Torpedo damage

Pacific War is a free update of the old classic, available in our Downloads section.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

Post by Nikademus »

Originally posted by grumbler:
Nikademus, I agree with what you are saying, by and large. In fact, upgrading torpedo strength was one of the first things that was discussed on the old Compuserve boards when this game came out. Torpedoes didn't often hit (at least, air-launched and surfaced-launched ones didn't), but they did damage when they did hit. While some ships did manage to keep going after even a single torpedo hit, whis was rare (even for a battleship). In most cases, a single torpedo hit was a mission-kill even when it wasn't a ship kill. And it often was a ship kill.

Merchant shipping was especially vulnerable to underwater damage since they didn't have crews big enough to deal with major underwater damage, and they were built to be as accessable as possible. The exception to this (sorry, Madflava13) were the tankers, which were naturally compartmented and full of bouyant stuff. Provided they didn't burst into flames (rare), and their engines weren't knocked out by the shock (also rare), they could keep going after even a couple of hits (recalling some tankers in the IO here as well as the relief attempts around Malta). I think that reduced durability numbers for merships are also something I want to see. Two bombs should put most of them out of action, again because they lacked the numbers needed for dmage control.

Perhaps a reduction of accuracy and an increase in warhead would make torpedoes more realistic - hard to hit with, but deadly when they did hit. That would retain the overall kill numbers that people seem happy with, but make the battle results more palatable as well (though MT's comment about the numbers of torps wasted on flamers is also a good one, and maybe this idea wouldn't work for that reason).

Thanks for the support. You well understood the point i was trying to make, that i was'nt campaigning for 'uber' torpedoes that kill with one shot but for torpedoes that will in most cases cause at least some form of signifigant inconvienence to the ship (due to flooding and such) as well as Mission kill issues. Any BB that eats three or more torpedoes is rarely if ever going to be doing anything other than high tailing it back to the nearest friendly port!


On the accuracy issue. I gave it alot of thought but in the end did'nt feel that those figures needed tweaking. In the early part of the game there are indeed a high incidence of torp hits but this is due primarily to the high experience of the Japanese pilots (US airlaunched torp hits are extremely rare) and also to the much lower flak concentrations. The more the Japanese fight though the quicker their exp ratings will start to fall. But in the early days, the signifigant threat of torpedo attack was what made airpower so vital to an offensive. Look at the Philippines campaign. The US did'nt even try to relieve it knowing they'd lost air superiority and the threat of more damaging or worse, lucky hits made the investment potential far too costly. Even early war hit and run raids by singular carriers must be given alot of thought before committing. On one most notable occasion, a hit and fade by a Yorktown i'd sent against Wake was hit by a single torp from a G4M and it was a critical hit. Sank after one shot (and this was using the old warhead ratings!!!) Was the only game that that ever happenend out of many played but it was enough to stamp it on my memory for all time and make me much more cautious whenever the threat of enemy air power was around!

As time goes by it gets harder and harder for the torpedo bombers to get through until by late 43/early 44 its narely impossible, given that if a plane is hit during its attack run, its "roll" or "shot" is forfeit.

I believe there was even some discussion at one point many moons ago that suggested that US Flak concentration and power was way overbalanced.

I did also end up restoring the bomb values to official OOB given the results so far in my now 6mo old test campaign.

Some add'l thoughts. DD durability needs to be greatly increased. Far too many incidents of singular bombs and torpedoes acing them with one shot (Even torps using 'official' warhead ratings)

Concurently i think MCS ships need to have their durability curbed a bit. They seem awfully resistant at times to bomb damage. (not a problem with torpedoes anymore though :-)

:rolleyes:
User avatar
madflava13
Posts: 1501
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Alexandria, VA

Post by madflava13 »

Grumbler -- I agree with your points on TKs... A torp hitting their holds (assuming the hold is empty) can be easily contained and treated as if it were a full compartment of oil/gas/etc. In that situation, a TK can be very survivable. I was more concerned with instances where a sub of mine hits with 3 or more torpedos, and the TK limps away heavily damaged, but still afloat. I don't think any merchant ship in WW2 could take that much abuse and remain topside...
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
grumbler
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Falls Church VA USA

Post by grumbler »

Yes, madflava, the examples I was citing were conceeded to be rare. One of the factors that many miss is the greatly increased transfer of the explosive shock to the hull when a torpedo detonates (because water is relativelty non-compressable and so the blast is directed inward). The chances that any shaft bearings are going to withstand that sort of flexing are small. A warship has redundent shafts and so has a chance that one might remain operational. A mership, even a tanker not mortally wounded, would not be operational after such a hit, in all likelihood. This makes a second shot one versus a DIW target and thus a near-certain hit. Tankers were less vulnerable to sinking after the first hit, but just as vulnerable to a complete propulsion failure, which would be death for the ship unless closely escorted and near an ocean-going tug.

After further reflection, I remembered the common stand on the torpedo issue back in the Compuserve days: if you treat a non-penetrating hit as, essentially, a miss, then you are getting the same outcome as lowering accuracy and increasing penetration. This still does not solve the fairly common "penetration with no significant damage" issue, but at least the issue is not as severe as first thoughts would indicate.

"It is easier to sink a ship by letting water in the bottom than by letting air out the top."
Post Reply

Return to “Pacific War: The Matrix Edition”