Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Fr05ty

Fr05ty's emporium of formulas and implementation knowledge

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

393
Members
466 posts
4,325 battles

Hello everybody!

I'm Fr05ty and many of you may already know of me, seen some of my work or even used some of my work (even if you didn't know it came from me as I've seen my formulas have been spread and posted around a fair bit though without crediting me). I'm the resident numbers & formulas guy in the forums and throughout all this time I've derived formulas for pretty much everything that makes a ship tick in World of Warships, except for detectability and fire range (though I can tell you what's meant to affect them). Throughout this post I'm going to try and explain how everything from a ship is calculated, the formulas for it and generally provide what knowledge I have for translating real-life ships into World of Warships numbers. Let's begin!

DISCLAIMER: I am writing the general formulas and values that most ships conform to, in many cases you will find disparities with in-game values which often mean that WG has fiddled with values for some reason or another (national flavours often result in these things). After I explain how to calculate "generic ships", I will write down what I know about these modifications so you can apply them to ships you propose for those lines.

NOTE: All calculations use kg, m/s or metric tons.

 

HITPOINTS

Spoiler

 

The hitpoint pool for a ship is defined in most cases by just 2 variables: the ship's class & its displacement (use standard displacement for A hulls and full load displacement for upgraded hulls and premiums). Aircraft carriers are the only class that also use their tier to determine their hitpoint pool. Use displacement (dt) in metric tons for these calculations for better accuracy.

BATTLESHIPS: 10,470 + (displacement X 1.19)

SUPERCRUISERS: 11,900 + (displacement X 1.43)

CRUISERS: 9,565 + (displacement X 1.91)

DESTROYERS: 3,670 + (displacement X 4.4)

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS:
T4: 28,373 + (displacement X 0.352)
T6: 34,967 + (displacement X 0.338)
T8: 41,652 + (displacement X 0.328)
T10: 48,446 + (displacement X 0.319)

 

EXAMPLE: I want to see just how much hitpoints the Almirante Brown class of heavy cruisers would have. I know that their full displacement is 9,000t and they're a cruiser, therefore their hitpoint pool would be: 9,565 + (9000 x 1.91) = 26,755 hitpoints which can be rounded up to 26,800 hitpoints.

 

 

ARMOUR PIERCING (AP) AMMUNITION

Spoiler

 

Damage for AP ammunition depends on two things: projectile mass and muzzle velocity.

AP SHELL DAMAGE: 18.59 X ( ( Shell Mass X Muzzle Velocity ) ^ 0.4788 )

 

NOTE: The formula for AP bomb damage is the same as the AP shell damage, but with the speed set to 400m/s. Don't know why, but that seems to be what WG has done.

AP BOMB DAMAGE: 18.59 X ( ( Bomb Mass X 400 ) ^ 0.4788 )

 

EXAMPLE: I want to see just how powerful the 190mm guns from the Almirante Brown class are so I will calculate the AP damage. They fire a 90.7kg shell at 950m/s. Their damage would thus be: 18.59 x ( ( 90.7 x 950 ) ^ 0.4788 ) = 4288 damage which can be rounded up to 4300.

 

 

SEMI ARMOUR PIERCING (SAP) AMMUNITION

Spoiler

 

Damage for SAP ammunition depends on two things: projectile mass and muzzle velocity. A SAP projectile's penetration is dependent on its caliber.

DISCLAIMER: The SAP damage formula is not very accurate as WG itself doesn't seem to know just how powerful SAP shells should be. I've tried to eliminate the weird outliers and use the best values I could find from among all the changes WG did. It will give you a decent figure for most cases, it just isn't as accurate as I'd have liked.

