Magazine explosions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Fallschirmjager -> Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 5:31:39 AM)

Was the code changed?
I am getting at least one every surface combat. Something is seriously wrong unless this is historical and I don't know about it.



Tankerace -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 5:57:10 AM)

I noticed that too. I got 2 Magazine explosions in my first surface combat, but in 2 others have had none. So it could just be random rolls I suppose.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 9:31:37 AM)

I've only seen one in my PBEMs even with 1.21. CL Kuma blew up while anchored in the Pescadores after a B-17 raid from 21,000 feet. Took 1 500lb bomb and kabloowie!

They are a bit too common. Because there is no non-vital hit location, every hit is bad news, however. Sure would have been nice to have "near miss" and "hull/superstructure" hit locations added to absorb some of the hits as was historically the case. Crew would have been a good one too...lose crew the quality goes down, morale suffers,VP for crew tallied like squads. (losing ships becomes more expensive if 1000 seamen go down) Having permanent flot damage until repaired at a naval dockyard would be most welcome as well.



freeboy -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 10:05:23 AM)

we don't need no stinken floatation rules changed, we need our turns back [:D]



Onime No Kyo -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 11:29:43 AM)

I thought there were "superstructure" hits...."deck hits" I think they are. They dont seem to cause much damage aside from "severe casualties from deck explosion". But maybe I'm not reading this right. :)



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 6:35:38 PM)

Im bumping this back to the top.

I am playing Guadalcanal so granted I am having surface combat at least 2-3 nights a turn, but I am getting a magazine explosion every 2 combats or so.
I want a tester to take a look at this.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 6:40:05 PM)

Actually, when a warship was sunk, a magazine or boiler explosion was generally the "final
cause". Either fire spread until it got to the ammunition..., or flooding spread until it got to
the superheated boilers. In both cases, the results were pretty much always fatal.

So what we COULD be seeing is an adjustment that makes ships sinking a more probable
result of actions rather than having damaged vessels wandering around all over. Just a
thought



Nikademus -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 6:42:01 PM)

This frequency was noted. Currently the chance of mag explosion per penetration is 4%. I'd prefer it to be 1% as such occurances should be extremely rare.



esteban -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 6:45:08 PM)

Yes, the magazine explosion rate seems pretty high, at 4% per penetration. With that kind of rate, you would expect to see a couple magazine explosions in any decent-sized night action.



Nikademus -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 6:51:27 PM)

i'd expect to see zero to maybe 1. To use a wargame example as a comparison. Gary's old classic "Warship" allowed the following possibilities for mag explosion based on hit location.

Primary Turret - 1%
Belt armor - 4%
Deck armor - 7%

Even so....Magazine explosions were extremely rare in the game and ironically, most often happened when primary turrets were penetrated. In WitP, I have wondered if there wasn't a math error going on here as admitedly the diff between 1% and 4% is not exactly a wide gulf here, but havn't had time to set up extensive tests. I have noted however numerous surface battles where i've seen more than 1 mag explosion, an occurance which should be very unlikely.

Interestingly enough, i have never seen a merchant suffer one. They seem to be either exempt or the code is working properly in their case.



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 6:52:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Actually, when a warship was sunk, a magazine or boiler explosion was generally the "final
cause". Either fire spread until it got to the ammunition..., or flooding spread until it got to
the superheated boilers. In both cases, the results were pretty much always fatal.

So what we COULD be seeing is an adjustment that makes ships sinking a more probable
result of actions rather than having damaged vessels wandering around all over. Just a
thought


I thought ships took way too much damage before I did all the reading I have done recently. Ships on both sides could take an incredible amount of punishment before sinking.
I like your idea. Ships with a large amount of fire damage should be abandoned and have a greater chance of the fire touching off a magazine explosion.


4% is too high, but it looks alot higher than that to me. One ship a combat seems seems like its greater than 4%.
How are 1% and 4% being arrived at? Just pulled out of the air or historical evidence?



