Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: SmokinLoon on December 19, 2010, 05:54:18 PM
-
As I test and retest the posted weapon's damage information listed on the AH Trainer's website (tank HE specifics in particular), I'm finding some cookie cutter damage statistics that when cross referenced with viable sources should, at least in my opinion, not be grouped up together. Some weapons are not being given their due. :) Sure, it is easier to lump some sizes of weapons together because "they seem close enough", but when comparing the projectile weight and explosive charge weight one could draw a conclusion that the damage delivered would not be the same. Case in point: the Tiger and the T34/85mm. Currently, they both do 234 points (pounds) of damage with their HE rounds, but yet the actual weights of the projectile (available shrapnel) and explosive charge (destructive force) are over %10 different in favor of the Tiger's 88mm. Velocity favors the Tiger's round as well, but that plays a far less role in its effectiveness unlike the AP rounds.
Testing was done offline, vs the same hanger, firing from near the same tree and hence the same distance (400-500 yards). I set the hanger hardness at .230 and worked my way up, both tanks destroyed the hanger with one shot when the hanger hardness was set to .234, but it took 1 shot and a few MG rounds from each tank once the hardness was set to .235.
Multiple sources for the 85mm O-365K HE round list the projectile weight at 9.2kg, a %100 TNT explosive charge of .78kg, and a velocity of 792 m/s. I have not found any data regarding a "blast area". Likewise for the 88mm Sch Sprgr. Patr. L / 4.5 HE round, a projectile weight of 10.06, an explosive charge of .97kg consisting of %60 Amatol and %40 TNT (Amatol is not as destructive a TNT, but it's chemical properties actually enhance TNT so it is a wash. The biggest benefit is it is cheaper to make than TNT), and a velocity of 820m/s. Like the 85mm, I have yet to find any listed effective "blast area".
I only use the Tiger vs T34/85mm as an example. The HE rounds for the LVT-4 75mm, the T34/76mm, and the Pzr IV H 75mm are the next group I'm testing. I have to test again to verify the data but all 3 have right around 156 points of damage (I goofed on my initial control). Yet when cross referenced with actual gun data from the real deal, all three have very different properties listed.
I am also digging into the differences between the German and Japanese bombs. Currently in AH, a 250kg bomb is the same for both counties. HT generously provided the actual game information in a previous thread. However, it appears as though the explosive charges were different for the real bombs.
Is it worth differentiating the different ordnance? I believe it is especially if it means more historical accuracy. Whether or not I can present the data well enough to HTC and convince them is another story. :)
-
+1 This should definetely be considered imo. Great write-up.
-
To make sure everyone understands. Damage to buildings and damage to other player objects I.E. tanks/planes ... are 2 completely different numbers and systems.
HiTech
-
To make sure everyone understands. Damage to buildings and damage to other player objects I.E. tanks/planes ... are 2 completely different numbers and systems.
HiTech
Can you explain how the damage is registered differently on an M3 as compared to a building in terms of gameplay? I almost use HE exclusively against "soft" gv's because a near miss will still likely cause damage in the form of blowing tires, destroying engines, or even knocking out turrets (LVT4 and M8). A direct hit is not needed.
Regardless, I'm approaching this subject from the aspect of HE vs static OBJ. All the criteria involving the AP performance is far beyond my reach, there are simply too many variables to take into consideration. At least, at this point, far more variables than I'm willing to tackle. ;)
-
The results are in, I think. ;)
Below is the actual damage each tank delivers vs OBJ in AH. Figures are rounded down to the nearest pound.
Tiger: 234 dmg
T34/85: 234
M4A3/75: 178
LVT4: 156
Pzr IV: 156
Panther: 156
T34/76: 156
Firefly: 140
M4A3/76: 105
M8: 31
Below are the weights of explosives (predominately TNT), from MOST to LEAST, and a proposed value for each tank based on the formula of the Tiger's 97kg worth of explosives in the actual HE projectile and the 234 damage it has been awarded. The biggest loser would be the T34/85 (-46), and the tank with the biggest gain would be the Firefly (+31 points), otherwise there would not be a huge change, but a change none the less. If the proposals are too far fetched to be considered, I would hope at least the T34/85 would be downsized a wee bit since it simply does not have the HE capability the Tiger does, and the LVT-4 would be given a bump since the HE round the M4A3/75mm M3 L/40 cannon and the LVT-4 75mm M2 howitzer are the exact same. The M4 and LVT platforms differ only in velocity and trajectory, neither of which effect detonation. The 2 items I have not factored in yet are the velocity of the HE rounds and the weight of the actual HE projectile. I'm not under the impression that velocity makes a difference since the HE detonates upon impact. In the case of "APHE", then yes velocity does come into play.
