt...
4. Divide component-wise by the dimensions of the hull (x = width, y = depth, z = length) squared.
5. Throw away the depth (y) component.
6. Add a constant for each of roll (x) and pitch (z), and scale by another constant each.

Frankly kind of an odd calculation. With respect to side guns and roll specifically:

• Roll penalty from guns is purely a matter of position and mass (apparently including turret/secondary armor and ammo?) Other than their effect on mass, the size and quantity of guns doesn't matter.
• This calculation means the height of components almost doesn't matter, which seems contrary to reality. I'm not sure why they didn't go with something like metacentric height. In any case, don't be shy about using superstructure mounts if you have them.
• Because of the magnitude term and the fact that ships are much longer than they are wide, placing side guns very far forward/aft can be even worse than placing them far off the centerline. In most cases I would go for at least double turrets just to be able to cluster them more towards amidships.

[Skeksis]

...

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Evil4Zerggin]

You're welcome!

Just for extra clarification:

The bottom secondaries have less Roll than the top secondaries, despite the bottom ones being maximally far apart and the top ones about as close together as possible. This is because the bottom secondaries are at amidships.

Of course, anything that is perfectly on the centerline will contribute no Roll at all, no matter how far forward or aft it is. The 0.8 value on an empty hull is due to an internal constant and cannot be gotten rid of. Unfortunately centerline space is always at a premium.

(I inflated the Roll values by setting secondary armor to 50" and taking weight off the rest of the ship.)

Edited June 11, 2021 by Evil4Zerggin

[Evil4Zerggin]

Maximum stacking

There are two stats of interest to go for a maximum stack: Resistance and Hull Form. These reach their maximum in 1929 with the final Hull Strengthening tech.

Resistance: Pick Austria and top-tier BB hull. Select Triple Bottom and Turtleback citadel.

Make sure to heavily armor your turrets to prevent flash fires.

Fires start becoming more of a concern relative to direct damage from shells. You might consider Reinforced Bulkheads to cut that down a bit.

Hull Form: Pick Britain and BC hull. No components increase Hull Form, so choose whatever you like.

Note that, contrary to the tooltip, only the base Hull Form applies to Engine Weight, so the real modifier is less extreme. That -98% Maintenance Cost could be a huge factor in the campaign if left as-is, though...

[SpardaSon21]

That resistance bonus is whack.  What's really hilarious is that the bonus applies regardless of whatever the incoming shell is, so you get 1900's Austro-Hungarian pre-dreads that can soak up multiple 20" shells.  I'm honestly surprised the US isn't the best for that.  The US has historically been ahead of the curve for ship design and construction, after all.  The South Carolinas had better internals than Dreadnought herself and both them and the later Delawares were standouts for their all-centerline armament, handling the keel stress from that quite well.  Later on all our treaty designs had high-tensile STS all over to reduce weight while keeping or even adding to integrity since it was quite superior to the usual structural steels and doubled as high-hardness homogenous armor.

Edited September 3, 2021 by SpardaSon21

[coalminer]

On 9/4/2021 at 3:57 AM, SpardaSon21 said:

That resistance bonus is whack.  What's really hilarious is that the bonus applies regardless of whatever the incoming shell is, so you get 1900's Austro-Hungarian pre-dreads that can soak up multiple 20" shells.  I'm honestly surprised the US isn't the best for that.  The US has historically been ahead of the curve for ship design and construction, after all.  The South Carolinas had better internals than Dreadnought herself and both them and the later Delawares were standouts for their all-centerline armament, handling the keel stress from that quite well.  Later on all our treaty designs had high-tensile STS all over to reduce weight while keeping or even adding to integrity since it was quite superior to the usual structural steels and doubled as high-hardness homogenous armor.

Like many of the more active community users who gave alot of useful feedback, I have also more or less given up on this. The arbitrary resistance % given to hulls is just as far from reality as possible. Damage resistance should purely come from internal arrangements (which doesnt exist), armouring scheme (which doesnt exist) and a few other abstract ideas that barely resemble real world physics (bulkheads, citadel, floatation %). The example being a 20" armoured DD hull will always be more shell resistant than a 500k tonne BB hull with 0 armour. All the response we got from the devs is either they cannot (or refuse to) talk about it or simply silence (assuming its even read and taken into consideration or this should be rephrased as outright ignored).

The above example on gun mounts far at the bow mounting centreline affecting roll more than mounts placed at CG but at the beams and high mounted weight not affecting roll is just another example of modifiers and random % numbers thrown all over the place. The basic KBGMt would show that anything with more lever(at the beams) would affect roll more even if it was midship (at the LCG). If anything the bow mounted guns should affect pitch not roll.

Edited September 6, 2021 by coalminer

[MasterBurte]

What i don't understand in terms of roll and pitch is that when you place turrets symmetrically far from the center of boyanzy the roll/pitch should get better. You need more energy to rotate an object the further outward the mass is (example imagine an ice skater making pirouettes) This is why you see balancing weights/dampeners on some sport bows to increase precison.