I think I saw on these boards somewhere, that WitP -does- model near-misses, and they are resolved as hit's on the Belt Armor? (is that correct?).
I'm not sure, but there would be two problems with this model:
Near misses (and torpedoes) attack not the belt armor but the torpedo defense system
The ends of the ship are unprotected by either armor or TDS, and are therefore highly susceptible to flooding
Not that I believe that there is much hope of changing anything in this area....it would have to be far more complex than it is now, and how much more accuracy could be gained?
The coding was tweaked in compensation for the lack of NM/Superstructure HL's by making non-penetrating hits more likely to cause a bit more incidental SYS damage. Combined with the effects of FIRE levels, this does not allow BB's to yawn at bombers....especially large 1000 pounders because their "effect" rating tends to create many FIRE levels which translate directly into more SYS.
While still possible within the variability to "get off lightly" (depending on how one defines it) it is also possible to receive signifigant damage even if no bombs ever penetrate. I've had BB's reach the twenties in SYS without ever having been "penetrated" due to the effects of FIRE. Additionally there is the potential damage to secondary/teritary weapons systems and fire control (radar) which can be knocked out.
WitP's model only simulates "critical damage" to a warship, represented by SYS. We have to remember too that propulsion max speed is directly tied to SYS making that variable more critical yet. Minor, "non critical" damage is not modeled. (nor Ron's "crew casaulty" factor)
As you have guessed, there is only so much detail that can be modeled and any additions have to be weighed against the overall effect vs. cost of effort. To return (yet again) to the example of the changes i had preposed so long ago. They were received positively. Why wern't they done then? Simple economics. The inevitable question was, Does the current model not already do a "Decent" job? Would the required rewrite and coding time be worth the investment vs. focusing on other areas that might benefit more from the attention of the developers. The inevitable decision was, no, not enough time and yes.....the model does function adequately within the scale of what is being represented. Signifigant changes have been incorporated from the UV model and overall i am quite happy with the model. Sure i'm still wistful about my ideas and who knows maybe someday a mod will appear.....but in the end i understood the necessity of the decision that was made.
The coding was tweaked in compensation for the lack of NM/Superstructure HL's by making non-penetrating hits more likely to cause a bit more incidental SYS damage. Combined with the effects of FIRE levels, this does not allow BB's to yawn at bombers....especially large 1000 pounders because their "effect" rating tends to create many FIRE levels which translate directly into more SYS.
While still possible within the variability to "get off lightly" (depending on how one defines it) it is also possible to receive signifigant damage even if no bombs ever penetrate. I've had BB's reach the twenties in SYS without ever having been "penetrated" due to the effects of FIRE. Additionally there is the potential damage to secondary/teritary weapons systems and fire control (radar) which can be knocked out.
WitP's model only simulates "critical damage" to a warship, represented by SYS. We have to remember too that propulsion max speed is directly tied to SYS making that variable more critical yet. Minor, "non critical" damage is not modeled. (nor Ron's "crew casaulty" factor)
As you have guessed, there is only so much detail that can be modeled and any additions have to be weighed against the overall effect vs. cost of effort. To return (yet again) to the example of the changes i had preposed so long ago. They were received positively. Why wern't they done then? Simple economics. The inevitable question was, Does the current model not already do a "Decent" job? Would the required rewrite and coding time be worth the investment vs. focusing on other areas that might benefit more from the attention of the developers. The inevitable decision was, no, not enough time and yes.....the model does function adequately within the scale of what is being represented. Signifigant changes have been incorporated from the UV model and overall i am quite happy with the model. Sure i'm still wistful about my ideas and who knows maybe someday a mod will appear.....but in the end i understood the necessity of the decision that was made.
Regardless of our failed efforts to add hit locations and crew, I still think something can be done about torpedo/flood damage. Torpedo hits resulting in flooding should not take a simple pump to remedy. A major portion of flood damage could be made permanent to reflect severe hull damage which requires serious yard time.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Regardless of our failed efforts to add hit locations and crew, I still think something can be done about torpedo/flood damage. Torpedo hits resulting in flooding should not take a simple pump to remedy. A major portion of flood damage could be made permanent to reflect severe hull damage which requires serious yard time.
