B17s vs IJN CAs

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by ChezDaJez »

In a game against PzB, he put about 25-30 500lbrs on the Yamashiro, and at the end of the turn she only had 11 sys. damage, but fires of about 35. The next turn she had sys damage of over 70, and floatation damage near 80!

That's simply a reflection of an unlucky die roll. Fires will increase damage but if you get a favorable die roll that suppresses the fire, you get little additional damage. Witness the Haguro hit by 17 500lb bombs. Initial sys dmg of 9 and fires of 38. 3 turns later when she docked fires were down considerably and sys dmg of 15 so I had favorable die rolls.

AFAIK, they have not changed the damage model with any of the beta releases.

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
dtravel
Posts: 4533
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:34 pm

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by dtravel »

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

OK, now shoot me [8D]

*twangs a rubberband at the Admiral* There, you've been shot.

[:'(]
This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

Image
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by crsutton »

Japanese treaty cruisers (and Allied) were not great ships. Armored or not they were fairly thin skinned due to the pre war weight restrictions of the Washington Naval Treaty. A few near misses by 500 lb bombs would certainly spring some plates. Still, there is plenty of system damage. They should be out of action for a while.

I would expect the B17s to hit less often as well. Put it all together and the results seem about right.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
testarossa
Posts: 958
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by testarossa »

Damage model is not going to be changed, unless they rewrite the engine. Chances for this are slim.

I suspect air-patrol fix was the last of so-called "feature" patches. Although there is a possibility that they will improve the engine during development of upcoming games (WPO etc.) and incorporate changes into the WitP.
spence
Posts: 5421
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by spence »

Just to add an interesting contrast in damage.

Mikuma rams Mogami near Midway. Mogami hurt fairly badly. Mikuma much less so. Mogami's DCA jettisions Mogami's torpedos. Mikuma's does not. Both later attacked with 500 lb bombs and suffer a hit amidships near torpedo mounts which start a fire. Mogami puts the fire out. Mikumas torpedos cook off crippling the ship so severely that all hope saving the ship is given up.

(All bomb hits on both ships were inflicted by SBDs)
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by ChezDaJez »

That's an excellent example, Spence. The WitP damage model should reflect those possibilities.

I've also never seen a damaged ship lose its radar. Don't know if others have but radars should be one of the first systems to feel the effects if from nothing more than shock. These things were pretty fragile.

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
testarossa
Posts: 958
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by testarossa »

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
I've also never seen a damaged ship lose its radar. Don't know if others have but radars should be one of the first systems to feel the effects if from nothing more than shock. These things were pretty fragile.

In my games radars are first things to go. especially on big capital ships. second are dual-purpose AA guns. I don't get though how belt hit can knock out the radar. May be just my luck.
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by ChezDaJez »

In my games radars are first things to go. especially on big capital ships. second are dual-purpose AA guns. I don't get though how belt hit can knock out the radar. May be just my luck.

Here is the damage list from this battle. The Oi's radar wasn't damaged even though her sys dam is 99 and she only lost one gun.

Name......sys/flt/fire Damaged systems
CA Atago 7/0/5 4-5/40in guns, 2-25mm AA, 1 torp launcher
CA Haguro 12/0/11 4-5/40in guns
CA Nachi 8/0/6 2-25mm AA
CA Mogami 9/0/8 4-5/40in guns, 2-25mm AA, 2 torp launchers
CL Oi 99/71/16 1-5.5in gun

I don't think WitP checks for superstructure hits, just deck hits. Too bad superstructure hits aren't modeled.

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by Ron Saueracker »

One of the things I'm experimenting with in my hack job mod is with penetration values. In the CHS I added 1-4mm of "armor" to subs as the non penetration value ASW devices will penetrate if the threshold is close enough but it depends upon each hit...some do some don't. I'm talking the same device here. There is a random element I believe, the same one which determines the severity of damage.

So, seeing as this was the case with non penetrating types, I've given GP bombs a small penetration increase thinking there is a "threshold". In my test game two 500 lb GPs hit Nachi from 15000 feet on the deck armor. One failed to penetrate and one penetrated.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs

Post by Ron Saueracker »

I don't think WitP checks for superstructure hits, just deck hits. Too bad superstructure hits aren't modeled.
Yeah, I know. [:(] Tried to get around this by making "tower hits" superstructure hits by removing the superfluous tower armor rating. Unfortunately, the tower armor is only hit during surface combat...bombs don't hit TA.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”