Gun size vs damage output misconception (SOLVED)

[mmmbeer]

Edit: (SOLVED) Thanks to ezymodo; it seems that radius of explosive destruction are equal to the cube root of the amount of explosives. If you compare the cube root values of the different calibers amount of explosives, the in-game max damage variations seems to be relatively close to those variations. Resulting in the max damage numbers in game being not far from realistic theory about damage radius.

 

 

It seems that the developers have misunderstood an important concept about ammunition and gun size.

 

Example from Japanese tech three.

Mogami 155mm guns; HE shells max damage 2600HP.

Mogami 203mm guns; HE shells max damage 3300HP.

 

You increase the caliber by roughly 30% and then you increase the damage ouput also with about 30%. This would seem like a relatively correct damage increase if you look at the caliber increase right? 

 

The problem is that this is wrong!  The caliber is the diameter of the gun and not the total size of anything. When you increase this from 155mm to 203mm you get about double the size of the projectile. Not a mere 1/3 increase in firepower like the caliber numbers might suggest.

 

155mm shell weighs around 56kg (about 3kg of explosives inside. Japanese HE-shell).

203mm shell weighs around 110kg (about 7kg of explosives inside. Japanese HE-shell).

 

That is about 100% increase, not 30% as the caliber increase and hence the in-game damage increase has been set to.

 

I think this basic mathematical misconception is why we see the light guns are so much more effective than they should be compared to the larger guns. Historical reload times have been implemented, but we have only a very small increase in damage potential when we move up to larger guns with much slower reload times.This means that this "upgrade" to larger guns actually provides you with less firepower in-game.

 

Which again is why we see such abominations in game as the Mogami being much more effective with its small guns compared to its large guns which should be a massive upgrade where it not for this developer error.

 

Edit;

Source for info.

155mm guns; Ref; http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_61-60_3ns.htm

203mm gun; Ref; http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_79-50_3ns.htm

[Takeda92]

Let's not talk about Yamato's HE shell compared to a 16" HE shell!

[Userext]

I think this basic mathematical misconception is why we see the light guns are so much more effective than they should be compared to the larger guns. Historical reload times have been implemented, but we have only a very small increase in damage potential when we move up to larger guns with much slower reload times.

 

I heard from others that CAs have issues inside but having a heavier shell doesnt automatically means it has more explosive in it.

But by your logic a yamato shell(that weighs 1.5 ton) should do 15 time more damage a 203mm shell can do right? But mogami 203mm has 4.7k max damage per shell. That would mean yamato shells must have 70.5k damage per shell

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_18_inch_Mk_I_naval_gun

[mmmbeer]

Yamato HE shells had 62 kg of explosives in it. Iowa HE shells had actually more with 69kg. While a japanese 155mm have around 3kg. 

 

Its about 1700% more explosives in the Yamato HE shells compared to the 155mm shell. Yet the damage in this game is about 180% more only.

 

Something is wrong in the game and it is the fact that the developers thought that caliber is the total size which you can use directly for reference to damage.

[Userext]

Yamato HE shells had 62 kg of explosives in it. Iowa HE shells had actually more with 69kg. While a 155mm have around 7kg. 

 

Its about 800% more explosives in the Yamato HE shells compared to the 155mm shell. .Yet the damage in this game is about 180% more only.

 

Something is wrong in the game and it is the fact that the developers thought that caliber is the total size which you can use directly for reference to damage.

 

That "wrong thing" is baalnce my friend. Tell me the explosives in 155mm and 203mm ones

[mmmbeer]

I added more info in the first post. Including explosive content.

 

No; this is not balance. It seems to me it is a misconception, an honest error made. This is because the damage numbers closely follow the caliber increase, they must believe that the caliber is the "size" of the gun directly, and thusly based the damage simulation on it.

 

An honest error made, but someone used to guns would understand that if you double the caliber you do NOT merely double the firepower.

[Vaderan]

Usually i tend to disagree with Userext or have a different opinion, but he got a point in this one.

 

This is still an arcade game, and there have to be changes to adapt to the game´s concept. Thats why we see faster torpedo reload and refueled planes within a minute, or secondary batteries engaging at 5 kilometres, instead of 15 or 20.

 

While scaling damage potential on calibre size seems flawed, scaling it on the ammount of explosives per shell would be flawed aswell. It starts at the point where a 40+ cm guns would receive the damage potential to devastate anything (including most other BBs) with a single shell (potentially) on the one hand, or reducing the small calibre guns to a level where they wouldn´t do any significant damage at all, and would end with the confusing result, that HE shells would cause more damage compared to AP shells, since AP shells countain less explosives.

A change to this mechanic would require a complete rework of the damage system aswell. All classes despite heavily armored BBs would suffer from this "new" HE mechanic, since the impact and explosion of the shells would wreak havoc among low armored sections or ships. while BBs would only suffer superficial damage.

