RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships Look what I found (on this very site no less; thanks to Specialist for this): COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS FACTOR Manuver factor = (length^3 * rudder factor)/(rudder area * beam * 144) rudder factor is: Prop # ruddertype 2 1 1 1 .8 2i .6667 .6667 2t .5333 .43 Fire Power factor rated by cannon mount locations Bow sidemount 825 stern sidemount 990 twin sidemount 990 stern gun 400 Bow gun 200 Stern guns have an additional multipler due to knocking chuncks out # of guns Multilpler 1 1 2 1.1 3 1.2 4 1.4 So add all your cannons up and get the fire factor. Speed number: 21 1.6 22 1.5 23 1.4 24 1.3 26 1.1 28 1 30 0.9 So for the final Combat Effectiveness Factor (CEF) CEF= (Fire Power* Speed number* 100)/ manuver factor. A pretty Nuked out way of calculating the most Combat-Effective Ship. Seems like pure fun rather than an actual method to determine what ships are elite. I'll keep playing around with this. Jeff
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships I have the CEF spreadsheet if you're interested. It has not been updated for the predread rule, one sidemount allowed.
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships I think bow guns should have more options.. a straight off bow gun, bow sidemount, bow gun with 15 degrees and downangle (faux sidemount) should all be different effectivness. For that matter the haymaker should take into account the super-fire turrets..
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships 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?
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships 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.
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships 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.
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships ... 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.
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships 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).
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships 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.
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships 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.
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships 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.
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships 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
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships 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. ruddertype 2 1 Prop # ? ? 1 1 .8 2i .6667 .6667 2t .5333 .43 I definitely could be reading this wrong. Anyone have some insight? J
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships It seems like the right hand column is for one prop, and the left is for 2 powered props. There is no valuation of drag props.
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships BING! Light comes on. That makes good sense. # of Props 2 1Rudder # and type 1 1 .8 2i .6667 .6667 2t .5333 .43Maybe 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
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships 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.
RE: MWC Top 10 Elite Ships Then let's sum it up with the following axiom: "There are no super [elite] ships, only super [elite] captains." Also, I found out that the CEF had a percentage value assigned to the cannon type. In other words, stern guns were 15%, sidemounts were at 20% and bow cannons were 10%. Or something very similar. So the odds of hitting needs to be applied to the equation.
