Aircraft carrier deck armor

[Dili]

There is a big issue with deck armor in carriers. Most of them have most of the armor below the hangar and not in the flight deck. One option is to make the carrier with a thinner deck armor and increase by a good amout the durability just to increase survivality . This will lead to other minor problems but i think it is a good offset. No carrier could take several 250kg bombs in flight deck and still operate. Any opinions?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Dili

There is a big issue with deck armor in carriers. Most of them have most of the armor below the hangar and not in the flight deck. One option is to make the carrier with a thinner deck armor and increase by a good amout the durability just to increase survivality . This will lead to other minor problems but i think it is a good offset. No carrier could take several 250kg bombs in flight deck and still operate. Any opinions?

Most carriers had an armoured deck below the hanger that protected the machinery spaces and magazines. The usual loss mechanism when bombed or shelled was fire (burnout) or magazine explosion (a critical hit) not flooding. Even torpedoes tended to produce a burn-out, rather than flooding. The probability of burnout tended to be independent of the number of hits.

An appropriate model would produce very nasty fires but little flooding (similarly, it was hard to sink tankers) and moderate system damage.

The flight deck was lightly built, so multiple bomb hits would shut it down.

[Dili]

Yes that is what i am saying, increase the durability to improve overall survival due to decrease deck armor to non IRL values to simulate the carrier combat power vulnerability. Btw will tweaking tonnage in AE will be possible to make this work better?

[el cid again]

In general, Dili is right: we might adopt half the hanger deck or main deck armor - and increase durabilty by 50 per cent. [Large durability increases do not dismay the code - but do SLIGHTLY delay the time of sinking - giving you a chance to make port and attempt a fix]

Exceptions - Illustrious and Taiho - with flight deck armor - keep it as is.

Another case - Shinano - give it flight deck armor but only half the main deck/hanger deck armor.

Another case - rate carriers with "concrete armor" at a fraction of real thickness - I use 1/4 or 1/5

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yes that is what i am saying, increase the durability to improve overall survival due to decrease deck armor to non IRL values to simulate the carrier combat power vulnerability. Btw will tweaking tonnage in AE will be possible to make this work better?

No.

Durability (in both WiTP and AE) and tonnage (in AE) effect 4 to 6 different systems that depend on the values. You tweak them to do one thing better, you skew the other 3 to 5. If you don’t know what skewing the other 3 to 5 will do to your game, it’s probably not wise to start tweaking.

Both versions of the game look at a target as a box, with armor values on the exposed sides of the box. When you attack it, the engine computes angle, compares armor to penetration and rolls a poop load of dice. The system is not grainy enuf to care, and doesn’t give a hoot about carrier decks, or elevators, or hangar space, or any of that stuff. The system looks at armor v penetration and rolls a poop load of dice and you either sink, or don’t. The amount of damage effects ops, but this is a quantified value.

Is this historical? Heck no. But this is the way it is. . Is it functional? Yes. Will it change? No. Got a serious problem with it, it’s probably time to go to another game.

[el cid again]

JWE is right - there are other impacts. But the worst one is probably production re Japanese ships - and a new player from Germany came up with a clever way around that. There is no "cost" for an Allied ship per se. You calculate the "right" cost value - and then instantly convert the ship to the "right" durability value after it appears. This system works very well. I added the further detail that the "wrong" ship has a speed of 1 - a flag to players (don't move this ship yet). [Speed 0 works for Allied ships but not Japanese ships - don't ask why]

[el cid again]

Amplification: while there are several impacts, to the degree the code model is correct - changing deck armor for carriers where the armor is not on the flight deck should work better than using the aggregate armor as we do now. The suggestion in this thread is a good one. Any problems are not changed by this change - the fact is that (say) four inches of deck armor is not as helpful to a carrier as it is to a cruiser. Both protect the engines equally - but not the ship as a functional whole. Carriers do tend to be larger - and they do tend to burn out more than be sunk by direct effects of hits - so increasing the durability and decreasing the armor is a fine way to represent that. Just what the proportion should be is less obvious - but it can be substantial and won't break the model. Any significant change along these lines is probably better than none. So in that sense - JWE is wrong: to imply "don't mess with this" is the opposite of what is probably wise if you want a better game (in the specific sense of better modeling the relative difference between carriers and armored warships).

