Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 63

Thread: Deck evaluation - maneuverability

  1. #1

    Default Deck evaluation - maneuverability

    Someone has recently asked about the fastest decks. I realized it would be nice to evaluate decks by their maneuverability.

    Here it is on my web:
    http://www.hoho.cz/wog/evaluation/

    Name:  tabulta-preview3.jpg
Views: 56
Size:  348.7 KB

    Maneuver deck agility evaluation:

    Each instance
    of the following cards adds the points towards the total value of the deck it is in.

    90 turn: 6
    90 turn ◇: 4
    Immelmann: 5
    Wide slip: 3
    Wide slip ◇: 2

    Stall turn ◇: 2
    Short slip: 2
    Stall: 3
    Slip: 1.5
    Slip ◇: 1

    Short dive ◇: 1.5
    60 turn: 3
    45 turn: 2
    30 turn: 1


    Assigning points to maneuvers is a very subjective task. That's why i made just the top maneuvers stand out, leaving the rest with very similar values. The steep maneuvers are at about 2/3 of their non-steep equivalents. Maneuvers are however very situational, what makes a good deck is variety among them.

    The variety bonus rewards variety among maneuvers in a deck. The basic maneuvers, which are always included, are ignored, and so are the steep maneuvers that have their non-steep version in the same deck. Each maneuver type then brings 1.5 points. Both sides of two-sided maneuvers are treated as separate cases, which naturally penalizes asymmetrical decks.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-30-2022 at 02:21.

  2. #2

    Bishop33's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Billy
    Location
    South Lanarkshire
    Sorties Flown
    94
    Join Date
    Sep 2021

    Default

    Very interesting.

  3. #3

    Default

    This was touched on in the 'Tools For Working Out Stats' doc in the files, covering the earlier decks, A-Q. It approached it by engine type (in-line/rotary/both) against speed (very fast; fast; average; slow) & deck agility: (Normal agility; Good agility; Better agility; Best agility; Handy rotary; Camel special; D.VII special; Lumbering).
    So the framework already exists it just needs updating with the later decks, R-X and maybe the bomber decks, which should be straight forward as we know which match the moves of earlier deck already. ie W is the same as Q but slower speed.

    "He is wise who watches"

  4. #4

    Default

    Slower speed means tighter turns. I may add that factor to the above if i want to keep the speed and maneuverability separate categories.
    It was just an immediate idea. The tighter turns may be either an additional factor or just a tiebreaker (W turns better than Q). I will have to think this through.

  5. #5

  6. #6

    Default

    speed: -0.1*arrow speed

    When i add a tiny modification by speed (so it won't overweight the maneuver weights), it resolves the ties in favor of the slower aircraft.

    Then

    L: 32.53
    O: 29.53
    M: 26.53
    F: 19.53
    U: 17.53
    D: 15.65
    N: 15.4
    C: 15.03
    Fr: 15.03
    W: 13.65
    Q: 13.53
    P: 10.71
    X: 10.15
    E: 9.71
    I: 9.65
    R: 8.71
    J: 8.65
    B: 8.53
    T: 7.71
    V: 7.65
    S: 7.53
    A: 7.4
    G: 7.21
    Y: 4.71
    K: 4.65
    H: 4.53
    XC: 0.47
    XD: 0.37
    XA: 0.23
    XB: 0.17
    Last edited by Honza; 05-22-2022 at 01:08.

  7. #7

    Default

    First of all, I always love analyses of the meta/competitive landscape of the game!

    I don't think that you can determine the value of a plane's Dive without also taking into account its Climb rate. If I'm not mistaken, you posit that there's an inverse relationship between the length of a Dive and its value; the planes with 9.6 cm Dives often have poor Climb rates.

    The format that you're playing inarguably determines the value of manuevers as well. In my opinion, the more planes on the board, the more valuable that Slides are (or "side slips," as many people call them), and speed, in general.
    Last edited by Killer Moth; 05-22-2022 at 06:57.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    This was touched on in the 'Tools For Working Out Stats' doc in the files, covering the earlier decks, A-Q. It approached it by engine type (in-line/rotary/both) against speed (very fast; fast; average; slow) & deck agility: (Normal agility; Good agility; Better agility; Best agility; Handy rotary; Camel special; D.VII special; Lumbering).
    So the framework already exists it just needs updating with the later decks, R-X and maybe the bomber decks, which should be straight forward as we know which match the moves of earlier deck already. ie W is the same as Q but slower speed.
    "Tools For Working Out Stats"
    I wonder why is N deck under "Best agility"? How can be N, Q and E in the same category as O?

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    I wonder why is N deck under "Best agility"? How can be N, Q and E in the same category as O?
    Maybe it's just the Best Agility in the very fast bracket ? The others therefore might rate that in their own speed brackets. That's how I've always read it.

