There seems to be something amiss in the combat routine for ship to ship combat. Battleship guns are too powerful, and ships are too weak. after doing alot of testing, I find that BB's will sink after
5-12 hits for other BB main guns (18in,16in,14in,etc.). This is historically inaccurate, as they should be able to absorb a lot more damage. If I crank up Yamato Durability to maximun (255), It will still sink after 5 to 12 hits. all that is required, is for the incoming shell to penetrate the armor. It works like that for all classes. What is required, is a separate field like hitpoints.
eg. Yamato class Hitpoints 72,0000
Iowa class " 50,0000
DD's " 2,500
The hitpoints could be based on Displacement. Along with armor and durability, it would greatly improve the way incoming shell damage is dealt with.
Naval ship combat and damge
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
testarossa
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:06 pm
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
So they'll have to rewrite the code, right? And we will never get our bugs fixed. They should forget about changing the game, and think about bringing it up to the promises.
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
Tell that to the crew of the Hood.
Ships don't have hit points, they have critical areas/systems and a enemy that *always* wins known as water. There is not a ship made that is not always sinking. Guns just speed up the process by adding bigger holes for that water to come in.
Any ship can be sunk simply by (a) knocking out the power to her pumps or (b) putting a hole in that exceeds the pumps capacity to remove the water or (c) making water come into one section faster then a counter section can be flooded to prevent it from rolling.
Ships don't have hit points, they have critical areas/systems and a enemy that *always* wins known as water. There is not a ship made that is not always sinking. Guns just speed up the process by adding bigger holes for that water to come in.
Any ship can be sunk simply by (a) knocking out the power to her pumps or (b) putting a hole in that exceeds the pumps capacity to remove the water or (c) making water come into one section faster then a counter section can be flooded to prevent it from rolling.
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
I'm at work so I can't check, but did't Kongo catch like 5-8 16inchers from USS Washington to make her a floating hulk?[:D] Sorry wrong ship right battle...South Dakota caught 42 14in and 8in shells while Washington hit Kirishima with 8 nine gun salvos turning it into a floating hulk. Ooops, missed your update Tankrace.
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
It all dpends on where the hits are... Below water line and you're dead. Above and you'll probably survive...
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
The "effect" rating of weapons is probably simply a measure of the amount of TNT in the warhead. I'm guessing it was a faily linear guestimate.
As example, look at the bombs.
250 lb GP bomb, effect = 250
500 lb GP bomb, effect = 500
1000 lb GP bomb, effect = 1000
The probably took the amount of TNT in the warheads of the shells (or might have simply taken the weight of the shell), and made that the effectiveness.
If you look at the 16/50 Mk7 gun, their effectiveness rating is 2700, which I'd bet, is pretty darned close to the weight of the shell.
I don't know squat about oridinance. I'm guessing that a lot of the weight of a shell is casing, not so much TNT. But really have no idea. I'd also bet there's a dimininshing return that says the boom from a 1000 bomb isn't 2x as powerful as a 500 pound bomb (it may be exponentinally more too, again, I have no idea).
I'd also be the effectivenss rating is somehow compared to the durablility (very roughly, the dispalcement), and that creates a magik number (+/- random) for the amount of sys dmg that is inflicted. But comparing effect to durablity, means that it takes a bigger shell to do damage to a bigger ship. 3" CD will put a sizeable hole in DD, but it will do far less to a BB, simply because its mass/durabiliy is substantially more (regardles of armor penetration).
It would be my guess that the effect values could be "adjusted" (but be vary wary of completely borking everything). And the durablity values appropriately adjusted. But again, your talking about screwing around with some major stuff, and withou knowing the actual combat routines, you stand to do more harm than good. For example, let's say you toned down the effect rating of the 16" gun to make it more "realistic" vs. ships. By some stroke of immense luck, you managed to get it exactly accurate, so that ships took completely realistic damage. You might have just screwed yourself when you shoot those same 16" shell values thru the bombardment routines, and how much damage it does to airfields and LCUs. What works in the naval rountines, may reduce to shooting 16" tennis balls vs. LCUs. Again, not knowing the routines, jeopardizes anything you "tweak".