 

SAP SHELL DAMAGE: 45.3 X ( ( Shell Mass X Muzzle Velocity ) ^ 0.416 )

SAP SHELL PENETRATION (mm): 5.6 + ( Shell Caliber (mm) X 0.24 )

 

 

HIGH EXPLOSIVE (HE) AMMUNITION

Spoiler

 

Damage for HE ammunition (including rockets and bombs) depends on two things: projectile mass and bursting charge mass (or warhead's explosive mass in the case of rockets and bombs). HE ammunition's chance to cause a fire however only depends on the bursting charge mass or warhead's explosive mass. The HE penetration of shells is normally 1/6 the caliber of the weapon, whereas for rockets their penetration seems to be closely related to the rocket or bomb's mass. I have few proper data points for rocket & bomb HE penetration, so take the resulting formula only as an approximation.

HE SHELL DAMAGE: 886.3 X ( ( Shell Mass X Bursting Charge Mass ) ^ 0.1658 )

HE SHELL FIRE CHANCE (%): 5.0447 X ( ( Bursting Charge Mass ) ^ 0.4612 )

 

HE ROCKET DAMAGE: 770 X ( ( Rocket Mass X Warhead Explosive Charge Mass ) ^ 0.193 )

HE ROCKET FIRE CHANCE (%): 3.67 X ( ( Warhead Explosive Charge Mass ) ^ 0.52 )

HE ROCKET PENETRATION (mm): 8.81 X ( Rocket Mass ) ^ 0.323

 

HE BOMB DAMAGE: 1164 X ( ( Bomb Mass X Warhead Explosive Charge Mass ) ^ 0.176 )

HE BOMB FIRE CHANCE (%): 6.54 X ( ( Warhead Explosive Charge Mass ) ^ 0.38 )

HE BOMB PENETRATION (mm): 7.07 X ( Bomb Mass ) ^ 0.329

 

EXAMPLE: I want to find out just how strong the 7.2" Demolition rocket would be if fired from a plane. I know it has a mass of 28kg and a 15kg explosive warhead. I can thus calculate its damage: 770 x ( ( 28 x 15) ^ 0.193 ) = 2470 damage which we can round down to 2450. The chance for it to cause a fire would be: 3.67 x ( ( 15 ) ^ 0.52 ) = 15 % and the penetration would be 8.81 x ( 28 ) ^ 0.323 = 25.84mm which we round to 25.8mm

 

 

TORPEDOES

Spoiler

 

Damage and flooding chance for torpedoes is determined solely by the torpedo's warhead mass. A torpedo's range is the same as it was historically, with the speed for ship-launched torpedoes being the historical one buffed by approximately 20kts.

 

TORPEDO DAMAGE: 207.18 X ( ( Warhead Explosive Charge Mass ) ^ 0.7444 )

TORPEDO FLOODING CHANCE (%): 2.52 X ( ( Warhead Explosive Charge Mass ) ^ 0.7985 )

 

DISCLAIMER: The aircraft torpedo formulas only work for baseline torpedoes. WG has fudged with MANY of the torpedo parameters to the point where many nations just have gimped performance in one way or another (like the Japanese air-dropped torpedoes having drastically reduced flooding chance, high-tier British torpedoes having nerfed damage and flooding chance or German torpedoes which are thoroughly nerfed throughout)

AIRCRAFT TORPEDO DAMAGE: 394 X ( ( Warhead Explosive Charge Mass ) ^ 0.525 )

AIRCRAFT TORPEDO FLOODING CHANCE (%): 1.84 X ( ( Warhead Explosive Charge Mass ) ^ 0.642 )

 

 

ANTI-AIRCRAFT (AA) WEAPONRY

Spoiler

 

Disappointment starts here. Neither I nor anyone else I know has a way to calculate the continuous DPS values for AA. The only thing I can say is that before the AA rework, we had found out that the effectiveness of adding more weapons to a mount had an effect equal to SQRT(new barrel amount/old barrel amount), so that doubling the number of barrels on a mount (so going from a single 40mm Bofors to a double 40mm Bofors) would effectively multiply the DPS by 1.414, and quadrupling the number of barrels would multiply the DPS by 2.

