CD fire issues

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: CD fire issues

Post by bklooste »

1. When does a Torpedo ever not penetrate the armour ? At best some ships had some 50-75 mm bulges to reduce the damage. My comment was on non penetratinf hits. The game engine prob views a hit on the props as a penetrating or critical hit.
2. In the POW case how is this not a critical hit.? With her own prop doing most of the damage. She also sustained 4 Torp hits and a bomb . She was not sunk by system damage at all but by flooding sure she had a lot of sys damage ( no pumps , steering etc) but it was the flooding that sunk her.
3. Even if all these ships burned that is also an issue. Not every ship burned when hit by gunfire... The surviving BB had 90 sys , 90 fire , no flooding the rest sunk immediately so we dont know.
ORIGINAL: Ryvan

ORIGINAL: bklooste

All these issues are covered by Critical hits ( The Suzuki was probably a faulty detonator POW ) ...In no case historically was BB Machine gunned to death which is what we are seeing eg 100 * a min of 1 damage Or in the above case 80-100 hits doing 90 sys damage.

You could argue a single hit could cause a fire which can spread and i would agree with you ( fire should be small but can spread and be affected by DC) but none of these were single hits and in no case was a ship lost due to non penetrating damage unless a fire or ammo explotion ( mostly followed by a fire) was involved. In this case you can get 100 system damage ,no fire and sink.

PoW did not burn and none of the bombs that hit her penetrated her deck armor. She was sunk purely by her "system damage." The torpedo bent one of the port propeller shafts. The now-unbalanced spinning shaft ripped a hole through her causing her to take on 18,000 tons of water. She could not pump out the water because the spinning shaft also knocked out much of her electrical systems. There was no fire. Her ammo did not explode.

Also, where are you seeing that they are getting 100 system damage and sinking without fire? In the example you gave in the first post, it looked to me like pretty much all of your ships burned.
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 118, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Nagato, Shell hits 133, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Chokai, Shell hits 78, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Takao, Shell hits 79, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Shiranui, Shell hits 24, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Hayashio, Shell hits 19, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Kofuku Maru, Shell hits 12, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Turusima Maru, Shell hits 1
xAKL Kurama Maru, Shell hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Nanko Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire
PB Taiko Maru, Shell hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Saiko Maru, Shell hits 9, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Myoken Maru, Shell hits 11, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Kure Maru #5, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Keiko Maru, Shell hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Kamitsu Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire
PB Edo Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires
PB Busho Maru, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Yamafuku Maru
Underdog Fanboy
User avatar
Klahn
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:26 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Klahn »

ORIGINAL: bklooste

1. When does a Torpedo ever not penetrate the armour ? At best some ships had some 50-75 mm bulges to reduce the damage. My comment was on non penetratinf hits. The game engine prob views a hit on the props as a penetrating or critical hit.
2. In the POW case how is this not a critical hit.? With her own prop doing most of the damage. She also sustained 4 Torp hits and a bomb . She was not sunk by system damage at all but by flooding sure she had a lot of sys damage ( no pumps , steering etc) but it was the flooding that sunk her.
3. Even if all these ships burned that is also an issue. Not every ship burned when hit by gunfire... The surviving BB had 90 sys , 90 fire , no flooding the rest sunk immediately so we dont know.

1.) That's what I'm saying though. The game won't assign critical hits to weapons that shouldn't otherwise penetrate the armor. If a 6in naval AP round struck the PoW on her belt, it wouldn't be able to do catastrophic damage in the game. In real life, it could if it hit something like a turning propeller shaft, or weapons stored on deck outside of the armor plating, etc... Another thing the game can't take into account is cumulative damage to armor plate by successive non-penetrating strikes.

2.) Of course she was sunk by flooding. You were saying that non-penetrating hits cannot cause sinking except by fire or internal explosion. PoW was indeed critically hit. She was critically hit by a weapon that did not penetrate her armor. AFAIK, this game does not allow non-penetrating hits to do critical damage. (Non-penetrating is being used as an in-game term here. In real life, torpedoes were not designed to penetrate ship armor on large combatants. They did their damage by concussive force pushing against the hull, not through it like a gun round. The game assigns penetrative value to a torpedo as a munge for the damage system. Not because it's what torpedoes actually did.)