Nikademus -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 6:57:21 PM)

Making FIRE damage more dynamic was one of my early "Quests" so i can relate to what you are saying. FIRE is admitedly underrepresented in the game, this was acknowledged during design discussions a while back however due to the economic realities of the situation it could not be changed aside from the increase in incidental FIRE damage for non penetration hits.

Howeever if it is demonstratedly shown that the critical hit feature is either malfunctioning or is set at too high a %, i could see that being tweaked as a wish list item. Mike already has a wish list still a mile long. [;)]



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 6:58:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Making FIRE damage more dynamic was one of my early "Quests" so i can relate to what you are saying. FIRE is admitedly underrepresented in the game, this admitted during design discussions a while back however due to the economic realities of the situation it could not be changed aside from the increase in incidental FIRE damage for non penetration hits.

Howeever if it is demonstratedly shown that the critical hit feature is either malfunctioning or is set at too high a %, i could see that being tweaked as a wish list item. Mike already has a wish list still a mile long. [;)]



From my reading it seems a large number of Japanese ships were 'sunk' due to their crews abandoning them and then scuttling them.
American ships seemed to be either outright sunk or abandoned due to flooding.
I think a feature needs to be added where is flooding and fire becomes uncontrollable our virtual bluejackets abandon the ship and scuttle it.

As many things that get fixed in the game new stuff is always poping up [X(]
Still love the game though [:)]



Nikademus -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 7:20:20 PM)

One of the aspects of my preposal for more dynamic FIRE interaction was just that....the poss of uncontrolled fires based on the current FIRE level. This was a feature of past GG tactical games. The higher the FIRE level, the greater the possibility of add'l FIRE levels being created. Thus, for example if you had under 20 FL's and good Damage Control, you would have a good chance of reducing FL's and saving the ship. However if you had say, 45 FL's then you were in trouble as the chance for additional FL's would be exponentially greater and if the DC level is not up to the task, you are faced with a losing proposition. Thus FL's could go both UP as well as DOWN. Each turn damage might be caused up to and including a critical event dependant on a random and the current FL. Merchants should be extremely vulnerable to such a thing and it's absense is one reason why merchants are over durable in the game. A quick read from Frank will reveal that the majority of merchant casualties resulted from reletively small numbers of hits that started fires that eventually consumed the ships.

However this would require a complete rewrite of the code because a key difference in WitP/UV is that FL generation is much greater than in those old GG games. In past games any FL above 20 was extremely dangerous, but in the game this is a common occurance. a strike by SBD's with GP bombs for example can routinely cause FL's in the 30's and 40's. Under the old system this would be a virtual death sentance for both sides every time. Never forget my first reaction to this effect after purchasing UV. I had an american tanker hit and next turn i saw that it had 40 fire levels. Because of my past GG game experience, my first thought was "crap! that ship is dead!" I was suprised to see next turn that the FL's had been cut in half. Next turn it was under 10, next turn, fires out. Only some add'l SYS had been caused.

Sadly, such a complete re-write is not economically feasible. To quote Commander Korr though....."It would have been glorious..." [;)]



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 7:26:02 PM)

Hmm. I understood some of that [:'(]

My main point however was that I think the game should force ship abandonment and scuttling on us more often than it does. Seeing as that is how most ships were sunk.
I know alot of players wouldn't like that idea but it seems more realistic to me.



Nikademus -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 7:30:17 PM)

A thought i've had for a long time now is that Merchant DUR should be halved to represent their greater fragility of construction and/or less emphasis on survival in design (vs. a dedicated warship) I'm playing with this right now and i'm liking the results so far. It helps reduce player tendancies to use their merchants as disposable battering rams.

I'm REALLY looking forward to the implementation of cargo/troop damage per hit on merchants. That will really increase realism and promote more careful historical play.



Black Cat -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 7:32:43 PM)

A 4% Chance means it _shouldn`t happen_ 96% of the time which are huge odds, unless the calcs the AI is doing for it is based on each shot, bomb, salvo or single torp, in which case 1-2% would be more accurate.



