Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: hunchback77

"The CD routine needs to be addressed in the next patch. "
"I am convinced that if I sent Yamato in there she would also be sandpaperered to death. "

BB's being sunk and totally destroyed by 6" guns is wrong guys, please have a look at it for the next patch.
Thank you.

I would ask the Dev's to look at something different. I really think the damage from CD actions is close (not perfect) to good enough. (would be nice to see a difference from permanent forts and mobile forts, though.)

What I would really like to see is something similar to the TF routing levels.

For example:
Invasion TF runs at the first sign of resistance (ie, CD guns shooting at them)
Invasion TF runs if commander becomes a wimp (commander aggression roll)
Invasion TF does not run, under any circumstance.

Fix the suicide task force routine, not the CD damage routine. Any ship hit by 150 6" shells should be heavily damaged or sunk. But, no task force should commit suicide unless the supreme commander decides they should.

I agree. What is missing is the logic path where the TF decides that the fire is too hot and that they should pull out of range of the enemy guns instead of dropping anchor at point blank range and banking the fires in the boilers. I mean, at sea most TF will attempt to disengage if they are not winning.

ORIGINAL: Dili

Any ship hit by 150 6" shells should be heavily damaged or sunk. But, no task force should commit suicide unless the supreme commander decides they should.

That is correct. Yamato had a big part of the hull that were not armored, to not even talk about superstructure.

I concur on the "No suicide" rule. And about sinking by a flood of 6" shells you are correct as far as it concerns all ships except battleships. You might even be correct for pre-WWI designed battleships (although those tended to be wrapped in armor from stem to stern). But all postwar BBs and all US BBs starting with the Nevada class were designed on the raft body principle, i.e. that the ship will stay afloat on the armored part of the hull so all parts of the hull not protected by the armor belt may be flooded without endangering the ship. So unless you find a 6" gun that will penetrate 16" of armor plate at plausible combat distances, not even Boise will be able to sink Yamato by gunfire alone; wreck the superstructure, ok, but the main armament should also be immune. The best way to sink a BB has always been letting it eat half a dozen torpedos or mines.

BTW, somebody thought that there should be a minute possibility of a non-penetrating hit causing catastrophic damage. Don't wish for that. The way this game is working, I'm quite certain someone eventually would have a BB explode spontaneously every second time one is hit by a submarine deck gun.

In the Mili case there were not as many guns im guessing if you increase ti by 4 you have a lot fo dead ships.

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: Dili

Any ship hit by 150 6" shells should be heavily damaged or sunk. But, no task force should commit suicide unless the supreme commander decides they should.

That is correct. Yamato had a big part of the hull that were not armored, to not even talk about superstructure.

I concur on the "No suicide" rule. And about sinking by a flood of 6" shells you are correct as far as it concerns all ships except battleships. You might even be correct for pre-WWI designed battleships (although those tended to be wrapped in armor from stem to stern). But all postwar BBs and all US BBs starting with the Nevada class were designed on the raft body principle, i.e. that the ship will stay afloat on the armored part of the hull so all parts of the hull not protected by the armor belt may be flooded without endangering the ship. So unless you find a 6" gun that will penetrate 16" of armor plate at plausible combat distances, not even Boise will be able to sink Yamato by gunfire alone; wreck the superstructure, ok, but the main armament should also be immune. The best way to sink a BB has always been letting it eat half a dozen torpedos or mines.

BTW, somebody thought that there should be a minute possibility of a non-penetrating hit causing catastrophic damage. Don't wish for that. The way this game is working, I'm quite certain someone eventually would have a BB explode spontaneously every second time one is hit by a submarine deck gun.

agree , or even PT MGs Though IMHO torps should always allow crit hits and be penetrating. Bombs are somewhere in between ( which they are not in the game) as they could fluke a side hit below the belt and a near miss could cause a similar effect to a small torp.

So, a 6" projectile would have absolutely no chance of disabling the props or rudders? No chance of setting off a secondary mazazine explosion, cracking the hull? Not possible to enter the 16" muzzle and blow up a turret/sink the ship (happened at Normandy on a very large CD gun)? At some point, enough shells added to the top of the ship might make it roll over due to being top heavy. (sarcasm on that last point, btw.)

