Ship Attack Ranges

[davidclaywood]

Issue: It Seems to me that that a ship that can attack another ship at a range of 54km should also be able to attack targets on land at the same range and effect. Every ship has at least some low and even mid air attack capability, the same range and damage as the land based AA counterparts.
This has not been so in earlier versions and appears to be the same in this new game version. Please consider fixing this issue now.

Additionally Aircraft Carriers should have rather high AA range and strength because they all fly CAP 24/7. (Combat Air Patrols) and immediately scramble the entire ships compliment to meet any incoming threats.

Thanks for the excellent work.

[Balthagor]

Issue: It Seems to me that that a ship that can attack another ship at a range of 54km should also be able to attack targets on land at the same range and effect. Every ship has at least some low and even mid air attack capability, the same range and damage as the land based AA counterparts.
This has not been so in earlier versions and appears to be the same in this new game version. Please consider fixing this issue now.

Additionally Aircraft Carriers should have rather high AA range and strength because they all fly CAP 24/7. (Combat Air Patrols) and immediately scramble the entire ships compliment to meet any incoming threats.

Thanks for the excellent work.

Land and Naval ranges are not separate values. The engine uses the same value already.

Surface attack values are different than Soft/Hard/Fortification attack values and must be balanced separately. Using the same value would not have the "same effect" as the defense values for land are different than those of naval units.

Not every ship has mid air attack capabilities. Many 1930s ships cannot reach above 15k feet which is our baseline for mid.

Aircraft carriers are given the AA range of their AA systems. The statistics of their aircraft have no impact on their stats. If the carrier has no aircraft on board it an['t perform CAP.

It could be argued that we should model the recon aircraft used by carriers the way we do for destroyers, but that idea would need be explored for its balance impact.

[Edit: Please do not double post. Post your ideas/issues only once.]

[geminif4ucorsair]

Further to the above explanation, ship attack ranges are 'actual' per ship class, not groups within a specific gun caliber (75mm, 105mm, 152mm, etc. - each group having the same specific range).

However, gunnery ranges will not be what you might find in a reference book, for they are generally taken at @ 70-percent (%) of maximum), a long-ago establish criteria used by the Naval War College and others in gaming, having been found as the "effective" range for most naval guns.
Thus, in SR-1936, you will find the Attack (soft, hard/fortification, close) and Naval Attack range for the U.S. South Dakota and Washington classes of battleships is 24,000-m. Both BB classes used the 16"/45 cal. Mk.VI (Mk.6) gun, first of the new 'lightweight' heavy gun barrels (followed by the Mk. 7 used in the Iowa class, as a longer, 50-caliber gun).

A couple other ranges include: New Orleans class heavy cruiser (8"): 20,000-m; Brooklyn class light cruiser (6") - 16,000-m.; Des Moines class heavy cruiser (8"/55cal): 22,000-m.; Alaska class large cruiser (12"): 25,000-m.; Deutschland armored cruiser (11"): 25,000-m.

All the above have specific attack values for the Soft, Hard, Fortification, Close attack values, largely based on penetration values; Naval attack values are often similar to Hard attack values, but not always. All are adjusted depending on the number of main (and secondary, if applicable) guns....thus, a 15-gun Brooklyn light cruiser has some automatic higher end attack values than a 9- or 6-gun light cruiser.

In Anti-Air ratings, the 57mm anti-aircraft gun is basically, the "bottom" size of any gun capable of Mid-Air attack rating - U.S. pilots considered it (along with the 85mm) used during the air bombing campaign as very effective anti-air weapons up to @ 17,000-ft. It thus gets some rating, but not much at the Mid-Air level....

this is also because the breath of altitudes represented by the "mid-air" rating goes all the way up into the 50,000-ft. plus range, even the 75mm used within the Mid-Air attack values, does not really have an effective altitude above 38-39,000-ft. - but because the way SR has been designed since SR-2010, it has the huge spread of altitudes. So, a 75mm is still considered effective in attacking B-29s at 30-32,000-ft., when in wartime practice, it was almost totally ineffective - yet, it was still quite effective against medium and heavy bombers (B-26, B-24, B-17, Ju-188, etc.) in the "lower" 20K-ft altitude. [Splitting the "altitude" has been rejected by Battlegoat.]

[davidclaywood]

Sorry for my garbled message, I should not mix two very different issues in one paragraph. I will try to improve my game.

Quote: "Land and Naval ranges are not separate values. The engine uses the same value already."

Please find attach screen capture that show the 'Ship to Ship' range of 54km and 'Ship to Land' targets only 1 km. I know this is an anomalous unit record, it was the first one and that I ran into when I read your response.