 

In addition, i can recall players complaining about many things, but shell damage was never a big issue. There are other things that deserve by far more attention, so why change a basically functioning system?

[mr3awsome]

If they change it, I can't weight to see people cry when they find out KGV's AP shells have more TNT equivalent than Iowa. 

[mmmbeer]

Yes, of course one can balance plus and minus. But when the whole concept of HP damage is based on the caliber and not shell weight that is not balance but a HUGE and general misconception.

 

If you keep this misconception the smaller the gun the better it would be. A machine gun with its small bullets and huge reload time would have the most damage per minute of all guns in game.

 

But you can atleast agree that this mechanic  is why smaller guns are more effective than larger guns in game? 

 

Did players not complain about large guns being nutered?

[Userext]

I dont think this is an error. 155 to 203 might need to be tweaked but i doubt they will change the damage in anyway.

[EsaTuunanen]

You increase the caliber by roughly 30% and then you increase the damage ouput also with about 30%. This would seem like a relatively correct damage increase if you look at the caliber increase right?

 

That is more than 100% increase, not 30% as the caliber increase and hence the in-game damage increase has been set to.

Just doubling the explosive power doesn't double area of destruction because of force of explosion spreading in all three dimensions...

With half or more usually spreading to wrong directions anyway.

Physical impact relying armor penetration capability again scales very effectively with mass of projectile.

(and then internal lot smaller explosion having lot higher damage capability than external big explosion)

[mmmbeer]

Can you at least agree that it is ridiculous that we have more firepower the smaller the gun is?

 

Then I can agree that a game developer might balance his game any way he wants.

[Userext]

 

As you can see at the average damage output i doubt this will happen

If you keep this misconception the smaller the gun the better it would be. A machine gun with its small bullets and huge reload time would have the most damage per minute of all guns in game.

 

But you can atleast agree that this mechanic  is why smaller guns are more effective than larger guns in game? 

 

Stats says no

[mmmbeer]

Just doubling the explosive power doesn't double area of destruction because of force of explosion spreading in all three dimensions...

With half or more usually spreading to wrong directions anyway.

Physical impact relying armor penetration capability again scales very effectively with mass of projectile.

(and then internal lot smaller explosion having lot higher damage capability than external big explosion)

 

Do you then think it is OK that a 203mm shell does 30% more damage than a 155mm shell? Or do you just have to disagree?

 

You can not possibly claim that and remain serious. Please guys stop disagreeing only to disagree.

[mmmbeer]

Stats says no

Those graphs represent more than the damage done by the shells themselves. A ship with large guns tend to have more HP and stay alive longer, thusly being able to deal more damage in a battle. You would need a graph that shows damage per shell fired for it to be relevant here.

 

I am talking now purely about the shells and their damage output.  I have found an error and proved it beyond doubt. But even this some people must disagree on. Having opinions about arcade and balance is one thing, but you can not disagree on the error on using caliber as total size damage-vice.

 

[Userext]

Those graphs represent more than the damage done by the shells themselves. A ship with large guns tend to have more HP and stay alive longer, thusly being able to deal more damage in a battle.

 

I am talking now purely about the shells and their damage output.  I have found and error and proved it beyond doubt. But even this some people must disagree on. Having opinions about arcade and balance is one thing, but you can not disagree on the error on using caliber as total size damage-vice.

 

Buddy there is a diffrence between raw damage output and actual damage output. A yamato can fire its 9 guns and those 9 shells have the ability to one shot a yamato if all hits citadel. But this is where the actual damage output gets in. There is no chance one can score 9 citadel hits to a yamato in his yamato. 

 

Balance system works on actual damage output which is obviously diffrent here. At those tiers to do good damage you will need 203mm instead of 155mm due to the penetration it has. Its your choice when it comes down the throath. But i am certain that if two mogamis(155vs203) would fight the 203mm one would win. Considering both knows how to use their ship at same level. 203mm will give you more citadel hits while 155 can not.

 

 

[mmmbeer]

The point I made in this thread is why players of the Mogami use the stock guns to better effect than the large guns. Because the reload time is historic, but the damage output is fictional/based on an error.

 

Why would we want balance to be done in such a way that it reverts the whole concept of gunfire on its head? That the smaller the gun is (and better reload) the more firepower they have? When this is not how it is in reality. Why not balance it some other way but, keep the time proven concept that a big gun have more firepower than a small gun. I even showed you exactly where the devs made the mistake that causes this, and yet you disagree in an endless amount of ways.

 

Sometimes I think you guys just disagree to troll.

[mmmbeer]

Balance system works on actual damage output which is obviously diffrent here. At those tiers to do good damage you will need 203mm instead of 155mm due to the penetration it has. Its your choice when it comes down the throath. But i am certain that if two mogamis(155vs203) would fight the 203mm one would win. Considering both knows how to use their ship at same level. 203mm will give you more citadel hits while 155 can not.