The current AA workings mean that the Continuous DPS has a certain accuracy rate which is determined by 2 things: ship class and which area it is meant to contribute to. Weapons firing in the short range aura suffer a -5% accuracy penalty when compared to weapons firing in the other auras. AA weapons are thus grouped in 3 auras: short range guns (30mm>), medium range guns (30.1mm-85mm) and long range guns (>85mm). Only the long range guns can generate flak and it is only until the mid-range guns start firing.

BASE CONTINUOUS AA ACCURACY:
Battleships: 75%
Cruisers: 90%
Destroyers: 100%
Aircraft Carriers: 100%

 

 

FIRING RANGE

Spoiler

Once upon a time, WG told us that the height of the rangefinders on a ship determined the firing range. We know that this is not really true, but it should mean that if a ship couldn't fire beyond X km in real life due to rangefinders/turret elevation, then neither should it in World of Warships. Still, the higher mounted the rangefinder is, the better the range the ship would have in-game.

 

CONCEALMENT

Spoiler

 

How easy a ship is to detect depends on several weird variables, chief amongst them being WG's balancing. There are two concealment values: one from ships and another from aircraft. Concealment from ships according to WG is determined by how "distinct" the ship's silhouette is and how tall the ship is (although theories abound as to which point of the ship this height is meant to refer to). Personally, I tend to use the side profile's height and area to provide my guesses on concealment against ships, so grab a few ships that are already in-game and compare just how long & tall (even better if you can compare the area of the side profile silhouette) your new ship is compared to them and make an estimate based on it. The concealment against aircraft is another matter just as vague, but it correlates quite well to the deck area of a ship, so you can just look at how much area the ship presents when viewed from above, compare that to other ships in the game and estimate. As usual, concealment is not really something we can calculate easily due to the vagueness of the measurements that WG uses and due to the fact that they've messed with concealment quite a bit for national flavours which leads us to have a really hard time to derive accurate formulas.

 

 

TORPEDO PROTECTION

Spoiler

Nobody really knows how WG determines the torpedo protection of ships. It's been a matter of much debate but just as the topic of torpedo protection is so subjective in real life, it is quite as complex when related to WG's implementation. Try to just look at similar ships to estimate.

 

NATIONAL FLAVOURS

Spoiler

 

WG has seen fit to modify several ships and tech-tree implementations to apply some extra flavour to them and thus provide more varied and diverse gameplay options. Here are the flavours & modifications that WG has done (I will not go into all the consumable flavours) and that I remember off the top of my head:

GERMANY:
+ Buffed AP damage (for non-battleship weapons)
+ Buffed HE penetration (1/4 penetration instead of 1/6)
+ Buffed Hydroacoustic Search consumable (battleships & cruisers)
- Nerfed HE damage
- Nerfed Smoke Generator dispersion time

 

JAPAN:
+ Buffed HE damage
+ Buffed long-range dispersion (battleships)
+ Torpedo Reload Booster consumable (high-tier destroyers)
- Nerfed short-range dispersion (battleships)
- Nerfed Damage Control Party active duration (battleships)


USA:
+ Improved AP autobounce angles (cruisers)
+ Improved Repair Party heal (standard battleship line)
+ Buffed Smoke Generator emission time (30s instead of 20s)
+ Buffed Smoke Generator dispersion time (40s more than normal)
+ Buffed Defensive AA consumable (destroyers only)
+ Buffed Surveillance Radar active duration
+ Buffed Damage Control Party active duration (battleships)

 

UNITED KINGDOM:
+ Buffed HE damage
+ Buffed Fire chance
+ Buffed HE penetration
+ Buffed AP autobounce angles (light cruisers)
+ Shortened AP fuse arming time (light cruisers & battleships)
+ Megaheal (high-tier light cruisers & battleships)
+ Improved ship turn speed (light cruisers)
+ Improved ship acceleration from stop (light cruisers)
+ Larger Smoke Generator puffs (0.6km instead of 0.45km for others)
+ Smoke Generator consumable (light cruisers)
+ Short-burst Smoke Generator (shorter emission, dispersion and reload time for destroyers only)
- Nerfed Smoke Generator emission time (15s instead of 20s)