3.) Which is again what I said above. A battleship being struck by over 100 6" gun rounds should be able to be sunk by them regardless of whether it starts a fire or not. This isn't unrealistic. If we incorporated your changes we would need to add critical hits for non-penetrating rounds. I absolutely agree with you that small caliber rounds are probably causing more fires than they should. I also agree that with you about the machine-gunning effect of small caliber hits causing too much cumulative system damage. What I disagree with is your solution. Putting a hard cap on the maximum system damage a ship can take from non-penetrating rounds isn't a good solution. And you're right, we don't know what sunk them or even what caused the majority of the system damage. It may have been the fire, or it may have been the "machine gunning" of the large number of small rounds. Sinking by fire is entirely appropriate, but the large number of ships with "heavy fires" is not. It's quite possible that the game engine only assigned 20 system damage from all of the small hits, and the rest was done by fire.

My points:

1.) Any of the battleships you lost could have been sunk by the number of hits they sustained even if none of the hits actually penetrated the armor.

2.) While 1. is true, it should be a rare occurence and should not have happened to all of your BB / CA ships.

3.) When such cumulative damage was being realized, the ships should have withdrawn. That this didn't happen is the single biggest problem with the results of your engagement.

4.) I agree that the results of your combat are out-of-whack, but I disagree with your proposed solution because I feel it would make BBs and CAs unrealistically immune to sinking from non-penetrating hits unless we also allow for non-penetrating hits to cause critical hits.
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: CD fire issues

Post by John Lansford »

Last night another bombardment TF composed of 5 more BB's, two CA's, a CL and 8 DD's hit Mili.  I set every floatplane in the TF to recon Mili as they approached, and it may have made some kind of difference.

Mississippi took 77 (!!) hits by 8cm to 15cm guns and had significant fires and secondary/AA weapon damage, but only 16 System damage.  All fires out the next turn.

West Virginia hit 10 times, no damage.
Oklahoma hit 15 times, secondary and AA damage, loss of radar, about 10 System damage.
Colorado hit 8 times, loss of a secondary battery, about 10 System damage
California, not hit at all
The two CA's were hit fewer than 10 times, for negligible damage.

In return, the bombardment inflicted 260 casualties and destroyed/damaged 25 guns.  Other than the Mississippi outcome (what did she do, tie up at the dock?), the others appear to be what I'd expect when heavily armored ships bombard a base defended by destroyer sized guns.
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Dili »

When does a Torpedo ever not penetrate the armour ? At best some ships had some 50-75 mm bulges to reduce the damage.

That is not true torpedos, don't hit only at midship. In general after main guns there is no space for protection systems and many specially older ships don't have a
full, to the bottom, torpedo protection either.
Maybe you should look at armor schemes and i am talking only at BB's for other lesser classes is even worse if you start to compute their real vulnerability. At Taranto 2 of 3 the hits in Littorio were outside armor and torpedo defenses. Cavour was sunk by a magnetic torpedo fuze that for once it worked under the hull means it didn't even hit the ship. Nelson was hit by an aerial torpedo near torpedo tubes, nothing there. There are certainly many other examples.
User avatar
seydlitz_slith
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:13 am
Location: Danville, IL

RE: CD fire issues

Post by seydlitz_slith »

I can now confirm that the uber CD issue is not related just to capital ships in an invasion TF.

I sent Hyuga, Ise, Fuso, Yamashiro and 4 DDs into Sovetska Gavan on a night bombardment/ Escorts set to not bombard so the ships would stay at range. I had multiple SNLF units in the hex for several turns in land combat plus multiple air recons and several days level bombing using netty.

Again the 6" Soviet batteries had their way with the Japanese battleships.

Fuso was sunk outright. Hyuga and Ise were damaged pretty good. Yamashiro got off with only 9 sys. Hyuga lost both of her aft main turrets.

Did virtually nothing to the CD battery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Sovetskaya Gavan at 124,42 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

1004 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Hyuga, Shell hits 110, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Ise, Shell hits 92, heavy fires
BB Yamashiro, Shell hits 76, on fire
BB Fuso, Shell hits 153, heavy fires, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
71 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 13 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)


BB Hyuga firing at Sovetskaya Naval Fortress
BB Ise firing at Sovetskaya Naval Fortress
BB Yamashiro firing at De-Castrinsky Naval Fortress
BB Fuso firing at Sovetskaya Naval Fortress




Image
Attachments
bombardTF.jpg
bombardTF.jpg (359.97 KiB) Viewed 268 times
User avatar
seydlitz_slith
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:13 am
Location: Danville, IL

RE: CD fire issues

Post by seydlitz_slith »

Damage detail on Hyuga

Image
Attachments
hyugadamage.jpg
hyugadamage.jpg (406.42 KiB) Viewed 268 times
User avatar
seydlitz_slith
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:13 am
Location: Danville, IL

RE: CD fire issues

Post by seydlitz_slith »

Sovetska Gavan....graveyard of ships.