Not all the machinery is protected via 16" plate. Fires will knock out generators, pumps and hydraulics. Flooding magazines so they don't blow up from fires, knocking out pumps, and flooding the ship by trying to put out fires will still sink it. Not to mention crew killed/wounded.

I doubt that 150 6" shells could make a BB look like swiss cheese, from the waterline down. But, that ship ain't driving away from the battle. The shore based troops could row several boats out and capture it, after that kind of beating.

I didn't say the CD damage routine is perfect. I said it was pretty close to good enough. I'd rather them spend time working on having units retreat from battle when a certain amount of damage is taken or leaders fail aggression rolls.

So these are the facts as I understand them:

1. CD fire routines are working fine in most cases.

2. Gavan CD causes lopsided results every single time regardless of whether the attacker is a bombardment or landing TF.

3. Other Soviet CD is working fine.

Based on this, we need to figure out what is different with Gavan as opposed to, say, Alexandrovsk. Is it the number of guns? Is it the type of guns? If there is a gun type present at Gavan, but not at Alexandrovsk, could one specific Sov gun type be bugged? Are the guns at Gavan under a higher/lower fort level? CD unit experience / training different? Some other type of device in the CD unit causing a difference? Is there an unreasonable number of shots being fired at Gavan compared to others? Unreasonable accuracy compared to others? Unreasonable damage per hit compared to others?

I don't have a game at that stage, but if one of you who does could answer these questions it might help us figure this out.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: bklooste

I have had some issue with crazy CD guns but this beats my examples.

All capital ships sunk

Finally! An accurate game result, and a perfect illustration of why real world commanders avoided CD installations like the plague. It's one thing to take on a few guns on the coast..., but a genuine pre-war built Coast Defense Installation was a ship killer.

+1000 [:)]

I don't think it is desirable to include "golden BB" results for every possible combination of ships vs guns.  If we're going to simulate the extreme, remote possibility of a shell entering the muzzle of a gun and detonating at the breech, why can't we also include a small shell passing through a porthole and travelling down a passageway to detonate in a critical area?  There are already critical hits and tiny, random chances that lead to enormous consequences.

IMO having the "Boise effect" in the game, where each hit no matter from how small a shell causes a certain amount of damage, and when that amount reaches 100% the ship is sunk, is unrealistic.  It allows PT boats to sink larger ships from MG fire alone, not to mention what's happening with the CD vs ships results.  A BB losing the unprotected parts of its superstructure will be seriously damaged, but sink from this damage alone?  Show me the example of where this took place IRL, please.  There should be a cap on maximum System damage allowed by nonpenetrating hits, and once that limit is reached that's it, no more is allowed.  Lose secondary/AA guns sure, but system damage from light caliber weaponry should not sink an armored ship.

Yes it could do these but none of them would have sunk the ship . Even the 16" shell case the turrets were designed exactly for this ( accidental explotion of a 16") .

6" shells still do sysdamage no one is saying a ship is immune to them what we are saying is they wouldnt be sunk by them , ok maybe 10,000 shells would have a small chance. While the ship would be a wreck it wouldnt be sunk and she could be taken under tow.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

So, a 6" projectile would have absolutely no chance of disabling the props or rudders? No chance of setting off a secondary mazazine explosion, cracking the hull? Not possible to enter the 16" muzzle and blow up a turret/sink the ship (happened at Normandy on a very large CD gun)? At some point, enough shells added to the top of the ship might make it roll over due to being top heavy. (sarcasm on that last point, btw.)

Not all the machinery is protected via 16" plate. Fires will knock out generators, pumps and hydraulics. Flooding magazines so they don't blow up from fires, knocking out pumps, and flooding the ship by trying to put out fires will still sink it. Not to mention crew killed/wounded.

I doubt that 150 6" shells could make a BB look like swiss cheese, from the waterline down. But, that ship ain't driving away from the battle. The shore based troops could row several boats out and capture it, after that kind of beating.