 

U.S.S.R.:
+ Unique supercruiser dispersion formula (Tallinn, Riga & Petro)
+ Unique battleship dispersion formula (better at close ranges and worse at long ranges)
+ Improved AP bounce angles (Tallinn, Riga & Petro)
+ Improved AP fuse arming time (Tallinn, Riga & Petro)
+ Buffed Damage Control Party reload time (battleships)
- Nerfed HE performance (Tallinn, Riga & Petro)
- Damage Control Party consumable has limited charges (battleships) 

 

FRANCE:
+ Engine Boost consumable (battleships)
+ Buffed Engine Boost consumable (destroyers & cruisers)
+ Main Battery Reload Booster consumable (destroyers & cruisers)

 

ITALY:
+ SAP ammunition
+ Exhaust Smoke Generator consumable (cruisers & high-tier battleships)
- No HE ammunition

 

NETHERLANDS:
+ Air Strike weapon
+ Buffed AA continuous DPS


PAN-EUROPE:
+ Buffed torpedo speed
+ Shortened AP fuse arming time
- Nerfed torpedo damage
- Nerfed torpedo flooding chance

 

PAN-ASIA:
+ Deepwater torpedoes (buffed damage & flooding chance)
+ Buffed Smoke Generator emission time (30s instead of 20s)
+ Buffed Smoke Generator reload time (100s instead of 160s)
+ Short-range Surveillance Radar consumable (high-tier destroyers)
- Deepwater torpedoes (ineffective against certain classes)

 

 

AIRCRAFT CARRIER FLAVOURS

Spoiler

 

I was going to include aircraft carrier flavours in their own nations, but since they're all rather weird, I chose to better do a section just for them (make sure to check WoWS wiki for all their flavours):

USA:
+ Durable planes
+ Unmatched payload (high-tier planes can unleash more or harder-hitting ordnance than others nations)
- Poor dispersion on ordnance delivery

 

JAPAN:
+ AP bombs
+ Faster & harder-hitting torpedoes
+ Improved torpedo bomber concealment (7.5km detectability instead of 10km)
+ Improved torpedo bomber & bomber boost speed (40kts instead of 35kts)
+ Improved Aircraft Repair consumable (extra charge & lower reload time)
- Fragile planes

 

UNITED KINGDOM:
+ Extremely durable planes
+ Level bombing instead of dive bombing
+ Highest amount of rockets dropped per plane
- Slow planes

 

GERMANY:
+ AP rockets
+ AP bombs
+ Very fast planes
+ Improved torpedo bomber & bomber boost speed (40kts instead of 35kts)
+ Improved Engine Cooling consumable
+ Aircraft Repair consumable (bombers)
+ Improved secondary battery range
- Very fragile planes

 

U.S.S.R:
+ All planes attack in a single wave
+ Skip HE bombs
+ Long range torpedoes
+ Very fast planes
+ Improved secondary battery range
- Very fragile planes

 

 

OUTLIERS

Spoiler

 

There are several ships & weapons that are just horrible outliers. Some of the most notable are:

Blyskawica: Listed in-game displacement of 3,383t which means she should have a hitpoint pool of roughly 18,500 and yet only has 15,500 in-game. It's the largest disparity for a current DD in-game at almost 20%.

Zao: The T10 Japanese cruiser has a lister in-game displacement of 17,958t which means she should have a hitpoint pool of roughly 43,800 and has 40,800 in-game. She used to have 44,900hp once upon a time, but WG nerfed it and never brought it back. Many think Zao deserves its hitpoint pool to be back to normal.

Anchorage: The T8 premium cruiser has the same displacement as the Buffalo at T9, and yet for balance reasons she has 6,000 fewer hitpoints (15%) which is the largest disparity for a current cruiser in-game.

There is only a single non-premium battleship with a strange disparity between expected hitpoint pool and real hitpoint pool: The New Mexico with its A hull has a displacement of 35,406t which means it should have around 52,600 hitpoints instead of the 48,200 hitpoints it currently has. It is quite interesting that the difference between the A and B hull is just 594t and yet the hitpoint pool changes by 5,000.