Image
Attachments
shiplosses.jpg
shiplosses.jpg (331.41 KiB) Viewed 268 times
bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: CD fire issues

Post by bklooste »


ehh thats what i was saying Torpedos always penetrate whether its bulges or otherwise there is no belt to stop it. bulges just limit the damage.
ORIGINAL: Dili
When does a Torpedo ever not penetrate the armour ? At best some ships had some 50-75 mm bulges to reduce the damage.

That is not true torpedos, don't hit only at midship. In general after main guns there is no space for protection systems and many specially older ships don't have a
full, to the bottom, torpedo protection either.
Maybe you should look at armor schemes and i am talking only at BB's for other lesser classes is even worse if you start to compute their real vulnerability. At Taranto 2 of 3 the hits in Littorio were outside armor and torpedo defenses. Cavour was sunk by a magnetic torpedo fuze that for once it worked under the hull means it didn't even hit the ship. Nelson was hit by an aerial torpedo near torpedo tubes, nothing there. There are certainly many other examples.
Underdog Fanboy
bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: CD fire issues

Post by bklooste »



You better watch out for some of the much bigger defences like Vladivostok :-)
ORIGINAL: seydlitz

Sovetska Gavan....graveyard of ships.



Image
Underdog Fanboy
bklooste
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:47 am

RE: CD fire issues

Post by bklooste »

torps are always penetrating hits and hence can cause criticals ...
(if not they should be) so POW is out of the equation and she sunk by CH and or flooding.


Maybe 100 6" but i still doubt it ,
re your points

1. Disagree . Bismark probably took this many smaller rounds and was still floating. You can level a ships super structure bismark style burn her
completely but you still have a ship ( hulk) you can tow to port and repair. But in the game 100 45mm rounds probably have the same effect.. All torps should be penetrating.

2. True . I dont mind a very rare non penetrating hit for a shell that results in a CH which could lead to fire etc.

3. True they would have withdrawn.

4. Not imune 60 fire and 50 sys is still BAD , I dont mind them being immune to non pen fire though torps are IMHO always penetrating.

ORIGINAL: Ryvan

ORIGINAL: bklooste

1. When does a Torpedo ever not penetrate the armour ? At best some ships had some 50-75 mm bulges to reduce the damage. My comment was on non penetratinf hits. The game engine prob views a hit on the props as a penetrating or critical hit.
2. In the POW case how is this not a critical hit.? With her own prop doing most of the damage. She also sustained 4 Torp hits and a bomb . She was not sunk by system damage at all but by flooding sure she had a lot of sys damage ( no pumps , steering etc) but it was the flooding that sunk her.
3. Even if all these ships burned that is also an issue. Not every ship burned when hit by gunfire... The surviving BB had 90 sys , 90 fire , no flooding the rest sunk immediately so we dont know.

1.) That's what I'm saying though. The game won't assign critical hits to weapons that shouldn't otherwise penetrate the armor. If a 6in naval AP round struck the PoW on her belt, it wouldn't be able to do catastrophic damage in the game. In real life, it could if it hit something like a turning propeller shaft, or weapons stored on deck outside of the armor plating, etc... Another thing the game can't take into account is cumulative damage to armor plate by successive non-penetrating strikes.

2.) Of course she was sunk by flooding. You were saying that non-penetrating hits cannot cause sinking except by fire or internal explosion. PoW was indeed critically hit. She was critically hit by a weapon that did not penetrate her armor. AFAIK, this game does not allow non-penetrating hits to do critical damage. (Non-penetrating is being used as an in-game term here. In real life, torpedoes were not designed to penetrate ship armor on large combatants. They did their damage by concussive force pushing against the hull, not through it like a gun round. The game assigns penetrative value to a torpedo as a munge for the damage system. Not because it's what torpedoes actually did.)

