Carrier Ratings

[BlindOldUmp]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Not sure if they really did these manouevres during dive bomber attacks, I doubt that they could reduce the chance of being damaged that way.
Check this: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 057576.jpg
I'm sure that chances were high to minimize damage when that kind of manoeuvre had been used, if being attacked by level bombers.

Looks like maybe they did. Check this out from the Battle of the Philippine Sea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Batt ... ne_Sea.jpg
as well as this one from the same battle: http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=1998

[decaro]

After the Coral Sea and the loss of the Lex, Allied CVs routinely shut-down av fuel lines and filled them w/CO2 after alerted to an air attack.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Troutie_SSG

Perhaps I should have mentioned the other factor used in establishing how readily fires spread or are brought under control. Each ship class has a vulnerability value, subjectively expressing design and stability. Japanese carriers in all scenarios are more vulnerable than their Allied counterparts. On the scale of 0-7 used, every point has a profound effect ...

I found these vulnerability values in the Edit Ship Class category of the CaW editor for the Midway scenario; changed Akagi and Kaga to flamable, but left Allied CVs at vulnerable, assuming that no matter how good their damage control was, a CV is still "a heavyweight boxer w/a glass jaw."

(Edit Error: Ship Class, Enterprise and Hornet are both Yorktown Class CVs)

Editor Query: The CaW editor was easier than I thought when it came to squadrons and ships, but changing the wx is perplexing. Also, this category sometimes proves unstable (froze my screen and I had to ctrl-alt-del out).

How do I adjust cloud cover/wx to center around Midway (randomly) running West to East? Do I chose "building," "unstable"? What (wind) directions do I need, or is it trial and error?

I'm making some progress w/my scenario changes, but I haven't played the scenario enough times from both sides to know for sure. Luck seems to play a very large part in CaW no matter what I do w/the editor to change the accuracey and alter the play balance.

[Ophion]

ORIGINAL: Troutie_SSG

Perhaps I should have mentioned the other factor used in establishing how readily fires spread or are brought under control. Each ship class has a vulnerability value, subjectively expressing design and stability. Japanese carriers in all scenarios are more vulnerable than their Allied counterparts. On the scale of 0-7 used, every point has a profound effect.
I have to say that all my original research was done before the latest tomes on Midway were published.
In the past three months or so, I have played out the battle a very large number of times. In almost every case, who gets there first decides the outcome!
To give you some idea where Midway stands now, I have just put the finishing touches on 65 Mystery Variants which will be appearing in the next patch, just as soon as I'm satisfied there are no AI glitches in them.
P.S I have ordered a copy of 'Shattered Sword'. Guess I better read it!
Thanks again for all the interest.

Fantastic! Midway is my favourite scenario so more variation will be really good.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

As for AA, Sword said at this stage in the war, most IJN CVs avoided enemy air thru violent maneuvering, which undid the computerized firing solutions for it's guns. That probably explains the low AA kills I previously posted.

Not sure if they really did these manouevres during dive bomber attacks, I doubt that they could reduce the chance of being damaged that way.
Check this: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 057576.jpg
I'm sure that chances were high to minimize damage when that kind of manoeuvre had been used, if being attacked by level bombers.

IJN combat formations and doctrine were completely different from that of the USN. Even when things were going according to plan, the decks were close to five miles from each other. They were arrayed as such so that each carrier could perform evasive maneuvers to the full extent that its design allowed, the Hiryu and Soryu being the greyhounds of the fleet in this regard. It's also worth noting that the doctrine-oriented, box formation that the KB had assumed earlier in the morning had devolved into a rough line-abreast formation by the time that the USN VB arrived, in part in response to attacks from Marine VB launched from Midway. Those are the facts in this regard, at least as I understand them.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

As for AA, Sword said at this stage in the war, most IJN CVs avoided enemy air thru violent maneuvering, which undid the computerized firing solutions for it's guns. That probably explains the low AA kills I previously posted.

Not sure if they really did these manouevres during dive bomber attacks, I doubt that they could reduce the chance of being damaged that way ...

IJN combat formations and doctrine were completely different from that of the USN. Even when things were going according to plan, the decks were close to five miles from each other. They were arrayed as such so that each carrier could perform evasive maneuvers to the full extent that its design allowed ...
PoE (aka ivanmoe)

In fact , IJN CV doctrine was so different from that of the West that, until recently, no one really had handle on it, giving rise to misconception and myth re Midway.

The Kido Butai was so "maneuverable" that it's CA escorts and screening vessles had to keep its distance from it, less there was a collision w/its CVs; but this distance also meant that the KB's CVs would have to fend for themselves and rely on their own helm and AA during an aerial attack.