Tiger: 0.97 kg = 234 dmg
T34/85: 0.78 = 188
Firefly: 0.71 = 171
M4/75: 0.68 = 164
LVT4: 0.68 = 164
Pvr IV: 0.66 = 159
T34/76: 0.66 = 159
Panther: 0.61 = 147
M4/76: 0.39 = 94
M8: .039 (yes, as in .039kg TNT) = 31 (no change suggested, but if the formula sticks it would be a 9)
Sources (used them all for cross references):
Tanks of World Wat II, Chris Ellis
Weapons of WWII, Chris Bishop
Sherman, R. Honeycutt
German Armor of WWII, Alvin Johnston
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/tanks-medium/m4.asp
http://www.tarrif.net/
-
coupla (important) things:
1. you're assuming that blast damage is proportional to the charge mass - it isnt. 2x the charge does not do 2x the damage.
2. you're assuming that the shells have the same design and charge compound - they dont. a small difference in the explosive mix can have a large effect on detonation speed and hence blast damage.
the firefly is a good example - great AP rounds, relatively weak HE rounds despite the charge mass. just like IRL.
-
coupla (important) things:
1. you're assuming that blast damage is proportional to the charge mass - it isnt. 2x the charge does not do 2x the damage.
2. you're assuming that the shells have the same design and charge compound - they dont. a small difference in the explosive mix can have a large effect on detonation speed and hence blast damage.
the firefly is a good example - great AP rounds, relatively weak HE rounds despite the charge mass. just like IRL.
Good points. My suggestions were not meant to be the "end all disputes" answer, but rather a starting point or an eye opener. Perhaps someone with a more in depth background on chemistry and/or ordnance will chime in. With my limited knowledge of HE ordnance, I'm just trying to draw parallels between what we are using in AH and what the ordnance actually did. One thing for I hope to accomplish is to spread those HE damage value out a bit.
The one idea I'm still kicking around for a suggestion is to use a sliding scale with the Tiger being at the high end and the M8 being at the low end, all else would all into place proportionately. I'm not a mathematics wizard so I'm trying to figure out the "in between" formula.
Regarding the Firefly and the 17lb'er HE, I'm a bit puzzled on the stats as well. While I've not read that it had a weak HE performance per say, I have read where the 75mm M3 L/40 (or rather the British 75mm Q.F. Mk.V L / 36.5), was more desirable to tank crews for infantry support duties due to less recoil and muzzle blast, ammunition that was easier to obtain (hence the need to be less frugal), and an easier to use gun platform to operate and maintain (one quote made direct mention of the larger and heavier 17lb'er rounds). Ultimately I'm not raising too much of a fuss over the Firefly and the 17lb'er, I'm sure there are more in depth sources out there than what I'm privy to. The T34/85 and the LVT4 are 2 tanks I hope to see adjusted however minute those changes may be. The LVT4 uses the exact same HE shell as the M4A3/75mm and the T34/85 has numbers closer to the 75mm family than it does to the 88mm.
Just food for thought, really. :)
-
One thing for I hope to accomplish is to spread those HE damage value out a bit ... I'm not a mathematics wizard so I'm trying to figure out the "in between" formula.
why would you want to take this artificial approach, rather than trying to make the relative AH performance as close as possible to the real WWII performance? (which I suspect HTC have already done pretty well.)
you might want to first try working out exactly which rounds are modelled in AH. I suspect AH models the earlier, lighter charge 17pdr HE, and you have the charge mass for the later, heavier charge HE. also are you sure AH is modelling the M48 for the LVT, not the 26% lighter charge M41A1? (which does 13% less damage)
-
why would you want to take this artificial approach, rather than trying to make the relative AH performance as close as possible to the real WWII performance? (which I suspect HTC have already done pretty well.)
you might want to first try working out exactly which rounds are modelled in AH. I suspect AH models the earlier, lighter charge 17pdr HE, and you have the charge mass for the later, heavier charge HE. also are you sure AH is modelling the M48 for the LVT, not the 26% lighter charge M41A1? (which does 13% less damage)
All the numbers are artificial in terms of damage in AH. HTC started somewhere and assigned values to particular ordnance based on a formula.