Nikademus -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 7:35:04 PM)

A series of static tests would be helpful here to determine whether or not there is a math error creaping into things.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 7:48:00 PM)

4% doesn't seem like much, but reverse the logic ...

The Yank torps have an 80% dud rate yet still sink ships like rabbits breed!

When you factor that 80% dud rate against the accuracy rate, you end up with roughly the same odds of getting a torpedo hit that actually explodes as a super critical. [;)]



Nikademus -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 7:50:58 PM)

I have a no "reverse logic" policy this early in the morning before coffee. [:D]

All i know is that based on past game experiences that had similar rules and percentages, the frequency of critical hits i've been seeing is nothing short of puzzling. As to the historical.....mag explosions in battle are very rare so a 1% figure is not unreasonable, more so considering the all critical hit nature of the damage model.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 8:03:02 PM)

quote:

mag explosions in battle are very rare so a 1% figure is not unreasonable,


I agree, but then again ... the odds on a 14" shell hitting a ship at 20,000 yards is a pretty small number too.

When it comes to naval warfare the fact that two BBs in rough seas can even hit each other at all has always amazed me.



Rabbakahn -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 8:32:31 PM)

Using a simple binomial distribution, the probability of 2 occuring in 100 penetrations is about .14 They most likely happen a little more than we would be thinking.

I was surprised when I saw that the probabilty of zero in 100 chances was .01

Frederick



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/6/2004 8:38:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

One of the aspects of my preposal for more dynamic FIRE interaction was just that....the poss of uncontrolled fires based on the current FIRE level. This was a feature of past GG tactical games. The higher the FIRE level, the greater the possibility of add'l FIRE levels being created. Thus, for example if you had under 20 FL's and good Damage Control, you would have a good chance of reducing FL's and saving the ship. However if you had say, 45 FL's then you were in trouble as the chance for additional FL's would be exponentially greater and if the DC level is not up to the task, you are faced with a losing proposition. Thus FL's could go both UP as well as DOWN. Each turn damage might be caused up to and including a critical event dependant on a random and the current FL. Merchants should be extremely vulnerable to such a thing and it's absense is one reason why merchants are over durable in the game. A quick read from Frank will reveal that the majority of merchant casualties resulted from reletively small numbers of hits that started fires that eventually consumed the ships.

However this would require a complete rewrite of the code because a key difference in WitP/UV is that FL generation is much greater than in those old GG games. In past games any FL above 20 was extremely dangerous, but in the game this is a common occurance. a strike by SBD's with GP bombs for example can routinely cause FL's in the 30's and 40's. Under the old system this would be a virtual death sentance for both sides every time. Never forget my first reaction to this effect after purchasing UV. I had an american tanker hit and next turn i saw that it had 40 fire levels. Because of my past GG game experience, my first thought was "crap! that ship is dead!" I was suprised to see next turn that the FL's had been cut in half. Next turn it was under 10, next turn, fires out. Only some add'l SYS had been caused.

Sadly, such a complete re-write is not economically feasible. To quote Commander Korr though....."It would have been glorious..." [;)]


Yeah. We campaigned pretty hard for a lot of things. Sadly, WITP never really had a real Alpha phase where betas could influence design issues as the game was already designed.



Joel Billings -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/7/2004 12:18:58 AM)

Ron, I understand your feeling about not being able to redesign parts of WitP. However, I think you're overstating it about no Alpha phase. The game was in testing for over 18 months IIRC and we made tons of changes based on tester comments. It's very true that we chose not to rewrite many/most major systems as way too much work (in terms of code time, bug fixing time, and balancing time) versus the benefit, but I very much disagree that we weren't influenced by UV player and WitP tester comments during the 18 months of alpha and beta testing. I can't make you agree with me about the importance of the things we did change relative to those you wanted to change, but relative to other games I've worked on, this had a longer test cycle and more user/tester suggested changes than most.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/7/2004 3:10:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Ron, I understand your feeling about not being able to redesign parts of WitP. However, I think you're overstating it about no Alpha phase. The game was in testing for over 18 months IIRC and we made tons of changes based on tester comments. It's very true that we chose not to rewrite many/most major systems as way too much work (in terms of code time, bug fixing time, and balancing time) versus the benefit, but I very much disagree that we weren't influenced by UV player and WitP tester comments during the 18 months of alpha and beta testing. I can't make you agree with me about the importance of the things we did change relative to those you wanted to change, but relative to other games I've worked on, this had a longer test cycle and more user/tester suggested changes than most.


