|
Post by splatterdemalion on Apr 12, 2018 13:57:58 GMT -6
Honestly, I don't see that it makes much difference if it's some group chance based on the size of the battery fired or if it's each individual barrel. Either way, the more guns you fire the more chances you have of hitting. The difference is quite simply that it's mathematically easier to force convergence on something less than 100% if you model it as a chance of the salvo being on target and then a chance for each gun in the salvo to hit the target than it would be if you model it as a chance for each gun to hit the target. If you take the 10%/40% example I used earlier, a ship with 1 gun has a 4% chance of hitting the target with any given salvo, but even if you could fire a million guns in each salvo you'll never have more than a 10% chance of hitting the target on any given salvo. If you make independent rolls for each barrel, you have to make each barrel's hit probability dependent on accuracy modifiers and the number of barrels participating in the salvo or your probability of scoring a hit with each salvo will converge on 100% as the number of guns in the salvo increases - for example if your guns have a flat 1% chance of hitting the target every time they fire, then a 1-gun salvo has a 1% chance of scoring a hit and a 32-gun salvo (the largest possible within the game for heavy guns, to my knowledge) has a 27% chance of scoring at least one hit with any given salvo. Anyways, to get back to humor: View AttachmentSay hello to Ludicrous and Ridiculous, design mock-ups that I made to see how many heavy guns I can fit onto a ship before getting errors. Ludicrous maximizes barrel count and suffers from a heavy or crowded centerline penalty, Ridiculous maximizes turret count and has two guns less on the broadside but avoids any penalties to rate of fire and accuracy. They're inadequately armored and too slow for me to consider building them, but I think it's a bit funny that these are legal designs Inspiring!
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 12, 2018 18:54:55 GMT -6
aeson, I like your explanations, but one thought does occur - I'll mention it though I'm not sure if it really applies for your example or not.
In your example, your guns are shooting to hit a target. In real-life naval gunnery of the 1900+ period, once you move out of close-range, point-and-shoot firing, gunners do not always shoot to hit. (AHA! That's the problem, then, is it! Funny no-one in 40 years figured that out...) Instead, gunners shoot a pattern or 'ladder' to establish range (bearing is pretty easy, it's the range that's tricky as you no doubt know). Once they have some unders-and-overs, they can switch to firing at full rate for effect (shooting to hit) then switch back to ladders (or ranging fire), and so forth until the battle ends. For those purposes, 8 guns were thought ideal for ranging fire. I have never heard that the 6-gun battery of Renown and Repulse were problematic, only that 8 or more guns were considered better.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 12, 2018 23:05:44 GMT -6
aeson, I like your explanations, but one thought does occur - I'll mention it though I'm not sure if it really applies for your example or not. It doesn't really apply to the explanation given - the ranging shots are essentially just substituting a virtual target for the real target. That being said, this does more generally touch on something that I ignored for the examples and explanation given - in reality, you're going to have sequences of salvos where knowing whether or not one salvo in the sequence was on target tells you something about whether or not other salvos in the sequence are on target. If salvos 1, 2, and 3 were fired in rapid succession using the same firing solution and you know that salvo 1 was on target, it's fairly likely that salvo 2 was also on target, and salvo 3 is only slightly less likely to be on target than was salvo 2, because ships don't change velocity that quickly relative to the time it takes for the shells in a series of salvos to be fired and arrive at the target location. If a firing solution was good for one salvo, it's probably also good for a couple more salvos, as long as the salvos are not fired too long after the first. Correcting the model I used for the examples and explanations I gave for this essentially means putting another layer of dependencies into the equation (probability of a salvo being on target gains a dependency on whether or not the preceding salvo was - or perhaps even several preceding salvos were - on target) but otherwise doesn't really change much. As a very simplistic model, you could have a probability of p of salvos being on target until a salvo is on target, and then you'd have some improved probability p' that salvos will be on target until one is not on target, at which point the probability of a salvo being on target returns to p (or in a slightly more complex model to some intermediate probability p*, with probability of a salvo being on target only dropping all the way back to p when the target at which the salvos are aimed changes) until a salvo is on target, etc, etc; the probability of shells in any given salvo actually hitting the target could still be modeled simply as some relatively large nonzero constant (40% in the examples I gave earlier) if the salvo is on target and some small constant (0% in the examples I gave earlier) if the salvo is not on target.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Apr 13, 2018 6:28:24 GMT -6