    "He is wise who watches"

  10. #10

    Default

    Yeah, that must be the answer.

  11. #11

    Default

    This is how it comes out to me in 2D.

    Name:  IMG_3967.jpg
Views: 161
Size:  319.2 KB

    AGILITY (maneuver points without the speed tiebreaker)

    GREAT
    L: 33
    O: 30
    M: 27

    GOOD
    F: 20
    U: 18
    D: 16 / N: 16
    C: 15.5 / Fr: 15.5
    Q: 14 / W: 14

    AVERAGE
    P: 11
    X: 10.5
    E: 10 / I: 10
    B: 9 / J: 9 / R: 9
    A: 8 / S: 8 / T: 8 / V: 8
    G: 7.5

    POOR
    H: 5 / K: 5 / Y: 5

    LUMBERSOME
    XC: 0.6 / XD: 0.6
    XA: 0.3 / XB: 0.3

    --------------------------

    TABLE SPEED (Base + arrow in cm)

    VERY FAST
    A: 12.7 / N: 12.7

    FAST
    B: 11.4 / C: 11.4 / F: 11.4 / Fr: 11.4 / H: 11.4 / L: 11.4 / M: 11.4 / O: 11.4 / Q: 11.4 / S: 11.4 / U: 11.4

    QUITE SLOW
    D: 10.2 / I: 10.2 / J: 10.2 / K: 10.2 / V: 10.2 / W: 10.2 / X: 10.2

    SLOW
    E: 9.6 / G: 9.6 / P: 9.6 / R: 9.6 / T: 9.6 / Y: 9.6
    XB: 9.5 / XC: 9.5

    VERY SLOW
    XD: 9
    XA: 8.9
    Last edited by Honza; 05-22-2022 at 13:23.

  12. #12

    Default

    Attachment 315057

    The aircraft list in each window still needs to be sorted by their agility points.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-25-2022 at 12:51.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Killer Moth View Post
    I don't think that you can determine the value of a plane's Dive without also taking into account its Climb rate. If I'm not mistaken, you posit that there's an inverse relationship between the length of a Dive and its value; the planes with 9.6 cm Dives often have poor Climb rates.
    The short dive is a special maneuver specific for Phoenix D.I, so is the stall turn for Fokker D.VII. No other aircraft has it - or am i mistaken?
    Climb rates are not evaluated here, so is not the hit number. I find slips effective in all numbers of aircraft, but again, this is a general agility evaluation without consideration of any specific situations on the table.

  14. #14

    Default

    What i wanna do, is that you will be able to create your own deck on the same page (this is gonna be a full size web page connected to the web app), and it will show in the table, so you will know where it stands.

  15. #15

    Default

    I like the table, a very good visual display of manoeuvre decks. Good work!

  16. #16

    Default

    Probably could divide this further. The Poorest machines have 3 straights, 3 turns each way, 2 sideslips each way, 2 stalls, climb & dive.
    Some shown as average just have that plus Immels, others have more sideslips so are have a little more agility. The new R deck by Ares for instance is more agile than the Nexus version, much more agile than the T deck and arguably more agile than the E deck.

    "He is wise who watches"

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    The new R deck by Ares for instance is more agile than the Nexus version, much more agile than the T deck and arguably more agile than the E deck.
    .....which is why the new 'Ares' R deck is wrong; the Nieuport 16 should be LESS manoeuvrable than the Nieuport 11, not MORE!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Some shown as average just have that plus Immels, others have more sideslips so are have a little more agility.
    And that pushes them up on the agility scale. Having and not having Immelman is a big difference. If you let me adopt Tim's style, it is a BIG difference.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    .....which is why the new 'Ares' R deck is wrong; the Nieuport 16 should be LESS manoeuvrable than the Nieuport 11, not MORE!
    Thanks for pointing that out, Tim. Do you have any resources on that topic?

  20. #20

    Default

    Dozens!
    I'm at work, so don't have my sources to hand, but basically the N.16 was an N.11 with a bigger, heavier, more powerful engine, which gave it a higher speed and better climb rate, but it sacrificed manoeuvrability owing to it's much heavier engine. Any/all books about Nieuports will tell you that.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  21. #21

    Default

    All right. I will search.

  22. #22

    Default

    Yes, will lower the value of any 3rd maneuver of the same kind. The 3rd maneuver in this game is pretty random and so it should not help the agility as much as the first two.
    And keep the old Ni16 deck.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    And that pushes them up on the agility scale. Having and not having Immelman is a big difference. If you let me adopt Tim's style, it is a BIG difference.
    The point I made was that some of those lumped into the average class are more agile than others in the same class when you look into them because they have more than just the Immelmann over those of the poorest agility.
    Wrong though it is the Ares version of the R deck is, it's out there and is all that some have, not having seen the Nexus version, so they will want to use it & rate it's agility. It also demonstrated the point I was trying to make, not only having extra sideslips but broad sideslips also along with the Immelmann.