Hi, Joel. I should explain that a bit. I attempted to convey that UV, being the precursor, is the meat behind WITP. UV was designed much earlier obviously and the main elements and design approaches were basically written in stone at that time. WITP adopted these and any major changes, which Alpha normally can accomodate, could not for various reasons for WITP as you stated above. Any major design changes would have had to come during UV's Alpha phase I think, right? UV had the main Alpha, WITP had a more specific one to deal with the scale and such to translate UV to WITP. So a lot of us betas who joined midway through UV development did not have an opportunity to be in on the ground floor so to speak. That's what I meant by no actual alpha.

That and it is such a huge project that a lot of things which normally would have been streamlined or whatever with smaller projects are just being realised now as user play level increases. I don't think many devs and testers even got to mid 42 as changes always required restarts etc. man this puppy is big.

Tons of fun in any case. Now if my PBEMers would send me turns while I battle this flu. Canada sucks sometimes.[;)]



Joel Billings -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/7/2004 3:44:46 AM)

Ron, I understand your point about UV. Yes, lots of things were developed during UV before it got to outside testers. Heck, Gary was working on it in 1999/early 2000 and much was already working when we formed 2by3 in summer 2000. If I knew then what I know now, I would have probably asked for more changes from Gary when I first came on the project (althought honestly not on the damage model, because I still don't view that as being so far off given the strategic scale of the game). My focus, however, was on the user interface (Gary didn't have one), and that was enough work with UV that I accepted his under the hood formulas unless I found something that hit me in the head as being really off. Then while we were waiting for Mike to implement the interface, Gary and I spent months working on the AI as it certainly needed the effort (much more time than with most of his games). Anyway, that's all ancient history now and for the design Archaeologists. As for players finding things now that couldn't be tested before, I agree. This game is very big. Hopefully Mike can continue to take care of anything that's considerably off, although I'm hopeful it won't be too bad as we did have later war scenarios. Of course I don't have a lot of hope about the AI in long games, as it's bound to break down over time (like Outkast, I'm just being honest).



Wolftrap -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/7/2004 6:53:26 AM)

I think magazine explosions could use a little work also. I just sunk the Hyuga with one well placed Dutch torpedo... BOOM!!! I'm not sure there's any precedent to torpedoes causing a magazine explosion in a battleship.



Tankerace -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/7/2004 7:13:07 AM)

Wrong dude. 2 cases.

On 21 November 1944, the battleship Kongo took 1 torpedo (some sources speculate 2) from the submarine Sealion II. After a few hours, she was dead in the water and sinking. Then, without anywarning, she blew up and sank.

On 25 November 1941, HMS Barham took 3 torpedoes from U-331 in the Mediterranian. As she bgan to list very rapidly, her magazines suddenly exploded and she capsized and sank very quickly.



Wolftrap -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/7/2004 7:30:32 AM)

I've read Kongo took 3 hits and sank of progressive flooding several hours later. I'll have to go read up again. Barham looks like her boilers blew. Watch the funnels hit the water and the subsequent explosion.

In my example there were no flooding messages just boom.



Tankerace -> RE: Magazine explosions (11/7/2004 7:41:02 AM)

Kongo was sinking yes, however, as Japanese destoyers moved in to assist, she blew up. The explosion originated under her forward turrets.

As to Barham, boilers flood. They would have to be cranked wide open to blow. Plus, the official British history cites it as a magazine explosion.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625