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: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/17/2005 9:36:34 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Spawning carriers tends to make the Allied players care a lot less about losses.


In reality those Essex class carriers would have arrived even if the originals hadn't been sunk. The respawn feature actually pulls carriers out of the Allied side if less than the full amount allowed are sunk.


That and the CA's and CL's of both the US and Aus. OT a bit, but what fantastic ship building did the Aussies allegedly have that would justify their inclusion? Why not the English too while GG was at it?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 61
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/17/2005 9:52:53 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline 		Feinder:
quote:

"Oh well. I just lost 5 CVs. No biggie. They'll come back."


Which goes for the US and AUS CA's and CL's as well. Nobody may play stupid with the US CV's because they will always get them back, but it's quite unlike the reality of NEVER getting them back, such as what an IJN player faces. Still further, it makes a larger difference than any most other kind of player, the sort who would, like myself, use his first option at playing this game as trying to hold off the Allies in the long run (not caring in the least about how many lame points I inflicted and thereby might win some 'early victory'), such that my AI opponent really might not care that his early CV's were lost too much.

Still to this day, as many times as I've raised this issue, NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS EVER EVEN ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN OR JUSTIFY WHY CA'S/CL'S ARE INCLUDED IN SPAWNING, AND FAR MORE HILARIOUSLY, WHY THOSE OF AUSTRALIA WERE. Why is that? Care to explain that seemingly non-defensible position?

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 62
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/17/2005 10:31:11 AM   
Sharkosaurus rex


Posts: 467
Joined: 10/19/2004
From: under the waves
Status: offline 		Qunicy II CA39 sunk 7th Aug 42. respawned as QuincyIII CA71
Vinciennes CA 41 sunk 7th Aug 42 respawned as Vinciennes CL 64
Chicago CA 29 sunk 2 Nov 42 respawned as Chicago II CA 136
Astoria CA 34 sunk 7th Aug 42 repawned as Astoria II CL 90
I'm sure there are several others.

It wasn't the great Aussie shipyards- but lendlease.
After the USN Blue torpedoed and sunk HMAS Canberra 7 Aug 42 the Americans replaced it with one of their cruisers.
And when HMAS Australia was sunk by the Japs the Americans gave Australia another one.

_____________________________

Is Sharkosaurus rex the biggest fish in the sea?
Why don't you come in for a swim?

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 63
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/17/2005 10:37:44 AM   
Sharkosaurus rex


Posts: 467
Joined: 10/19/2004
From: under the waves
Status: offline 		Go here:

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/index.html
scroll to the bottom of that page and click on the return to homepage.

It has every USN ship ever built and their history. The complete naval history of the USN.
It is an official history of the USN.


< Message edited by Sharkosaurus rex -- 7/17/2005 10:40:12 AM >

_____________________________

Is Sharkosaurus rex the biggest fish in the sea?
Why don't you come in for a swim?

(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 64
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/17/2005 10:52:20 AM   
Sharkosaurus rex


Posts: 467
Joined: 10/19/2004
From: under the waves
Status: offline 		Houston II CA 30 sunk 26th Feb 42 respawned Houston CL 81

I don't know why the respawning is in the game instead of just having every ship the USA built. My main guess would be for play balance so the Japs don't get over-run by huge USN navy. And maybe to get the Allied player to be a bit more aggressive in the early war period instead of just waiting for his huge fleet to build up.

_____________________________

Is Sharkosaurus rex the biggest fish in the sea?
Why don't you come in for a swim?

(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 65
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/17/2005 1:54:09 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
Still to this day, as many times as I've raised this issue, NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS EVER EVEN ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN OR JUSTIFY WHY CA'S/CL'S ARE INCLUDED IN SPAWNING, AND FAR MORE HILARIOUSLY, WHY THOSE OF AUSTRALIA WERE. Why is that? Care to explain that seemingly non-defensible position?


See the USS Canberra (CA 70).


_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 66
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/17/2005 1:58:39 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex
And when HMAS Australia was sunk by the Japs the Americans gave Australia another one.


Just one correction - HMAS Australia was not sunk by the Japanese. She survuved the war (unlike HMAS Canberra and HMAS Sydney) and was sold for scrap in 1955.


_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 67
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/17/2005 3:00:31 PM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sharkosaurus rex

Houston II CA 30 sunk 26th Feb 42 respawned Houston CL 81

I don't know why the respawning is in the game instead of just having every ship the USA built. My main guess would be for play balance so the Japs don't get over-run by huge USN navy. And maybe to get the Allied player to be a bit more aggressive in the early war period instead of just waiting for his huge fleet to build up.