I didn't say the CD damage routine is perfect. I said it was pretty close to good enough. I'd rather them spend time working on having units retreat from battle when a certain amount of damage is taken or leaders fail aggression rolls.

1. Is not right either.. the other samples had very few CD guns.
2. UNknown this is the only landing with capital ships since the pacths

I would add sending in DDs and CLs seems to work as they dodge the bullets and supress the defences but BBs and CAs cant .

ORIGINAL: Ryvan

So these are the facts as I understand them:

1. CD fire routines are working fine in most cases.

2. Gavan CD causes lopsided results every single time regardless of whether the attacker is a bombardment or landing TF.

3. Other Soviet CD is working fine.

Based on this, we need to figure out what is different with Gavan as opposed to, say, Alexandrovsk. Is it the number of guns? Is it the type of guns? If there is a gun type present at Gavan, but not at Alexandrovsk, could one specific Sov gun type be bugged? Are the guns at Gavan under a higher/lower fort level? CD unit experience / training different? Some other type of device in the CD unit causing a difference? Is there an unreasonable number of shots being fired at Gavan compared to others? Unreasonable accuracy compared to others? Unreasonable damage per hit compared to others?

I don't have a game at that stage, but if one of you who does could answer these questions it might help us figure this out.

bklooste,
 
Sorry, I don't accept your explanation.  Even if a BB had its entire superstructure (the unarmored parts) destroyed by thousands of shell hits, the ship would still be maneuverable and could fight.  Every BB I've seen had the bridge and control areas armored nearly as well as the main gun turrets and magazines.  In the improbable situation where a CL was able to sit at point blank range and pour salvo after salvo of shells into the BB, all that would be accomplished is a lot of non-critical damage to the hull and superstructure.  The ship would not be in danger of sinking and would still be able to move and maneuver, as well as operate its main armament.
 
In other words, once a certain level of damage was reached, that would be all that could be done.

My bombardment TFs just took a good whoopin at Mili, with 5 BBs heading back to PH. My issue is that my amhib ships didnt even take a scratch. It's not like I have a shortage of ships in mid-43, but it just seems odd that thin skinned ships skate by but the big boys get hammered.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

bklooste,

Sorry, I don't accept your explanation.  Even if a BB had its entire superstructure (the unarmored parts) destroyed by thousands of shell hits, the ship would still be maneuverable and could fight.  Every BB I've seen had the bridge and control areas armored nearly as well as the main gun turrets and magazines.  In the improbable situation where a CL was able to sit at point blank range and pour salvo after salvo of shells into the BB, all that would be accomplished is a lot of non-critical damage to the hull and superstructure.  The ship would not be in danger of sinking and would still be able to move and maneuver, as well as operate its main armament.

In other words, once a certain level of damage was reached, that would be all that could be done.

I'm not a structural or materials engineer, but I would think that since the belt armor is a rigid material and subject to stress and cracking, that at some point enough 6-8 inch rounds would cause a catastrophic failure. I have no clue how many rounds that would be. I'm thinking it's analagous to body armor--it's good for a certain number of rounds, but after a while, the material fails and then you're in trouble. Up until that point, however, there's no doubt it would still be a deadly weapon.

usersatch,
 
By that analogy, a human swinging a standard hammer should eventually be able to break through a BB's belt armor if he just keeps at it long enough.  Armor belts don't work like that though; either the shell had enough kinetic energy to smash through the armor or it doesn't; if it lacks enough energy, then the armor resists the shell and is not affected.  Body armor isn't a good comparison because it absorbs the bullet's energy by deforming rather than outright resisting the force.
 
Think of a BB's armor as like the standard concrete "jersey barriers" you see in highway medians.  If a car strikes one it is deflected and the concrete suffers no damage.  A big enough truck may smash through it if it travels fast enough, though.  A 6" shell hitting a BB's armor is similar to a compact car hitting a concrete barrier; all the energy is used in smashing the shell, not the armor plate, just as the car is smashed hitting the concrete.

