Dili Carrier "conversion" for RHS query???

[el cid again]

Dili - in general terms - asked a theoretical question about changing how we rate deck armor on aircraft carriers.

After reviewing comments and thinking about the idea I have concluded that a modification for most carriers is in order.
Only a carrier with all its horizontal armor on the flight deck should be excepted - and there are such (the most famous being
Illustrious class - also if memory serves the Taiho class).

Should we convert RHS scenarios to use a system where HANGER deck armor is cut in half - and durability raised in a proportion
to the significance of the flight deck armor to the ship protection?

The impact of this change is on combat. We can immunize the Japanese from paying extra for extra durability just as we do for tankers and ships not built in Japan.

This requires some data entry and is not worth doing if there is no interest.

[Dili]

I think ideally running some tests and making a list of possible implications should be made before commiting to that. I have most doubts about what should be the durability value, a linear half this double that i am not sure is a good policy. It is certain that you know much more of the game engine than i do, at my level of knowledge i dont know enough about durability to judge. Manual says durability is an overall measure of "seaworthiness". Editor Manual says: represents "the size and thougness of the ship in terms of how dificult is to sink".

So my list of implications:

Deck armor reduced Increased Durability consequences.

-Ship combat ability reduced if enough bombs hit it like it should in reality. The objective of this idea.
-More damage but more dificult to sink
-Torpedos hits less effective in sinking.
-Propulsion and systems less protected than it should.
-More costly to repair /build(?).
-More VP points in case it is sunk to the other player.

[el cid again]

I think a scale is required -

that is

if we say main deck armor is to be halved

the impact of that on durability is a function of how much armor we cut out

Thus - a ship with 50 mm of armor (reduced to 25 mm) should not be given the same durability boost
a ship with 100 mm of armor (reduced to 50mm) gets - nor again the same as a ship with 150 mm of armor (reduced to 75mm) gets.

I proposed to look at the data - come up with a normal value (e.g. carriers typically have x inches of armor) and that equates
to a 25 per cent boost in durability - so ships with more armor get more of a boost and ships with less get less

I only used 50 per cent in discussion as a ball part figure for the maximum range it is safe to mess around in

And yes - it needs to be tested. RHS is a WITP test bed - one from which ideas are borrowed officially and unofficially - but one in which it is easier to get a change implemented so it can be tested. AFTER we show something works - it can become either normal or at least acceptable practice. UNTIL we do so - it won't become either.

But in order to get any test - the changes must be done. The up front requirement for the labor is there - unless we reject the idea out of hand.

[Dili]

I made a mistake above, seems VP points are independent of durability in this case.

Halving the deck doesnt make sense. A carrier with a lot under deck armor is not different than a carrier with less concerning flight operations. Assuming equal sizes and construtive strenght.

First questions: what are the bombs comonly used in the game/what minimum size bombs could shut an unarmored deck with realistic numbers/

Answer(my opinion): 250kg GP certainly, 100kg well i am not so sure but in very big numbers(+50) probably yes. If this right i would say we can put deck between 100kg and 250kg GP penetration maybe nearer 250kg to be conservative. I know that damage that prevents the deck to function is different than total penetration. Bulged plates, deformation, fragments and eventual fire of planes hit on deck can shut it while some of this might be temporary the degree of it might make it not so, but we also should think that every pulse is half a day or 12hours.
So in my opinion the unarmored deck should get an almost equal level protection for all carriers in that condition, with a small variation accounting for ship size and the perceived constructive strenght. How much the durability rises should be a function of the actual existing "deck armor" that remains which is in reality hangar deck armor.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I made a mistake above, seems VP points are independent of durability in this case.

Halving the deck doesnt make sense. A carrier with a lot under deck armor is not different than a carrier with less concerning flight operations. Assuming equal sizes and construtive strenght.

REPLY: Sure it does. Armor is a semi-abstract (like most other ideas) - it more or less means "horizontal protection." Having less of it means "you have less horizontal protection". When a bomb hits, the size of the bomb, a die roll, and the armor hit (generated by the "angle" JEW described) are compared on a sort of scale - that is - you will often see "deck armor hit" (= no great effect) or "deck armor penetration" (= roll for effect - including major damage, fire, explosion, etc). By cutting deck armor we increase the chance of major damage effects.

First questions: what are the bombs comonly used in the game/what minimum size bombs could shut an unarmored deck with realistic numbers/

REPLY: All bombs can cause damage to a ship - but only larger bombs are likely to do damage to an armored carrier. Further, only the bombs carried by carrier bombers are most likely to be in a carrier battle: 500 pound, 1000 pound, 250 kg bombs being the normal cases. These bombs are big enough to penetrate often - but not always. Reducing the deck armor means you will get them having effects more often - as described above. Increasing durability only means the ship is less likely to be sunk at once - and somewhat more likely to burn out or flood out unless it reaches a good port fairly soon. Small bombs are likely to take out minor systems - AA guns - radar - etc - and with less deck armor - also likely to penetrate more often and (the point of interest) start fires or even cause explosions.


Answer(my opinion): 250kg GP certainly, 100kg well i am not so sure but in very big numbers(+50) probably yes. If this right i would say we can put deck between 100kg and 250kg GP penetration maybe nearer 250kg to be conservative. I know that damage that prevents the deck to function is different than total penetration. Bulged plates, deformation, fragments and eventual fire of planes hit on deck can shut it while some of this might be temporary the degree of it might make it not so, but we also should think that every pulse is half a day or 12hours.
So in my opinion the unarmored deck should get an almost equal level protection for all carriers in that condition, with a small variation accounting for ship size and the perceived constructive strenght. How much the durability rises should be a function of the actual existing "deck armor" that remains which is in reality hangar deck armor.

REPLY: There is no armor that associates with a particular bomb. This is classic GG - it is a die roll thing. The bigger the bomb, the more likely it penetrates a given amount of armor. Or the bigger the armor, the less likely a given bomb will penetrate. And the die roll decides. [It is even more complicated - in this case - because WHICH armor is hit is also variable - generated by code determining an abstract "angle"]
If it hits the side - fine - that is the side armor we have. If it hits the deck - you wanted more chance of penetration for effect - the only thing we can control to get that is deck armor thickness.

[Dili]

If you want a realistic CHANCE of damage to flight deck you do have to associate with destruction a bomb makes, that depends how bombs are rated in the game. Of course there is some randomness in that like in any other issue. About GG... seeing some carriers taking dozens of 500lb bombs and still operating well the die roll is nearer 1000lb for a Shokaku faked armored deck flight.

[el cid again]

It takes vasts numbers to get a statistical sense of things: I have seen one 500 or 1000 pound bomb ruin a carrier - and in one current game a single 250 kg bomb blew up a battleship - which it would not normally penetrate. Luck is luck. Whatever the details are - decreasing deck armor will increase the chances of a seriously damaging hit - and by all bombs of whatever size.

[Dili]

"Of course there is some randomness in that like in any other issue."