Thanks for explaining. Seems the more sensible thing to do is just give it to them the date they got it, irrespective of the reason. I mean if Aus. doesn't lose it, it should be in the USA's lineup right?

(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 68
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/17/2005 10:20:08 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		That's how I think it shuold be with all of them - no respawn, just produce them as they were coming. But it is what it is.

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 69
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 4:06:11 AM   
pmelheck1

 

Posts: 610
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Alabama
Status: offline 		does system damage effect damage control?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 70
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 5:15:16 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Well, ships do attempt to repair system damage while at sea. Is that what you mean?

(in reply to pmelheck1)
Post #: 71
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 5:18:30 AM   
Belphegor


Posts: 2209
Joined: 5/10/2004
Status: offline 		I believe the higher the system damage the less effective repairing floatation and fire damage will be at sea. Thus a really high sys damage will slow or even prevent repairs to keep the ship afloat.... that's my understanding anyway.

< Message edited by Belphegor -- 7/18/2005 5:24:58 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 72
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 6:32:35 AM   
Sharkosaurus rex


Posts: 467
Joined: 10/19/2004
From: under the waves
Status: offline 		Ships at sea should repair:
page 183 of the manual:

ships at sea can never repair their sys damage below 50
ships docked can never repair their sys damage below 5

so it suggets that you can repair while at sea, but without the bonuses of being disbanded inside the port it is hard to see any effect. Also if you are damaged at sea with float or fire- any small repairs will be over-taken by added sys damage from fire.


_____________________________

Is Sharkosaurus rex the biggest fish in the sea?
Why don't you come in for a swim?

(in reply to Belphegor)
Post #: 73
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 9:08:15 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		BTW manual be wrong. Ships in port "disbanded" do repair to 0 sys .. though the ports I use for such have AR and Naval HQ which may help .. any ole level 3 with no AR and no HQ might have a different out come ...



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 74
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 3:51:47 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

BTW manual be wrong. Ships in port "disbanded" do repair to 0 sys .. though the ports I use for such have AR and Naval HQ which may help .. any ole level 3 with no AR and no HQ might have a different out come ...





Disbanded does not equal docked. Docked means still in a TF, but not at sea/in port. Disbanded means in port, not in a TF.

However, DOCKED ships can still repair to less than 5. This seems to be dependant on thre presence of a repair facility/shipyard, though.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 75
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 4:30:05 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, OK I want to explain something here. Early in testing I mentioned that ships do not burn for several days. They put the fire out within 12 or so hours or they sink or are abandoned.
The system currently in play has these 12 critical hours spread out over several turns.
The reason is the turn length. To be correct the player would get a series of messages like "Fire on CV Soryu under control" and later "Fire on CV Soryu out" or "Fire on CV Soryu out of control"
The current system hopefully gives the player a chance to abandon ship and save a few VP.
As long as a ship is on fire you are getting a slow painfull account of the struggle.
Just remember that the system is abstracting damage accumulating from fire and flooding to show the progressive nature. Actually ships have a better chance of surviving in WITP then in any other game of Pacific combat because the damage requires more then 12 hours to resolve. If you fight near a size 3 port and have an AR there with a HQ any ship that actually docks and is not bombed or shelled has a good chance of staying afloat.
All fires are put out in 1 turn in port. Flooding can repair at around 5 per turn.
I recently had a CV battle where if I had been at Midway I would have lost most of my CV however since I was less then 10 hexes from Shortland (size4) where AR and HQ were waiting every ship that made it to port will survive (2 docked with system 70+ flooding 60+ and fires 10+) IN a quick damage resolution game I don't think they would have made it.
The designers had a hard choice how to handle damage and damage accumulation.
It would be more realistic timewise for a ship to sink or be abandoned by the time the player got a chance to check a TF after a battle. There is no debate on this. Ships do not burn while crawling towards a port after a battle. They put the fire out or they are lost. Fires cannot exist on a ship for long because as we know a ship sinks when it fills with water to a certain point (where it no longer displaces more then it weighs) Fighting a fire is dumping water into the ship. (After a point you will put the fire out but doing so on the way to the bottom is no solution)
So think hours even though you watch it resolve over days. If the ship makes it safely then it won the battle the first day. If it sinks in the port hex before it disbands (or even worse the turn it disbands before the port can repair) then console yourself with the fact that in reality it was lost the turn it was damaged.
We get to watch the drama in slow motion.
One bad side effect of this delayed damage resolution is ships in the TF with the damaged ship are held in danger much longer then would be the case if the damage was taken care of at real speed. If a ship has flooding and is on fire and can't make better then 10 knots. Leave it. You don't have to scuttle it but don't keep healthy ships tied to it. I assign 1 DD.
Please don't drop cows over this. The other method would be more correct time wise. But the designers wanted to show the progressive nature of damage and provide the drama of the struggle. The alternative would be those old
"Explosions on CV Soryu" messages we used to get where during a turn they just kept popping up untill "CV Soryu sinks" In WITP Japanese damage control is not as good as USN damage control but the player do get a chance to save damaged ships. (or scuttle them) What I mean is any ship that sinks in WITP would sink if the faster method was used. However often ships that would sink the fast way are saved in WITP.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 7/18/2005 4:36:35 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 76
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 5:03:39 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		It´s a fact now that all three carriers sunk!!! And I still call it medium damage! A few bombs and two torps sinking three carriers seems to me a bit toooo much! Ships that start out with 20 flood damage going down is just weird. Next time there´s a post, hey I´ve been hit by 1 bomb and my carrier sunk??!!?? What? One bomb? Perhaps 500 lb. ship killer bomb? Yeah, because your sailors aren´t able to stop that flooding. It wouldn´t be that hard to believe for me, if one of the three went down because of some special circumstances. But hey, not all three. 1942 was not the time of wooden boats!

