Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
tyinnow

Destroyer AP seems to be directly influenced by kinetic energy

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

57
[M_S]
Members
368 posts
3,887 battles

Not news, but proof to ponder. This is a sequel to the graph I made in the Italian line discussion and reposted here. The correlation is much stronger for the former than the latter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
64
[SCCC]
[SCCC]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
159 posts
5,831 battles

So we should use floppy shells, for more kinetic energy?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
336 posts
18,134 battles

What are the units for axis of your graph? Also anything that moves has kinetic energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[WOLFC]
Members
614 posts
5,087 battles

What are we looking at? And is this really anything new? Isn't the penetration of all AP in this game affected by, among other factors, the size of the shell (mass) and velocity (muzzle velocity + distance + drag), i.e. kinetic energy?

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
145
[KNCOL]
Members
136 posts
5,060 battles

The penetration values of all AP shells in the game are influenced by kinetic energy. There are other factors as well, such as the hardness of the shell (Krupp), and the auto bounce check (60 degrees standard, 67.5 degrees for US cruiser super heavy AP), but I thought this was already well known, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
900 posts
3,912 battles

Am I dumb or isnt that obvious? 

If I hit you with a 1 pound shell at 5 miles per hour or a 100 pound shell at 1000 miles per hour the bigger faster shell is going to hurt more because mass/velocity blah blah = kinetic energy in science talk 

 

Edit:  this rule doesnt seem to apply to only destroyers. An example is the BB Mutsu has 410mm guns at T6 and they are absolute turds because they seem to have bottle rockets for propellant

Edited by T_O_dubl_D
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
753
[DAKI]
Beta Testers
3,201 posts
4,719 battles
50 minutes ago, tyinnow said:

Not news, but proof to ponder. This is a sequel to the graph I made in the Italian line discussion and reposted here. The correlation is much stronger for the former than the latter.

 

damage is done based purely on a formula.

if you had just asked i wouldve given it to you

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,516
[SYN]
Members
15,352 posts
12,506 battles

Give him a break guys, he's figuring out the game on his own and his conclusion was correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[M_S]
Members
368 posts
3,887 battles
16 hours ago, Amgen said:

So we should use floppy shells, for more kinetic energy?

No. Sure, that would increase the velocity, but the explosive powder-turned-gas would still deliver the same amount of energy.

16 hours ago, T_O_dubl_D said:

Am I dumb or isnt that obvious? 

If I hit you with a 1 pound shell at 5 miles per hour or a 100 pound shell at 1000 miles per hour the bigger faster shell is going to hurt more because mass/velocity blah blah = kinetic energy in science talk 

 

Edit:  this rule doesnt seem to apply to only destroyers. An example is the BB Mutsu has 410mm guns at T6 and they are absolute turds because they seem to have bottle rockets for propellant

Yes, it is. I simply quantified it for destroyers. Kirov would be an outlier on this graph.

16 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

damage is done based purely on a formula.

if you had just asked i wouldve given it to you

That would be nice! Except I did not know you before you were here.

16 hours ago, SoftAndCute said:

What are the units for axis of your graph? Also anything that moves has kinetic energy.

For the AP graph: half-joules (I know I'm sloppy) versus damage

For the HE graph: kg versus units of 1000 damage.

16 hours ago, Sweaty_Anime_Girls said:

The penetration values of all AP shells in the game are influenced by kinetic energy. There are other factors as well, such as the hardness of the shell (Krupp), and the auto bounce check (60 degrees standard, 67.5 degrees for US cruiser super heavy AP), but I thought this was already well known, isn't it?

I haven't got there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
485
[UFFA]
Members
1,694 posts
72 battles
14 hours ago, MrDeaf said:

Give him a break guys, he's figuring out the game on his own and his conclusion was correct.

I'm sure he's read all the great threads before posting. fnord's work, fr0sty, downloaded the github code, etc.

 

 


 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
753
[DAKI]
Beta Testers
3,201 posts
4,719 battles
6 hours ago, tyinnow said:

That would be nice! Except I did not know you before you were here.

I am the keeper of game mechanics. believe it or not there are a massive amount of formulas used to keep this game together, I'm just a librarian holding onto them.

Fire Chance: 5.0447 X (Bursting charge mass (kg) ^ 0.4612)

HE Damage: 886.3 X ((Shell weight (kg) X Bursting charge mass (kg)) ^ 0.1658)

AP Damage: 18.588 x ((Shell weight (kg) x muzzle velocity in m/s) ^ 0.4787)

20 hours ago, MrDeaf said:

Give him a break guys, he's figuring out the game on his own and his conclusion was correct.

sort of...the damage formula uses shell weight as part of the formula. but i mean you can see that above.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,758
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,668 posts
2,114 battles
2 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

I am the keeper of game mechanics. believe it or not there are a massive amount of formulas used to keep this game together, I'm just a librarian holding onto them.

