Matrix Games Forums

And Roma was hit by a special guided bomb striking closer to horizontal than vertical...

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Well Marat was damaged by bombs but not sunk... Both Roma and Arizona sunk becouse of Magazine Explosion coused by bombs but if the bombs would not hit their Magazines well in case of Roma the other factor was poor damage control i think as the magazines did not detonate from a direct hit , any of those ships would not sink.

As for Marat, i guess it depends what you mean by sunk. The ship was blown in half, and she was sitting on the bottom. At least one turret was still out of the water, though (and continued to operate).

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I have found that the floatation damage to a ship depends a lot on its size. Merchant ships can get severely mauled from bombs, where battleships and carriers don't take much flotation damage from bombs alone. At Midway, I believe the Japanese carriers and the Yorktown both had some flotation damage from bomb hits. In game terms it was probably only 10-20, but they did take some flotation damage. Near misses and secondary explosions on the ship can cause plates to pop under the waterline.

At Pearl Harbor the Arizona was sunk from a single bomb that set off a magazine and blew the bottom out of the ship. That is an extreme example, but bombs can cause flotation damage.

Bill

I'm playing CHS 2.0.8 159 against the Japanese AI on hard, and it is the beginning of March. The AI decided to run the KB through the Java Sea from south to north, giving me the opportunity to hit it with everything I had. Lots and lots of attacking casualties. The Kaga took two hits from B17s, while the Akagi, Hiryu, and Soryu each took one. The KB then staggered off to Singapore. I decided to peek--those four carriers are each at about 30-35 system damage, and both the IJN and Japanese Army have run out of replacement pilots.

Interesting...

What should happen is to stop allowing all ships to move 1 hex per turn to simulate tugs and include the tugs into the game. Why not ? We have nearly worthless AGs ... why not tugs... If a CV (or other ship) is crippled within enemy aircraft range and you had no tug nearby to haul it to safety you would scuttle it... Also increase the VP discount for a scuttled ship.. Instead of saving 10% make it something like 50% - that would get more ships scuttled..

Between having to have a tug to move a crippled ship AND a 50% VP discount for scuttling I think the problem would be resolved.

Xargun

ORIGINAL: Xargun

What should happen is to stop allowing all ships to move 1 hex per turn to simulate tugs and include the tugs into the game. Why not ? We have nearly worthless AGs ... why not tugs... If a CV (or other ship) is crippled within enemy aircraft range and you had no tug nearby to haul it to safety you would scuttle it... Also increase the VP discount for a scuttled ship.. Instead of saving 10% make it something like 50% - that would get more ships scuttled..

Between having to have a tug to move a crippled ship AND a 50% VP discount for scuttling I think the problem would be resolved.

Xargun

The 50% discount seems a bit steep... The problem really arises (i think) because of the distorted time scale in flooding in WITP. IRL, there was none of this protracted multiday saga of a ship trying for days to control fires and flooding. The ship's fate was usually decided in hours, not days. Ships that were gutted by fire DID in fact start to slowly take on water, but they were scuttled well before flooding ever became a really serious problem in most cases. It was also realized that if such a ship ever got to port, she was never going to be repaired, and could only be scrapped. This option is not available in WITP, of course.

In previous incarnations of the game, it was possible to CAPTURE an enemy ship (War in the South Pacific). It was really rare, but i suspect people would be a lot more nervous if they thought some Marines/SNLF might board their gutted carrier/bb and capture it and would thus they would scuttle more often. The possibility of capture was something of a concern IRL, but commanders were a lot more nervous about an enemy boarding party finding sensitive information (code books, etc.) without capturing the ship. Again, WITP doesn't have these features.

A player might be a lot more willing to scuttle if they thought there was a chance that all their dispositions would be revealed by a code book seizure. Yes, commanders could (and did) order destruction of sensitive materials, but that usually didn't work in the (fairly rare) cases where a ship fell into enemy hands.

