To Hit Numbers

[miketr]

Take the final number and divide it by 10 to come up with a percentage.  You can generate 10 - 15% hit numbers at short range with good FC.  The chart is a result of my latest battle, I didn't use it there, but saw more problems.  The issue is trying to factor in things like the various FC generations to make a one covers all system.  Another problem with SeeKrieg is ships are too fragile, give high to hit numbers at short range and DD's become useless as they are just chewed to bits.

Looking for comments.

Michael 

1.   Target Size (standard disp * 0.033)
   01-20            -10
   21-40            -5
   41-80            -3
   81-200         0
   201-500         +3
   501-1000         +5
   1001 +         +10

2.   Bearing from Target
   Pos. A [0? - 15?]         0
   Pos. B [16? - 45?]         +8
   Pos. C [46? - 90?]         +15

3.   Range to Target
   < 4,000 Yards         +40
   4,100 to 6,000 Yards      +35
   6,100 to 8,000 Yards      +30
   8,100 to 10,000 Yards      +25
   10,100 to 12,000 Yards      +20
   12,100 to 14,000 Yards      +15
   14,100 to 16,000 Yards      +10   
   16,100 to 18,000 Yards      +05
   18,100 to 20,000 Yards      +00
   20,100 to 25,000 Yards      -05
   25,100 to 30,000 Yards      -15
   30,100 Yards >         -30

4.   Speed of Target
   < 5 knots         +15
   5 – 10 knots         +10
   11 – 15 knots         +05
   16 – 20 knots         +00
   21 – 25 knots         -03   
   26 – 30 knots         -05
   31 – 35 knots         -08
   36 > knots         -12

5.   Fire Control
   1880's, Local Spot      -40
   1880's, Top Spot         -35
   1895, Local Spot         -20
   1895, Top Spot         -10
   FC – 1908, Local RF      +05
   FC – 1908, Director RF      +10
   FC – 1912, Local RF      +15
   FC – 1912, Director RF      +20
   FC – 1918, DCT         +25
   FC – 1930, FC Local RF      +30
   FC – 1930, FC computer system   +40

6.   Radar FC
   Radar 1            +15
   Radar 2            +30
   Radar 3            +45                     
7.    Over Concentration
   1 ship only firing at target      +0
   2-3 ships firing at target      -5
   4+ ships firing at target      -10

8. Firing Effects
Firing ship not under fire      +5
Firing ship hit last turn      -5
Target ship hit last turn      +5
New Target         -15
Spotter Aircraft         +10

9. Evasive Maneuvers
Target only in E.M.      -5
Firing ship only in E.M.      -10
Both ships in E.M.      -15

10. Smoke Screens
Target Behind Funnel Smoke   -5
Target Behind Chemical Screen   -15

11. Sea State
Beaufort 0 to 6         +0
Beaufort 7 (ships under 200 DP)   -4
Beaufort 8 (ships under 400 DP)   -8
Beaufort 9 (ships under 600 DP)   -14
Beaufort 10 (all ships)      -30

12. Visibility
Daytime (radar negates)
Code 9 (exceptionally clear)   +4
Code 8 (very clear)      +0
Code 7 (clear)         -4
Code 5-6 (haze)         -8
Fog            -16

   Morning  / Twilight
   Target burning or silhouetted   +2
   Target in darkness      -10
   Neither of above         -4

   Night
   No Moon         -18
   Moonlight         -9
   Target Afire or silhouetted      +2
   Target illuminated by search light   +0
   Target using a search light      -4
   Target in starshell      -2

13. Crew Grade / Ship Quality
Firing ship has 70% steadiness   +10
Crack Gunnery Ship (see GM)   +10
Green Crew         -20         

[Sachmle]

I see a rating for the target ships position relative to the firing ship, but not it's aspect. I.e. Off the beam, but running head on to or from the firing ship would be harder to hit than directly ahead, but perpendicular IMHO.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I did a battle recently, and so re-learned Seekrieg IV.

More faults than I recall. Lot more work to run fleet actions than 1:1 fights like I used to as well.

I see your chart is slightly different. For Fire control I was using my suggestion of Navalism FC range = +6% and modifying up and down based on range from there.

The high TH numbers Seekrieg gives are somewhat ameliorated by the firing charts. Even when TH was +41, the most # shells in a 10 shell volley was 3, and usually only 1. If anything, the # of hits seemed a bit low at times, though part of that is the TH# was often negative for many ships...so they didn't do well.

I was thinking both stability >1 and additional comp hull should count as multipliers for DP..and that DP should be based off of light disp, as I don't buy that big fuel tanks make for a more inherently tough vessel.