The difference is quite simply that it's mathematically easier to force convergence on something less than 100% if you model it as a chance of the salvo being on target and then a chance for each gun in the salvo to hit the target than it would be if you model it as a chance for each gun to hit the target. If you take the 10%/40% example I used earlier, a ship with 1 gun has a 4% chance of hitting the target with any given salvo, but even if you could fire a million guns in each salvo you'll never have more than a 10% chance of hitting the target on any given salvo. If you make independent rolls for each barrel, you have to make each barrel's hit probability dependent on accuracy modifiers and the number of barrels participating in the salvo or your probability of scoring a hit with each salvo will converge on 100% as the number of guns in the salvo increases - for example if your guns have a flat 1% chance of hitting the target every time they fire, then a 1-gun salvo has a 1% chance of scoring a hit and a 32-gun salvo (the largest possible within the game for heavy guns, to my knowledge) has a 27% chance of scoring at least one hit with any given salvo. Anyways, to get back to humor: Say hello to Ludicrous and Ridiculous, design mock-ups that I made to see how many heavy guns I can fit onto a ship before getting errors. Ludicrous maximizes barrel count and suffers from a heavy or crowded centerline penalty, Ridiculous maximizes turret count and has two guns less on the broadside but avoids any penalties to rate of fire and accuracy. They're inadequately armored and too slow for me to consider building them, but I think it's a bit funny that these are legal designs I don't know if Lord Fisher would be proud or horrified. Perhaps both. And thanks for the explanation.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Apr 13, 2018 6:54:46 GMT -6
The difference is quite simply that it's mathematically easier to force convergence on something less than 100% if you model it as a chance of the salvo being on target and then a chance for each gun in the salvo to hit the target than it would be if you model it as a chance for each gun to hit the target. If you take the 10%/40% example I used earlier, a ship with 1 gun has a 4% chance of hitting the target with any given salvo, but even if you could fire a million guns in each salvo you'll never have more than a 10% chance of hitting the target on any given salvo. If you make independent rolls for each barrel, you have to make each barrel's hit probability dependent on accuracy modifiers and the number of barrels participating in the salvo or your probability of scoring a hit with each salvo will converge on 100% as the number of guns in the salvo increases - for example if your guns have a flat 1% chance of hitting the target every time they fire, then a 1-gun salvo has a 1% chance of scoring a hit and a 32-gun salvo (the largest possible within the game for heavy guns, to my knowledge) has a 27% chance of scoring at least one hit with any given salvo. Anyways, to get back to humor: Say hello to Ludicrous and Ridiculous, design mock-ups that I made to see how many heavy guns I can fit onto a ship before getting errors. Ludicrous maximizes barrel count and suffers from a heavy or crowded centerline penalty, Ridiculous maximizes turret count and has two guns less on the broadside but avoids any penalties to rate of fire and accuracy. They're inadequately armored and too slow for me to consider building them, but I think it's a bit funny that these are legal designs I don't know if Lord Fisher would be proud or horrified. Perhaps both. And thanks for the explanation. Not sure about Fisher, but I expect the DNC* would have a cow after being offered the specification for those. And with that many tubes and 100 rounds/gun the thing is a floating magazine before you add all the 6" ammo for the secondaries. * - Director of Naval Construction. Pretty much the head of those charged with turning the wishes into an actual ship design.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 13, 2018 7:27:53 GMT -6
Honestly, I don't see that it makes much difference if it's some group chance based on the size of the battery fired or if it's each individual barrel. Either way, the more guns you fire the more chances you have of hitting. Anyways, to get back to humor: Say hello to Ludicrous and Ridiculous, design mock-ups that I made to see how many heavy guns I can fit onto a ship before getting errors. Ludicrous maximizes barrel count and suffers from a heavy or crowded centerline penalty, Ridiculous maximizes turret count and has two guns less on the broadside but avoids any penalties to rate of fire and accuracy. They're inadequately armored and too slow for me to consider building them, but I think it's a bit funny that these are legal designs Dear Sir! We at the Admiralty are appalled at the paltry secondary of Ludicrous & Ridiculous! There is an opportunity there to mount numerous 14" guns which was not taken. Shameful. Sincerely yours, Brigadier Arthur C Stone, Mrs., Ret., Dcd.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 13, 2018 11:07:26 GMT -6
Dear Sir! We at the Admiralty are appalled at the paltry secondary of Ludicrous & Ridiculous! There is an opportunity there to mount numerous 14" guns which was not taken. Shameful. Sincerely yours, Brigadier Arthur C Stone, Mrs., Ret., Dcd. As per your request of 13 April, we submit for your consideration Spurious and Outrageous, each carrying a secondary battery of 12 14" guns. Humbly yours, Sir Notap Aaron Aynthesboke
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 13, 2018 11:56:16 GMT -6
That's the stuff!!! Harumph!