[Dili]

I think so, the issue it to find the best balance. Except for point in first paragraph i don't understand JWE reaction. Paragraph 2 is useless since that was just the conclusion i reached that made me make this proposal of introducing granularity since most of the carriers have too much mission survival. Long ago i had a Shokaku take 20x 250 or 500lb(just can't remember) bombs and get away with it still being able for operations.

[JWE]

Ah, see the confusion.

God love ya’ll for trying to make the game more realistic, but you have to understand how the engine works. If you understand that, your tweaks will have meaning.

Engine “attacks” from one of several “directions”; left, right, front, back. It rolls dice, and when it “hits”, it compares PEN value to ARMOR value; left, right, front, back. If it hits, there is an additional set of dice rolls to see if PEN is compared to Tower ARMOR, or Turret ARMOR, with a different % depending on whether the “attack” is from front or side.

Game engine really does look at targets as a ‘box’, and attackers as objects approaching the box from one or another of the ‘box’ directions. The rest is just more die rolls to see whether this or that might happen. There’s nothing in the game engine to differentiate a ‘top’ attack. Maybe there should be, but there isn’t.

[el cid again]

Unless the game lies - there is such a thing as a "top attack"

Consider all the "deck armor hit" and "deck armor penetration" hits we see.

Surely you are wrong - the trouble to write code that generates such messages is no more difficult than to write the code to look at it.

And if you are right, and Matrix has not resolved to address it - well fill in the blank. It is not a case of "maybe it should" - and it was never a case of "maybe it should" either.

In any case, my instructions are "get the data right, and I will get the code right" - even if it isn't right - we should still diligently put in horizontal armor - and modify it where a simplistic value is less than wholly realistic.

Further - we can figure this out if we modify it - and test what happens. IF you are right ( which I doubt) there will be NO difference whatever in the hits due to changing deck armor.

I think we already know that isn't the case - but only by thinking about our experiece with games - not because we measured a statistically significant number of attacks. We could do that - fast - in a computer vs computer testbed. If anyone has the slightest doubt that deck armor matters. Deck armor hit results are a function of shell/bomb size and armor thickness - and I don't think it is likely this is somehow only an illusion.

Remember - reading a bit of code does not tell you what all other bits of code say. It only tells you what that bit of code says.
"After a year I thought I understood this aspect of the game. Then I came across a single branch, and I am sure of nothing" [Senior Matrix programmer in email]

[Dili]

Engine “attacks” from one of several “directions”; left, right, front, back. It rolls dice, and when it “hits”, it compares PEN value to ARMOR value; left, right, front, back. If it hits, there is an additional set of dice rolls to see if PEN is compared to Tower ARMOR, or Turret ARMOR, with a different % depending on whether the “attack” is from front or side.

Game engine really does look at targets as a ‘box’, and attackers as objects approaching the box from one or another of the ‘box’ directions. The rest is just more die rolls to see whether this or that might happen. There’s nothing in the game engine to differentiate a ‘top’ attack. Maybe there should be, but there isn’t.

A Box has 6 sides, since the bottom is under water there are 5 for above water attacks, if not, what is deck armor doing in the game?

[jwilkerson]

Well no matter how many sides a box has [:)] adjusting the DUR is probably not the best option - DUR is used for VP, Build-Cost, damage-resistance, submarine-max-depth, and probably several others I'm not recalling off the top of my head ...

I have played Nik mod scenarios which just simply reduce the desk armor. This isn't perfect - but it does have the advantage of making the carriers more vulnerable and hence making the players more careful. This aspect alone makes them option seem like a better compromise.

All these things said - the way the system was designed - using the "main" desk armor for the carriers with no armor on the decks - is the correct answer. Of course this has trade-offs too - that smaller bombs that could disable the unarmored flight deck, just bounce off the now "armored" flight deck.

All these solutions have trade-offs. My personal favorite is just reducing the flight deck armor - for the unarmored flight deck carriers.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Dili
A Box has 6 sides, since the bottom is under water there are 5 for above water attacks, if not, what is deck armor doing in the game?