ORIGINAL: usersatch

My bombardment TFs just took a good whoopin at Mili, with 5 BBs heading back to PH. My issue is that my amhib ships didnt even take a scratch. It's not like I have a shortage of ships in mid-43, but it just seems odd that thin skinned ships skate by but the big boys get hammered.

I've noticed this too. Amphib TFs seem to get a break from CD. But if you include any capital ships in the same TF, watch out.

I've got an amphibious TF headed for Mili right now; the 2nd bombardment TF to hit Mili took a lot less damage and inflicted heavy damage, so we'll see what it looks like when the Marines go in; their TF only has light warships escorting it.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

IMO having the "Boise effect" in the game, where each hit no matter from how small a shell causes a certain amount of damage, and when that amount reaches 100% the ship is sunk, is unrealistic.  It allows PT boats to sink larger ships from MG fire alone, not to mention what's happening with the CD vs ships results.  A BB losing the unprotected parts of its superstructure will be seriously damaged, but sink from this damage alone?  Show me the example of where this took place IRL, please.  There should be a cap on maximum System damage allowed by nonpenetrating hits, and once that limit is reached that's it, no more is allowed.  Lose secondary/AA guns sure, but system damage from light caliber weaponry should not sink an armored ship.

The game already takes into account the durability of the ship and the effect of the weapon. PT's can't sink a BB by MG hits. The durability of the ship is too high for the low effect weapons to make even 1 point of damage.

I think 6" effect is a good example because at that point, the effect of the weapon is large enough to actually start damaging the most durable of ships in WITP AE (ie, BB's)

Even though a 6" shell does not have a chance of penetrating 16" of armor belt, the BB would still be destroyed (I'll use destroyed instead of sunk) because it wouldn't have props, rudders, or any superstructure. Even the main armament would be inoperable because a 6" shell could jam a turret, even if it couldn't penetrate the armor. (assuming 150 hits)

First of all, I am not necessarily supporting the CD routine. I am not aware of any good examples of warships trying to take on a major coastal fortification to judge how accurate it is.

I can imagine a situation that would lead to a battleship blundering into effective range of coastal batteries and getting pounded before it can withdraw; however, it would have to be a very unusual situation for her to be hit that many times.

An arrogant (or over confident) commander closes in too closely. A lucky hit to engines or rudder gear. Commence shooting gallery.

Hyuga slides closer
Search lights stab the night for prey
Unlucky she burns

For those BB fanboys who feel a battleships armor is proof against 6 inch guns, I don’t think Garzke would agree. Even the most modern BBs (and Hyuga was definitely not one of those) were designed with imperfect knowledge, and constructed with imperfect techniques. The all or nothing protection was always weak at the joints. A lucky hit at a joint, and resulting damage to a key damage control station or engine room, after the bow and stern compartments outside the “box” have already been holed—well, say good night. Further, the belts tended to taper towards the bottom, and if caught in a hard turn, a lucky shot low in the hull might penetrate the belt at its thinnest. Finally, in Hyuga’s case, she was probably built with multiple armored decks, and these designs often left gaps between the belt and the top decks allowing for penetrations from various angles. Shots from the bow or stern quarters could often exploit these weaknesses in the armor schemes.

From what I have observed, the game engine seems to adequately replicate the effects of penetrating and non-penetrating hits.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

usersatch,

By that analogy, a human swinging a standard hammer should eventually be able to break through a BB's belt armor if he just keeps at it long enough.  Armor belts don't work like that though; either the shell had enough kinetic energy to smash through the armor or it doesn't; if it lacks enough energy, then the armor resists the shell and is not affected.  Body armor isn't a good comparison because it absorbs the bullet's energy by deforming rather than outright resisting the force.

Think of a BB's armor as like the standard concrete "jersey barriers" you see in highway medians.  If a car strikes one it is deflected and the concrete suffers no damage.  A big enough truck may smash through it if it travels fast enough, though.  A 6" shell hitting a BB's armor is similar to a compact car hitting a concrete barrier; all the energy is used in smashing the shell, not the armor plate, just as the car is smashed hitting the concrete.