3.) Which is again what I said above. A battleship being struck by over 100 6" gun rounds should be able to be sunk by them regardless of whether it starts a fire or not. This isn't unrealistic. If we incorporated your changes we would need to add critical hits for non-penetrating rounds. I absolutely agree with you that small caliber rounds are probably causing more fires than they should. I also agree that with you about the machine-gunning effect of small caliber hits causing too much cumulative system damage. What I disagree with is your solution. Putting a hard cap on the maximum system damage a ship can take from non-penetrating rounds isn't a good solution. And you're right, we don't know what sunk them or even what caused the majority of the system damage. It may have been the fire, or it may have been the "machine gunning" of the large number of small rounds. Sinking by fire is entirely appropriate, but the large number of ships with "heavy fires" is not. It's quite possible that the game engine only assigned 20 system damage from all of the small hits, and the rest was done by fire.

My points:

1.) Any of the battleships you lost could have been sunk by the number of hits they sustained even if none of the hits actually penetrated the armor.

2.) While 1. is true, it should be a rare occurence and should not have happened to all of your BB / CA ships.

3.) When such cumulative damage was being realized, the ships should have withdrawn. That this didn't happen is the single biggest problem with the results of your engagement.

4.) I agree that the results of your combat are out-of-whack, but I disagree with your proposed solution because I feel it would make BBs and CAs unrealistically immune to sinking from non-penetrating hits unless we also allow for non-penetrating hits to cause critical hits.
Underdog Fanboy
User avatar
seydlitz_slith
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:13 am
Location: Danville, IL

RE: CD fire issues

Post by seydlitz_slith »

Update....Hyuga foundered this turn and sank from the damage received last turn.

No doubt about it, stay away from the Soviet CD guns at all costs.
mike scholl 1
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by mike scholl 1 »

ORIGINAL: seydlitz
No doubt about it, stay away from the Soviet CD guns at all costs.


Or put more rationally, "Stay away from fixed, pre-war, coast defense installations". Follow the example of the real life Japanese and attack such places only with infantry from the rear.
mikemike
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: a maze of twisty little passages, all different

RE: CD fire issues

Post by mikemike »

Or, put more rationally, the damage routine is rather too coarse-grained. Non-penetrating small-calibre hits cause too much damage and in cumulation lead to quite ridiculous levels of damage. If you insist that damage from MG bullets should be tracked, it should be evaluated on a parts per million, not on a percent basis, and there should be a cap to the damage, especially float damage, that can be caused by non-penetrating hits. No more DD being sunk by MG fire from a PT. No more battleships sunk by destroyer or CL gunfire, please. And keep the combat at plausible ranges. The way you see battleships bore in to 2,000 yards to slug it out you might think boarding was still a feasible tactic.
DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!
User avatar
Klahn
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:26 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Klahn »

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Last night another bombardment TF composed of 5 more BB's, two CA's, a CL and 8 DD's hit Mili.  I set every floatplane in the TF to recon Mili as they approached, and it may have made some kind of difference.

Mississippi took 77 (!!) hits by 8cm to 15cm guns and had significant fires and secondary/AA weapon damage, but only 16 System damage.  All fires out the next turn.

West Virginia hit 10 times, no damage.
Oklahoma hit 15 times, secondary and AA damage, loss of radar, about 10 System damage.
Colorado hit 8 times, loss of a secondary battery, about 10 System damage
California, not hit at all
The two CA's were hit fewer than 10 times, for negligible damage.

In return, the bombardment inflicted 260 casualties and destroyed/damaged 25 guns.  Other than the Mississippi outcome (what did she do, tie up at the dock?), the others appear to be what I'd expect when heavily armored ships bombard a base defended by destroyer sized guns.

So we have multiple instances where the Soviet CD guns are causing silly damage levels through a machinegunning effect, but it didn't happen here at Mili. We need to figure out what the difference is.
User avatar
seydlitz_slith
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:13 am
Location: Danville, IL

RE: CD fire issues

Post by seydlitz_slith »

Ryvan,
I think you hit the nail on the head. There is something in the routine or the installation that is causing unusual results.

Since there seems to be agreement overall that the routine has some issues, that is a constant.

The difference seems to be in this particular base or the devices present. In my pbem I had previously engaged the batteries at Alexandrovsk multiple times with my battleships and took what I considered an expected level of damage. However, every time I have tried to engage these batteries at Gavan my ships are machine gunned to death by weapons that had neither the range, the penetration, nor even enough ammo to do what they are doing.

The CD routine needs to be addressed in the next patch.