 

 

This is just not true.

 

HE damage and fires is why a 155mm spamming the superstructure of anything have the highest reliable dpm in this game. Not counting the lucky once in a day salvo that gets 3 citadel hits with AP, but consistent and reliable (average) damage.

 

Of course the lucky battle someone had yesterday when oneshotting a BB with AP  have the most DPM. But you can not count such random lucky event. 

[Userext]

The point I made in this thread is why players of the Mogami use the stock guns to better effect than the large guns. Because the reload time is historic, but the damage output is fictional/based on an error.

 

Why would we want balance to be done in such a way that it reverts the whole concept of gunfire on its head? That the smaller the gun is (and better reload) the more firepower they have? When this is not how it is in reality. Why not balance it some other way but, keep the time proven concept that a big gun have more firepower than a small gun.

 

Sometimes I think you guys just disagree to troll.

 

dude -.- 203 has more penetration therefore more citadels. If you want to spam HE fine go ahead.

The important part IS NEVER the potential damage. If we would look into that

Shimakaze has 2.30min reload wirth 15 torpedoes that does 23k damage

 

In whole game shimakaze has potential to do 2.76M damage while a yamato has 5.328M damage. But shimakaze's torpedoes are 630mm and yamato has 460mm

is it unfair?

[Userext]

This is just not true.

 

HE damage and fires is why a 155mm spamming the superstructure of anything have the highest reliable dpm in this game. Not counting the lucky once in a day salvo that gets 3 citadel hits with AP, but consistent and reliable (average) damage.

 

Of course the lucky battle someone had yesterday when oneshotting a BB with AP  have the most DPM. But you can not count such random lucky event. 

 

are you a nonbrainer HE spammer?

[ttchip]

This is just not true.

 

HE damage and fires is why a 155mm spamming the superstructure of anything have the highest reliable dpm in this game. Not counting the lucky once in a day salvo that gets 3 citadel hits with AP, but consistent and reliable (average) damage.

 

Of course the lucky battle someone had yesterday when oneshotting a BB with AP  have the most DPM. But you can not count such random lucky event. 

 

If that was the case, CAs would have the highest average damage figures in this game. Needless to say, they don't.

 

You're right, though. Damage scaling makes no sense right now. This is not really an issue, however, as it doesn't need to make sense for game balance to work out decently well.

[mmmbeer]

This thread was about HE damage. You are the one that brought AP into this. Needless to say AP-mechanics is more complicated.

 

Please at least agree with me on the FACT that 203mm HE shells should do more than 30% more damage than a 155mm HE shell.

 

If you cant do that then i can not take you seriously.

[mmmbeer]

 

are you a nonbrainer HE spammer?

 

He-spamming is not always "nobrain". Having the Murmansk for instance you don't fire AP at battleships. When I spam battleships with HE from my Murmansk its an unrealistic carnage of hell raining down on them. And i'm not going to mention the fire-dmg.

 

You should be careful about using words such as "nobrainer". I don't want to make this a personal discussion of you where I look at your stats and find out how well  or bad you play. Please keep to the facts I posted about the shells. Can you do that?

[Userext]

 

He-spamming is not always "nobrain". Having the Murmansk for instance you don't fire AP at battleships. When I spam battleships with HE from my Murmansk its an unrealistic carnage of hell raining down on them. And i'm not going to mention the fire-dmg.

 

You should be careful about using words such as "nobrainer". I don't want to make this a personal discussion of you where I look at your stats and find out how well you play. Please keep to the facts I posted about the shells. Can you do that?

 

HE spamming means spam HE all battle. 

This is why AP is more important than HE

At the end enemy's 2 CVs run into me which i used HE on them. The reason why i have such high HE damage.

 

I am not a CA player and i was a no brainer HE spammer

 

until someone said use AP instead of HE you will do a lot of damage

Edit: the one below belongs to another person. Its not same with the one above

[Hauptbahnhof]

It's hard to talk about damage without also looking at hitpoints.

 

 

If hitpoints were scaled by tonnage then it would look like this ( using Mogami as baseline ):

DD Minekaze 1700 ton full load = 6000 hp ( 3.55 hp/ton)
CA Mogami 11000 ton full load = 39100 hp ( 3.55 hp/ton)

BB North Carolina 45000 ton full load = 160000 hp ( 3.55 hp/ton)
BB Yamato 73000 ton full load = 259500 hp ( 3.55 hp/ton)


As you can see Battleships would be unsinkable beasts and Destroyers would be fragile like paper and one hit by everything if using "realistic" hitpoints numbers.

 

So since the hitpoints are normalized so all ships are more even, damage output also needs to be more normalized so ships are more even. This is a gamebalance issue to make all ship types playable and fun.