I just can say again that Wolfpack did a real good job in closing in, but the outcome....

Perhaps Japanese players can start "Will she make it with 12 flood damage back home" threads in the future!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 77
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 5:05:39 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 78
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 5:30:21 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

It´s a fact now that all three carriers sunk!!! And I still call it medium damage! A few bombs and two torps sinking three carriers seems to me a bit toooo much! Ships that start out with 20 flood damage going down is just weird. Next time there´s a post, hey I´ve been hit by 1 bomb and my carrier sunk??!!?? What? One bomb? Perhaps 500 lb. ship killer bomb? Yeah, because your sailors aren´t able to stop that flooding. It wouldn´t be that hard to believe for me, if one of the three went down because of some special circumstances. But hey, not all three. 1942 was not the time of wooden boats!

I just can say again that Wolfpack did a real good job in closing in, but the outcome....

Perhaps Japanese players can start "Will she make it with 12 flood damage back home" threads in the future!


Hi, One more try. After a battle you click on a TF and then on a damaged ship. It shows 20 sys 20 flood and 5 fires. "Not bad you think" However you must also understand that while it is "not bad" it is also "not final"
The first time you look at your TF after a battle your not seeing the damage 24 hours later your seeing it minutes later. The TF has checked damage perhaps 2 times since it was inflicted. Now pay attention here because this is where you and many others lose the system.

Bomb hits does 5 system damage 5 flood and 2 fires.
Ship checks damage/repair now 10 system and 10 flood because fires are now 15
Ship checks damage repair (your not getting these messages) now system 20 and flood 20 and fires down to 5 here is where you first get a chance to look and you think "not bad" not realizing that yes it is bad ship is accumlating damage quite rapidly from initial damage.
Now you end turn
Ship is going to check damage 3 more times before you see it again. Unless the fires are out next time you look it means the ship has been losing the battle against the fires.
(any ship that has a fire 2 turns after damage inflicted is in real trouble)
Flooding damage can occur rapidly both from damage that occured when bomb or torpdo hit and from the fires. Damage control is made up of 2 things mainly
1. Firefighting
2. Stopping flooding from structural damage (plugging holes)
Firefighting is going to add to flooding. No ship has inductors that can pump out water faster then it floods. The pumps can slow the rate of flooding but unless at some point it is stopped the ship will sink. Once you stop the flooding the pumps can begin to reduce the amount of water onboard.

All this occurs within the first 24 hours. (In real life) However in WITP in order for you to see it the process has been spread out.
No ship is safe if
1. It is on fire. No matter how low the level of fire the ship is still gaining damage to system and is flooding. Fires that are not put out can gain in level. They can gain level and then be fought back down and then gain again. (You look fire 10 you look again a turn later fire 10 but while you were not looking it climbed to 20 was fought back down to 15 and then to 10)
Ships that are on fire will not sink because system reaches 99 they will sink when flooding reaches 99. You can have system damage of 1 and sink from flooding. (unlikley a ship would gain 99 flood with only 1 system the point is system damage has no effect on a ship sinking.