It’s just as Joe says. Looking at things in terms of a box is an analogy. Being specific, you have belt armor, deck armor, turret armor and tower armor. Which ARMOR is used depends on the direction of the incoming bad thing. Deck armor is used for a hit from above. Belt armor is used for a hit from the side. Belt armor is also used for a hit from the bottom (torpedo or mine). Sometimes (die roll based on direction) the hit may encounter a turret, or tower. Ok, it’s not really a box, it’s more like an irregular polyhedron.

The PENETRATION value of the bomb or shell gets compared to the ARMOR value. If the bad thing doesn’t bounce off, it gets to apply EFFECT and cause damage. And that’s about it. As Joe says, to make a carrier more vulnerable, reduce appropriate ARMOR.

[Dili]

Yes, but that is no news for me, that is what i expected. My problem is that don't want to make the carrier more vulnerable i want to make their mission ability more vulnerable. If i increase durability a bit i think i get better the dual issue of under hangar deck armor. Of course other people might disagree but right now didn't presented any compelling reason for that except a conservative: bad things might happen.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well no matter how many sides a box has [:)] adjusting the DUR is probably not the best option - DUR is used for VP, Build-Cost, damage-resistance, submarine-max-depth, and probably several others I'm not recalling off the top of my head ...

REPLY: We have a system that solves the build cost issue - build at one durability and then immediately upgrade to the right one (a Japan only issue). More VPs for carriers seems not a big problem - particularly in RHS - where auxiliaries and APs and especially tankers have higher VP values (due to higher durability values) - so more relative VPs for carries is probably a good thing. The REASON we want to increase it is to give more damage resistence - and experience is showing it is a minimal impact - even monster size durability values don't save a ship from burning out or flooding out - only good luck and going into a big enough port will do that. Compromise is - by definition - a matter of trade offs - but it seems better to compensate in this way than not to do so.

I have played Nik mod scenarios which just simply reduce the desk armor. This isn't perfect - but it does have the advantage of making the carriers more vulnerable and hence making the players more careful. This aspect alone makes them option seem like a better compromise.

REPLY: Modding is an art - and which compromise is "better" is a matter of taste - also of the relative impact in the mod itself. Where we have many non carriers with higher durability ratings - it may be a better compromise than in "normal" mods which don't have that. Also - we are immune to the build cost issue. And we do have experience showing that durability does not greatly increase the power of a ship to survive - which mods/stock players simply don't know - since they don't have the higher durabilities in play.

All these things said - the way the system was designed - using the "main" desk armor for the carriers with no armor on the decks - is the correct answer. Of course this has trade-offs too - that smaller bombs that could disable the unarmored flight deck, just bounce off the now "armored" flight deck.

All these solutions have trade-offs. My personal favorite is just reducing the flight deck armor - for the unarmored flight deck carriers.


REPLY: This implies it matters - and that deck armor is used - unlike what we were told above. But you have not suggested the amount to reduce it by - or why that proportion? Nor did you address the matter that some carriers might be reated differently due to flight deck armor. And what about "concrete armor"? How do you rate that?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Dili
A Box has 6 sides, since the bottom is under water there are 5 for above water attacks, if not, what is deck armor doing in the game?

It’s just as Joe says. Looking at things in terms of a box is an analogy. Being specific, you have belt armor, deck armor, turret armor and tower armor. Which ARMOR is used depends on the direction of the incoming bad thing. Deck armor is used for a hit from above. Belt armor is used for a hit from the side. Belt armor is also used for a hit from the bottom (torpedo or mine). Sometimes (die roll based on direction) the hit may encounter a turret, or tower. Ok, it’s not really a box, it’s more like an irregular polyhedron.

The PENETRATION value of the bomb or shell gets compared to the ARMOR value. If the bad thing doesn’t bounce off, it gets to apply EFFECT and cause damage. And that’s about it. As Joe says, to make a carrier more vulnerable, reduce appropriate ARMOR.

