Depth Charge Damage Question

[alesha93]

I'm a a bit confused about how much damage depth charges actually do to subs.

For example - when I see a message something like "near miss rattles sub ****". What do the '*' mean? Is that a measure of damage? Is there any damage done by near misses without the '*'?

It's also interesting that some subs (the double hulled Japanese subs) seem to take a great deal of damage whereas others seem much more vulnerable.

Any thoughts on how the damage modeling works?

[crsutton]

Yes, that is a measure of the damage done and is usually system damage but not always. That type of hit is rarely serious and reflects a near miss but the stars indicate how much damage it did-within a range though so you never really know. You probably will never sink a sub unless you get an actual "hit" message. My rule of thumb has been that a solid "hit" on a small RO type Japanese sub will sink it 50% of the time and two hits on a larger I boat will sink them 50% of the time. Allies subs almost always will never sink with two hits but three will generally do them in. But when you get the *** message you have not sunk anything.

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum. It is a real treat to have a former Playboy Playmate in our midst...[;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, that is a measure of the damage done and is usually system damage but not always. That type of hit is rarely serious and reflects a near miss but the stars indicate how much damage it did-within a range though so you never really know. You probably will never sink a sub unless you get an actual "hit" message. My rule of thumb has been that a solid "hit" on a small RO type Japanese sub will sink it 50% of the time and two hits on a larger I boat will sink them 50% of the time. Allies subs almost always will never sink with two hits but three will generally do them in. But when you get the *** message you have not sunk anything.

I agree that I have never sunk an enemy sub without a "hit" message or three, and a "penetrating" hit at that.

However, on the issue of the number of asterisks being meaningful, I don't think so. There was a post by JWE/Symon that discussed this, but damned if I can find it. I found a reference to it in a 2011 post, and I searched by every key word and combo I can think of, but can't find it. I think there might have been a partial purging of JWE's old posts during the "unpleasantness" during which he became Symon.

But from memory he said those text messages are thrown from a random pool with a random number of asterisks inserted, the main purpose being to make sure there was visual separation between the text messages. I also believe, with no rigorous correlation, that non-penetrating DCs--IOW, the DC explosions that throw off the other text messages--do some random amount of System damage. Small amounts. I just don't think the amount of random System damage is related to the number of asterisks.

If any Search mavens can find the post I'm referring to I would appreciate it. I looked for over thirty minutes.

[wdolson]

By the early 1940s the US was ahead of Japan in pressure hull technology. American subs could dive deeper and survive more damage than Japanese subs as a result. Japanese ASW was very ineffective until a Congressman told the press the Japanese were setting their depth charges too shallow because the Japanese figured the maximum depth of American subs was the same as Japanese subs, but in reality American subs could go much deeper. Until the Japanese learned of this, it was common practice in the USN to take the sub deep and creep away from an attack. If the sub could get below the max Japanese depth charge depth quick enough, it almost ensured a clean escape.

Bill

[Dili]

I don't think operative depth is a reliable indicator of hull resistance. What is a better indicator(or less worse due to uncertainty) is the crush depth.

For example Gato i have 95m operative depth and a 1,5 security coefficient = means crush depth at 95m x 1.5 = ~142m . The less resistant Italian submarines had 80m operative depth but their security coefficient was 3. Or 240m crush depth.
I don't know what were the Japanese crush depth, and i don't think is practical to be less than 1.5. A KD-7 has an 80m operative depth with a 1.5 security coefficient we have a 120m crush depth. It is 20 m to 142m or about
2 atm.

[wdolson]

I have no idea of Japanese crush depths, but in most things they did tend to run on narrower margins than most other countries.

Combined Fleet only lists "Maximum Depth" for subs, which may or may not be crush depth. In any case the C series boats had a max depth of 100m. The KD type boats were in the 75-80m range.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm

Bill

[Dili]

Yes more information is needed.

A difference between operative depth and crush depth of 20-30 m i don't think is practical, we are talking about boats some of them with almost 100m length, this means that in usual maneuvering the bow or the stern could be at crush depth easily.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, that is a measure of the damage done and is usually system damage but not always. That type of hit is rarely serious and reflects a near miss but the stars indicate how much damage it did-within a range though so you never really know. You probably will never sink a sub unless you get an actual "hit" message. My rule of thumb has been that a solid "hit" on a small RO type Japanese sub will sink it 50% of the time and two hits on a larger I boat will sink them 50% of the time. Allies subs almost always will never sink with two hits but three will generally do them in. But when you get the *** message you have not sunk anything.

I agree that I have never sunk an enemy sub without a "hit" message or three, and a "penetrating" hit at that.

However, on the issue of the number of asterisks being meaningful, I don't think so. There was a post by JWE/Symon that discussed this, but damned if I can find it. I found a reference to it in a 2011 post, and I searched by every key word and combo I can think of, but can't find it. I think there might have been a partial purging of JWE's old posts during the "unpleasantness" during which he became Symon.

But from memory he said those text messages are thrown from a random pool with a random number of asterisks inserted, the main purpose being to make sure there was visual separation between the text messages. I also believe, with no rigorous correlation, that non-penetrating DCs--IOW, the DC explosions that throw off the other text messages--do some random amount of System damage. Small amounts. I just don't think the amount of random System damage is related to the number of asterisks.