2. Progressive flooding. Even after a fire is out a ship at sea with flooding will either lesson the flooding or aquire more. Guess which is more likely to occur for a ship at sea?
Flooding does not move like system damage 1,2,3,4,5 Flooding can move 5,10,20,40
A ship that has 40 or 50 flood during your orders phase might very well sink before your next orders phase.
A ship that is 20 percent flooded is in real trouble. There really is no such thing as"minor" damage when refering to flooding of a ship still at sea (never mind still on fire)


However as pointed out 4 IJN CV were sunk with 0 torpedo hits and 13 bombs divided among them.
In WITP no CV will ever be caught with full decks. Aircraft will either be up flying mission or they will be stowed in hanger. (unarmed and unfueled) This is because all missions in a airphase launch at same time. (both opposing CV TF launch strikes together only the game has to place one before the other . It means nothing what order the strikes resolve in. )

In reality your 3 CV were sunk the first day. To show you the "How" the game spread it out over time. This is unrealistic. However just as unrealitic remains the fact that had the battle been fought next to one of your ports size 3 or larger with AR and HQ you might have saved them. And the entire time you had a chance to abandon them and save a few VP (I never abandon a ship screw the VP)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 7/18/2005 5:42:05 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 79
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 6:17:34 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		I still think the flood model is a wee bit weird. The progressive flooding issue was one of my concerns (with regard to Japanese ships) because it does seem to slam the Japanese ability to perform tasks for which they were well trained. Personally I'd lessen the penalty on the flooding and increase the penalty regarding fires (which the Japanese did have problems with because of lower standards handling fuel (early war they did not purge lines etc, later war they used less refined and therefore more volatile fuels).

The thing that has always bothered me is the ability of ships to repair 100% of flood damage at sea. To me, flood damage should be more permanent (like system damage) and require major yard time to fix. Why? Say a ship lost its bow like Selfridge did in 1943. Just because the flooding has stopped being progressive, there was still flooding of the forward area and counter flooding to keep the ship from nose diving into oblivion. There should/could have been some differentation between permanent flood damage and progressive flood damage. In WITP, the ship either sinks or has 100% flotation restored, and in Selfridges case, this is illustrated as being totally innaccurate. How can a ship lose it's bow, have widespread flooding and controlled flooding, and end up with 100% flotation values without major repair time in a yard? Nothing can be done about this because apparently nothing could be done about it a few years ago.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 80
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 6:25:46 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I still think the flood model is a wee bit weird. The progressive flooding issue was one of my concerns (with regard to Japanese ships) because it does seem to slam the Japanese ability to perform tasks for which they were well trained. Personally I'd lessen the penalty on the flooding and increase the penalty regarding fires (which the Japanese did have problems with because of lower standards handling fuel (early war they did not purge lines etc, later war they used less refined and therefore more volatile fuels).

The thing that has always bothered me is the ability of ships to repair 100% of flood damage at sea. To me, flood damage should be more permanent (like system damage) and require major yard time to fix. Why? Say a ship lost its bow like Selfridge did in 1943. Just because the flooding has stopped being progressive, there was still flooding of the forward area and counter flooding to keep the ship from nose diving into oblivion. There should/could have been some differentation between permanent flood damage and progressive flood damage. In WITP, the ship either sinks or has 100% flotation restored, and in Selfridges case, this is illustrated as being totally innaccurate. How can a ship lose it's bow, have widespread flooding and controlled flooding, and end up with 100% flotation values without major repair time in a yard? Nothing can be done about this because apparently nothing could be done about it a few years ago.


I find i can get my mind around this conundrum if i consider PERMANENT AND CONTROLLED FLOODING as SYS damage, and the other flooding as "temporary" flooding. Yeah, its not a perfect model, but it is much better than some other aspects of the game that have much bigger problems.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 81
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 8:29:54 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Say a ship lost its bow like Selfridge did in 1943. Just because the flooding has stopped being progressive, there was still flooding of the forward area and counter flooding to keep the ship from nose diving into oblivion. There should/could have been some differentation between permanent flood damage and progressive flood damage.


One could argue that since the Selfridge 'lost' it's bow, as in ripped right off. It was no longer a part of the ship. So perhaps it was better off than you suggest because it wasn't carrying the dead weight of a flooded bow and the bow itself.

As said before the damage model isn't perfect, if I had my way we'd have seperate damage for the engines, etc. I always will be slightly annoyed at the idea of ships simply losing top speed due to cruising around for a couple days.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 82
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 8:34:19 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Say a ship lost its bow like Selfridge did in 1943. Just because the flooding has stopped being progressive, there was still flooding of the forward area and counter flooding to keep the ship from nose diving into oblivion. There should/could have been some differentation between permanent flood damage and progressive flood damage.