I might remind you of the four variables in the UNIT file, attrange0, attrange1, attrange2, attrange3 which very rightly denote differences in ranges against specific domains. Air, Land, Surface and Submarine Attack Ranges. Land and Surface should always be the same for a particular weapon.

I understand the fact the same ship mounted gun will do different amounts of damage to different target types. A group of infantry in the open are damaged more by an artillery barrage than men in APC's or Tanks.
Although I feel ripped off when a ships barrage on a tall stack of units on shore doesn't kill a single unit.


PS Thanks geminif4ucorsair for your very informative background on these subjects. We would enjoy talking at length I am sure. Lets play multi-player sometime.
Thanks for your feedback. We all want the same thing, a great game.

[Balthagor]

Wow, guess I've been working too hard, forgot that ground attack vs. surface attack values. I stand corrected.

[geminif4ucorsair]

Please find attach screen capture that show the 'Ship to Ship' range of 54km and 'Ship to Land' targets only 1 km. I know this is an anomalous unit record, it was the first one and that I ran into when I read your response.

Just for clarification, these values were laid-on the beta by BG in advance of fully rating out the "Deutschland" class armored cruiser...those values have already been modified on my MDB work copy - if they accept the changes in the final SR-1936, the classes main gun range is now set at 25-km attack range against both ship and land targets. Other values have also changed.

One further note on Max Range vs Effective Range....the latter is what naval war colleges normally use for engagement ranges and am repeating
that practice.

Also, this involves using a standard of 30-degree main gun elevation, wich 30-35-deg. offers the fastest reload rate from shell hoists - the higher elections of the main gun, often achieved to attain maximum range figures, means the rate of fire decreased (sometimes as much as half from the 30-degree figure. Another reason for not using Max Range is the hit rates, generally calculated at about 1% up to 3% maximum.....at that rate,
most battleships would be out of ammunition by the time closure was achieved in a 20-30,000-m. engagement.

Hope this helps.

[davidclaywood]

those values have already been modified on my MDB work copy

Ok my friend, we do have alot in common I think, I am assuming you are using Access to view and modify the UNIT file. Do you work with other file in the game?

I am really looking forward to when we have a few moments to VOIP for a bit. I have and use TS3, Mumble and Vent.

Thanks for your input as always.

David

[Balthagor]

gemini has done some contract work and some volunteer work for us and has access to files for submitting data for us to work with. His help has been and continues to be greatly appreciated.

[Hullu Hevonen]

Also, this involves using a standard of 30-degree main gun elevation, wich 30-35-deg. offers the fastest reload rate from shell hoists - the higher elections of the main gun, often achieved to attain maximum range figures, means the rate of fire decreased (sometimes as much as half from the 30-degree figure. Another reason for not using Max Range is the hit rates, generally calculated at about 1% up to 3% maximum.....at that rate,
most battleships would be out of ammunition by the time closure was achieved in a 20-30,000-m. engagement.

Hmm, how does this factor into modern weapon systems with say some sort of ballistics computers, improved fire control systems etc?

this is also because the breath of altitudes represented by the "mid-air" rating goes all the way up into the 50,000-ft. plus range, even the 75mm used within the Mid-Air attack values, does not really have an effective altitude above 38-39,000-ft. - but because the way SR has been designed since SR-2010, it has the huge spread of altitudes. So, a 75mm is still considered effective in attacking B-29s at 30-32,000-ft., when in wartime practice, it was almost totally ineffective - yet, it was still quite effective against medium and heavy bombers (B-26, B-24, B-17, Ju-188, etc.) in the "lower" 20K-ft altitude. [Splitting the "altitude" has been rejected by Battlegoat.]

Make aircraft low flying aircraft, low altitude.. ain't that possible? Since say the ME109 for example had a flight celling of ~39000ft.

[geminif4ucorsair]

Also, this involves using a standard of 30-degree main gun elevation, wich 30-35-deg. offers the fastest reload rate from shell hoists - the higher elections of the main gun, often achieved to attain maximum range figures, means the rate of fire decreased (sometimes as much as half from the 30-degree figure. Another reason for not using Max Range is the hit rates, generally calculated at about 1% up to 3% maximum.....at that rate,
most battleships would be out of ammunition by the time closure was achieved in a 20-30,000-m. engagement.

Hmm, how does this factor into modern weapon systems with say some sort of ballistics computers, improved fire control systems etc?

It has been applied to SR-36 specifically to the "effective" gun range for capital ships, because they have the longest ballistic ranges for SR-36, until one emerges into 1960s era weapons (USN rapid-fire 8" (203mm) naval gun, etc.). When one deals with smaller bore (5, 6,7.5, 8-inch)
guns, their ranges are shorter, and thus it makes no difference whether their elevation for max range is 40 or 45-degrees (the most common elevations). Also, the BG game design takes no account of secondary gun ranges....so, an "Alaska" class large cruisers 12-inch guns are the only Range figure used in the data sheet.