    "He is wise who watches"

  24. #24

    Default

    Ok, i get it, i misunderstood. They will be sorted by agility in each window, when i finish the code i am working on. So the last one in “average” band won’t be far from the best one in “poor” (in the same speed row).
    Last edited by Honza; 05-26-2022 at 14:07.

  25. #25

    Default

    I updated the code, so the aircraft is arranged from the most agile to the least agile in each speed band/agility band window.
    The aircraft is also grouped by color to indicate the same deck (agility).

    Attachment 315151

  26. #26

    Default

    Wrong though it is the Ares version of the R deck is
    Yes, the new R deck, although incorrect, should probably be the one to use, because that is what people do.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-26-2022 at 23:20.

  27. #27

    Default

    What exactly is the difference between the new and old R? I don't have it. The only standard model released with the new R is Ball's Ni 16. The other one comes with the Tripod starter.

  28. #28

    Default

    In the Manoeuvre Deck Breakdown doc in the files you have and noted in the Updated Tactical Walk Through of Aircraft thread:

    Deck R (20) - NEXUS – Slow speed - 2.9cm - (arrow is 40% of the card)
    3 straight
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    3 right sideslip
    3 left sideslip
    1 climb
    1 dive

    Deck R (22) - ARES – Slow speed - 2.9cm - (arrow is 40% of the card)
    3 straight
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    3 right sideslip
    3 left sideslip
    1 broad right sideslip
    1 broad left sideslip
    1 climb
    1 dive

    "He is wise who watches"

  29. #29

    Default

    The new 'Ares' R deck comes with FOUR sideslips in each direction, 3 normal and 1 wide.
    The old 'Nexus' R deck had just THREE sideslips each way, all standard.

    This means that with the new 'Ares' R a Nieuport 16 can perform the same wide sideslips as the Nieuport 11, with the option of using three standard sideslips, which the Nieuport 11 can't.
    This runs counter to all agreed knowledge about the actual capabilities of the real aircraft.

    My personal opinion is that the wide sideslips were included in the 'Ares' deck by mistake - no other deck, 'Nexus' or 'Ares', has 4 sideslips each side; why would you have 4, when you can't play more than 3?
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    My personal opinion is that the wide sideslips were included in the 'Ares' deck by mistake - no other deck, 'Nexus' or 'Ares', has 4 sideslips each side; why would you have 4, when you can't play more than 3?
    It has 3 short side slips to each side and 1 broad side slip to each side. They are different maneuvers, so there is not 4 of them. When you have three 60 turns and two 90 turn, there is not 5 of them either. If you had 4 same maneuvers, or more than 2 same steep ones, that would be an obvious mistake. This is not. But if Ni 16 was less maneuverable than Ni 11, then the deck should not have been upgraded, that's for sure. Try to contact Andrea before the Balloons are out. Or shall i?

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    In the Manoeuvre Deck Breakdown doc in the files you have and noted in the Updated Tactical Walk Through of Aircraft thread:
    I didn't find the file, but the thread doesn't mention they are steep, so i take it the are not. Which is quite a jump up in terms of agility.

    Your tread says
    Climb rate given as 5, ceiling 10 in (Nexus) WoW Balloon Busters expansion - these may be stats for rocket laden machine as the unofficial stats give it a great climb rate of 2 with a ceiling of 12 which may reflect the more powerful engine fitted to the airframe.
    It has been officially changed to 2/12 unless you refer to Nexus data.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-27-2022 at 06:42.

  32. #32

    Default

    Kubajs just sent me a picture of the new R deck. The broad slips are across the narrow side of the card, just a little wider than the standard slips and shorter. That needs its own evaluation point category. I am glad i noticed that. I will make a new picture for these in the deck analysis in the app.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    I didn't find the file...
    That surprises me as you asked me if you could use my document when building the app ?!
    It's here in the files for anyone who needs it.

    "He is wise who watches"

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    ..The broad slips are across the narrow side of the card, just a little wider than the standard slips and shorter. That needs its own evaluation point category....
    The P deck has the same non steep broad sideslips but one less sideslip each way, if that helps anything.

    PS - you might want to check the steep broad sideslips of the D E & I decks that are also across the width of the card, not the length as you've shown in the app.
    Last edited by flash; 05-27-2022 at 11:57.

    "He is wise who watches"

  35. #35

    Default

    Good catch, working on it.

  36. #36

    Default

    Here is the online version, that will become interactive in the future.
    http://www.hoho.cz/wog/evaluation/

  37. #37

    Default

    What is the significance of the pale lettering?
    e.g. O, U, X. S. V decks

  38. #38

    Default

    None, just to make it easier to read which aircraft belongs to the deck on the left side.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    Here is the online version, that will become interactive in the future.
    http://www.hoho.cz/wog/evaluation/
    With the asymmetrical deck penalty: -2 for each asymmetric instance in the deck you gave the example of the Camel as -2*4= -8 less than if the deck was symmetrical. Shouldn't that be -6 as it only has 3 x 90 deg turns ?

