Float damage 113 and still afloat!

BBfanboy · Post by **BBfanboy** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:18 pm

Has anyone seen this before? Zenyo Maru foolishly took part in an amphib landing at Bataan on December 7th or 8th when the fortress still had ammo. After some mine hits and many shell hits, she ended the turn as shown below, but not sunk ... yet. At the beginning of the following turn execution a US sub found a working Mk14 torp and finished her off - like she even needed it!

RangerJoe · Post by **RangerJoe** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:27 pm

I have not seen that.

BTW, how could she have fires that high if she was completely flooded? [&:] One would think that all that water would put normal fires out.

GetAssista · Post by **GetAssista** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:28 pm

With the 14in shell it looks like it was the name plaque that remained afloat. And captain's cabinet probably, you need to detonate the torpedo on something

RangerJoe · Post by **RangerJoe** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:35 pm

The ship's bell . . .

BBfanboy · Post by **BBfanboy** » Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:36 pm

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I have not seen that.

BTW, how could she have fires that high if she was completely flooded? [&:] One would think that all that water would put normal fires out.

Maybe you are onto something there - the cook disposes of some old cooking oil in the heads just before the battle. Oil floats so it does not drain into the sea beneath the ship and catches fire when the CD unit gives it a shot to the heads! [:D] The ship sinks but the toilet full of burning oil floats for a while longer ... only to be finished off by a crappy torpedo.

LargeSlowTarget · Post by **LargeSlowTarget** » Sun Oct 11, 2020 6:23 am

I picture hundreds of embarked troops bailing like mad with their helmets, the splashes and splatter creating a smother that looked like smoke from a fire. The bailing kept in check the eqivalent of 14 points of major flood damage, reducing the effective float damage to 99 points and keeping Zenyo Maru barely afloat. You have to admire Japanese discipline and work ethics.

Cavalry Corp · Post by **Cavalry Corp** » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:58 am

I had the opposite once, Prince of Wales struck by one torpedo confirmed on the ship screen.... But cannot believe it actually did completely zero damage.

Lowpe · Post by **Lowpe** » Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:49 am

I have seen that before...

SPOILER: The ship sank the next turn!

geofflambert · Post by **geofflambert** » Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:16 pm

Maybe float damage = 113 means that not only is the ship certain to sink but the toilets won't even flush.

Banzan · Post by **Banzan** » Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:03 pm

But hey, the engine looks like new. Send the divers to salvage the engine!

BBfanboy · Post by **BBfanboy** » Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:08 pm

ORIGINAL: Banzan

But hey, the engine looks like new. Send the divers to salvage the engine!

[:D] I am wondering if that 0 means the engine fell out after a mine hit and the ship has none!

Ian R · Post by **Ian R** » Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:34 am

ORIGINAL: cavalry

I had the opposite once, Prince of Wales struck by one torpedo confirmed on the ship screen.... But cannot believe it actually did completely zero damage.

I suspect, but don't know, and don't expect Alfred to confirm or deny it, that that was either:

(a) a dud (which you see if you are watching the animation); or

(b) There is a secret line of code that credits capital ships' passive torpedo defence systems with a successful performance (i.e., the blisters worked). Why else did they leave ship durability in there. Sure, it could just be a legacy item from the dos game (where it was calculated in the same way - displacement/250).

Occam says (a), but I can't imagine Don Bowen didn't account for blisters in some fashion. Could just be buried in the dud rate, I suppose. Or possibly in the penetration result [;)]

Alfred · Post by **Alfred** » Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:13 am

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: cavalry

I had the opposite once, Prince of Wales struck by one torpedo confirmed on the ship screen.... But cannot believe it actually did completely zero damage.

I suspect, but don't know, and don't expect Alfred to confirm or deny it, that that was either:

(a) a dud (which you see if you are watching the animation); or

(b) There is a secret line of code that credits capital ships' passive torpedo defence systems with a successful performance (i.e., the blisters worked). Why else did they leave ship durability in there. Sure, it could just be a legacy item from the dos game (where it was calculated in the same way - displacement/250).

Occam says (a), but I can't imagine Don Bowen didn't account for blisters in some fashion. Could just be buried in the dud rate, I suppose. Or possibly in the penetration result [;)]

Ship durability is an input into many calculations:

for subs, their diving depth
construction cost
VPs
cost of repairing a damage point
resistance to battle damage

Alfred

Ian R · Post by **Ian R** » Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:38 am

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: cavalry

I had the opposite once, Prince of Wales struck by one torpedo confirmed on the ship screen.... But cannot believe it actually did completely zero damage.

I suspect, but don't know, and don't expect Alfred to confirm or deny it, that that was either:

(a) a dud (which you see if you are watching the animation); or

(b) There is a secret line of code that credits capital ships' passive torpedo defence systems with a successful performance (i.e., the blisters worked). Why else did they leave ship durability in there. Sure, it could just be a legacy item from the dos game (where it was calculated in the same way - displacement/250).

Occam says (a), but I can't imagine Don Bowen didn't account for blisters in some fashion. Could just be buried in the dud rate, I suppose. Or possibly in the penetration result [;)]

Ship durability is an input into many calculations:

for subs, their diving depth

construction cost

VPs

cost of repairing a damage point

resistance to battle damage

Alfred

Indeed.

Zorch · Post by **Zorch** » Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:20 pm

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Maybe float damage = 113 means that not only is the ship certain to sink but the toilets won't even flush.

It's become a submersible - 13% flooded is about periscope depth.

geofflambert · Post by **geofflambert** » Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:22 pm

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: cavalry

I had the opposite once, Prince of Wales struck by one torpedo confirmed on the ship screen.... But cannot believe it actually did completely zero damage.

I suspect, but don't know, and don't expect Alfred to confirm or deny it, that that was either:

(a) a dud (which you see if you are watching the animation); or

(b) There is a secret line of code that credits capital ships' passive torpedo defence systems with a successful performance (i.e., the blisters worked). Why else did they leave ship durability in there. Sure, it could just be a legacy item from the dos game (where it was calculated in the same way - displacement/250).

Occam says (a), but I can't imagine Don Bowen didn't account for blisters in some fashion. Could just be buried in the dud rate, I suppose. Or possibly in the penetration result [;)]

Occam looks like an Arab name. The man was English, the Earle of Ockham. Woostersure sauce.

Float damage 113 and still afloat!

Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!

RE: Float damage 113 and still afloat!