Page 7 of 7
RE: B17s vs IJN CAs
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:15 pm
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
RE: B17s vs IJN CAs
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 9:59 pm
by dtravel
ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan
OK, now shoot me [8D]
*twangs a rubberband at the Admiral* There, you've been shot.
[:'(]
RE: B17s vs IJN CAs
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:29 pm
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.
RE: B17s vs IJN CAs
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:03 pm
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.
RE: B17s vs IJN CAs
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:33 pm
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)
RE: B17s vs IJN CAs
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:43 pm
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
RE: B17s vs IJN CAs
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:54 pm
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.

RE: B17s vs IJN CAs
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:25 am
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
RE: B17s vs IJN CAs
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:54 am
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.
RE: B17s vs IJN CAs
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:57 am
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.