    "He is wise who watches"

  40. #40

    Default

    Yes Dave, that is a quick&dirty patch, i am currently working on something more clever.

    EDIT: Oh i understand, the extra -2 is for an extra one asymetrical slip.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-28-2022 at 02:29.

  41. #41

    Default

    Let's have this exampe for 90 deg turns:

    An aircraft with >>> is +15, minus 3x2 = +9 bonus for the three Rs.
    An aircraft with >> is +10, minus 4 = +6
    And aircraft with > is +5, minus 2 = +3

    And aircraft with < > is +10
    And aircraft with < >> is 15 - 1*2 = +13
    And aircraft with << >> is +20

    But this, although quick and dirty yet quite all right, is still not what it should be.
    1. The asymmetry penalty has to be purely to difference this and the same but symmetrical deck, not the fact that it is easier to approach as i wrongly stated before, because that is not what is evaluated here.
    2. The system must work with a progressive penalty, not just 2, as each asymmetric maneuver has a different value.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-29-2022 at 00:58.

  42. #42

    Default

    i temporarily removed this post, i am not 100% happy with the results yet.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-28-2022 at 22:02.

  43. #43

    Default

    I may be on the right track now.

    Instead of the asymmetry penalty, there will be a variety bonus. This will naturally penalize purely asymmetric decks, and at the same time, it will reward the decks with bigger selection of maneuvers.

    On top of it, i don't have to make such a wide and subjective scale of maneuver points, because for example both wide and long slip have their use at particular situations, and it is really hard to tell their point difference. Or stall / short slip - almost the same thing, with both being great maneuver at the right moment.

    This may come out less artificial and less subjective.

    What i need to know, and i would like to ask you guys - maybe make a poll - what should be the difference between a non-steep maneuver and its steep equivalent. Steep maneuvers are pure restrictions, without any possible situational benefits. They can only make everything worse.

  44. #44

    Default

    Here is the result of the above thoughts.

    http://www.hoho.cz/wog/evaluation/

  45. #45

    Default

    Nice! Wonderful information. Can you make a .pdf and add it to the file section?

  46. #46

    Default

    Dan i have a bad feeling that the file section is hard to reach these days. I will make a button o the page, but there are widgets for browsers that do pdf save.

    I changed the sorting yet a bit.

    GREAT, GOOD - have 90s
    Average, Poor - have Immelmann
    LUMBERING - have good looks

  47. #47

    Default

    Keith needs to be informed if you want to add any files Jan.
    I do not have the control of this facility.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  48. #48

    Default

    Sure Rob, no worries.

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Honza View Post
    What i need to know, and i would like to ask you guys - maybe make a poll - what should be the difference between a non-steep maneuver and its steep equivalent. Steep maneuvers are pure restrictions, without any possible situational benefits. They can only make everything worse.
    Non-steep moves can be repeated, if available or in the next turn, or worked then with a steep move such as a stall, so much more useful and usable. How you'd put a numerical value on that I don't know.
    I took a much more simple view of this just by adding up the additional moves over the most basic types, the results are very similar to yours but with a more granular outcome in the mid range.
    Basic: H,K,Y
    Normal: A, G, P, S, T, V (1 - just the Immel)
    Average: B, E, I, J, Q, R(n), W (3)
    Good: C, D, F, Fr, N, R(a), U, X (5)
    Better: M, O (7)
    Best: L (8)

    Steep 90's & asymmetric steeps seem to sort themselves out & end up in the good or average bracket leaving those with multiple non steep 90's to stand out on their own at the top of the tree.

    "He is wise who watches"

  50. #50

    Default

    I put the steep maneuvers at 2/3 of the value of non-steep, but after the introduction of the variety bonus, it plays less of a role.

    The main groups are - have 90s (GREAT, GOOD), have Immelman(Average, Poor) and have none of that (LUMBERING).
    Those make sense and don't need any points.

    Then they are divided by point values + variety bonus.
    I am happy with the result now.

    Edit: Dave I don't think Q and W are average decks.
    Last edited by Honza; 05-30-2022 at 01:34.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. WW2 Series 6 Short Pictorial Evaluation
    By Blackronin in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-06-2016, 13:33
  2. J Maneuverability Deck
    By Royals in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-29-2011, 03:25
  3. Mission 4: Combat Evaluation
    By Wolfbiter in forum WGF: After Action Reports
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-31-2010, 19:17
  4. Variant -Simple improved maneuverability simulation
    By Desaix in forum WGF: House Rules
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-22-2009, 13:07

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •