RE: Carrier damage

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Carrier damage

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Carrier damage

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 1:31:36 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

You are wasting your time, my time and everyone else's time. All you spreadsheet devotees who insist on reverse engineering the game always get it wrong. You have no way of factoring in the randoms. You have no way of knowing how much damage within the possible damage range was inflicted. Most text messages are essentially just chrome, being a string chosen out of the box of potential messages. All this has been stated over and over again over the years.

Lokasenna already gave you a good ball park estimate and you do not know enough about the game to even be able to challenge what he told you. To then just dismiss my comment on the damage level because you think otherwise is just risible and done only because not withstanding your protestations to the contrary, you are wishfully hoping to have sunk the carriers. As said, that may or may not be the case but no attempt by you to develop a spreadsheet will change the degree of confidence on the ballpark assessments offered by Loaksenna, a player who by the way is also keen on developing spreadsheets but clearly has realised the pointlessness of attempting to do so in this type of situation.

There is nothing particularly odd about not seeing a carrier when striking again. Any good AE player will tell you that. In AE, carriers and TFs are not cells in a spreadsheet which remain on the worksheet.

Everyone's intel, be it Japanese or Allied, is imperfect. Proper deployment and usage of one's assets, not development of a spreadsheet can improve the quality of one's intel. But fundamentally, if you want your intel to be better, don't play as Japan. Better still don't play AE because this is a game which attempts to be as close as possible to represent the historical constraints and factors which your historical counterparts had to struggle with. It is obviously new news to you but Japan did not have good intel. The game already gives Japan some unhistorical benefits, one of them being that the delta on Allied game intel compared to IRL intel is much greater than it is for Japan. If in the game the Allies player received the same quality of intel as they did get historically, you wouldn't even have a KB left afloat to worry about creating a spreadsheet.

Your recon of neighbouring islands can be better interpreted if you focused on what the game does and tells you rather than on believing you can crack some magical formula.

War is not a spreadsheet exercise, not today and certainly not in 1942. Your vanity testing will not produce anything which is reliable.

Alfred

(in reply to Marshall)

Post #: 31

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 2:56:11 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

One thing I have not seen anyone mention in the observed combat results is that sometimes hits are FOW - the pilots report them in vivid detail but they were actually near misses or duds. Thus the three torpedo hits on Hornet may have only been two, and it was able to get away without being in danger of sinking.
And, of course, Nav Search frequently misses things, like a TF hidden in heavy rain creeping away.

But the OP wants to get a little better at estimating based on combat reports and animations and this is doable, but more as a guesstimate with a 30-40% variability. For example, the picture of Yorktown posted shows Yorktown with moderate fire levels which IIRC means they are between 20 and 30% (need to check the thread on combat animations to confirm). But after the battle is over, those fires can be quickly doused by USN damage control or they may reach a fuel line and suddenly jump to heavy fires and cause a lot more damage. Big variability there, but the dousing is more probable than the spreading.

witpqs has a rule of thumb which coincides with my own - Ammo Storage Explosions do about the same damage as 3 X 1000 lb. bombs, and Fuel Storage Explosions do about 2 X the damage of a 1000 lb. bomb. Still only an estimate with lots of variability, but better than no idea at all.

The final piece of the estimate puzzle is assessing cumulative damage. Basically trying to decide if the D/C parties can get ahead of the damage or if it will accumulate still more after the battle is over. We all know the "heavy fires, heavy damage" and Japanese D/C in 1942 usually mean doom. Just plain "heavy fires" in a larger ship will usually be brought under control. "On fire, heavy damage" is one of the difficult to assess ones, and you need to see the individual hit reports during the animation to get a sense of just how severe the damage is (i.e. penetrating hit or not?, deck penetration or side [side causes more flooding]).

For Allied ships, "heavy fires" damage depends a bit on whether they ship got additional hits and fire after it reached the highest fire level (long streamer of bright orange flame with heavy smoke) or if it just tipped into the heavy fires category with the last hit.

Then there are variables like the messages that say "Severe Personnel Casualties" or "Severe Casualties to Damage Control" which can reduce Crew Experience and the D/C level in the ship's stats.

So we have estimates on top of estimates on top of estimates and all of them have a range of variability, so Alfred and Lokasenna are right - the best you can get is a ball park estimate and spreadsheets will not be able to refine it (although listing all the hit and visual info may help you with your ballpark estimate).

Enjoy the uncertainty - it adds to the tension and makes you sweat decisions!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 32

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 3:48:27 PM

Admiral DadMan

Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to jwolf)

Post #: 33

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 4:33:20 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall

Let us take 3 examples from the battle of the gilbert islands:

The Hornet:
20-Sep-42 CV Hornet Torpedo hits 1 belt armor pen, critical damage, severe engine damage
11-Oct-42 CV Hornet Bomb hits 1 on fire flight deck pen. Severe fires
18-Oct-42 CV Hornet Torpedo hits 2 belt armor pen severe flooding , critical damage

The Wasp
6-Oct-42 CV Wasp Torpedo hits 1 sub attack type 95 torp explosion below the waterline

The Yorktown
18-Sep-42 CV Yorktown Bomb hits 1 on fire
19-Oct-42 CV Yorktown Bomb hits 1, on fire flight deck penetration, severe damage; torpedo hits 1 belt armor penetration listing counterflooding

I also added s screenshot from the Yorktown, after the last attack

it took me 4 torpedo's for the enterprise and 5 for the Saratoga in this game.
I did not see the Wasp or the Hornet anymore in the final attack on the 19th.
The whole stack is moving 5 hexes! a turn on the 20th, based on that, a speed the Hornet cannot make in my view, and the Yorktown would struggle as well to even keep pace.

These assumptions are wrong. If those are the exact damage messages you saw, then there is no guarantee that damage on Yorktown and Hornet is higher than ~30-40 flooding. That level of damage would not at all preclude moving 5 hexes per turn. The fact that they are moving that fast tells me that they did not actually take much damage at all from those torpedo hits. "Severe flooding" seems to me, from observation, to just mean that the ship is taking some minimum amount of Major flooding damage. This might be 10, or it might be 40. It really just depends on all the randoms in the damage routine.

"Explosion below waterline" doesn't necessarily mean anything either, same as "Belt armor penetration" (and "Flight deck penetration" for bombs) - this is not actually a damage message, it is just telling you where the ordnance struck.

From the dates, I would discount entirely the hit on Hornet on 20-Sep-42. There was almost a month between hits. I would guess that she was back in action in the October battle, albeit possibly with some engine damage remaining ("Severe engine damage" in my observations is usually 10-30 engine). The 2 hits on 18-Oct-42 may have only done 20-30 damage to her. It just depends.

The hit on Yorktown with "listing, counter flooding" was actually your best hit. That usually signals floatation damage in the vicinity of 10-20 Major (depending on the durability of the ship and the damage roll) plus some addition minor flooding that is added on as the ship is trying to correct the listing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall

Thunderstorms prevented a new attack.
The battle for the Gilbert islands is for now over, the honorable admiral is moving towards Canton Isl. in a safe aircover zone.
Remarkably, the Yorktown was already smoking in my first assault, I think he was on station to long at least already damaged, perhaps a collision who knows.

Of course the Admiral can give us the details
no major plane counts on the operational losses, or field losses. but then the planes have plenty of options to go to in case of a sinking.
I heard multiple sinking's on the 20th, but I also hit his oilers on the 19th and a cargo ship with a sub the next day.

no Wasp or Hornet to be seen, in the attacks from the 19th, that is odd, and no new fleet moved from the main stack towards another destination according to my search planes (and I got the area pretty well covered.)
but I never sunk the Wasp with one torpedo before.

still searching for the Formidable
10-Oct-42 CV Formidable Torpedo hits 1 on fire Fuel storage explosion on CV Formidable

never found that one back as well

My intel says the ships sank, but then, they are notorious optimists and sake addicts.

My thoughts so far:
If the Hornet was afloat, why didn't I see it back in the attack the next day, no stragglers seen falling from the allied death star
If the Yorktown was still afloat, could the stack move 5 hexes in the next turn?

"Intel" will almost always report ships struck by torpedoes as sunk. You need to pay attention to the changes in VPs every turn, and the changes in aircraft losses, in order to determine if ships were sunk. There is no guarantee that CV-capable planes lost on the ground means you sunk a CV, as they could be lost from other sources (Airfield bombing for example), and there is no guarantee that you will see planes show up if you had a proper carrier battle, such that the enemy air wing was all in the air - they could be diverted to nearby carriers or airfields, and not destroyed on the ground. Basically, you can sink an "empty" carrier... however, if you notice a jump in your VPs by around 300 points that can't be explained by anything else, you probably sunk a carrier.

One of the best methods to determine whether a CA sunk or not, for example, is to check the float plane losses on the ground. If you see 3 Seagulls destroyed on the ground, you know she sank.

The smoke seen in the replay over ships represents system damage. If there is orange fire at the base of it, then it represents fires instead. With no fire, it's just Sys. It needs to be up around 10-12 before you see light smoke. Heavier smoke corresponds to a higher level of System, but I rarely see this occur with my ships so I can't hazard a guess as to the level of damage. To my eyes, there are only 2 "levels" to the smoke graphic. With that knowledge, the reported smoke on the Yorktown is probably from the ship not having seen the dock/pier in a while - collisions rarely result in System damage, at least of the level to generate the smoke.

In this screenshot, that is fires that you see.

As for why you didn't see them in future attacks - your planes just decided to attack other ships, I guess. It happens. The only way to know for sure whether a ship is in a TF or not is to engage that TF in a surface battle.

(in reply to Marshall)

Post #: 34

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 4:37:43 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall

I am not doing wishful thinking, I am trying to get a better understanding of the damage.
as the AI calculates the damage done, there must be some kind of formula close enough to use.

If the carriers are sunk or not, they are damaged enough to put them out of action for the next 6 months.
that is the main strategic gain from this battle over a empty coconut island in the Gilberts.

Not seeing the same carrier back when striking again is odd, you would expect it to be in the pack still.
that is my point.

My intel is the most optimistic in the world, and they are not ashamed to recall a sinking 2 weeks to 6 months later.
as they frequently do, I know that.
hence I want my own intel to be better on the damage assessment.

I put in the picture because Crackaces indicated the picture would indicate the damage level

point 3: the closest bases already have the same type of aircraft on it, so it is hard to spot, and intel in numbers isn't the best aspect of my intel guys.
I rather have a good grip on the damage assessment.

But I disagree on the damage statement you make, stating the damage is in nowhere range of sinking a carrier is in my view wrong.
I am almost sure the Hornet is done for.

this thread isn't my wishful thinking of having the USN sunk in a week, I am actually working on a damage calculation system.
to understand what impacts what, and getting all the data from the additional information when a hit is recorded.

I am doing more sandbox testing as well, PBEM against myself to get a good view on the impact of ordinance used, hits recorded and the additional information.

I do believe I should be able to make a calculation model that is pretty accurate.

Give up on finding a formula or a prediction model. Without knowing the range of damage that a weapon can inflict, and exactly how many random checks there are (against durability, against damage control, etc.) or the general paramters of those checks... there's no way to even begin to guess at the amount of damage that a weapon can cause. All you can do is play a lot, observe a lot of battles, and gather "data" that way. But it's soft data, not hard data. All it will allow you to do is form educated guesses.

Again, just because the CV did not show up in a later strike does not mean it was not present. You will only get identification on ships that your planes attack during the strike.

(in reply to Marshall)

Post #: 35

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 6:16:38 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

Have to concur with what everyone is saying about the combination of random factors and FOW making it impossible to accurately asses damage inflicted and/or develop a formula for doing so.

Here is an anecdotal example I experienced last night.

One of my subs found a Japanese CVE, the Iki, and put two exploding MK 14s into it.
One hit reported a Fuel Storage Explosion.
This happened at the end of a day phase, after air missions.
The next turn it had only moved one hex and a Dutch W139 put a 300kg bomb thru the flight deck setting off another reported Fuel Storage Explosion.
This still didn't sink the little CVE as it was encountered again by the same sub at the end of that day phase.
The sub delivered two more working fish, one of which set off a reported Ammunition Storage Explosion.
I heard the sinking sound at the end of that combat.

So a lowly CVE that one would expect couldn't sustain much damage before succumbing, endured FOUR torpedo hits, ONE 300kg bomb, TWO Fuel Storage Explosions and an Ammunition Storage Explosion before finally sinking.

Obviously some of the reported hits and after effects were over reported due to FOW. The hits that were valid likely did far less damage than assumed.

That was one plucky little ship!

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 36

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 6:26:43 PM

Marshall

Posts: 225
Joined: 4/18/2014
Status: offline

Well Alfred, where does that hostility come from, forgot to take any pills?

I am free to waste my time on any spreadsheet and calculation model I please, and if you see reading my post as a waste of your time, please do not read or reply to it.
To state that I am wasting your time is utterly ridiculous.

I also didn't know you are the measure to say who is wasting time to what for the rest of the forum.

I respect Lokasenna very much, and I have got many sound advice from him in the past, and I certainly take his advice at heart on this subject as well.

The damage calculation is a mathematical one, the devs developed a formula as simple as that, I do not pretend I will get it 100% accurate, but I think I can get it in pretty close with enough testing.

And again, I do not question that carriers are afloat and happy sailing towards a base.
Fine with that.
I do not even pretend I sank all of them.
My curiosity is how to determine critical damage and how long it takes to sink a type of allied carrier.

Intel is imperfect, well aware of that, never stated it was, I just joke the guys are on Sake , reporting ships sunk with the utmost optimism always.
That's why I rely on my intel . based on damage I can see in combat.
and I want to perfect that to as much as possible.
I do not know why you are so against spreadsheets, it can be great in helping out planning, Japanese industry calculations etc.
sounds a bit you dislike any player using a spreadsheet
I do not go banana's on you, in your (in my view futile) effort to retype the manual, just because i think that is a complete waste of time (its your time, if it makes you happy, do it).

on my damage calculation model, It is of course a solely waste of my time, and not yours to pursue that.

No need to go all stress and hostile days before Christmas.

< Message edited by Marshall -- 12/23/2015 8:21:17 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 37

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 6:29:17 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Have to concur with what everyone is saying about the combination of random factors and FOW making it impossible to accurately asses damage inflicted and/or develop a formula for doing so.

Here is an anecdotal example I experienced last night.

One of my subs found a Japanese CVE, the Iki, and put two exploding MK 14s into it.
One hit reported a Fuel Storage Explosion.
This happened at the end of a day phase, after air missions.
The next turn it had only moved one hex and a Dutch W139 put a 300kg bomb thru the flight deck setting off another reported Fuel Storage Explosion.
This still didn't sink the little CVE as it was encountered again by the same sub at the end of that day phase.
The sub delivered two more working fish, one of which set off a reported Ammunition Storage Explosion.
I heard the sinking sound at the end of that combat.

So a lowly CVE that one would expect couldn't sustain much damage before succumbing, endured FOUR torpedo hits, ONE 300kg bomb, TWO Fuel Storage Explosions and an Ammunition Storage Explosion before finally sinking.

Obviously some of the reported hits and after effects were over reported due to FOW. The hits that were valid likely did far less damage than assumed.

That was one plucky little ship!

Or...

The CVE passed its damage control checks and didn't sink until the damage was just too much. It's entirely possible that the initial torpedo hits and bomb hit caused enough damage that the ship would've sunk as it tried to limp to a port, but it's always easier to confirm sinkings when they sink outright.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 38

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 6:47:56 PM

Marshall

Posts: 225
Joined: 4/18/2014
Status: offline

tough CVE indeed
mostly the carriers sink after the battle, in my experience.
only in 1944 and 45 I see more carriers lost outright in battle.

as Japanese player

< Message edited by Marshall -- 12/23/2015 7:50:07 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 39

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 9:24:23 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall
My curiosity is how to determine critical damage and how long it takes to sink a type of allied carrier.
[...]
That's why I rely on my intel . based on damage I can see in combat.
and I want to perfect that to as much as possible.

Your problem here is:

The damage effect varation is so high that even knowing the underlying mathematical model will not get you much closer to the truth as any rough guesstimate you already have read in this thread.
The randomizer was one of GG�s (highly effective) ways of simulating a very complex environment without providing billions of input variables.

A torp hit can be a premature detonation close enough to a ships� hull to dent the torpedo belt a bit, or a direct explosion under the keel breaking the ships� back. Or hull penetration and internal explosion leading to extensive flooding and sys damage and/or fires.

Even the game engine does not know if the ship will be sunk until the damage effect algorithms, the damage control algorithms, and the repair algorithms team up with a number of additional randomizers and start spewing out results. 2 torp hits can send a CV to the bottom. I have seen a US flattop survive as many as 6 consecutive hits.

What Alfred told you was that your (not every) spreadsheet is a waste of time. It will not enhance your confidence in knowing whether a CV has been sunk or not beyond what information already has been provided to you. I agree with that assessment.

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall)

Post #: 40

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 9:56:20 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

Hey LoBaron! Based on the visual clues, my assessment is that your doghouse is going dowwwwwwwn!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 41

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 9:57:42 PM

Marshall

Posts: 225
Joined: 4/18/2014
Status: offline

I am sure Alfred referred to " all spreadsheet devotees".
War is not a spreadsheet exercise is actually not true also, almost all modern warfare weather its cruise missiles, air defense or long range artillery is done with calculations and " spreadsheets" of data, either ground mapping, GPS, or other.
Even in ww2 the battle ship guns used " computers" such as range keepers in order to hit the targets.
Without it, they couldn't hit a battleship from 500 yards.
so Spreadsheets, or mathematics are long part of warfare.

And I agree I will not get the 100% calculation correct, I never claimed it, but there is a thing of combining mathematic, testing and the wonderful art of statistics.

so I will make a model, and it will be accurate to some point.

Galileo is convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633 for stating the world is round.
Einstein was laughed at
And going to the moon was totally impossible!

by that standard, making a calculating model that suits my needs is a small challenge, and I am not comparing myself to any of the above great figures of history.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 42

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 10:04:16 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

Will be interested to find out the results of your efforts to build a model. Please post again when you have some experience with it.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Marshall)

Post #: 43

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 10:06:33 PM

Marshall

Posts: 225
Joined: 4/18/2014
Status: offline

I will share the results, will take a few months to get it into shape
put I will certainly share it for those who are interested.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 44

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 10:08:30 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Hey LoBaron! Based on the visual clues, my assessment is that your doghouse is going dowwwwwwwn!

I do agree that setting glide angle to best glide is advisable given the circumstances.

_____________________________

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 45

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 11:10:07 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

I understand that FoW can affect the reliability of both estimates by intelligence on ships sunk, as well as damage noted on enemy ships during battle. Can it also cause the battle animation screen/ops report to erroneously report a miss when a hit was actually scored?

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 46

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 11:16:15 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

there must be some kind of formula

I'm sure there is... Under the hood and we will never be privy to it, and that is as it should be. Time and again people here want exacts and we're just not gonna git 'em.

quote:

Not seeing the same carrier back when striking again is odd,

Not really, it could've been split off into an escort TF due to its damage. This would also make the TF harder to spot as it has few vessels. It also makes it probable that the TF is in a different hex and could be under fowl weather.

There are many variables that come into play that just make exacts improbable. So, play and enjoy the uncertainty.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to jwolf)

Post #: 47

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 11:20:23 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

That was one plucky little ship!

The little ship that could...

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 48

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 11:25:35 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I understand that FoW can affect the reliability of both estimates by intelligence on ships sunk, as well as damage noted on enemy ships during battle. Can it also cause the battle animation screen/ops report to erroneously report a miss when a hit was actually scored?

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that if it says you got a hit, you got a hit. We know that the animations and combat report text are identical for both players, unless a sync bug occurs. I've never seen one of my subs get hit by a depth charge (an actual hit, not a near miss) and when I check on the sub after the replay it never has no damage and doesn't report being hit (that sentence needs some work; sorry).

A hit in the animation, so far as I can tell, is an actual hit. But there's a chance it did minimal damage. For example, that bomb hit, while maybe it penetrated deck armor on that cruiser, might've detonated in the room holding the anchor chains. That will make going to port a bit more interesting, but isn't going to actually damage the ship all that much. It's why you should pay attention to the damage messages, and pay particular attention to the "heavy fires, heavy damage" lines that show up in the combat report text. It is those messages combined with the observed nature of the hits (Severe Flooding, Severe Engine Damage, Listing, etc.) that will give you the best measurement you can possibly have of how damaged the target ship is. You must remember that "heavy damage" applies to any damage category on the ship being at 50+. This could be System, Flooding, or (so far as I know) Engine. Just because you see "heavy damage" doesn't mean the ship is at >50 Flooding. I've seen that be reported for BB Musashi taking 20 bomb hits on her decks, for example, resulting in 60+ Sys damage. Flooding and Engine were less than 10. But if you just looked at the combat report text and saw 20 bomb hits for heavy fires, heavy damage, you might think she was a goner. It is only the animation itself where you can observe that each of those bombs were detonations on the armor, and the vitals of the ship didn't take any damage. You would then be able to correctly conclude that the "heavy damage" in the combat report is referring to Systems damage.

Typically for USN ships, you must hear the sinking sounds immediately following a submarine attack to be certain the ship is dead, or you must see it sink during the animation ("is sunk" in the report text - this never lies), otherwise you can only be about 95% certain at best.

A bit longwinded, but if one just observes and makes notes (even mental) of what the damage messages were during the replay, and make notes of what these messages mean for damage totals when the damage is being applied to one's own ships, one can get a very good feel for estimating damage to enemy ships as well.

And to reiterate, I don't think torpedo hits are ever FOW'd into the combat report text. I know that at times ships will show up in air attack reports and it will just say something like "DD Fletcher, and is sunk" - no hits, but the ship sank anyway. I look at this as most probably being the result of trying to maneuver during the air attack and foundering, rather than it being the case of the ship being attacked and hits not being reported due to FOW - as I have never seen this happen in any other case where the example would be a ship not attacked in the replay turning up with damage from a hit that wasn't shown (to either player, since they see the same animations).

To reiterate my reiteration, just pay attention to the damn damage messages and observe how they are applied to your own ships for an idea of how they're applied to enemy ships. Then factor in future damage control projections accordingly based on IJN or Allied ship being hit.

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 49

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 11:33:43 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

BTW IRL the Akagi was sunk by one hit and a near miss. Both 1000lbers but that's all it took. I'm sure the game could mimic such results.

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 50

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 11:34:54 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

Thanks, Lokasenna. Appreciate it. I just got into a lucky night surface battle with the Japanese CV task force in a Guadalcanal campaign I'm playing as the allies (we're both noobs). The Shokaku took 3 shell hits from a BB with a magazine explosion and fires reported. I know it didn't sink because I didn't get a jump in victory points, but my intelligence reports it sunk and now I'm wracking my mind wondering if it will make it back to port or if the fires will consume it.

I really like the uncertainty aspect of FoW; it brings a whole new dynamic to the campaign and forces me to keep in the back of my mind the idea that the Shokaku might resurface. If you want accurate reports or want to develop a spreadsheet to predict damage done of sinking reliably, you might as well play with FoW off.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 51

RE: Carrier damage - 12/23/2015 11:41:38 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

What Lokasenna said in post 49. Just to add to that when I have a sub attack a merchie and get one hit I assume it normally survives as I hear no sinking sounds. But when I get one hit and see the message 'counter flooding' the norm after that is to hear the sinking sounds. Therefore putting one and one together I know that message means the torp hit is more severe and the same logic can be applied to warships.

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 52

RE: Carrier damage - 12/24/2015 1:28:52 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

Lokasenna: And to reiterate, I don't think torpedo hits are ever FOW'd into the combat report text. I know that at times ships will show up in air attack reports and it will just say something like "DD Fletcher, and is sunk" - no hits, but the ship sank anyway. I look at this as most probably being the result of trying to maneuver during the air attack and foundering, rather than it being the case of the ship being attacked and hits not being reported due to FOW - as I have never seen this happen in any other case where the example would be a ship not attacked in the replay turning up with damage from a hit that wasn't shown (to either player, since they see the same animations).

