• Registered: 2010-04-01
  • Posts: 35

Topic: Rate of fire over-valued in formula?

Hi guys
I'm in the process of creating values for the Kaiserliche Marine, and I've encountered a bit of a problem. As the thread title suggests, I think the rate of fire modifier is over-valued in the formula for working out the value of the ship. An example is as follows:
 
Magdeburg class CL of 1912 (12x 4.1" guns) is worth 41 points. The same ship with the 1915 refit (7x 5.9" guns) is worth 26 points. It seems the higher ROF modifier of the 4.1" (+3) and short range pen (2) is worth a lot more than the 5.9" (ROF +1, pen 4). Other than adding a couple of 88mm AA guns, the refit ship makes no other changes.

I actually noticed this in a minor way when I was doing the values for the RN, but this example seems a bit extreme. I'm thinking this is also why the German dreadnoughts average value is significantly higher than the RN ones - the German 11" and 12" guns have a ROF of +1, whereas the British have no modifier.

If the 5.9" is a better gun (which it must be otherwise the above refit would not have happened) then the point value should reflect this.

Any thoughts?


Cheers


Bruce

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,575

Re: Rate of fire over-valued in formula?

Well, a couple thoughts come to mind:

1) The point value should reflect a ship's effectiveness in the game, not in reality. Obviously, if the simulation is accurate, the two should be closely correlated, but it's an important distinction to keep in mind.

2) The ROF modifier is based on the fact that a +0 scores a hit 30% of the time at medium range, assuming no modifiers (8 or better on a d10). A +1 ROF scores hits 40% of the time, and is therefore 33% more effective than +0; the point cost reflects this (factor of 4 versus a factor of 3).

3) The 5.9" gun is probably better than the 4.1" on a one-for-one basis, but note you're losing 42% of your damage potential in the conversion (12 guns down to 7).

IMHO, if anything, it's possible that the Penetration values are UNDER-valued, rather than ROF being over-valued.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2010-04-01
  • Posts: 35

Re: Rate of fire over-valued in formula?

It seems that part of the problem was in fact mine - I made a mistake in the DRAT. Point value is in fact 35.

Regarding the loss of loosing damage potential, it is not actually 42%, as the 4.1" ship could fire a broadside of only 6 guns, the 5.9" can fire 5 guns, so the extra guns only come into play if the 4.1" brought the other side to bear.

Perhaps an additional value could be worked into the ship's value to reflect the ships ability to concentrate it's firepower?

Edit: Another hidden advantage the 5.9" ship has over the 4.1" is that it's guns are not hit as often as the 4.1" (1-5 for 5.9, 1-9 for the 4.1). The 4.1" would (in theory) rapidly become combat ineffective, whereas the 5.9" would last somewhat longer. It seems that the point formula doesn't account for this.

Cheers


Bruce

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,575

Re: Rate of fire over-valued in formula?

brucesim2003 wrote:

Perhaps an additional value could be worked into the ship's value to reflect the ships ability to concentrate it's firepower?

Well, in theory, this is accounted for by using the number of firing arcs each gun can cover in the point cost formula.

Edit: Another hidden advantage the 5.9" ship has over the 4.1" is that it's guns are not hit as often as the 4.1" (1-5 for 5.9, 1-9 for the 4.1). The 4.1" would (in theory) rapidly become combat ineffective, whereas the 5.9" would last somewhat longer. It seems that the point formula doesn't account for this.

No, the formula does not explicitly account for this -- but that's because all ships lose their guns at the same rate, proportionally speaking.

For example, Iron Duke has 24 hull points and 10 guns in its main battery, for a loss factor of 30%. When Iron Duke suffers 50% damage, in theory it will have lost 3.6 guns, or 36% of the total.

If you reduce the number of guns to 7, for example, the loss factor is reduced to 20%. When Iron Duke suffers 50% damage, in theory it will have lost 2.8 guns, or 40%.

Likewise, If you increase the number of guns to 15, the loss factor is increased to 40%. When Iron Duke suffers 50% damage, in theory it will have lost 4.8 guns, or 32%.

There's some variation due to rounding, but in general the rate at which guns are lost should remain constant.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website