Premium battleships are on a league of their own with many of them having vastly lower hitpoint pools than expected:
Slava: 82,149t (same as Kremlin) but with 91,800hp providing a difference of almost 18% (16,500hp) is the worst one
Champagne: 42,544t but with 52,600hp providing a difference of above 16% (8,500hp) of what is expected
Brandenburg: 47,520t but with 58,800hp providing a difference of almost 14% (8,200hp) of what is expected
Kearsarge: 70,630t but with 84,300hp providing a difference of above 12% (10,200hp) of what is expected

Supercruisers & Battlecruisers are remarkably interesting because WG sometimes implements them using the battleship HP formula and sometimes using the supercruiser HP formula. The following ships use the battleship HP formula despite being considered supercruisers at some point: Puerto Rico, Congress, Odin (one of the legacies of Odin being a supercruiser is that her guns benefit from the German Cruiser AP damage buff). The rest (including the new Dutch ships) follow the standard supercruiser HP formula.

 

For weapons:

The Type 93 Mod. 3 has the biggest disparity between expected and in-game damage & flooding chance of a torpedo. Its 780kg warhead would give it 29,500 damage and 514% flooding chance whereas it currently has 23,766 damage and 406% flooding chance.

Here are some interesting notable outliers that show how expected values to in-game values change with WG's national flavours:
The upcoming Dutch Haarlem cruiser uses the same guns and shells that the German Admiral Hipper, Roon & Hindenburg do, but there's are big differences. Haarlem's AP shells deal 4800 damage while the German's AP shells have their damage buffed to 5900. Haarlem's HE shells deal 2850 damage and have 34mm penetration whereas the German's HE shells have their damage nerfed to 2500 but have their penetration buffed to 51mm. They are otherwise the same.
We know that German Cruisers get buffed AP damage and German Battleships do not because Graf Spee uses very similar (in fact they're weaker) 283mm guns compared to Scharnhorst's 283mm guns and yet the Graf Spee's deal 8400 damage and the Scharnhorst's deal 7600 damage. The AP damage buff is larger (percentage-wise) the smaller the gun is; the 88mm guns have roughly 35% additional AP damage, the 203mm guns have roughly 20% additional damage and 283mm guns have roughly 10% additional damage.
Warspite and Queen Elizabeth battleships use the same HE shells, but QE's deal an extra 1,000 damage (5300 vs 6300), have 31mm extra penetration (64mm vs 95mm) and have an extra 1% fire chance (34% vs 35%).

 

PS: I will update these formulas from time to time as I continue adding newer releases into them.

Edited by Fr05ty
  • Cool 11
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
408
[CAZA]
[CAZA]
Alpha Tester
372 posts
15,234 battles

Excellent work. You are one of the pillars of this community. Cheers

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36,367
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
26,085 posts
22,383 battles

I am Lert, and I approve this post.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
189 posts
4,083 battles

Thanks Fro5ty! Your forumlae are great, and will have a critical role in my attempt to unravel the mysteries of "balance" within the game. Cheers, mate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
658
[VVV]
Members
2,962 posts
5,065 battles

Even if it's just for my own amusement since it's not like my suggestions for new ships and lines matter to WG, your formulas have always been what made it possible for me to theorycraft what new ships' performance would be.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
98
[TYPH]
Beta Testers
79 posts
7,089 battles
9 hours ago, Fr05ty said:

HITPOINTS

The hitpoint pool for a ship is defined in most cases by just 2 variables: the ship's class & its displacement (use standard displacement for A hulls and full load displacement for upgraded hulls and premiums). Aircraft carriers are the only class that also use their tier to determine their hitpoint pool. Use displacement (dt) in metric tons for these calculations for better accuracy.

BATTLESHIPS: 10,470 + (displacement X 1.19)

SUPERCRUISERS/BATTLECRUISERS: 11,900 + (displacement X 1.43)

 

So if a battleship and a battlecruiser have the same displacement, the battlecruiser gets more HP?  That seems counterintuitive.

