Editor question ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War



Message

mariovalleemtl -> Editor question ? (8/9/2008 8:14:57 PM)

Dear SSG,

I would like to know why I see a 0 on every DECK value on every BB & CV when I look at them on the editor ? There is a number for the Belt but not for the Deck. Has you know, those ships have thick deck.

I check for that because on my last 2 game , the Yamato get just a few bombs hit and sank immediately. That is very strange for that kind of monster. [:(]

mv



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Editor question ? (8/11/2008 2:56:51 AM)

Mario,

I'll get Alex to give you a reply on this.

Thanks

Gregor



mariovalleemtl -> RE: Editor question ? (9/7/2008 2:35:01 AM)

[>:]



Erik2 -> RE: Editor question ? (9/7/2008 1:07:00 PM)

I remember back in the bad old days of the C64, Ian Trout wrote in Run5 that he had by mistake switched the deck (?) values for destroyers and battleships.
Yamato would sink at a whim and destroyers were nearly invincible...
Deja Vu?



random_rail -> RE: Editor question ? (9/7/2008 4:04:41 PM)

That would be consistent with my experiences on this.  You can bomb the crap out of the DDs and the BBs will just belly up and die on ya.



mariovalleemtl -> RE: Editor question ? (9/7/2008 6:09:43 PM)

Help ! [sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif]



mariovalleemtl -> RE: Editor question ? (9/19/2008 2:56:06 AM)

[>:]



alexs -> RE: Editor question ? (9/22/2008 12:59:56 AM)

Hi Mario,

This is a mechanic we are developing, and that i forgot to remove from the editor.

You can safely ignore it for now - the values just havent been entered yet.

CAW has always had a single armour value to indicate a ships belt / deck armour combined. We have decided to split that up into deck and belt values to more realistically model damage. The single armour value became the belt armour, and the deck armour will require entries. The actual algorithms that use the 2 values are still being fine-tuned, but are nearing completion.

Alex



random_rail -> RE: Editor question ? (9/22/2008 7:25:38 PM)

Cool, thanks Alex.  Are there going to be more scenarios in the update?[:)]



Sarconix -> RE: Editor question ? (9/24/2008 8:11:47 AM)

So do you know why Mario might have had his Yamato sink with just a couple of bomb hits? Just bad luck, or a different problem in the hit computation? The real Yamato (and Musashi) took several bombs and torpedoes before going down.



mariovalleemtl -> RE: Editor question ? (10/15/2008 5:46:35 AM)

[8D][sm=sign0031.gif]



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Editor question ? (10/16/2008 3:48:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarconix

So do you know why Mario might have had his Yamato sink with just a couple of bomb hits? Just bad luck, or a different problem in the hit computation? The real Yamato (and Musashi) took several bombs and torpedoes before going down.


The Japanese were not very good at damage control, which they saw as akin to defeatism and unworthy of the attention of a true warrior. The USN started the war better at damage control and learned quickly from their early war experience to become even better. The USN trained hard and instituted a program to get rid of flammable materials which were a leftover from from peacetime ways of doing things. They did this because real world experience showed that fire was the real killer of ships.

The Japanese, never very good at confronting lessons from the real world, did none of these things. The result is that a couple of bombs, in the wrong place, have a much better chance of sinking a Japanese ship than an American one.

Sinking in this context includes a ship abandoned and deliberately sunk by its own side.

The other point worth mentioning is that the historical attacks happened just once, whereas ships in CAW are under constant attack, as the web site stats show, so there is a much greater scope for unusual results to show up.

Gregor



mdiehl -> RE: Editor question ? (10/17/2008 7:54:22 PM)

According to Yamato's TROM on Combinedfleet.com, an "uncontrollable" fire occurred in the upper secondary armament magazine aft that could not be contained. This fire was caused by a single bomb, but it is unclear whether or not the failure of Yamato's damage control party (probably owing to broken water mains) was a consequence of the same bomb or one that hit immediately before. In any case, this bomb was either the second or third bomb to hit Yamato, and it would inexorably have detonated her upper secondary magazine, and probably the adjactent 18" magazine next to it. It could be very reasonably hypothesized that Yamato was sunk by two bombs, and that all the rest of the ordnance simply sank her faster yet.

The idea that Yamato or Musashi were relatively durable bomb soaks is largely a matter of the fact that being the biggest target she drew the most fire. In my view, she's the only battleship sunk three times in her final voyage; flooding from torpedo hits put her underwater before her after magazines could explode from the uncontrollable fire. Ironically, modern underwater photography indicates that her forward magazine detonated underwater. Hence "sunk three times."

Edit: Something wierd happened here. I posted this in the "Yamato" thread in WitP and somehow the post wound up in Carriers at War forum. Please dis dis disregard in this forum.



Sarconix -> RE: Editor question ? (10/17/2008 8:50:28 PM)

Thanks mdiehl and Gregor for the comments... interesting stuff.

Does CAW model poor(er) Japanese damage control? It looks like an editor option, so I guess the scenarios have the Japanese ships set to a lower level?



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Editor question ? (10/19/2008 7:09:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarconix

Thanks mdiehl and Gregor for the comments... interesting stuff.

Does CAW model poor(er) Japanese damage control? It looks like an editor option, so I guess the scenarios have the Japanese ships set to a lower level?


Yes, damage control is something you set in the editor.

Gregor



Brausepaul -> RE: Editor question ? (10/20/2008 6:43:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
... Ironically, modern underwater photography indicates that her forward magazine detonated underwater...


Do you have any internet ressources with pictures at hand?



mariovalleemtl -> RE: Editor question ? (11/28/2008 9:02:56 PM)

Yesterday, the Musashi sank after she received only 2 torpedos. [:-]



funkatron3000 -> RE: Editor question ? (11/29/2008 4:08:38 AM)

I had the Yamato go down after one bomb hit and one torpedo hit. The bomb inflicted one fire damage. The torpedo changed every bar to permanently damaged except three, two of which were fire and one green. I was quite surprised.



mariovalleemtl -> RE: Editor question ? (11/29/2008 4:15:24 AM)

I am sure there is a bug somewhere with those big ships.



mariovalleemtl -> RE: Editor question ? (12/2/2008 3:48:27 AM)

I just made a other test with Midway. That time the Yamato sank with ONLY one torpedo. ONE !

Please do somethink my SSG friends.



mciann -> RE: Editor question ? (5/26/2009 9:00:00 PM)

I performed a few experiments, and found the following:

1 - armor (belt or deck) has absolutely no bearing on damage due to aircraft strikes.

2 - the only feature of a surface ship that has any bearing on its ability to sustain airstrike damage is its diplacement, and the relationship is inverse.  If I modify the Yamato class so that it has no armor and displaces 1 ton, it will take about 7 torpedoes or about 15 bomb hits to sink it.  If I set it to 300,000 tons, it takes 2 torpedoes or about 4 bomb hits to sink it.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125