No arguement from me. I suggested the same way back in UV days. [;)] For it to work though would require a whole new swath of code that somewhat stabilizes the FLT damage in both directions. Its not 'as' important for the Allied player because of the DC bonus, but for the Japanese its critical because anything over 50% FLT will often result in "progressive flooding" when at sea. I see many potential problems and balance issues trying to make this work.
In the end, if i had to choose, i'd much rather keep the progressive FLT rule than the above. its very dynamic for a game of this scale. Always hated in PacWar how you could put 95% "damage" on a ship (especially a merchant) and still have it usable with no threat of foundering.
With the effect of torpedoes having been increased somewhat, the need for such a rule was reduced. (Personally too...i'd rather have the NM HL [:'(] )
A major portion of flood damage could be made permanent to reflect severe hull damage which requires serious yard time.
One of the finest ideas I have seen on this board.
Why thank you. Quite and old idea[:)] The near miss/superstructure hit location is another idea Steve and I flogged for quite awhile. The major benefit of these locations would have been to make armoured ships less impervious to non penetrating ordinance (as they were generally less to no armour here...basically non critical areas which take damage and require repair nontheless) and unarmoured ships more resilient by absorbing hits. Hits here we argued should cause minor levels of system damage. It would have alleviated the all or nothing model we currently see.
The crew points I like because crew experience levels, fatigue, efficiency etc could have been measured in a less abstract manner. I always wanted experience levels to be a more "across the board" rating than simply ship specific as, for example, the USN grew rapidly so experienced personnel were diluted as they were spread more thinly throughout new construction. Lost crew would impact experience levels throughout the fleet and would need to be replaced before ships were ready for combat. *I know, I'm revealing my geekness factor here![:D]
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Regardless of our failed efforts to add hit locations and crew, I still think something can be done about torpedo/flood damage. Torpedo hits resulting in flooding should not take a simple pump to remedy. A major portion of flood damage could be made permanent to reflect severe hull damage which requires serious yard time.
No arguement from me. I suggested the same way back in UV days. [;)] For it to work though would require a whole new swath of code that somewhat stabilizes the FLT damage in both directions. Its not 'as' important for the Allied player because of the DC bonus, but for the Japanese its critical because anything over 50% FLT will often result in "progressive flooding" when at sea. I see many potential problems and balance issues trying to make this work.
In the end, if i had to choose, i'd much rather keep the progressive FLT rule than the above. its very dynamic for a game of this scale. Always hated in PacWar how you could put 95% "damage" on a ship (especially a merchant) and still have it usable with no threat of foundering.
With the effect of torpedoes having been increased somewhat, the need for such a rule was reduced. (Personally too...i'd rather have the NM HL [:'(] )
The Japanese are getting screwed by the damage control penalty in my opinion. The Japanese were capable seamen but they were hampered by a lack of technical innovation which assisted the Allies. This had more to due with fire conflagoration and any damage fire caused and less with an inability to shore up bulkeads. Fire, NOT flooding should be Japan's achilles heel. As I said before, hammers, matresses and lumber were no different when made in Japan or the US of A.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Unfortunately, FIRE in the game is not all that it can be, and isnt' capable of being represented that way. FIRE's always go down, cant burn out of control and cant cause catastrophic events. To change that would probably require an even bigger rewrite than the HL's.
AN-Mk1 1600 pound AP. This weapon was beyond the lift and fit capabilities of the SBD, but could be carried in the internal bomb bay of the SB2C (Helldiver).
AN-Mk33 armor piercing 1000 lb bomb. Incidently in the Port Chicago explosion the munitions ship that went up was carrying a buttload of these. This weapon was a common available load out in USN CVs during WW2, although not the primary load out. It was too much "AP" for thin skinned ships. Could be used against for ex CAs and BBs. "Never in wide use" is a misstatement. All CVs carried them. They just did not carry many of them. These may have been the types that penetrated the deck armor in the final sorties of Yamato and Musashi.
AN-M59 "semi" armor piercing 1,000lb bomb. Pretty much the standard USN anti-ship bomb. Good for everything from a transport through a CA. Capable against most BBs too.