Damage allocation and types was really the stuff I found annoying when running the battle.

[P3D]

A +41 TH modifier in Seekrieg is +4.1% to hit chance.
Below is a table, with hit chances calculated by a probabilistic model. The Navalism table is for the 8k-12k FC.
"Benchmarked" based on Bill Jurens' article on navweaps.

[P3D]

Japanese guns against "Richelieu", assuming a good FC solution (no spotting range limitation).

Range,yds    18.1"    16.1"    14"    8"    6.1"    MAX/MIN
5000    96.78%    96.42%    95.65%    96.07%    97.38%    102%
10000    40.47%    39.55%    37.68%    34.50%    32.18%    126%
15000    18.39%    17.77%    16.68%    14.06%    12.28%    150%
20000    9.93%    9.51%       8.91%    7.32%    6.52%    152%
25000    5.96%    5.71%       5.36%    4.46%    4.07%    147%
30000    3.88%    3.72%       3.51%    2.98%             130%
35000    2.69%    2.59%       2.45%                   110%
40000    1.96%    1.88%                               104%

[miketr]

P3D the net result is you make torpedo's USELESS.  Anything over 20% and don't even bother.

A custom to-hit table for each gun is NOT worth it.  Paper work load is way to high.  You need a one chart to hit system.

This is a place were realism collapses, very badly, in the face of playability.  

Michael

[TexanCowboy]

There's a neat little program over at WPDB that some guy made that's fairly decent at estimating hits vs. manuevers, etc....just no torpedoes yet. :(

It's sorta like you are controlling the ship, where it fires, etc., in a "MMO" sort of way.

[P3D]

Part of the reason why I studied this was to see how much effect the gun has in the hit chance - as it appears, not that much, so tabulating a single exponential curve should work.

As far as I know, the mathematical model is pretty solid andparameters can be adjusted to provide similar to OTL results.

P3D the net result is you make torpedo's USELESS.  Anything over 20% and don't even bother.

A custom to-hit table for each gun is NOT worth it.  Paper work load is way to high.  You need a one chart to hit system.

This is a place were realism collapses, very badly, in the face of playability.  

Michael

[Logi]

There's a neat little program over at WPDB that some guy made that's fairly decent at estimating hits vs. manuevers, etc....just no torpedoes yet. :(

It's sorta like you are controlling the ship, where it fires, etc., in a "MMO" sort of way.

We can outdo him if we work on it! ;D

[miketr]

Part of the reason why I studied this was to see how much effect the gun has in the hit chance - as it appears, not that much, so tabulating a single exponential curve should work.

As far as I know, the mathematical model is pretty solid andparameters can be adjusted to provide similar to OTL results.

Its not a question of being solid its a question of it being usable without turning small ships into scrap metal.  Jutland hit percentages were in the 2-3% range for example.

At Denmark Straight Bismark got 3 hits in 24 shots on Hood from 15,700 meters and beyond (12.5%).   Bismark fired 80 shots at Prince of Wales from less than 15,000 meters and got 4 hits (5%).  (The 104 shots assumes all salvo's fired on time, there were 11 missed shots for whatever reason).

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/bisdenmarkstraitbattle.html

So your hit percentages, look way too high for real world events.

Are you suggesting a to hit table based upon each generation of fire control?  THAT would be much more reasonable.

Michael

[miketr]

There's a neat little program over at WPDB that some guy made that's fairly decent at estimating hits vs. manuevers, etc....just no torpedoes yet. :(

It's sorta like you are controlling the ship, where it fires, etc., in a "MMO" sort of way.

The issue we have in Navalism is we need to be able to handle up to a dozen capital ships in big fights and dozens of cruisers and destroyers.  We need something fast and generic.

Michael

[P3D]

Bismarck vs. Hood was at 17-21,000+ yards, from my table the approximately 11-12% hit chance is dead-on.
Bismarck vs. PoW can be explained by the need to generate brand new FC solution to switch fire, then the sudden turn by the latter.

My WWI figures has 1-4% hit chances at 10-15,000 yards. That is in agreement with Jutland, or even underestimating actual hit percentage, but I don't have the gunnery details accessible right now. And even such low hit percentages should result in devastating close-range fire turning a head-on destroyer charge into seafloor features.
I see no problem with that, and this might be one reason why OTL navies thought that 6-7 gun secondary broadside is adequate against DD charges.
Personally, I'd prefer that my 40,000t battleship won't be overmatched by 10,000t of destroyers charging at it during daylight.

Looking at those numbers I posted (the detailed calculation is on my home computer), hit chance in WWII (~exp(-0.1 x Range in ky)) dropped half as fast as in WWI (~exp(-0.25 x Range in ky)).