I compared all the HE rounds in AH to the real deal and made assumptions (yeah, I know the dangers of assuming anything), based on printed data and corresponding AH damage values. I did the comparisons on the different HE rounds available to each gun. There is a difference of %14 between LVT-4 and M4A3/75mm damage values (156 vs 178) in AH. The real M48 and M41A1 may have a %34 difference in TNT charge (.68kg v .51kg), but the spread does not fall into place with the AH scaling. So, I -assumed- the LVT-4 was the M48 round AND (no disrespect intended...) that perhaps the LVT4 was forgotten about and not updated when the M4A3/75mm and is new HE stats were added. Again, the whole point of this wish is not to prove fault but rather to give each HE round its due and to spread out the damage values a bit based on the real data we have available. If HTC is willing to go to the extremes to differentiate the minute differences between .30 caliber MG rounds, I would hope they would look upon this wish with favor. :pray :)
I did in fact ask in the wish list previously for AH to identify which ammunition is being used in each vehicle (gv's and aircraft). It would simplify a lot of things and answer a lot of questions. :aok
EDIT: oops, I put that wish in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum. I'm sure it will get moved. :)
EDIT #2: FYI: In AH, the German 28cm rockets that are mounted on the SDdKfz 251 have a HE damage value of 234 just like the Tiger and T34/85. However, it packs a whoppin' 45.4kg worth of TNT. Compare that to the HE shells of the Tiger and T34/85 and someone explain to me how something packed with 4X the amount of explosives could/should have the same damage value in AH. :headscratch: :) All accounts I've read on the 28cm "Wurfkorper" rockets mention how devastating they were albeit a relatively short range (2100 yards).
-
What would be a more realistic damage score for the 21cm rockets? Btwn 800-1000? I would use Sdk all the time if they get fixed!
-
Oops I meant the 28cm rockets. :duh
-
What would be a more realistic damage score for the 21cm rockets? Btwn 800-1000? I would use Sdk all the time if they get fixed!
I'm not sure what to suggest for a HE damage value, but I will suggest it get a sizable bump up. Also, all of the information I've read on the 28cm rockets say that they were not accurate and were used as an "area effect" weapon. I quote the "Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II", page 171, edited by Chris Bishop: "Counterbalancing the inaccuracy of the rockets was the fact that they there were devastating in their effects if they hit their target, and the high explosive rockets was highly regarded for use against urban targets when absolute destruction was a must."
So, one could build a reasonable case for increasing the damage and increasing the accuracy variable significantly.
Currently in AH, once you have your target ranged, you can count on putting all of the rockets in that singular target but with no more effect than that of a Tiger or T34/85 HE round (but MUCH less ammo available).
-
The real M48 and M41A1 may have a %34 difference in TNT charge (.68kg v .51kg), but the spread does not fall into place with the AH scaling.
what exactly do you mean by this? :headscratch: if you think the AH damage values should 34% different, see my point 1. above.
I agree the Sdk rocket damage seems too low though, any idea what the charge was?
-
what exactly do you mean by this? :headscratch: if you think the AH damage values should 34% different, see my point 1. above.
I agree the Sdk rocket damage seems too low though, any idea what the charge was?
The explosive filler was about 107 lbs (roughly about 1/3rd of the explosive filling of a British 1000lbs GP bomb)
However, the effects of cannon shells and ordnance (bombs & rockets) are not to scale. They are two distinct categories, with all gun damage being exaggerated compared to bombs (&rockets):
A 1000lbs bomb does 1000lbs of damage against a single structure (a hangar for example), but a single .50 cal from a GV 1,25lbs, a 20mm Hispano 4.03 lbs, a 88mm 243lbs.
-
what exactly do you mean by this? :headscratch: if you think the AH damage values should 34% different, see my point 1. above.
I agree the Sdk rocket damage seems too low though, any idea what the charge was?
No, I did not say nor imply that the damage values need to be equal in scale, but if you compare TNT charges to AH damage values, you will find a correlation. If you research the most common rounds used for each vehicle/gun, you will find that the real deal correlates to AH's damage values, with exception to the T34/85 and M8. I did find more information online regarding the earlier (and more common) HE round that HTC seems to have modeled for AH, that too falls in line. I'm just not sold on having the Panther, Pzr IV, T34/76, and LVT4 all with the same HE score, nor do i see where the Tiger, T34/85, and 28cm rockets should all have the same HE damage either. FWIW, the only place I remember that the lighter M41A1 75mm HE round be used in any concentration was in the Italian campaign. I will dig and find where I read that tid bit.