If any Search mavens can find the post I'm referring to I would appreciate it. I looked for over thirty minutes.

You rrrrrrrranggggggggg.

The Symon quote is from mid 2014. It doesn't quite say that but does make it very clear that people are reading far too much into the messages. I'll add the thread in an edit as I only know how to hyperlink one thread at a time.

The direct on point game coder provided info on asterisks comes from 2006, in classical WITP from Mike Wood, in this thread:

tm.asp?m=1244496

Mike Wood's comments on classical WITP are to be preferred to those of Terminus because Mike Wood was the actual game coder involved in patching and debugging. I am quite certain that AE did not revise the role of the asterisk in depth charging.

There are many AE threads which discuss this subject. Unfortunately they are particularly notable for the absence of AE dev participation. Consequently one finds many conflicting statements in those threads. As AE dev participation is lacking in those threads, they are not really definitive.\

Alfred

Edit:

As promised, this is the thread containing Symon's commentary. It is post #57

tm.asp?m=3603329&mpage=2&key=messages&#3605503

Note how cleverly hidden it is in a fortification building thread.

[wdolson]

I just checked the code. The specific text is pretty much chrome. The rattle text is selected at random from 10 possible messages. In the original WitP, it may have been more specific of something, but in AE it's just random. Don Bowen did most of the naval code and I think he did this bit before I joined the project.

Bill

[m10bob]

We sure like the current sub attack/DC attack model better than the original stock model.............

[rustysi]

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum. It is a real treat to have a former Playboy Playmate in our midst...

Hey CR, his name is Tim[:D], and I think he's been around a while but doesn't post much. I've seen him in the Opponents wanted section.

[rockmedic109]

Once again Alfred shows that his knowledge is peerless. I figure Alfred must have a photographic memory or he is one of the new SuperComputers.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum. It is a real treat to have a former Playboy Playmate in our midst...

Hey CR, his name is Tim[:D], and I think he's been around a while but doesn't post much. I've seen him in the Opponents wanted section.

Well...thanks rustysi for totally ruining my Christmas fantasy. [:D]

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum. It is a real treat to have a former Playboy Playmate in our midst...

Hey CR, his name is Tim[:D], and I think he's been around a while but doesn't post much. I've seen him in the Opponents wanted section.

Well...thanks rustysi for totally ruining my Christmas fantasy. [:D]

Sorry CR, didn't mean to.[:(]

[Zigurat666]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, that is a measure of the damage done and is usually system damage but not always. That type of hit is rarely serious and reflects a near miss but the stars indicate how much damage it did-within a range though so you never really know. You probably will never sink a sub unless you get an actual "hit" message. My rule of thumb has been that a solid "hit" on a small RO type Japanese sub will sink it 50% of the time and two hits on a larger I boat will sink them 50% of the time. Allies subs almost always will never sink with two hits but three will generally do them in. But when you get the *** message you have not sunk anything.

I agree that I have never sunk an enemy sub without a "hit" message or three, and a "penetrating" hit at that.

However, on the issue of the number of asterisks being meaningful, I don't think so. There was a post by JWE/Symon that discussed this, but damned if I can find it. I found a reference to it in a 2011 post, and I searched by every key word and combo I can think of, but can't find it. I think there might have been a partial purging of JWE's old posts during the "unpleasantness" during which he became Symon.

But from memory he said those text messages are thrown from a random pool with a random number of asterisks inserted, the main purpose being to make sure there was visual separation between the text messages. I also believe, with no rigorous correlation, that non-penetrating DCs--IOW, the DC explosions that throw off the other text messages--do some random amount of System damage. Small amounts. I just don't think the amount of random System damage is related to the number of asterisks.

If any Search mavens can find the post I'm referring to I would appreciate it. I looked for over thirty minutes.

I have sunk an allied sub just one time without a direct depth charge hit. I did however get around 15 near misses each saying "sub taking on water",after that it surfaced and"POW right in the face"

[alesha93]

Rustysi you are correct. My name is Tim (not to be confused with the Search for the Holy Grail Tim). Been with WitP since the very early days - I still have the 3-1/2" WitP disk from the original somewhere - that was late 80s?

Anyway, I figured the lovely photo I have with my posts is far better for everyone to look at than my mug.

Tim

[Numdydar]

I agree, but you are not giving us the full picture [:D]

[alesha93]

I think the full picture would be a bit too off topic and I'm quite sure the forum moderator would take a dim view of the full picture - despite it's obvious charm (however unrelated to WitP).

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I agree, but you are not giving us the full picture [:D]

[Don Bowen]

No, I better not!

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: oreskovich

Rustysi you are correct. My name is Tim (not to be confused with the Search for the Holy Grail Tim). Been with WitP since the very early days - I still have the 3-1/2" WitP disk from the original somewhere - that was late 80s?

Anyway, I figured the lovely photo I have with my posts is far better for everyone to look at than my mug.

Tim

Hey Tim, did you ever find an opponent for that game you were looking for a while back?