The problem really arises (i think) because of the distorted time scale in flooding in WITP. IRL, there was none of this protracted multiday saga of a ship trying for days to control fires and flooding. The ship's fate was usually decided in hours, not days

The representing of progressive flood and fire effects over multiple turns is the only means by which to represent such things in the game. The developers were well aware that most DC issues were resolved within 24 hours but the minimum turn length in the game is considered "24 hours". Hence the abstraction of progressive damage over multiple turns is a necessary fudge. One has to simply adjust their thinking when they see a ship perhaps sink over the course of 4 turns. It's not really that it took "four days" for the ship to lose (or win) it's battle against progressive flooding....in reality it occured within 24 hours but to represent that battle required that it be portrayed over 4 x 24 hour turns. Personally i've always liked this enhancement. In PacWar a ship simply accrued a damage % instantly and it remained static from there out....even if it was 98% that ship would never gain more damage or risk loss. I recently fought a hard carrier battle and Lexington was badly damaged by bomb and torpedoes. Over the course of 6 turns, she eventually lost her battle with the elements and had to be abandoned (sank) It was a nail bitter the whole time. Now obviously i don't consider that it was a "Six day" battle against progressive flooding...rather it was battle prob within 24-48 hours that was stretched out over those six turns so i could watch the battle as it took place. Sadly, my DC crews lost that battle.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The problem really arises (i think) because of the distorted time scale in flooding in WITP. IRL, there was none of this protracted multiday saga of a ship trying for days to control fires and flooding. The ship's fate was usually decided in hours, not days

The representing of progressive flood and fire effects over multiple turns is the only means by which to represent such things in the game. The developers were well aware that most DC issues were resolved within 24 hours but the minimum turn length in the game is considered "24 hours". Hence the abstraction of progressive damage over multiple turns is a necessary fudge. One has to simply adjust their thinking when they see a ship perhaps sink over the course of 4 turns. It's not really that it took "four days" for the ship to lose (or win) it's battle against progressive flooding....in reality it occured within 24 hours but to represent that battle required that it be portrayed over 4 x 24 hour turns. Personally i've always liked this enhancement. In PacWar a ship simply accrued a damage % instantly and it remained static from there out....even if it was 98% that ship would never gain more damage or risk loss. I recently fought a hard carrier battle and Lexington was badly damaged by bomb and torpedoes. Over the course of 6 turns, she eventually lost her battle with the elements and had to be abandoned (sank) It was a nail bitter the whole time. Now obviously i don't consider that it was a "Six day" battle against progressive flooding...rather it was battle prob within 24-48 hours that was stretched out over those six turns so i could watch the battle as it took place. Sadly, my DC crews lost that battle.

This boils down to the sim vs. game debate (again). This business works for a better game, but not a better simulation.

Doesn't seem like you can have both. [:D]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


Doesn't seem like you can have both. [:D]

Depends.... [:)]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


Doesn't seem like you can have both. [:D]

Depends.... [:)]

on? [&:]

On the specific aspect of the game/sim.

ORIGINAL: Xargun

What should happen is to stop allowing all ships to move 1 hex per turn to simulate tugs and include the tugs into the game. Why not ? We have nearly worthless AGs ... why not tugs... If a CV (or other ship) is crippled within enemy aircraft range and you had no tug nearby to haul it to safety you would scuttle it... Also increase the VP discount for a scuttled ship.. Instead of saving 10% make it something like 50% - that would get more ships scuttled..

Between having to have a tug to move a crippled ship AND a 50% VP discount for scuttling I think the problem would be resolved.

Xargun

I wouldn´t even think about scuttling one of my BBs, CVs or CAs even if my opponent would get none VPs. Although it was very rarely I safed ships with 90 floatation.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

On the specific aspect of the game/sim.

OK... [:)] - i was talking WITP overall here, but point taken. [8D]

"If a CV (or other ship) is crippled within enemy aircraft range and you had no tug nearby to haul it to safety you would scuttle it."