One could argue that since the Selfridge 'lost' it's bow, as in ripped right off. It was no longer a part of the ship. So perhaps it was better off than you suggest because it wasn't carrying the dead weight of a flooded bow and the bow itself.

As said before the damage model isn't perfect, if I had my way we'd have seperate damage for the engines, etc. I always will be slightly annoyed at the idea of ships simply losing top speed due to cruising around for a couple days.


We'll put this on our wish-list for WITP II!

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 83
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 8:50:47 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		Mogami,

I agree with your explanation, I don´t have problems with the progressive flooding. It´s clear to me that in reality 4 CVs were sunk with 13 bombs. Okay! They were sunk because of a full flight deck, or a real critical hit! That can happen, no problem with that. Because that happened in reality, it blows up Japanese CVs with 2 bombs in WITP. But it hardly ever blows up American carries with 3 Japanese 250 kg bombs because of their super duper damage control! Hey, why can´t American CVs blow up like that! There were so many posts made how Japanese CVs blew up, but as you said, things like a full flight deck can´t happen in WITP. So why do the Japanese CVs blow up like historical (e.g. with a full flight deck) but the Allied don´t?

But without that "bad luck" or a full flight deck it takes more than 2 bombs to SINK such a ship. I know I´m fighting against windmills here, against the American developers and the American fanboys. But this result is just too American. I also play the Allied side, but as an Austrian I would also wonder how I could sink these !three! carriers with a few bombs. It´s nearly impossible to sink an Allied CV because of this difference that was made. I initiated this PBEM and I proposed Allied damage control on, because the Allied were better in reality. Better in fighting fires, not flooding. As it´s now, the Japanese suffer those historical ship killing hits like a full flight deck that can´t be in WITP and lose their ships. The Allied don´t, because of their damage control.

No, no, that´s not right.

Terminus, call that spam or whatever (I don´t care abut anyway), if there can´t be those historical extremely bad hits than there shouldn´t be these results. Normally you get more hits and don´t think about it when a ship is lost. I played around with the scenario editor and it´s NORMAL that Jap CVs sink with a few bomb hits if they aren´t near port. How can that be if there are no full flight decks? Allied CVs stay NORMALLY afloat with a few hits and I let them out at sea too and didn´t bring them to port.

But I know, now someone tells me you can´t compare the Allied bombs with the Japanese and so on....

I just wonder why it´s so seldom that US CVs have progressive flooding????

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 84
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 8:53:48 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

I just wonder why it´s so seldom that US CVs have progressive flooding????


Because of the Allied damage control rule. Realistic or not, that's how it seems to work.

I am told if you turn OFF the Allied DC, the results of battles are rather drastically altered - i.e. Pearl Harbor is a real disaster.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 85
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 8:54:54 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


I just wonder why it´s so seldom that US CVs have progressive flooding????


The USN damage control bonus toggle makes it harder for US ships to sink due to progressive flooding though it can happen if the damage and FLT is high enough. If you object to this edge, it is a feature that can be turned off.

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 86
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 8:57:00 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

I just wonder why it´s so seldom that US CVs have progressive flooding????


Because of the Allied damage control rule. Realistic or not, that's how it seems to work.

I am told if you turn OFF the Allied DC, the results of battles are rather drastically altered - i.e. Pearl Harbor is a real disaster.


If I would have known that such a result is possible I would have set it OFF and so I would have the same chance to sink an Allied CV. I would have lost my carriers too but I also would have the chance to do so.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 87
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 10:05:20 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, ALl I can say is that in the battle where my CV were damaged but survived the only CV sunk was a USN CV. Over all, taking everygame I have ging on I'd say Japan is leading in CV sunk compared to CV lost.
Not every battle results in a lost IJN CV but almost all of them have produced at least 1 USN CV sunk.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 88
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 10:11:51 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

I just wonder why it´s so seldom that US CVs have progressive flooding????


Because Allied lumber and sledge hammers are of a higher quality so the shoring of bulkheads and plugging of holes is of a higher standard than the Japanese.

Seriously, the progressive flooding hit Japan takes could definitely be toned down. As I said before, would help their poor soggy I Boats immensely too.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 89
RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ - 7/18/2005 10:26:48 PM   
Hornblower


Posts: 1361
Joined: 9/10/2003
From: New York'er relocated to Chicago
Status: offline 		Historically the only USN cv or cvl that sank that WASN'T scuttled was the Yorktown- and that was to flooding resulting from torp's. I have no problem with the rule, and as was mentioned earlier, it can be toggled off should someone have an issue with it. Personally i think its reflects the reality of what was.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Japanese damage control! WTF*#?$ Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.733