Fire Chance: 5.0447 X (Bursting charge mass (kg) ^ 0.4612)

HE Damage: 886.3 X ((Shell weight (kg) X Bursting charge mass (kg)) ^ 0.1658)

AP Damage: 18.588 x ((Shell weight (kg) x muzzle velocity in m/s) ^ 0.4787)

sort of...the damage formula uses shell weight as part of the formula. but i mean you can see that above.

It also should be noted that destroyer HE damage is tied to caliber, not formula - but otherwise these are generally accurate, barring national flavor shenanigans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
753
[DAKI]
Beta Testers
3,201 posts
4,719 battles
Just now, Phoenix_jz said:

It also should be noted that destroyer HE damage is tied to caliber, not formula - but otherwise these are generally accurate, barring national flavor shenanigans. 

how so, always looking to add to the books

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[M_S]
Members
368 posts
3,887 battles

I know that there are inconsistencies (Kirov would be a huge outlier on this chart) , but I was just estimating here. Indeed, a power relationship looks like a linear one up close, which is indeed what I did.

This is actually because I do not know how to work both detailed stats and power relationships and a graph together. 

1 hour ago, Hanger_18 said:

Shell weight (kg) x muzzle velocity in m/s

Also, that's momentum, not kinetic energy. Thank you though :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
913
[WOLF2]
Members
3,693 posts
15,360 battles
11 hours ago, Sparviero said:

I'm sure he's read all the great threads before posting. fnord's work, fr0sty, downloaded the github code, etc.

 

Here's my formula … 

Point + Shoot = Blow Stuff Up 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
485
[UFFA]
Members
1,694 posts
72 battles
7 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

It also should be noted that destroyer HE damage is tied to caliber, not formula - but otherwise these are generally accurate, barring national flavor shenanigans. 

Japan says “why hellooooo there!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,758
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,668 posts
2,114 battles
13 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

how so, always looking to add to the books

Setting aside Japan (boosted HE damage) and Germany (nerfed HE damage);

 

100mm: 1200
102mm: 1500
113mm: 1700
120mm: 1700
127mm: 1800
130mm: 1900
139mm: 2000

 

6 hours ago, Sparviero said:

Japan says “why hellooooo there!”

:Smile_great: Esattamente.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
160 posts
2,103 battles
On 4/25/2019 at 3:00 PM, Sparviero said:

I'm sure he's read all the great threads before posting. fnord's work, fr0sty, downloaded the github code, etc.

 

 


 

Thanks for the link.  Do you have links to the rest of these great threads?

On 4/25/2019 at 8:58 PM, Hanger_18 said:

I am the keeper of game mechanics. believe it or not there are a massive amount of formulas used to keep this game together, I'm just a librarian holding onto them.

I've been looking for this kind of thing.  Is there a "library" of all these formulas?  Or is it not collected and assembling it is the point of this thread:

I was hoping to find this in the wiki, but the wiki only covers a small fraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
753
[DAKI]
Beta Testers
3,201 posts
4,719 battles
On 4/27/2019 at 6:04 PM, Pseudovector said:

Thanks for the link.  Do you have links to the rest of these great threads?

I've been looking for this kind of thing.  Is there a "library" of all these formulas?  Or is it not collected and assembling it is the point of this thread:

I was hoping to find this in the wiki, but the wiki only covers a small fraction.

That thread has a link to a Google doc which contains everything I have gathered. I have a fair amount there. It's not finished and some of it is out of date. But I noted where that was an issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,923
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
23,691 posts
3,895 battles
On 4/24/2019 at 10:13 PM, T_O_dubl_D said:

Edit:  this rule doesnt seem to apply to only destroyers. An example is the BB Mutsu has 410mm guns at T6 and they are absolute turds because they seem to have bottle rockets for propellant

No, it's because WG made the penetration cap KRUPP value roughly equivalent to butter. Those super heavy 41cm AP shells are so soft that they shatter against everything they don't overmatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,758
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,668 posts
2,114 battles
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

No, it's because WG made the penetration cap KRUPP value roughly equivalent to butter. Those super heavy 41cm AP shells are so soft that they shatter against everything they don't overmatch.

Not really, the Krupp is pretty normal for shells of their age. The Type 88 APC is from 1928 after all, and is not of an older design with a worse AP cap, a greatly inferior drag profile, and is a lighter than Type 91 adopted in 1931 and used on Nagato in-game (thus worse sectional density). The MV is also slightly worse (790 vs 806 m/s).

The lower Krupp of 2200 is actually fairly similar to the 2266 of Nelson's AP, which entered service only a year prior (1927).

That being said, the lower performance of the Type 88 is exaggerated by the Type 91's performance in-game, which tends to have higher Krupp than it should and thus far better penetrative performance than it should. Nagato gets away with a very questionable 2711 Krupp on her Type 91 AP - this actually gives her superior penetration to Colorado's guns, when the opposite should be true. This makes Mutsu's guns feel much worse compared to her sister - because Nagato's guns over perform by such a considerable margin.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×