Mike,
I hear what you are saying and I didn't just start playing the game or studying naval history. Gavan was a small scale targeted operation. Unless I was doing an airborne assault I had to land in the hex as there were no other dot or base hexes or even coastal roads for several hexes in each direction. Recon showed it lightly defended except for the two fort units that had only a few cruiser sized guns or less. It should have been easily doable with warship support to suppress the guns during the landings. However, what resulted is both ahistorical and out of kilter. If there had been defensive minefields or something like that that came into play it may have been different. However, I am convinced that if I sent Yamato in there she would also be sandpaperered to death.

User avatar
seydlitz_slith
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 6:13 am
Location: Danville, IL

RE: CD fire issues

Post by seydlitz_slith »

ORIGINAL: mikemike

Or, put more rationally, the damage routine is rather too coarse-grained. Non-penetrating small-calibre hits cause too much damage and in cumulation lead to quite ridiculous levels of damage. If you insist that damage from MG bullets should be tracked, it should be evaluated on a parts per million, not on a percent basis, and there should be a cap to the damage, especially float damage, that can be caused by non-penetrating hits. No more DD being sunk by MG fire from a PT. No more battleships sunk by destroyer or CL gunfire, please. And keep the combat at plausible ranges. The way you see battleships bore in to 2,000 yards to slug it out you might think boarding was still a feasible tactic.

Well stated.
hunchback77
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Whitby, Ontario, Canada

RE: CD fire issues

Post by hunchback77 »

"The CD routine needs to be addressed in the next patch. "
"I am convinced that if I sent Yamato in there she would also be sandpaperered to death. "

BB's being sunk and totally destroyed by 6" guns is wrong guys, please have a look at it for the next patch.
Thank you.
User avatar
YankeeAirRat
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:59 am

RE: CD fire issues

Post by YankeeAirRat »

I want to play devils advocate here for just a few seconds.

Before we go about weakening up our CD routines. Ask yourself would we also be breaking or adversely affecting our bombardment routines? I would hazard that amongst all of us the agreement is that the bombardment missions are really scripted to represent the "shoot and scoot" missions that the Japanese did during the battle for the Guadalcanal, since Uncommon Valour was written about ten years ago. Since then that routine hasn't been re-written or modified, at least what I have seen. So would we be weakening our CD routines and in then turn allowing uber-BB's basically destroy an airfield or port with thier guns while the CD would be impotent and do nothing but rack up a couple of points of system damage. In turn could we modify the ability of some other mission like ground attack aircraft to target CD and weaken them.

If we go about having those guns under 150mm/6in not be able to pentrate BB armor, then do we go about making Destroyers and Cruiser impotent in defense of harbors/landings/and protection routines from battleships? Then we would basically prevent a reoccurance of the RL Taffy 3 situtation or even any of the early naval battles around Guadalcanal.

I only ask these questions to make sure that we understand what is being asked for when we ask the CD/Bombardment routines to be patched. We could end up breaking something else while trying to acheive perfection. So it might be easier to put something back towards the middle of the road and just have to accept "bad dice rolls" routines, while throwing our hands up. It would suck to basically force this game into a routine were the only winning move is to play the Allies or not play at all. I have seen board games ruined in that way, along with a few other computer war games.
Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.
User avatar
Bradley7735
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:51 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Bradley7735 »

ORIGINAL: hunchback77

"The CD routine needs to be addressed in the next patch. "
"I am convinced that if I sent Yamato in there she would also be sandpaperered to death. "

BB's being sunk and totally destroyed by 6" guns is wrong guys, please have a look at it for the next patch.
Thank you.

I would ask the Dev's to look at something different. I really think the damage from CD actions is close (not perfect) to good enough. (would be nice to see a difference from permanent forts and mobile forts, though.)

What I would really like to see is something similar to the TF routing levels.

For example:
Invasion TF runs at the first sign of resistance (ie, CD guns shooting at them)
Invasion TF runs if commander becomes a wimp (commander aggression roll)
Invasion TF does not run, under any circumstance.

Fix the suicide task force routine, not the CD damage routine. Any ship hit by 150 6" shells should be heavily damaged or sunk. But, no task force should commit suicide unless the supreme commander decides they should.
The older I get, the better I was.
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Dili »

ehh thats what i was saying Torpedos always penetrate whether its bulges or otherwise there is no belt to stop it. bulges just limit the damage.

I now understand what you were trying to say.

Any ship hit by 150 6" shells should be heavily damaged or sunk. But, no task force should commit suicide unless the supreme commander decides they should.

That is correct. Yamato had a big part of the hull that were not armored, to not even talk about superstructure.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”