You just proved my point! Body armor reacts by dissipating the force of the relatively flat-faced projectile to a wide surrounding area. Hard, frontal armor reacts to, presumably, a naval AP round, by dissipating the kinetic energy of the projectile at a very small point around, but mostly behind the point of impact. The AP round has a very small surface area of impact as compared to a normal HE round, but with the same amount of kinetic energy. The frontal armor relies on its thickness rather than its surface area (like body armor) to defat the round, or dissipate the energy. Hit body armor with AP bullets or an arrow, they will go clean through. Armor plating doesnt "resist" incoming projectiles at all--it absorbs the energy (KE = 1/2mv^2) where some is lost as heat, friction, etc. upon impact, but most of the energy is transferred directly from the projectile to the object of impact and directly behind it. But, each time it absorbs (or resists) a huge force at that small point, it weakens the material in a very small area.

Using your analogy of auto concrete barriers, yes, a compact car (or even a semi for that matter) doesnt have a lot of kinetic energy per square inch versus the total surface area of the front of the vehicle, but if you focus all of that kinetic energy down to a very small cross section of just a few inches, there's a hell of a lot of energy waiting to be transferred. If the car glances, or is deflected, off the barrier (some energy going in the x-plane but most going in the y-plane), significantly less energy is transferred than if it hits it at a 90 degree angle with no deflection, (all energy going in the x-plane). This is why modern tanks have sloped frontal armor. Like I said, I'm not a materials engineer, but I am a physicist, so I do know that each hit (if powerful enough) can break a few of the lattice bonds in the concrete (or steel). Concrete (and steel) are arranged in interconnected "sheets" of atoms, or a lattice. When a force hits the lattice, it is dissipated to the surrounding atoms. But, hit it enough and the atomic bonds in the outermost sheets begin to break and give way. It may take 2 semis or 2000 sedans to do it, but one way or the other, the material (and the bonds that hold it together) can absorb only so much before it fails. What I don't know is exactly what a single sedan does to a concrete barrier crashing head on on a micro level (or an AP round striking a nearly perpendicular sheet of BB armor).

I'm in no way saying that a single 6 inch AP round will penetrate BB belt armor, but if you fire enough of them at the approximately same point of impact, eventually they will. IRL, I would take it to Vegas (betting against it, of course) with the chances of that many rounds hitting in the same spot.

Since it is not penetrating the affect is not that relevant even 20mm rounds can wipe the entire non armoured super structre and hence in theory with a large amount of shots cause the same max sys damage ( excluding lucky penetration but a 20 mm can also get lucky and hit a 16" shell in a tube etc)

I think 6" is a bad example i bet if we used 40 , 60 or 80mm we would see the same results. Due to certain chance of fire and sys damage per shot .

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

IMO having the "Boise effect" in the game, where each hit no matter from how small a shell causes a certain amount of damage, and when that amount reaches 100% the ship is sunk, is unrealistic.  It allows PT boats to sink larger ships from MG fire alone, not to mention what's happening with the CD vs ships results.  A BB losing the unprotected parts of its superstructure will be seriously damaged, but sink from this damage alone?  Show me the example of where this took place IRL, please.  There should be a cap on maximum System damage allowed by nonpenetrating hits, and once that limit is reached that's it, no more is allowed.  Lose secondary/AA guns sure, but system damage from light caliber weaponry should not sink an armored ship.

The game already takes into account the durability of the ship and the effect of the weapon. PT's can't sink a BB by MG hits. The durability of the ship is too high for the low effect weapons to make even 1 point of damage.

I think 6" effect is a good example because at that point, the effect of the weapon is large enough to actually start damaging the most durable of ships in WITP AE (ie, BB's)

Even though a 6" shell does not have a chance of penetrating 16" of armor belt, the BB would still be destroyed (I'll use destroyed instead of sunk) because it wouldn't have props, rudders, or any superstructure. Even the main armament would be inoperable because a 6" shell could jam a turret, even if it couldn't penetrate the armor. (assuming 150 hits)