[Bullethead]

Originally Posted by alexsmith

So what should I expect from armor value of Asama - seven - comparing to armor level of Bayan - six? Especially when six IJN light cruisers having nothing but 6" burned Bayan to dust in minutes! Assume you use some other hidden data not displayed in ship's information - but how am I supposed to play having not such data and no ability to compare ships' values???

Don't forget that the IJN was using shimose shells that had a noteworthy incendiary effect. Also, the Russian ships often had more flammable stuff exposed to enemy fire. Thus, shipboard fires are usually more of a problem for the Russians than the IJN.

As to the actual armor values used in game calculations, put the mouse over a ship and hit "I" to bring up the Ship Information Screen. This shows the armor values for the belt, hull, deck, and conning tower. Then mouse over one of the green/yellow/red dots on the ship's picture to see the armor value for that particular weapon, as well as the weapon's stats.

The armor for a weapon only affects that weapon. The conning tower armor only affects the conning tower. The belt armor runs the length of the ship, and it may be domed so as to add to the belt armor (this is shown on the info screen if applicable for a given ship). The belt and hull armor values require some explaining, as follows:

Belt Armor:

• Vertical Extent: From a bit below the waterline to a point 1/3 of the way up from the waterline to the upper deck.
• Horizontal Extent: 1/2 the length of the ship centered amidships, so that there's 1/4 of the ship's length ahead of the belt and 1/4 aft of it.

Hull Armor:

• At bow and stern: Runs from the end of the ship to the edge of the belt at the same height. IOW, this represents the thinner belt armor at the bow and stern.
• Amidships: The hull armor also represents the upper belt. The area this covers is the same length as the belt armor and also centered amidships. It runs from the upper belt edge up to a point 2/3 of the way between the waterline and the upper deck.

The armor value shown on the telescope popup is a result of averaging all these numbers (including weapon armor), weighting not only the thickness but the extent covered, and the type of armor itself (steel, Harvey, Krupp, etc.).

As I said, this average number is NOT used in game calculations, it's just there as a sort of quick reference. It can be misleading if a ship has a very thick belt but no other armor, because such a ship might have a high average armor value but still be extremely vulnerable because most of it isn't armored much or at all. This was, in fact, a fairly common armor layout in this era, for ships built before Harvey and Krupp armor was invented. They had to have truly massive belts, which weighed so much they couldn't have armor elsewhere, and these thick belts didn't provide any more protection than thinner belts of more advanced armor types.

You named your RND engine "Dark God", didn't you?

No, I just use the term "Dark Gods" as "bad luck".

But that's exactly what I'm talking about! Concerning about quite realistic requires that battle is based most upon random events - as were in real those times! But it's a game killer! To avoid "Dark Gods" I should save and load - and thus all the above stuff doesn't matter: armor, hit locations, fires - only random is! That's pitty...

Most wargames are very deterministic. If the range is X and the conditions are Y, then gun Z always has such-and-such a chance to hit, and will always penetrate so much armor. As a result, most wargamers have been raised since birth to expect all games to work that way.

Or course, it isn't like that at all in real life. There's actually huge scope for human error and mechanical malfunctions, little if any control over hit location, and even then the shell might be a dud, or might do unexpectedly large amounts of damage. All that sort of thing is modeled in our games. As a result, individual battles fought under the same conditions can vary a lot in their results. In any given battle, any individual ship can perform better or worse than its historical basis. However, over the long run, the results of many trials will average out at the historically realistic level.

This all makes our games more realistic--they are simulations, not just games. Battles are dangerous, unpredictable things and you might take painful losses even if you go in with the much stronger force. This approach appeals to many people, but not others. Sorry you don't seem to like it.

So, I gonna make a complete research - thank's to you included Scenario Editor in 1.5 I gonna create a few scenarios to make comparable results and collect statistics...

You'll have to run any test you create many, many times to arrive at a meaningful result. I'm talking dozens of times. Without a large enough sample, your result will be skewed by outliers.

Could you please tell me your opinion - what two of Russian BB and Japan ships are closest in battle value? If I put up for example Tsesarevitch vs Asama - should it be "fair" accourding to their techs?

I don't think in those terms so have never given this subject any thought. Instead, I just put my forces into what I think are their most effective arrangements, pick my fights carefully, and use skillful tactics to keep things in my favor as much as possible.

When I play the Russians in the campaign, I actually try to avoid battle as much as possible. After all, killing IJN warships doesn't contribute directly to victory and takes ships away from the vital task of stopping merchants. I avoid Togo completely until 2PacRon arrives and in the meantime just use 1PacRon for nocturnal sorties against the blockade at Port Arthur so my cruisers can get in and out easier. I use the Vlad ACs to lead the IJN on a wild goose chase, which makes life easier for my PCs in the Sea of Japan.

However, over in the Gamesquad forum, there's a guy named "Double Whisky" who is an expert at fighting fleet actions as the Russians. He's posted a number of AARs of glorious victories in the Yellow Sea and Tsushima Straits. You might want to read some of that.