|
Post by aeson on Jun 28, 2019 12:50:03 GMT -6
the damage dosent have to be in readable numbers it could be just like the gundata file We've been told that damage per hit is proportional to shell weight - or, more specifically, shell weight to the two-thirds power, according to williammiller - and Gundata.dat includes entries for shell weight. A 'damage' value for each gun is therefore already listed in the Gundata file - it's the shell weight, which becomes the in-game 'damage' through some function of hit location, technology, and shell weight.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 28, 2019 14:03:36 GMT -6
the damage dosent have to be in readable numbers it could be just like the gundata file We've been told that damage per hit is proportional to shell weight - or, more specifically, shell weight to the two-thirds power, according to williammiller - and Gundata.dat includes entries for shell weight. A 'damage' value for each gun is therefore already listed in the Gundata file - it's the shell weight, which becomes the in-game 'damage' through some function of hit location, technology, and shell weight. but we have also been told this "Different shell masses do not cause linear damage on naval targets, either in real life or in the game. Yes, shells do more damage the larger they are in the game, but it is not a linear relationship." which litteraly goes straight against that
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 28, 2019 14:14:08 GMT -6
We've been told that damage per hit is proportional to shell weight - or, more specifically, shell weight to the two-thirds power, according to williammiller - and Gundata.dat includes entries for shell weight. A 'damage' value for each gun is therefore already listed in the Gundata file - it's the shell weight, which becomes the in-game 'damage' through some function of hit location, technology, and shell weight. but we have also been told this "Different shell masses do not cause linear damage on naval targets, either in real life or in the game. Yes, shells do more damage the larger they are in the game, but it is not a linear relationship." which litteraly goes straight against that Since when was k*x 2/3 a linear relationship?
|
|
|
Post by Capsized on Jun 28, 2019 14:14:44 GMT -6
but we have also been told this "Different shell masses do not cause linear damage on naval targets, either in real life or in the game. Yes, shells do more damage the larger they are in the game, but it is not a linear relationship." which litteraly goes straight against that That's because aeson does not know what proportional means. It is a surprisingly common mistake. Just read "damage is proportional to shell weight to the two thirds power", and forget the rest.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Jun 28, 2019 14:51:08 GMT -6
I just want to add that shell weight can be seen in the files with the abbreviation "sw" (eg in Gundata.dat and hpen.dat and so on).
And to point out the great jumps from 12'' to 13'' and from 16'' to 17'' (nearly 50% increase in shell weight).
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 28, 2019 15:22:30 GMT -6
but we have also been told this "Different shell masses do not cause linear damage on naval targets, either in real life or in the game. Yes, shells do more damage the larger they are in the game, but it is not a linear relationship." which litteraly goes straight against that That's because aeson does not know what proportional means. It is a surprisingly common mistake. Just read "damage is proportional to shell weight to the two thirds power", and forget the rest. In standard non-technical English, one of the meanings of "proportional" is "corresponding in size, degree, or intensity." Do increasing shell weight and increasing hit damage correspond to one another? Yes. Therefore, in standard, non-technical English, damage is proportional to shell weight. Is there a reason that we necessarily must be using the strict mathematical definition of proportionality rather than the standard non-technical English definition in a non-technical setting?
Also, in the strict mathematical sense of proportionality, f(y) = k * y is a function expressing a directly-proportional relationship between f(y) and y. That y = x2/3 is irrelevant; f(y) is directly proportional to y.
|
|
|
Post by Procopius on Jun 28, 2019 16:13:31 GMT -6
While we're on the subject, if espionage could get copies of your enemies' penetration tables for specific guns, that'd also be neat.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Jun 28, 2019 18:47:47 GMT -6
I have edited the existing gundata to include a column for the sw^(2/3). It has decimal places, which goes against the integer structure of the gundata file, but it's something to work with. Gundata_w_dmg.dat (415 B)
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jun 29, 2019 0:08:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Jun 29, 2019 1:08:00 GMT -6
May I ask a question?
What kind of shell did you fire?