Ships that sink with no apparent hits always have already sustained significant damage and are struggling to contain it. When an attack occurs the crew go to action stations and the damage control suffers. That can be enough to have the ship sink or be consumed by fire.
The evidence of this model is in the reports of loss of troops and equipment on a transport on fire even though it was not hit in a new round of combat. The losses (and ship damage) are accumulating while the attack is happening, regardless of the lack of attacks on that ship. Same thing happens to ships that do not have troops - you just can't see the evidence until it sinks.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 53

RE: Carrier damage - 12/24/2015 1:30:53 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Thanks, Lokasenna. Appreciate it. I just got into a lucky night surface battle with the Japanese CV task force in a Guadalcanal campaign I'm playing as the allies (we're both noobs). The Shokaku took 3 shell hits from a BB with a magazine explosion and fires reported. I know it didn't sink because I didn't get a jump in victory points, but my intelligence reports it sunk and now I'm wracking my mind wondering if it will make it back to port or if the fires will consume it.

I really like the uncertainty aspect of FoW; it brings a whole new dynamic to the campaign and forces me to keep in the back of my mind the idea that the Shokaku might resurface. If you want accurate reports or want to develop a spreadsheet to predict damage done of sinking reliably, you might as well play with FoW off.

Relax - Guadalcanal is a short scenario and the damage you described to Shokaku will keep her in the dockyard for the duration. But if you can find her and finish the job the Victory Points will likely assure your victory in the campaign.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 54

RE: Carrier damage - 12/24/2015 2:25:33 AM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

Lokasenna: And to reiterate, I don't think torpedo hits are ever FOW'd into the combat report text. I know that at times ships will show up in air attack reports and it will just say something like "DD Fletcher, and is sunk" - no hits, but the ship sank anyway. I look at this as most probably being the result of trying to maneuver during the air attack and foundering, rather than it being the case of the ship being attacked and hits not being reported due to FOW - as I have never seen this happen in any other case where the example would be a ship not attacked in the replay turning up with damage from a hit that wasn't shown (to either player, since they see the same animations).

Ships that sink with no apparent hits always have already sustained significant damage and are struggling to contain it. When an attack occurs the crew go to action stations and the damage control suffers. That can be enough to have the ship sink or be consumed by fire.
The evidence of this model is in the reports of loss of troops and equipment on a transport on fire even though it was not hit in a new round of combat. The losses (and ship damage) are accumulating while the attack is happening, regardless of the lack of attacks on that ship. Same thing happens to ships that do not have troops - you just can't see the evidence until it sinks.

Exactly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

What Lokasenna said in post 49. Just to add to that when I have a sub attack a merchie and get one hit I assume it normally survives as I hear no sinking sounds. But when I get one hit and see the message 'counter flooding' the norm after that is to hear the sinking sounds. Therefore putting one and one together I know that message means the torp hit is more severe and the same logic can be applied to warships.

Minor flooding damage represents compartments that are flooded, but able to be made watertight and pumped clear. Major flooding represents compartments that are open to the sea when they should not be... The "Counter flooding" represents minor flooding damage, which is in addition to the major flooding damage caused by the initial explosion. There is typically minor flooding damage anyway, but that message represents even more. Merchants typically don't have the durability to control that type of damage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Thanks, Lokasenna. Appreciate it. I just got into a lucky night surface battle with the Japanese CV task force in a Guadalcanal campaign I'm playing as the allies (we're both noobs). The Shokaku took 3 shell hits from a BB with a magazine explosion and fires reported. I know it didn't sink because I didn't get a jump in victory points, but my intelligence reports it sunk and now I'm wracking my mind wondering if it will make it back to port or if the fires will consume it.

I really like the uncertainty aspect of FoW; it brings a whole new dynamic to the campaign and forces me to keep in the back of my mind the idea that the Shokaku might resurface. If you want accurate reports or want to develop a spreadsheet to predict damage done of sinking reliably, you might as well play with FoW off.

Since you engaged it in a night surface action, all of the planes would have had to be on board. You would know it sunk if you saw Zeroes, Vals, and Kates listed as "Destroyed on ground".

Did you actually see a "Magazine explodes on CV Shokaku", or did you see Ammo Storage Explosion? To my knowledge, "Magazine explodes" results in a sunk ship every time.