Didn't they use other ships in the TF to accomplish this purpose? Isn't this what the one hex per turn rule simulates (maybe it should be turned off for one ship TFs)?

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

This boils down to the sim vs. game debate (again). This business works for a better game, but not a better simulation.

Doesn't seem like you can have both. [:D]

This is right on. People who can't stand abstraction shouldn't play games.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"If a CV (or other ship) is crippled within enemy aircraft range and you had no tug nearby to haul it to safety you would scuttle it."

Didn't they use other ships in the TF to accomplish this purpose? Isn't this what the one hex per turn rule simulates (maybe it should be turned off for one ship TFs)?

Usually they tried - with poor results. You really couldn't tow with a sea running, and best sustained speeds were about 1/2 of what WITP allows. Accounts of ships being towed at 5 kts are rare, and usually only for a few hours as the tow lines would come apart - and these were usually accounts of small ships being towed. Larger ships (esp damaged) were a real bear to handle, although it could be done - but it usually meant one (or more) tug was involved.

Personally, I find the game system to work quite well in terms of brining about real life results, i.e. when 50 dive bombers attack your CA it will be on the bottom of the ocean.

ORIGINAL: Xargun

What should happen is to stop allowing all ships to move 1 hex per turn to simulate tugs and include the tugs into the game. Why not ? We have nearly worthless AGs ... why not tugs... If a CV (or other ship) is crippled within enemy aircraft range and you had no tug nearby to haul it to safety you would scuttle it... Also increase the VP discount for a scuttled ship.. Instead of saving 10% make it something like 50% - that would get more ships scuttled..

Between having to have a tug to move a crippled ship AND a 50% VP discount for scuttling I think the problem would be resolved.

Xargun

In most cases where I have read about ships being towed after taking significant battle damage, it was another ship in the task force (often a Destroyer or other small combatant, e.g. the Vireo towing the Yorktown during the Battle of Midway) that was being used as a temporary tug, not a dedicated ocean-going tugboat. That seems common at-sea fleet actions, at least, and is somewhat consistent with WitP when you have a DD/damaged CV TF moving at 1 hex per turn (although the DD would probably be burning extra fuel to pull something that large). Something like a fleet tug might be present at a more static, large-scale operation in a replenishment TF (the replenishment TFs at Iwo Jima and Okinawa had dedicated fleet tugs to tow away damaged ships).

I would guess that the fleet tugs had a relatively slow cruise/max speed (something like an APD or AK). So it's not likely that they were ever included in surface combat/air combat/bombardment type task forces. So in the best of cases a battle damaged ship would have been towed by a ship in the scene until a rendezvous with a tug could be arranged either mid-ocean or at some local port.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"If a CV (or other ship) is crippled within enemy aircraft range and you had no tug nearby to haul it to safety you would scuttle it."

Didn't they use other ships in the TF to accomplish this purpose? Isn't this what the one hex per turn rule simulates (maybe it should be turned off for one ship TFs)?

Usually they tried - with poor results. You really couldn't tow with a sea running, and best sustained speeds were about 1/2 of what WITP allows. Accounts of ships being towed at 5 kts are rare, and usually only for a few hours as the tow lines would come apart - and these were usually accounts of small ships being towed. Larger ships (esp damaged) were a real bear to handle, although it could be done - but it usually meant one (or more) tug was involved.

I remember reading about the tug Viro attempting to tow a CV (Yorktown maybe?) and she appeared to be going backward at times.

if the fact that a towed "hulk" can be moved one 60 mile hex per turn is a problem, why not use partial movement in ocean hexes the same as LCU's use? report would state that CV Burned Out Hulk hase moved 20 miles...three days later, it moves to the next hex...

IRL, it's not unheard of for a tug to be severly damaged or sunk pulling large ships at sea any distance (usually due to less than ideal weather).

This is not a feature that is needed in this war game. If they include tugs than they should include army supply trucks for overland supply and pipe cleaners for Gen McArthur. Where does it end? [;)]