-F-
As example, look at the bombs.
250 lb GP bomb, effect = 250
500 lb GP bomb, effect = 500
1000 lb GP bomb, effect = 1000
The probably took the amount of TNT in the warheads of the shells (or might have simply taken the weight of the shell), and made that the effectiveness.
If you look at the 16/50 Mk7 gun, their effectiveness rating is 2700, which I'd bet, is pretty darned close to the weight of the shell.
I don't know squat about oridinance. I'm guessing that a lot of the weight of a shell is casing, not so much TNT. But really have no idea. I'd also bet there's a dimininshing return that says the boom from a 1000 bomb isn't 2x as powerful as a 500 pound bomb (it may be exponentinally more too, again, I have no idea).
I'd also be the effectivenss rating is somehow compared to the durablility (very roughly, the dispalcement), and that creates a magik number (+/- random) for the amount of sys dmg that is inflicted. But comparing effect to durablity, means that it takes a bigger shell to do damage to a bigger ship. 3" CD will put a sizeable hole in DD, but it will do far less to a BB, simply because its mass/durabiliy is substantially more (regardles of armor penetration).
It would be my guess that the effect values could be "adjusted" (but be vary wary of completely borking everything). And the durablity values appropriately adjusted. But again, your talking about screwing around with some major stuff, and withou knowing the actual combat routines, you stand to do more harm than good. For example, let's say you toned down the effect rating of the 16" gun to make it more "realistic" vs. ships. By some stroke of immense luck, you managed to get it exactly accurate, so that ships took completely realistic damage. You might have just screwed yourself when you shoot those same 16" shell values thru the bombardment routines, and how much damage it does to airfields and LCUs. What works in the naval rountines, may reduce to shooting 16" tennis balls vs. LCUs. Again, not knowing the routines, jeopardizes anything you "tweak".
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
ORIGINAL: MarioF
There seems to be something amiss in the combat routine for ship to ship combat. Battleship guns are too powerful, and ships are too weak. after doing alot of testing, I find that BB's will sink after
5-12 hits for other BB main guns (18in,16in,14in,etc.). This is historically inaccurate, as they should be able to absorb a lot more damage. If I crank up Yamato Durability to maximun (255), It will still sink after 5 to 12 hits. all that is required, is for the incoming shell to penetrate the armor.
MarioF:
No "modern" BB could survive 5-12 PENETRATING , major caliber hits. Since they used the "all-or-nothing" armor scheme, any hit that penetrated was going to be at or near the waterline (exception: control tower penetrating hit) and going to damage/destroy a "vital" subsystem. Do that 5 or more times and the BB is in a world of hurt. Note that Hood didn't survive a singel penetrating hit. Further note that SD at 2nd Guadalcanal was temporerily put out of action (but never really endangered) by NO penetrating hits.
Now, I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions since I feel that there are too many penetrating hits.
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
Warning: usless trivia ahead!
Here's a link to actual gunnery tables for WWI british naval guns.
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/brassey/b1902g00.htm
Basically, the "bursting charge" is the warhead in a shell.
Listed for a 12 inch/40 (like on HMS Dreadnought):
Shell weight is 850 lbs, bursting charge is 80 lbs. (firing charge, to push it out of barrel: 200 lbs of cordite). The shock of an 850lb hunk of metal hitting at 2481 ft/sec is fairly useful in itself.
Now, for the in-game values, your post says it all pretty well...
I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate...
Here's a link to actual gunnery tables for WWI british naval guns.
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/brassey/b1902g00.htm
Basically, the "bursting charge" is the warhead in a shell.
Listed for a 12 inch/40 (like on HMS Dreadnought):
Shell weight is 850 lbs, bursting charge is 80 lbs. (firing charge, to push it out of barrel: 200 lbs of cordite). The shock of an 850lb hunk of metal hitting at 2481 ft/sec is fairly useful in itself.