Great info, thanks!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
658
[VVV]
Members
2,962 posts
5,065 battles
48 minutes ago, BillT said:

So if a battleship and a battlecruiser have the same displacement, the battlecruiser gets more HP?  That seems counterintuitive.

Great info, thanks!

And a regular cruiser gets even more HP if they've got the same displacement. And yes there are examples of that (when comparing low-tier BBs to high-tier CAs). Baltimore has nearly the same displacement as South CarolinaBaltimore gets 42400 HP while South Carolina gets 31700. It's counterintuitive for it to work this way, but it has to be done. It's part of how the classes can be balanced against each other, instead of battleships being just plain better on a 1v1 basis against every other surface ship.

Also, the majority of ships and designs that were considered "battlecruisers" IRL (Myōgi, Ishizuchi, Kongō, Ashitaka, Amagi, Repulse, Hood, Pyotr Velikiy, Izmail, all the upcoming German battlecruisers) are classed as battleships in WOWS. So they get HP along the lines of the BB formula.

It's only a small handful (like Kronshtadt, Stalingrad, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Azuma, YoshinoSiegfried, ÄgirGouden Leeuw) that are classed as cruisers. But since their size (far bigger than regular cruisers) would result in truly preposterous HP pools if the regular cruiser formula were used, WG invented a new formula just for supercruisers.

 

Bear in mind, these formulas aren't exactly what WG uses. Fr05ty's been adjusting his formulas for years as more ships in the game result in a bigger data set. But the fact that ships' in-game HP can be pretty consistently lined up with displacement means the devs are clearly using some sort of formula as a starting point. If they were just completely making it all up (like what World of Tanks does with tanks' HP pools) then there wouldn't have been any pattern for Fr05ty to derive formulas from at all.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,161
[FURIA]
WoWS Community Contributors
2,095 posts
6,444 battles

You know this is Gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
Members
466 posts
4,325 battles

Condensed everything into spoilers to ease navigation a bit and added some examples of how the formulas work as well as national flavours, outliers and clear examples of national flavours changing in-game values.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
Members
466 posts
4,325 battles
11 hours ago, BillT said:

So if a battleship and a battlecruiser have the same displacement, the battlecruiser gets more HP?  That seems counterintuitive.

Great info, thanks!

 

The fact that they're battlecruisers doesn't really mean much, sometimes they've been implemented using the supercruiser formula and others using the battleship formula. It's just a case of what WG decides to use since neither supercruisers nor battlecruisers are actual classes within the game, but it is a distinction we can make regarding different ship designs.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
658
[VVV]
Members
2,962 posts
5,065 battles
22 hours ago, Fr05ty said:

There are several ships & weapons that are just horrible outliers. Some of the most notable are:

Blyskawica: Listed in-game displacement of 3,383t which means she should have a hitpoint pool of roughly 18,500 and yet only has 15,500 in-game. It's the largest disparity for a current DD in-game at almost 20%.

That would be the result of the listed in-game displacement being wrong. Błyskawica's IRL displacement was 2383t (or at least that's the listing on Navypedia, which seems to copy-paste stats from the highly credible "Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships" series). Meaning she actually gets just over 9% more HP than the ~14200 her displacement would suggest.

Though for whatever it's worth Wikipedia (citing Warship magazine's "Thunder and Lightning: The Polish Destroyers Blyskawica and Grom") lists a full load displacement of 2560t, which would imply ~14900 HP (only a 4% discrepancy from her in-game HP pool). Either way, the discrepancy isn't all that big.