The above example of using 30-35-deg. is because SR calc's are not based on max range, so ships are engaging at closer ranges and therefore, lower gun depression levels. Historically btw 20-30,000-m. was a rather common capital engagement range....few cruiser guns could exceed 20,000-m. - and I have accurate ballistic penetration data for all capital ships at 30,000-km (along with other ranges) - which makes it easier to draw conclusions for Attack values for the data sheets.

this is also because the breath of altitudes represented by the "mid-air" rating goes all the way up into the 50,000-ft. plus range, even the 75mm used within the Mid-Air attack values, does not really have an effective altitude above 38-39,000-ft. - but because the way SR has been designed since SR-2010, it has the huge spread of altitudes. So, a 75mm is still considered effective in attacking B-29s at 30-32,000-ft., when in wartime practice, it was almost totally ineffective - yet, it was still quite effective against medium and heavy bombers (B-26, B-24, B-17, Ju-188, etc.) in the "lower" 20K-ft altitude. [Splitting the "altitude" has been rejected by Battlegoat.]

Make aircraft low flying aircraft, low altitude.. ain't that possible? Since say the ME109 for example had a flight celling of ~39000ft.

I've already argued for a fourth level (splitting up the lower-zone of Mid-Level at @ 35-40,000-ft and creating a "Upper Mid-Level" - plus "Lower Mid-Level at @ 17-K to 34-39,000-ft. Have argued on several levels....both as it relates to types of bomber & attack aircraft operating altitudes, and anti-aircraft effectiveness.

Great example for the latter was the Japanese G3M attacks at the 20,000-ft. level against Manila, Clark AFB, and other Philippine targets in Dec 1941....U.S. 3" (75mm) anti-aircraft guns were totally ineffective against level bombers at this altitude. On the aircraft operating altitudes, consider that P-51, P-47s, Me-109s, etc. all operated between 24-38,000-ft. most of the time....few Japanese aircraft could effectively attack B-29s at normal operating altitude of 30-33,000-ft., yet by having the current Altitude "divisions", they can conceivably attack aircraft at nearly 60,000-ft. Makes little sense in my book.

As for guns, be aware there is a effort within the 3-altitude divisions, to apportion those guns within their most practical effective zone, often meaning a very small Mid-Level rating, but much, much higher Low-Level rating.

It's makes a reasonable dividing point, therefore, for a game like SR-1936, to not have a level that goes from @ 16-K to 60-K plus. It might have made sense in SR-2010 and SR-2020, due to the operating capabilities of most jet aircraft in those games, but outlived its role with SR-CW (SR-49), with the quantity of propeller aircraft in that game, of great variations in operating altitudes (Yak-9 vs P-47s or other fighters / fighter-bombers / bombers that routinely operated at or above 24,000-ft.).

It's been this 3-levels since before SR-2010 and think its a programming issue (more work).
Effort was rejected by BG....players can always express their own views to BG.

[geminif4ucorsair]

those values have already been modified on my MDB work copy

Ok my friend, we do have alot in common I think, I am assuming you are using Access to view and modify the UNIT file. Do you work with other file in the game? I am really looking forward to when we have a few moments to VOIP for a bit. I have and use TS3, Mumble and Vent.
Thanks for your input as always. David

ACCESS works fine for BGs Unit data sheets work and we use Excel for some other stuff (orbats etc). But, map and other programs for changes to master copies, no. Bathagor can make massive data transfers from ACCESS Unit file and review for their own consistency or other views, as part of testing. Basically, its all recommendations, not being a partner of Battlegoat. One must remember their own legal issues, as such.

On a different note, avoiding adding new software (Mumbie, etc.) and tasks (elsewhere) until I get a new more powerful solid-state HD on this computer...the ever present issue of upgrading!

[Hullu Hevonen]

It has been applied to SR-36 specifically to the "effective" gun range for capital ships, because they have the longest ballistic ranges for SR-36, until one emerges into 1960s era weapons (USN rapid-fire 8" (203mm) naval gun, etc.). When one deals with smaller bore (5, 6,7.5, 8-inch)
guns, their ranges are shorter, and thus it makes no difference whether their elevation for max range is 40 or 45-degrees (the most common elevations). Also, the BG game design takes no account of secondary gun ranges....so, an "Alaska" class large cruisers 12-inch guns are the only Range figure used in the data sheet.