You could use a single tabulated ToHit-Range exponential. Here all modifiers would affect hit chance by increasing/decreasing the "effective range". Every km (or 1000yards) would decrease hit chance by around 10%. Each point of "to hit modifiers" would similarly decrease/increase hit chance by the same 10%.

This would also favor small ships a bit compared to a more accurate estimate, although would still be much worse than Seekrieg capping hit chances at 5-10%.

Part of the reason why I studied this was to see how much effect the gun has in the hit chance - as it appears, not that much, so tabulating a single exponential curve should work.

As far as I know, the mathematical model is pretty solid andparameters can be adjusted to provide similar to OTL results.

Its not a question of being solid its a question of it being usable without turning small ships into scrap metal.  Jutland hit percentages were in the 2-3% range for example.

At Denmark Straight Bismark got 3 hits in 24 shots on Hood from 15,700 meters and beyond (12.5%).   Bismark fired 80 shots at Prince of Wales from less than 15,000 meters and got 4 hits (5%).  (The 104 shots assumes all salvo's fired on time, there were 11 missed shots for whatever reason).

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/bisdenmarkstraitbattle.html

So your hit percentages, look way too high for real world events.

Are you suggesting a to hit table based upon each generation of fire control?  THAT would be much more reasonable.

Michael

[miketr]

Bismarck vs. Hood was at 17-21,000+ yards, from my table the approximately 11-12% hit chance is dead-on.
Bismarck vs. PoW can be explained by the need to generate brand new FC solution to switch fire, then the sudden turn by the latter.

Except Bismarck only had 3 Salvo's on Hood and didn't have trouble, yes switching fire is a problem but there was more to it than that. 

The British return fire at Denmark Straights wasn't that impressive.

My WWI figures has 1-4% hit chances at 10-15,000 yards. That is in agreement with Jutland, or even underestimating actual hit percentage, but I don't have the gunnery details accessible right now. And even such low hit percentages should result in devastating close-range fire turning a head-on destroyer charge into seafloor features.
I see no problem with that, and this might be one reason why OTL navies thought that 6-7 gun secondary broadside is adequate against DD charges.
Personally, I'd prefer that my 40,000t battleship won't be overmatched by 10,000t of destroyers charging at it during daylight.

If the BB is without any Escorts then it should odds are have real problems P3D when it has to try to take out 5 to 10 targets before they can close to Torp Range.

Looking at those numbers I posted (the detailed calculation is on my home computer), hit chance in WWII (~exp(-0.1 x Range in ky)) dropped half as fast as in WWI (~exp(-0.25 x Range in ky)).

You could use a single tabulated ToHit-Range exponential. Here all modifiers would affect hit chance by increasing/decreasing the "effective range". Every km (or 1000yards) would decrease hit chance by around 10%. Each point of "to hit modifiers" would similarly decrease/increase hit chance by the same 10%.

This would also favor small ships a bit compared to a more accurate estimate, although would still be much worse than Seekrieg capping hit chances at 5-10%.

SeeKrieg caps at 14%

Part of the reason why I studied this was to see how much effect the gun has in the hit chance - as it appears, not that much, so tabulating a single exponential curve should work.

As far as I know, the mathematical model is pretty solid andparameters can be adjusted to provide similar to OTL results.

Again P3D and with respect math models aren't the issue here, playability is.  They are separate if related problems.

Besides the exponent what else goes into the to hit numbers you provided?

Michael

[Nobody]

I haven't read everything that has been written here, and without any knowledge about Seekrieg the tables aren't really helping either.

Anyway a few things that caught my eye:
1) As far as I know, Bismarck fired a total of 91 shells vs Hood and PoW.
2) The British ships opened fire 6 minutes before the German ships returned it. I think it's safe to assume that Bismarck had a solid fire solution vs Hood. Also neither side changed course before Hood blew up, right? After that, PoW had to make "fierce" (is that the right word?) maneuvers to evade the sinking Hood and wreckage, while the German ships feared a Torpedo attack and decided to Zig-Zag. Furthermore, smoke (from Hood) might have hindered switching targets and some shells were also in flight while Hood was already sinking. It doesn't change much but hit-rates could have been slightly higher than your estimate mike.


Personally I would still like to write a program which takes most of the "bookkeeping" from whoever has to sim it. And preferable calculate the necessary tables modified to the current simulation.

[miketr]

Problem with book keeping is you are going to have to track lots of ships no matter what and need to have the fight on a useful surface so short of using Fighting Steel its a bit of a problem.


All you ever wanted to know on Battle of Denmark Straights.

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/bisdenmarkstraitbattle.html

Michael