Given that the in-game listed displacement is 1 digit off from what Navypedia says, that was almost certainly WG's source and they simply made a typo in entering the displacement. It also proves that whatever formula might be used to derive HP pools from displacement, the game code itself doesn't contain that formula and instead the devs manually assign an HP value to each ship. Otherwise that typo in the displacement value would've given Błyskawica a big HP boost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
408
[CAZA]
[CAZA]
Alpha Tester
372 posts
15,234 battles

Regarding Grom and Blys displacement:

385184965_NiszczycieletypuGromcz.1-GromByskawica-EncyklopediaOkrtwWojennychA2002N24.TwardowskiM-.thumb.png.3bc4f25b093ab6ce1d6886ca6a1aba69.png

Sauce: "Niszczyciele typu Grom cz. 1. Grom, Błyskawica" - Encyklopedia Okrętów Wojennych 24 - Twardowski M., 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
Members
466 posts
4,325 battles
1 hour ago, Lord_Magus said:

That would be the result of the listed in-game displacement being wrong. Błyskawica's IRL displacement was 2383t (or at least that's the listing on Navypedia, which seems to copy-paste stats from the highly credible "Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships" series). Meaning she actually gets just over 9% more HP than the ~14200 her displacement would suggest.

Though for whatever it's worth Wikipedia (citing Warship magazine's "Thunder and Lightning: The Polish Destroyers Blyskawica and Grom") lists a full load displacement of 2560t, which would imply ~14900 HP (only a 4% discrepancy from her in-game HP pool). Either way, the discrepancy isn't all that big.

Given that the in-game listed displacement is 1 digit off from what Navypedia says, that was almost certainly WG's source and they simply made a typo in entering the displacement. It also proves that whatever formula might be used to derive HP pools from displacement, the game code itself doesn't contain that formula and instead the devs manually assign an HP value to each ship. Otherwise that typo in the displacement value would've given Błyskawica a big HP boost.

We know that the game doesn't contain the formula and that it's devs assigning the value themselves to everything in the game. These are just derived formulas to emulate how the WG development team gets the values that they then set into the game. Nobody has ever said that the game calculates these things, as if that was the case we wouldn't have all those random ships with weird hitpoint totals nor would we see WG shifting values up or down willy-nilly...

As for Blyskawica's displacement being wrong in-game, wouldn't be the first time we've spotted WG doing typos on ship values that are normally hidden, so it makes a lot of sense for it to be the case.

Edited by Fr05ty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
Members
466 posts
4,325 battles

Updated the Aircraft Torpedo formulas. It should now be possible to derive any and all values for armament to a reasonable degree!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,470 battles

Would you happen to have an idea on how bomb damage is calculated?

Also, for the Torpedo damage, is it just straight warhead mass, or TNT equivalent mass?

Thanks for the information, I have a lot of work to do, now. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
Members
466 posts
4,325 battles
1 hour ago, 40902nd said:

Would you happen to have an idea on how bomb damage is calculated?

Also, for the Torpedo damage, is it just straight warhead mass, or TNT equivalent mass?

Thanks for the information, I have a lot of work to do, now. :P

All values are for straight warhead mass. WG doesn't care about TNT equivalent mass.

Oops! Forgot to post the bomb formulas, I knew I had forgotten something! I'll add them (and recalculate them with the Soviet ones) later today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,470 battles

Thanks. I'm busy using the stuff you have right now on my CVs (among other changes). I'll need to go over my German Big-Gun BB line for the AP and HE damages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
Members
466 posts
4,325 battles
5 hours ago, 40902nd said:

Thanks. I'm busy using the stuff you have right now on my CVs (among other changes). I'll need to go over my German Big-Gun BB line for the AP and HE damages.

Remember that German HE has nerfed damage ;)

Both AP & HE bombs now have their formulas up. They're in the AP & HE sections respectively

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,470 battles

They may have nerfed HE damage, but they have that beautiful 1/4 penetration, as opposed to the normal 1/8th. Then again, I don't know how much of an advantage 105mm of HE pen with be over 52.5mm. I guess it makes it easier to HE citadel the British.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
Members
466 posts
4,325 battles
1 hour ago, 40902nd said:

They may have nerfed HE damage, but they have that beautiful 1/4 penetration, as opposed to the normal 1/8th. Then again, I don't know how much of an advantage 105mm of HE pen with be over 52.5mm. I guess it makes it easier to HE citadel the British.

