R/C Naval Combat

Spawned from the Elite Ships thread, a thread on the CEF calculator.

Posted By The Prodigy on 09 Jan 2012 01:08 PM
Something seems a little off with this thing though. The top 8 ships are all Axis and the NC doesn't even crack the top 10. Also, every single German Dreadnought makes it in the top 8?

@Bob: Yes, I'd love to have a copy of the CEF spreadsheet. Can you send it to Whiterocket2010(at)gmail.com please?

Reason it seems slanted is obvious.... The formula was probably put together by someone pro-Axis... or at least, pro "slugger" boat.  If speed were weighted heavier, or having triple sterns, then the formula is pro-Allied.  In general, the way the rules are written (with much tweaking over the years), Allied boats are (on average) faster and have a slight unit advantage, while Axis (specifically German) boats are slower, but their designs makes them more manueverable and (prior to the most recent rule change) tougher due to extensive casements in the hulls.  With the new casement rules, this balance is now much more questionable.

Note that I'm comparing Brit vs German.  US, France, Italy & Japan I'm not as familiar with.

Upon further analysis, I have determined why the CEF given seems so... biased.:

Sidemounts are much more heavily weighted than stern guns (a bow sidemount is rated better than twice as good as a stern gun), while multiple guns (duals or trips) are heavily discounted.  A single bow sidemount is rated 825.  Triple-sterns, one of the most damaging setups in the game, are rated at 480 (400*1.2)!!  If you plan to put any weight behind this CEF, I'd strongly recommend you first examine the base assumptions behind the weighting.

One possibility for correcting would be to rate each gun at 100, then give a fractional multiplier for location.  That would eliminated the penalty attached to duals/ trips.  So a trip-stern would have a base of 300, times whatever weighting factor you chose to assign to sterns.

... and before anyone asks... yes, I'm a former Nuke.  As such, I love crunching numbers and doing statistical analysis.  If there's enough interest, I'd be happy to take a crack at reforming the CEF.

I suspect that the original CEF sheet weighted sidemounts so heavily over sterns is due to the number of points a sidemount is capable of versus a stern gun.

For instance, at best a triple stern gun setup will do 30 points of damage per shot.  A single sidemount can do 50 points with one shot.  So it would make sense to give a heavier weight to sidemounts since they are capable of doing more points (not necessarily damage).

Posted By RichelieuBB on 09 Jan 2012 07:18 PM
I suspect that the original CEF sheet weighted sidemounts so heavily over sterns is due to the number of points a sidemount is capable of versus a stern gun.

Very questionable assumption on their part.  First you have to look at combat-effective range.  Sidemounts have a significant down-angle to achieve belows, but at the price of only being able to hit when targets are in a very small range gate.  Sterns, OTOH, generally have fairly flat trajectories that can hit at a much greater range, and over a much greater range-gate.  Granted that the sidemount is more likely to score those tasty belows or on's, but I'd bet the percentage of hits is WAY higher with the sterns.  Couple that with 2-3 times the number of bb's, and Sterns probably rack up at least as many points as sidemounts.  Causing sinks is a different story, but there are so many other factors involved in causing a sink that it would be almost impossible to assign a value.

What I would suggest would be more useful is two different CEF's.  One weighted for those who like sluggers, the other weighted for run-n-gunners.  Possibly even a third chart that would balance the two.

Well, no one mentioned on the sheet about how easy it was to actually hit a target.

Some quicky numbers from the IRCWCC 2011 Nats ...

Total Aboves:  5153
Total Above Points:  51530

Total Belows:  2134
Total Below Points: 106700

 Even though the number of above hits outnumber belows by almsot 60%, the number of points for belows blows away the aboves by nearly 200%.

 That makes for a good arguement that sidemounts are more effective in combat.

I know who came up with the CEF spreadsheet. I also know that it was intended as a "maximum possible effectiveness" calculation. In other words, in the event that every bb were to hit the target in the optimal location, calculate how effective that is in combat. So a sidemount, putting 50 belows is more dangerous than triples putting 150 bbs at the waterline. I've been thinking about putting it on-line so people could play with it for years but like everything else, time is an issue.

Posted By MWC13 on 09 Jan 2012 09:14 PM

I know who came up with the CEF spreadsheet. I also know that it was intended as a "maximum possible effectiveness" calculation. In other words, in the event that every bb were to hit the target in the optimal location, calculate how effective that is in combat. So a sidemount, putting 50 belows is more dangerous than triples putting 150 bbs at the waterline. I've been thinking about putting it on-line so people could play with it for years but like everything else, time is an issue.

Not sure about that... 50 belows@ 50pts per = 2500 points

                                  150 ons @ 25pts per= 3750 points.

And I guarantee any boat with 150 holes at the waterline is a submarine VERY quickly

Posted By The Prodigy on 04 Jan 2012 11:47 PM

rudder factor is:
Prop #
ruddertype 2 1
1 1 .8
2i .6667 .6667
2t .5333 .43

Not to take away from the gun discussion, but I am having trouble determining exactly what the above rudder factor calc is all about. It looks like it could be a formating issue (see below) but it doesn't make any sense to me. I don't even see where the prop # comes into play.

I definitely could be reading this wrong. Anyone have some insight?

J

BING!
Light comes on.
That makes good sense.
 

Maybe this is how it is supposed to look.

I took the Iron Duke example Specialist gave and ran all the numbers.
By the chart above, the numbers work giving one powered shaft and two tandem rudders the best score, not sure if I personally buy that(my Scharnhorst turns faster with 2 powered shafts than it did with one)but it is what it is.

Next question, should a 75 rnd gun be worth more than a 50 rnd gun? Half again as much? Less?

A 75 rnd side mount is more damaging than a 50.

J

Posted By MWC13 on 09 Jan 2012 09:14 PM

I know who came up with the CEF spreadsheet. I also know that it was intended as a "maximum possible effectiveness" calculation. In other words, in the event that every bb were to hit the target in the optimal location, calculate how effective that is in combat. So a sidemount, putting 50 belows is more dangerous than triples putting 150 bbs at the waterline. I've been thinking about putting it on-line so people could play with it for years but like everything else, time is an issue.

There is a version of the CEF calculator online at www.eskimo.com/~phill/wcc/Wdp/ccef.htm. Since that site is for an IRCWCC club, its rules are a bit different than MWC so I think the numbers may come out differently. Nevertheless, tools like this are more useful for trends rather than absolute values.  I've found the spreadsheet more insightful since you can play with the inputs.