The 28cm rockets had 4.46kg of TNT, that is over 4X the amount of explosives in the HE round of either the Tiger or T34/85.
-
The explosive filler was about 107 lbs (roughly about 1/3rd of the explosive filling of a British 1000lbs GP bomb)
However, the effects of cannon shells and ordnance (bombs & rockets) are not to scale. They are two distinct categories, with all gun damage being exaggerated compared to bombs (&rockets):
A 1000lbs bomb does 100lbs of damage against a single structure (a hangar for example), but a single .50 cal from a GV 1,25lbs, a 20mm Hispano 4.03 lbs, a 88mm 243lbs.
You mean 1000lbs does 1000lbs of damage, not 100lbs, right??? I'm guessing it is a typo, just making sure. ;)
-
You mean 1000lbs does 1000lbs of damage, not 100lbs, right??? I'm guessing it is a typo, just making sure. ;)
Yes, typo :)
And
The 28cm rockets had 4.46kg of TNT, that is over 4X the amount of explosives in the HE round of either the Tiger or T34/85.
Isn't correct either, the explosive load was about ten times bigger - 50kg!
-
Yes, typo :)
And
Isn't correct either, the explosive load was about ten times bigger - 50kg!
oops... I misread a decimal place, my bad.... AND a typo on my record as well! :frown: The 28cm rocket had, according to 2 printed sources, 45.4kg worth of TNT.
Metric conversions be damned! Cant the world just do things right and use SAE? ;)
-
However, the effects of cannon shells and ordnance (bombs & rockets) are not to scale. They are two distinct categories, with all gun damage being exaggerated compared to bombs (&rockets):
A 1000lbs bomb does 1000lbs of damage against a single structure (a hangar for example), but a single .50 cal from a GV 1,25lbs, a 20mm Hispano 4.03 lbs, a 88mm 243lbs.
so the Sdk rockets are being modelled on the same scale as air-launched ords, not as ground-launched ords (which seem to be about 5x the damage of the air-launched equivalent)? ie. like a 200lb bomb?
relative to the other HE tanks rounds I reckon it should be ~1,600lb damage. :headscratch:
-
so the Sdk rockets are being modelled on the same scale as air-launched ords, not as ground-launched ords (which seem to be about 5x the damage of the air-launched equivalent)? ie. like a 200lb bomb?
relative to the other HE tanks rounds I reckon it should be ~1,600lb damage. :headscratch:
Only HTC knows how the numbers for the 28cm rockets were dealt. It appears though that the 28cm rockets most certainly are not modeled the same as the other rockets in respect to explosive amount and damage delivered. The 4.5 inch rockets had 1.95kg worth of explosives and it has a damage value of 93. I'll have to look up the info on the other rocket in AH.
-
The 4.5 inch rockets had 1.95kg worth of explosives and it has a damage value of 93.
sure about the 1.95kg? the equivalent brit 3" RP-3 (mossies, typhies etc) had a 60lb warhead, so maybe 30lb of charge?
very cool guncam of a salvo of RP-3s from a 181sqn typhie :D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Hawker_Typhoon_showing_salvo_of_rocket_projectiles.jpg)
-
sure about the 1.95kg? the equivalent brit 3" RP-3 (mossies, typhies etc) had a 60lb warhead, so maybe 30lb of charge?
very cool guncam of a salvo of RP-3s from a 181sqn typhie :D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Hawker_Typhoon_showing_salvo_of_rocket_projectiles.jpg)
Thanks for bringing up another point: HTC is using the 3.5 in rocket for their British aircraft, but yet those seem to be a conversion from a US rocket and Soviet rocket (M8 and RS82), and far more rare on RAF/FFA aircraft (and less effective) than the 3in/60lb rocket that the British normally used. Also, what rocket warhead does AH have represented??? Presumably all of the air to ground rockets in AH are of the HE type, save for the German Pb1, but which type (GP, SAP, HE)? Hence, my wish for having the ammo type spelled out in the hanger. ;)
-
That is interesting test data. I was always under the impression that the LVT-4 did, in fact, have a better HE round in game vs. the panzer. Either that was inadvertently changed, or it is a good example that one's personal experiences are not necessarily accurate reflections of game design.
-
That is interesting test data. I was always under the impression that the LVT-4 did, in fact, have a better HE round in game vs. the panzer. Either that was inadvertently changed, or it is a good example that one's personal experiences are not necessarily accurate reflections of game design.