OK - we seem to have come full circle - and you seem now to say what I understood to begin with - and what Dili seems to also have said. You also seem to be saying Dili's suggestion is a good one - after all - not a bad one. BUT you also have not said how much to reduce the armor by - or why? Nor how we might rate ships differently with different armor configurations or types?

To the extent we do reduce armor - we make engines more vulnerable than IRL - also magazines. So the suggestion to increase durability was made to give a sort of compensation. Doing nothing seems less than ideal - but no compromise is ever ideal to begin with. Since increases in durability have very minimal impacts on survivability in the long term - but do make a ship less likely to sink immediately - it does not seem too bad a concept to consider. Is there any other way to get there from here? If we must choose between reduce deck armor period and reduce deck armor and increase durability somewhat - the latter seems more fair to the chance a carrier will be sunk.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yes, but that is no news for me, that is what i expected. My problem is that don't want to make the carrier more vulnerable i want to make their mission ability more vulnerable. If i increase durability a bit i think i get better the dual issue of under hangar deck armor. Of course other people might disagree but right now didn't presented any compelling reason for that except a conservative: bad things might happen.

OK - count me in your camp. Enough so I will now implement this for evaluation purposes. I will publish first pass values for comment.

Thank you all for helping us think about this - but thank you Dili most of all for raising the issue.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yes, but that is no news for me, that is what i expected. My problem is that don't want to make the carrier more vulnerable i want to make their mission ability more vulnerable. If i increase durability a bit i think i get better the dual issue of under hangar deck armor. Of course other people might disagree but right now didn't presented any compelling reason for that except a conservative: bad things might happen.

All that “no differentiation of top attacks” means is that the types of damage suffered are SysDam, FlotDam, EngDam; same as result from any other attack direction.

Changing durability may do what you wish for carrier vulnerability, but compensating “bad things” do happen. If you are willing to live with them, then more power to ya; It’s your nickel after all. Some of the “bad things” related to changing durability come from the manual and should be no surprise.

Increasing durability increases the VP for sinking a ship of that class. Carrier durability has a multiplier (iirc 1.33) for VP purposes.

Increasing durability “effectively” reduces the damage incurred from hits from bombs/shells, from any direction; makes the ship less vulnerable to an Iowa, as well as to a bomb.

Increasing durability increases the shipyard points required to build the ship, each and every day that the game calculates the required point values. Increasing durability also increases the time period in which the game calculates the required point values, so the effect becomes magnified, where Delta Dur is what was added, {delta time (Dur + delta Dur)} + {time (Dur + Delta Dur)}.

Increasing durability has a multiplicative effect on shipyard points required to accelerate construction of the effected ships. The differential is 2x{delta time (Dur + delta Dur)} + {time (Delta Dur)}, and in some cases 3x.

Increasing durability increases the repair time required by substantially the amount expressed above, so making a ship less vulnerable also makes it take longer to repair.

There are other considerations, but the ones expressed above are the most immediate.

Hope this helps.

[el cid again]

It is indeed very helpful. It all makes sense.

Most of these impacts are either tolerable or desireable - in particular in the case of a mod which has made increases in durability already for naval auxiliaries, for tankers, and for multi ship units. Carriers should be - in relative terms - difficult to support and repair. We have a way not to let initial cost be a problem for Japan (it never is a problem for the Allies). And more VPs for carriers actuallly is a good idea. Sadly VPs are not very meaningful - and many players (or most players) report they never consider them at all. Such players won't care about a VP change. It does appear that VPs are heavily related to land bases and facilities - and that a mod with many of these tends not to end up going into automatic victory situations - which can in any case be ignored.

Anyway - thank you for the amplification. And - perhaps - being moderate is indicated. Vast increases in durability are probably less wise than more modest ones might be.

[Dili]

Changing durability may do what you wish for carrier vulnerability, but compensating “bad things” do happen. If you are willing to live with them, then more power to ya; It’s your nickel after all. Some of the “bad things” related to changing durability come from the manual and should be no surprise.

[:)]
Your list is more or less what i said here:

tm.asp?m=1902650


Anyway i think this is a case where it is the dose that makes the poison. If i don't exagerate maybe a bit of it can cure the disease.