The above example of using 30-35-deg. is because SR calc's are not based on max range, so ships are engaging at closer ranges and therefore, lower gun depression levels. Historically btw 20-30,000-m. was a rather common capital engagement range....few cruiser guns could exceed 20,000-m. - and I have accurate ballistic penetration data for all capital ships at 30,000-km (along with other ranges) - which makes it easier to draw conclusions for Attack values for the data sheets.

Makes sense, was afraid of having to rewrite those smaller caliber ships . I use the standard of maximum range, due to the increased hit probabilities in modern weapons, especially with the new wartime requirements of being able to hit smaller targets further away, like land based targets deep within a country. But then theres examples like the Otobreda 127/64 that is able to fire upto 120km but has an stated effective range of ~30km. Also some sources state the 120km range is more aimed at land based targets with guided projectiles and that they are aimed at being capable of hitting landbased targets within 100-250m with an HE projectile. Wonder why this technology couldn't be applied to naval warfare to gain similar ranges.

Some other sources event put the 'effective' range at 15km, so what is actually then 'effective', a hit probability of 90% or higher?
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5-64_LW.htm

This is a tuff nut to crack

[geminif4ucorsair]

It has been applied to SR-36 specifically to the "effective" gun range for capital ships, because they have the longest ballistic ranges for SR-36, until one emerges into 1960s era weapons (USN rapid-fire 8" (203mm) naval gun, etc.). When one deals with smaller bore (5, 6,7.5, 8-inch)
guns, their ranges are shorter, and thus it makes no difference whether their elevation for max range is 40 or 45-degrees (the most common elevations). Also, the BG game design takes no account of secondary gun ranges....so, an "Alaska" class large cruisers 12-inch guns are the only Range figure used in the data sheet.

The above example of using 30-35-deg. is because SR calc's are not based on max range, so ships are engaging at closer ranges and therefore, lower gun depression levels. Historically btw 20-30,000-m. was a rather common capital engagement range....few cruiser guns could exceed 20,000-m. - and I have accurate ballistic penetration data for all capital ships at 30,000-km (along with other ranges) - which makes it easier to draw conclusions for Attack values for the data sheets.

Makes sense, was afraid of having to rewrite those smaller caliber ships . I use the standard of maximum range, due to the increased hit probabilities in modern weapons, especially with the new wartime requirements of being able to hit smaller targets further away, like land based targets deep within a country. But then theres examples like the Otobreda 127/64 that is able to fire upto 120km but has an stated effective range of ~30km. Also some sources state the 120km range is more aimed at land based targets with guided projectiles and that they are aimed at being capable of hitting landbased targets within 100-250m with an HE projectile. Wonder why this technology couldn't be applied to naval warfare to gain similar ranges.

Some other sources event put the 'effective' range at 15km, so what is actually then 'effective', a hit probability of 90% or higher?
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5-64_LW.htm. This is a tuff nut to crack

That should be "bore" not caliber (length of barrel) versus diameter (8" inch, etc.)

I don't like maximum Range for several reasons - some clearly noted above. Another is that in the period prior to mid-/late-WW2, many capital
ships did not have spotting ability at maximum gun range....certainly not visual, which then meant they had to have floatplane spotting or assist from other ships closer to the target (such as destroyers) - but their comm's were not reliable at all times and observing and calling the "fall of shot" was problematical.

"Effective" gunfire is not defined as any percentage of hits, per se. It is only the highest percentage of hits calculated for the particular gun design....this could mean the highest percentage for a U.S. 127mm/38 (5") would be as low as 4-5 n. miles, while a 12"/50 (Alaska class) might be two or three times that figure. I have some more technical data on this stuff and may bring it up into another post before game release, if time allows.

You mention some of the theoretical ranges for the Otobreda 127mm - these are ranges calculated for special RAP/EFA rounds. Remember, the USN was also experimenting with such ranges for the Iowa class 16"/50 Mk.7 guns during the late-Vietnam War period, based on technology developed by the Army for Copperhead, etc. RAP rounds. Expense, accuracy and technical issues probably forced termination of the effort, which at the time was not a serious issue because of the widespread ability of the USN to put a strike aircraft over any target inland, at relative will....it was cheaper to fly a A-4E/F Skyhawk (as one potential strike aircraft) to a 100-120-km inland target....and then, there is the issue of having the BB at the right geo coordinates versus the range of an A-4E/F from its carrier.

Hope that helps.

[geminif4ucorsair]

those values have already been modified on my MDB work copy

Ok my friend, we do have alot in common I think, I am assuming you are using Access to view and modify the UNIT file. Do you work with other file in the game?
I am really looking forward to when we have a few moments to VOIP for a bit. I have and use TS3, Mumble and Vent.
Thanks for your input as always.
David

We should carry this off-line/Forum if you (and others) are interested in this issue, game design & creation, etc. - contact me at: geminiad@whidbey.com