AN-M58A1 500 lb semi AP.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
A. "Never in wide use" is a misstatement. All CVs carried them. They just did not carry many of them. These may have been the types that penetrated the deck armor in the final sorties of Yamato and Musashi.
No it isn't. In game terms a dive bomber can only carry one type of bomb. The primary bomb loadout of the CV's was GP because of it's greater utility thus the more proper choice is GP for default loadout. A CV may indeed have some AP bombs, but not all did and those that did usually only had enough for a 1/2 strike or at most, one full strike.
Yamato and Musashi's primary armor decks were not penetrated by any bomb during their fights.
Of course a dive bomber gets one (or in the case of the SB2C should get 2) bomb types and, of course not knowing what the composition of the target is one would load with AN-M59s for general anti-ship use. In a battle with a second strike if one knew that a BB was in the targeted TF, or in a first strike if the BB was known to be there and was a primary target, one would load an AN-M33 or should even have a chance to load the AN-Mk1 if the delivering vehicle is a B25, B26 or SB2C.
The question as to whether Yamato's main armor was penetrated is not convincingly argued either way. Since no one can look at her main armor anyhow. Bombs set her interior compartments on fire, started a fire that could not be extinguished, and would have destroyed her. In game terms one might call that a "critical hit" or something. One thing is for sure, no one can with the slightest authority claim that her main armor was NOT penetrated.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
I guess that's the difference between a theory and sh1t happens. Shortly after Hiroshima the head of the Japanese Abomb program stipulated that Hiroshima could not have been nuked because their calculations demonstrated that no one could research and build one in the time frame of the war.
Japanese ships were built around a design but there seems to have been some slop in the implementation of design. Not huge differences, but leeway at individual shipyards. Would it surprise me if the metal was flawed in some largely untested way, given the cracking problem of the armor used on the Yamato class turrett faces? Nope.
The facts remain undeniable. A USN dive-bomber bomb hit her forward. Started a fire in compartments adjacent to her 6" forward magazine that could not be extinguished. Occupants of 6" mag last saw the walls of their compartment glowing cherry red. This bomb, by all accounts, *would* have sunk Yamato one way or the other. Since Yamato is not available for detailed inspection, it remains somewhat of a mystery whether this bomb penetrated main armor, found a gap, or whether the main armor cioverage was simply not sufficent to protect her against the range of reasonable expected hits. (Surely someone imagined that her secondary mags needed protection.)
So the alleged invulnerability of Yamato's main horizontal armor does not follow from the established facts. What you call this in terms of game (critical hit, AP hit, semi-AP hit) is anyone's guess. Either the calculations are wrong, or the design was flawed with respect to coverage, or the metal was flawed. No other conclusion is logical or reasonable given the established facts.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
The facts remain undeniable. A USN dive-bomber bomb hit her forward. Started a fire in compartments adjacent to her 6" forward magazine that could not be extinguished.
Accept that your statement was proven entirely false the last time you claimed it. And you were then claiming it was the rear 6inch magazine that was set on fire. Now it's the forward 6inch magazine.
Please see G&D if you truely want a detailed account of the damage and a sequence of the hits.
I do not accept that my statement was proven false. It is your claim that is false. Then, if you would either not lie about my past statements or perhaps refresh your memory, I noted that:
1. The bomb hit forward *would* have sunk her. You or even Tiornu might disagree, but there are those inconvenient observations by Yamato's crew that the fire could not be stopped and that the forward secondary mag was imminently to explode.
2. The exact cause of the underwater explosion was made that much more mysterious because Yamato's aft mains seem to be the ones that ripped her in half. I made no claims about bomb hits aft.
3. Either way the case is sort of moot. Fire forward. Mysterious explosion aft. Capsized from substantial flooding and counterflooding caused undeniably both bomb bits and near misses and torpedoes. The Yamato was sunk at least twice, perhaps thrice, in one combat. Axis fanboys continue to maintain the bizarre claim that she was invulnerable to non-torpedo attack and that claims is manifestly stupid, given both the bomb hits that both Yam and Mu survived (but had to have repaired) and the final demise of both vessels.
You apparently think the Yamato is still floating somewhere, based on theory. Oh well.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