I don't think anything was changed for the LVT-4's HE damage. I have a print out off the AH Trainer's website from a few years ago and it has the T34/76mm, LVT4 75mm, and the Pzr IV 75mm in one group with 156.2 damage. A big advantage the LVT-4 has vs any other HE vessel is the rate of fire and the trajectory. The ability to lob shells into the target area is often over looked. Being able to shoot over buildings and hedgerows does have it merits.
-
No more comment from HTC regarding the issue? :(
-
We are actually doing some stuff in this area right now. There are some obvious discrepancies that have been pointed out like the 75mm on the LVT and the 28cm rockets on the SdKfz 251. The rockets especially should get some review. I'll take a look at some HE figures as it does need some review but I concur with RTHolmes on the problems of just trying to use explosive filler weights to determine damage. It's a very useful thing to consider but it clearly creates discrepancies when taken at face value. I think something like that may work out better for handling rocket damage.
To give another example of the M4's 75mm, here's a comparison to the 90mm. The 90mm shell had 2.04 lbs of TNT to the 1.47 lbs of TNT in the 75mm. Yet the following data shows the 75mm doing slightly better.
(http://beta.hitechcreations.com/pyro/75mm.jpg)
(http://beta.hitechcreations.com/pyro/90mm.jpg)
On bombs, I intentionally want to keep it simple. The only things we are changing there is adding more bomb shapes to get everything looking correct and putting in a couple new classes of bombs. Right now everything we have is treated as a general purpose bomb which most of them are. We're going to add armor piercing bombs and light case/high capacity bombs as new classes of bombs. In game, the AP bombs will simply do a lot more damage on direct hits but have a vastly diminished blast radius compared to GP bombs. They'll be available on the dive bombers. The light case/high capacity bombs are the opposite with less direct damage and more blast radius compared to GP bombs. The 1800 kg bomb on the Stuka and the 4000 lb cookie are examples of this kind of bomb. This will be a good bomb choice for clustered targets like towns and cities but not as good for a single hard target like the HQ.
-
Nice AP bombs! What about Para Frags? Mr. B25C really needs para frags.
-
Your that anti-grunt? :)
-
Any chance of a centerline 2000lber or DT option coming for the D-Hog...?
-
I was re-reading this thread and I realized I forgot something:
to say "thanks" to Pyro for responding with the update. :) :aok
It will be good to have a damage update for the some of the HE shells, especially for the 28cm rockets from the SdKfz 251. If the 28cm rockets were to have their accuracy decreased, an increase the damage (enough to destroy a typical OBJ that needs 312 lbs worth of ordnance), and perhaps increase the splash damage area (enough to take out 2-4 town buildings in one impact), I believe it would be more accurate to the real thing than what we currently have.
With regards to the 75mm vs 90mm, I'm no chemist or explosives expert, but one could reasonably assert that there are only 2 things that could cause such a minor difference in damages between charges that are %25 different: the quality or mix of the TNT/explosives and the metallurgy, design, or "stoutness" of the HE casing. Also, perhaps the original intention of the design plays an important part in how it performs. The bigger-faster-stronger round may not mean better. ;)
Again, thanks for the update. I, along with many other AH stalwarts look forward to the updates!!!
-
Increased rocket damage on German 28cm, British 60lb, and U.S. Bazooka rockets.
:banana:
-
:banana:
Awesome! Kudos to HTC for adjusting damage. :salute
BTW... testing shows the British 60lb/3in SAP rockets doing 187 lbs worth of damage! :O
I've found that the German 28cm rockets to 285 lbs of damage.
Testing US bazooka rockets now... stand by.... ;)
-
yup me and wilddog just nailed a fresh VH with 2 typhies' rockets, most of mine missed so it was just splash damage.
much more like it :aok
(although 187 still sounds a bit low for the RP-3s :uhoh)
-
Alrighty folks, the tally is in:
The British 3in/60lb SAP (semi-armor piercing) rockets now do 187 lbs of damage, that is an increase of 47 pts. They are now the most powerful air to ground rockets in the game! The US 5in rockets do 154 lbs of damage.
The German 28cm rockets have been upgraded to 285 lbs of damage, that is an increase of 51 points. I did not notice any change in accuracy or splash damage.
The US 4.5in "bazooka" rockets now do 125 lbs of damage, an increase of 32 points (previously they had 93 points). Mind you, these are the same rockets the M4A3 "Calliope" fires as well. Now, instead of 4 rockets to bring down a house it only takes 3.
oh, and HTC, did you guys forget the HE values for the various tanks? ;)