I suggest you get to your doctrine menue and use some SAP shells. Once your AP-penetration is at a top level, SAP becomes more and more important to prevent you from overpenetrations. For exampple- my 40s big guns only shot SAP at any kind of cruiser at any range. Normally I need 2-3 big hits for crippling a cruiser and it is dead in the water (let´s say to the point were my DD screen can do the rest). I have built a few Pocketbattleships with 11" guns- here I needed about 5-10 hits, untill my DDs could do the rest. Against BB/BC, I tend to use SAP at medium range, because I expect my shells to be scattered or blocked by the enemy protection. So the more at explosive filler can handle some additional damage (perhaps flooding or a fire, or maybe some damage to FC or secodaries). Sometimes, if I see after the first 2-3 battles including big guns, that I need to much hits against BBs, I check the logs and in case of too much overpenetrations, I change to SAP at near ranges, too.
And back to the 20"- 20" SAP I guess has the potential to oneshot any ship you build (except some 12" inclined belt/6" deck turtle backs with TDS4, although the inflicted damage should be devastating). My first choice for big guns is the 17"Qu1- once I have this formidable gun, I use it on any capital ship (except some cruiser killer BCs), because with a balanced shell doctrine, they become absolute deadly! You have more guns than 18"-20" (4 triples or 3 quadrubles is easy to build) and they have the potential to inflict a big amount of damage with any hit. I had enemy BBs that were dead in the water after 3 hits and I had one game with 3 enemy flashfires (night battle at near range with SAP firing). I love these guns!
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 29, 2019 8:20:28 GMT -6
Here's a table including damage per shell and damage over time: Much appreciated. Looks like the big breakpoints are 4", 5", 6", 8", and 17". Those all increase DPS by 29% or more, and all of them get at least a decent range bump too. Conversely, 10", 15", and (especially) 19" should only be used if they have a quality edge over their neighbours - otherwise, the weight gain isn't worth it.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 29, 2019 10:10:35 GMT -6
Here's a table including damage per shell and damage over time: Much appreciated. Looks like the big breakpoints are 4", 5", 6", 8", and 17". Those all increase DPS by 29% or more, and all of them get at least a decent range bump too. Conversely, 10", 15", and (especially) 19" should only be used if they have a quality edge over their neighbours - otherwise, the weight gain isn't worth it. It seems to me that 15" guns has one advantage, it is the first gun with enough penetration to be worthwhile for rest of game.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jun 29, 2019 11:40:05 GMT -6
Much appreciated. Looks like the big breakpoints are 4", 5", 6", 8", and 17". Those all increase DPS by 29% or more, and all of them get at least a decent range bump too. Conversely, 10", 15", and (especially) 19" should only be used if they have a quality edge over their neighbours - otherwise, the weight gain isn't worth it. It seems to me that 15" guns has one advantage, it is the first gun with enough penetration to be worthwhile for rest of game. There is also the question of accuracy. I believe that accuracy is affected by the proportion of the distance of the target to the gun's maximum range; therefore, a longer - ranged gun will be more accurate at a given range.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Jun 29, 2019 14:54:53 GMT -6
Here's a table including damage per shell and damage over time: Much appreciated. Looks like the big breakpoints are 4", 5", 6", 8", and 17". Those all increase DPS by 29% or more, and all of them get at least a decent range bump too. Conversely, 10", 15", and (especially) 19" should only be used if they have a quality edge over their neighbours - otherwise, the weight gain isn't worth it. I do not think DoT is enough to decide on the guns, especially big ones. Hit rate depends on other things than calibre, except for range. And when the shell actually hits, 15in is better - more penetrating and more damaging.
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 29, 2019 20:43:46 GMT -6
DoT isn't the only relevant stat, but penetration depends on quality more than damage does, and you can judge that in-game. Also, I don't agree that there's a simple cutoff of "this gun is good enough for the rest of the game, that gun isn't".
There's plenty of factors at play - relative quality, free weight on the ship, desired layout, desired doctrine, and so on, and so forth. But all else being equal, I'd rather use 17" guns on my BBs, because they have really good damage, great range, and they're not nearly as heavy as 20".
|
|