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 13, 2018 13:49:51 GMT -6
Indeed? Well, I for one cannot imagine what the designer was thinking! For a ship to travel at a speed of 18 knots is not only excessive it is positively injurious to human life! Everyone knows a human cannot breathe if air is being rammed into the lungs at that ghastly velocity! In the name of simple decency, and - of course - improved firepower, I request the designs be resolutely rejected in favor of one traveling at a more moderate speed and mounting even more heavy guns.
After all, it doesn't really matter when our ship comes in, only that it can shred everything in sight with high explosives, what?
I humbly nominate the ancient and honorable names of Indelicate and Impregnable for our navy's newest and most noxious creations.
Decidedly yours, Cecil Lord Windekilt, Castle Featherston-Hough-on-the-Tweedle
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 13, 2018 15:03:05 GMT -6
Indeed? Well, I for one cannot imagine what the designer was thinking! For a ship to travel at a speed of 18 knots is not only excessive it is positively injurious to human life! Everyone knows a human cannot breathe if air is being rammed into the lungs at that ghastly velocity! In the name of simple decency, and - of course - improved firepower, I request the designs be resolutely rejected in favor of one traveling at a more moderate speed and mounting even more heavy guns. After all, it doesn't really matter when our ship comes in, only that it can shred everything in sight with high explosives, what? I humbly nominate the ancient and honorable names of Indelicate and Impregnable for our navy's newest and most noxious creations. Decidedly yours, Cecil Lord Windekilt, Castle Featherston-Hough-on-the-Tweedle Sir, I thank you for bringing to my attention the insalubrious effect of traveling at such precipitate and excessive velocities as 18 knots. In order that we may safeguard the health and well-being of our sailors, I present for your consideration a further revision to the 52,000t battleship design proposal, which travels at the more salutary and sedate - nay, stately - speed of five knots. Cordially yours, Sir Notap Aaron Aynthesboke (P.S. Still a legal design.)
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 13, 2018 15:04:56 GMT -6
LOL!! (guys, I *so* needed this today- bless you lol)
(( I am *so* going to build 4 of those next game lol))
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 13, 2018 15:08:42 GMT -6
LOL!! (guys, I *so* needed this today- bless you lol) (( I am *so* going to build 4 of those next game lol)) Best of luck with the firecrackers finest battleships yet devised.
|
|
|
Post by krankey on Apr 13, 2018 15:23:09 GMT -6
I like the idea that an extra thick woolly muffler for those on watch and a stiffened hot chocolate negates all the silliness of an armoured conning tower. On hearing an approaching shell one should duck at the correct moment remembering not to spill ones chocolate
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 13, 2018 16:19:41 GMT -6
I like the idea that an extra thick woolly muffler for those on watch and a stiffened hot chocolate negates all the silliness of an armoured conning tower. On hearing an approaching shell one should duck at the correct moment remembering not to spill ones chocolate If you're on Ridiculous or especially on Outrageous, there's little need to worry - with so much deck space taken up by inadequately-armored heavy guns there isn't much (if any) space for a conning tower, after all. Also, I just realized that Ponderous has a broadside of only 28 15" guns, rather than the 30 or 32 of the other four ships in the series. Ah, well... There. That's better.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Apr 13, 2018 16:21:27 GMT -6
LOL!! (guys, I *so* needed this today- bless you lol) (( I am *so* going to build 4 of those next game lol)) Good luck waiting for those things to get to the battle. You could read at least one Massie book by the time they get there from the start of the scenario. I was defending against a British Coastal raid on Panama which ended up being two British light cruisers. One magazine explosion on each side later (my submarine service picked up the slack and avenged USS Albany at the end of the scenario) I was looking at post fight tracks and I'm like what? "What's with the semi-circle?" And then it hit me, the AI couldn't see the target at night to hit it and couldn't get close enough. Hahahaha, how do you like it AI!!! Take that!
|
|