Normal penetration is 1/6 or 1/5 (for CLs iirc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,470 battles

Maybe I was operating under old numbers, maybe it was all a fever dream. Who know.

However, based on a quick check, I have come up with the following numbers:

In general, ships have 1/6 HE pen, with the following exceptions:

British BBs and German ships: 1/4 pen.

Irian: 1/5 pen. Tier VII+ 155mm and smaller main battery: 1/5 pen.

Japanese 100mm: 1/3 pen.

The pen values are rounded to the nearest whole number. I might have missed a few specific ships, but this is the general trend.

 

Edited by 40902nd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
393
Members
466 posts
4,325 battles
4 minutes ago, 40902nd said:

Maybe I was operating under old numbers, maybe it was all a fever dream. Who know.

However, based on a quick check, I have come up with the following numbers:

In general, ships have 1/6 HE pen, with the following exceptions:

British BBs and German ships: 1/4 pen.

Irian: 1/5 pen.

Japanese 100mm: 1/3 pen.

The pen values are rounded to the nearest whole number. I might have missed a few specific ships, but this is the general trend.

 

Ships always had 1/6 HE pen, they changed it a few patches ago (when they changed ship plating thicknesses) to give some ships 1/5 pen (high-tier CLs for example) and the Japanese 100mm has fixed 30mm pen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,470 battles

I don't generally play light cruisers, so they escaped my random sampling. I've corrected the above.

TBH, I have no idea where I got 1/8th from. Like I said, it could simply have been my imagination. It has only been relatively recently when I've started digging more into the numbers for my proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[CYN1C]
[CYN1C]
Members
346 posts
6,470 battles

I've been doing an analysis of USN large AA guns for a line that I am very close to finishing. The focus of the analysis at the moment is flak damage, since it seemed like that would be the easiest to figure out and is the most relevant to the project at hand (I do plan to expand this to the other nations, and continuous damage as well, but one step at a time).

Thus far, I've discovered that range is dependent on gun diameter and caliber:

Gun Range
152mm/47 6.9km
127mm/54 6.0km
127mm/38 5.8km
127mm/25 4.8km

The other factors seem to be tier and gun mount. The same mounts at the same tier yield the same flak damage when they are the sole type of heavy AA on this ship, ie: all Mk.32 mounts. The only exclusions to this are the Kidd, Cleveland, and AL Montpelier, all of which are over. Using this, I am able to even derive the expected values from ships with mixed batteries (Anchorage, Lexington, Monaghan, Wichita, Florida). It is harder to say with Dallas, the only other USN ship I found with a mixed battery, as it uses the Mark 29 dual mount and Mark 24 single mount. The Mark 29 appears to be equivalent to the Mark 32, while the Mark 19 appears to be a weaker mount (Mk.29/32 seems to be 10% better).

The way I go about getting the values is by using the number of heavy AA guns per broadside, multiplying it's flak damage by that number, and then subtracting by the value of the known guns and dividing the resulting number by the number of unknown guns.

For instance: Lexington has 4 Mk.32 and 8 Mk.24 mounts, but only 4 of each have firing angles on a given broadside. The Mk.32 is a common mount at Tier 8, and has a flak value of 1540, except on the above exception. So, the formula is (1470*8) to get damage of every gun in the broadside and subtract (1540*4) for the known value of the Mk.32s. That gives you the other gun's contribution. Divide that by the number of those guns, and we get 1400. The Enterprise also mounts the Mk.24 turret, and it's flak value is also 1400. This checks with the Anchorage, too, as the Mk.29 is shown to have the same capability as the Mk.32 and the Anchorage also mounts the Mk.24, which lets us check it from both directions.

I've been working on this on an excel sheet, so If anyone is interested in the gritty details, just send me a message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
658
[VVV]
Members
2,962 posts
5,065 battles

Do you know how the smoke firing penalty is determined? I know it's supposed to be based on gun caliber and base surface detection range, but is there a known formula for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×