Now, for the in-game values, your post says it all pretty well...
I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate...
-
DrewMatrix
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:49 pm
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
Mr. Frag brings up two very valid points.
1) "If you want to fill a ship with air, hit it above the water line. If you want to fill a ship with water, hit it below the water line."
2) Capsizing was a greater risk than sinking on a level keel.
So the obvious solution is to use WITP as a scenario generator. Whenever naval combat occurs, pull out your ship miniatures, move the living room furnture, and play out the engagement with Fletcher Pratt rules. That will tell you exactly where the shells hit, so you can see if how many are below the waterline and how many on the port vs starboard side of the ship (lots of hits on one side are worse than the same number of hits equally divided.
All we need from Matrix is a way to plug those miniatures results back into the game after the battle.
1) "If you want to fill a ship with air, hit it above the water line. If you want to fill a ship with water, hit it below the water line."
2) Capsizing was a greater risk than sinking on a level keel.
So the obvious solution is to use WITP as a scenario generator. Whenever naval combat occurs, pull out your ship miniatures, move the living room furnture, and play out the engagement with Fletcher Pratt rules. That will tell you exactly where the shells hit, so you can see if how many are below the waterline and how many on the port vs starboard side of the ship (lots of hits on one side are worse than the same number of hits equally divided.
All we need from Matrix is a way to plug those miniatures results back into the game after the battle.
Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
ORIGINAL: mlees
Basically, the "bursting charge" is the warhead in a shell.
Listed for a 12 inch/40 (like on HMS Dreadnought):
Shell weight is 850 lbs, bursting charge is 80 lbs. (firing charge, to push it out of barrel: 200 lbs of cordite). The shock of an 850lb hunk of metal hitting at 2481 ft/sec is fairly useful in itself.
And how! According to http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm (rather technical article) - "a 15" (38.1 cm projectile will punch roughly 850-980 pounds (385.5 - 408.2 kg) of armor out of a 14" (356 mm) face-hardened plate at right angles! " And I don't think that armor would just fall to the deck, but would be probably bouncing around inside the turret/control tower/whatever space was behind the armor. Getting hit by an 900 pound piece of flying armor could ruin your whole day![:D]
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
Well, at least you wouldn't know what hit you...[8|]
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
Jutland: an analysis of the fighting by John Campbell is a bit dry sometimes, and is mostly limited to what he could could from British official records (the German ones were lost in WW II) of this great WW I dreadnought clash, but he goes into great detail on the damage the ships suffered. I recommend this book if that kind of stuff interests you.
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
ORIGINAL: tanksone
I'm at work so I can't check, but did't Kongo catch like 5-8 16inchers from USS Washington to make her a floating hulk?[:D]
It was the Battleship Kirishima (Kongo was sunk in '44 by a submarine). She took 9 16inchers and 40 5inchers, and was reduced to a blazin wreck.
Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
Interestingly, sister ship Hiei was similarly reduced to rubble in an engagement with Allied CAs/CLs/DDs... The 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. (Nov. 12th-13th I believe). Marine SBDs/TBFs finished her off the next day - maybe some planes from Enterprise as well...
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
ORIGINAL: madflava13
Interestingly, sister ship Hiei was similarly reduced to rubble in an engagement with Allied CAs/CLs/DDs... The 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. (Nov. 12th-13th I believe). Marine SBDs/TBFs finished her off the next day - maybe some planes from Enterprise as well...
Yeah - she got the infamous "hit in rudders/steering gear, steam in circles until sunk" critical hit.
RE: Naval ship combat and damge
ORIGINAL: mlees
Jutland: an analysis of the fighting by John Campbell is a bit dry sometimes, and is mostly limited to what he could could from British official records (the German ones were lost in WW II) of this great WW I dreadnought clash, but he goes into great detail on the damage the ships suffered. I recommend this book if that kind of stuff interests you.
Thanx muchly! I've heard of this, but now I'll actually check it out.