If an IJN ship is burning and the fires end up sinking the ship, it only takes 3 or so days at most. Beyond that and you can assume she probably lived.

The Shokakus are pretty hardy. She might've lived.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 55

RE: Carrier damage - 12/24/2015 3:34:23 AM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

You are right, Lok. Ambiguous phrasing on my part. It was an "Ammo Storage Explosion" with fires reported. I'm pretty sure she lived (no planes destroyed on the ground anyways). Nonetheless, as BBfanboy alluded to, I'm hoping it did enough damage to knock her out of commission for awhile.

One weird thing that happened in a separate action:

Had a major night surface action off of Lunga at GC, with heavy damage on both sides. No ship sunk in the engagement and there was no sinking sound, but then a few seconds into the turn replay the same Jap fleet proceeded to bombard Lunga. Immediately proceeding this, I heard the distinctive sinking sound right before the bombardment began; yet, none of my ships sank and I don't see a jump in points in the intelligence screen, so I'm wondering where that sinking sound was coming from. I'm thinking maybe going to battle stations, etc. causes lapse in damage control which caused a sinking, but have no evidence to point to it other than the sinking sound.

< Message edited by Anachro -- 12/24/2015 4:40:02 AM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 56

RE: Carrier damage - 12/24/2015 7:46:20 AM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

quote:

Typically for USN ships, you must hear the sinking sounds immediately following a submarine attack to be certain the ship is dead, or you must see it sink during the animation ("is sunk" in the report text - this never lies)

Is this defo the case? I thought I'd sunk Saratoga in my game with that, but according to the combat reports, subs have engaged her three times since (never seen in the attack, just seen the escorts).

_____________________________

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 57

RE: Carrier damage - 12/24/2015 11:17:31 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

quote:

Typically for USN ships, you must hear the sinking sounds immediately following a submarine attack to be certain the ship is dead, or you must see it sink during the animation ("is sunk" in the report text - this never lies)

Is this defo the case? I thought I'd sunk Saratoga in my game with that, but according to the combat reports, subs have engaged her three times since (never seen in the attack, just seen the escorts).

Subs THOUGHT they'd engaged her, but maybe, maybe not. The game has randoms working on randoms working on randoms in nested calculations. Anyone who thinks they can spreadsheet combat results--which is completely different than spread-sheeting the Japanese economy--is foolish.

Like Loka I have seen fleet carriers struck by exploding torpedoes and sustain virtually no damage. My current record in one of my PBEM games is 6 System, with no flooding or engine of any kind. You can get that sailing from SF to PH at Mission speed.

This whole thread reminds me of that classic military/management/science saying: "I know half of my data is wrong. I just don't know which half."

And to further the OP's issue a bit, me, the original So What Kid, would ask, "If you knew the damage to the carrier was indeed 52 total percent instead of 48.5%, what would you do with that in a tactical sense?" Would it change the decision to chase? To retire? To re-orient your TFs? Would you know how long the carrier would be out of action? No, because you don't know where she's going for repairs (transit time and yard size), what else will be there also repairing, and what priorities your opponent sets for the repair infrastructure. You get no feedback on that of any kind.

By and by you will know if the carrier sank. In the meantime, so what?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 58

RE: Carrier damage - 12/24/2015 11:41:39 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Hey LoBaron! Based on the visual clues, my assessment is that your doghouse is going dowwwwwwwn!

I do agree that setting glide angle to best glide is advisable given the circumstances.

No.

Snoopy and the Red Baron have a date in destiny. Fear not, Snoopy will shoot down the Red Baron.

Alfred

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 59

RE: Carrier damage - 12/24/2015 11:45:38 AM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

Probably beating a dead horse now but here goes:

I've seen an allied fleet carrier take two torpedo hits with ammo explosion. The ammo that exploded was light caliber ammunition and the ship only suffered around 30 systems and 10 major float damage.. It was burning in its 30s and moved to a level 3 port with around a hundred naval support....

Five turns later she was scuttled with fire raging around a stable 70 but system damage now high 80s and only trending up....

I've seen a fleet carrier take several penetrating 500 kg bomb hits and torpedo hits but making port with major float around 60, system damage around 60... She was back in the war a few months later...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 60