[NimitsTexan]

ORIGINAL: Troutie_SSG

I'll try to answer all of your questions, Joe.
3. The presence of arming/fueling planes on deck has a huge effect on the spread of fire and permanent damage. If you strike the Akagi when her decks are clear and ordnance stowed, I don't have any evidence that her exceptionally well trained and motivated crew would have achieved less than an American equivalent; at least not at this stage of the war. Sure, later on, when fuel was more volatile, and crews inexperienced, performance became worse. Check the ratings for Japanese carriers in subsequent scenarios; they gradually become poorer.
I am quite sure we are modeling the right factors here; what I can never be really sure of is that the balance is right. So, from time to time, I make minor changes, hoping to move closer the 'right' balance. Your observations on the delicate matter of damage control are appreciated, and won't be ignored. Indeed, the more reports I get of strange happenings, the better.
Thanks for your interest.

The thing is, later in the war US carriers took hits with armed/fueled aircraft on board, and did not sink. The IJN regarded damage control as a secondady function and did not put much time or training into it, relative to US carriers. Moreoever, the older carriers at Midway had notable design flows in their damage control systems which directly contributed to their loss. IJN carriers in any period were inferior in damage control capabilities to their US counterparts.

[OldBoney]

If catching enemy carriers with armed and fueled planes dramatically increases the spread of fire and permanent damage, is there any way for the player to know this has occured? If it isn't signaled somehow now (and I don't believe it is) it would add excitement if a visiual or audio que was given. In AH's old Midway game I remember a text message would display "armed and fueled aircraft are exploding on deck!" Seems like some feedback could be given.

[kverdon]

I just read Shattered Sword and a few things did pop out.  The Kaga (and possibly Akagi) had an outdated AA Fire Control system that had difficulty tracking targets at high Altitude / speed so that she never was able to get an accurate Fire Control solution on the USN SBD's.  Even if it worked she was limited to barrage box type of AA that once you were thru, was not very effective.  ALL IJN CV's lacked med range AA, it was either the Slow 5" or the 25mm.  They did not have the 1.1's or 40mm to stop Dive Bombers.  By the time the 25mm's got in range it was too late for anything but revenge. 
 
Damage control did vary greatly from fleet to fleet.  The USN took it pretty seriously.  After the loss of the Lex and Wasp to fire and the losses of numerous ships off Savo, I remember reading somewhere (Morrison?) that they turned to the NYC Fire Dept for its experience with fighting shipboard fires and learned some valuable lessons.  I believe one of these was the extended us of foam vrs seawater as fire suppression.  As stated in SS, the IJN tended to rely on specialized teams and even then did not elevate it to the art the USN did.  The experience of the Taiho in 1944 illustrates this pretty well. 
 
It was a failing that the Japanese military had that it placed TOO much emphasis on the aggressive spirit.  This caused them to neglect other key areas that did not contribute directly to combat.  Examples are Combat Engineers. Whereas the US Combat Engineers (Navy Seabees, Army, etc) were some of the best educated and trained troops in the field, many of them college graduates or with Railroad construction engineering experience, the Japanese construction corps was often conscripts lead by a few trained officers.  This is why the Japanese labored for Months to build airstrips in the South Pacific / Solomons area while the US could drop in and have a field ready for planes in a week or two!  It also lead to Technical areas being overlooked or delegated to staff that were not felt to be "good" enough for combat as it was just not "Bushido" to be a sonar tech or radar tech.  The US was just the opposite in that their techs were highly trained and prized.  I'm not trying to dis the Japanese Military as it was a superbly trained force at the start of the war, just point out that they tended to overlook some vital areas.
 
Kevin
 

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: kverdon

... The Kaga (and possibly Akagi) had an outdated AA Fire Control system that had difficulty tracking targets at high Altitude / speed so that she never was able to get an accurate Fire Control solution on the USN SBD's ...

So the helmsman violently maneuvered the CV to avoid the SBD bombs, and as it took "forever" for the computer AA firing solution to spit out, AA was basically useless vs. dive bombers at this stage of the war for IJ.

ORIGINAL: kverdon
It was a failing that the Japanese military had that it placed TOO much emphasis on the aggressive spirit ...

Even w/o radar, the IJN was very reluctant to commit any long-range CV aircraft to a scouting role if it decreased offensive capabiltiy!

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: OldBoney

If catching enemy carriers with armed and fueled planes dramatically increases the spread of fire and permanent damage, is there any way for the player to know this has occured? If it isn't signaled somehow now (and I don't believe it is) it would add excitement if a visiual or audio que was given. In AH's old Midway game I remember a text message would display "armed and fueled aircraft are exploding on deck!" Seems like some feedback could be given.

We have looked at this issue, but the situation is that the extra damage does not occur at the moment of weapon impact. Instead, it is taken into account by the fire routines that model the progress of fires and damage on the ship. This routine doesn't kick in until the 5 minute increment after the weapon has hit, so there's no quick and easy way to give feedback in combat. However, we're still considering the issue to see what can be done.

Gregor

[Airborne82nd]

ORIGINAL: OldBoney

If catching enemy carriers with armed and fueled planes dramatically increases the spread of fire and permanent damage, is there any way for the player to know this has occured? If it isn't signaled somehow now (and I don't believe it is) it would add excitement if a visiual or audio que was given. In AH's old Midway game I remember a text message would display "armed and fueled aircraft are exploding on deck!" Seems like some feedback could be given.

I just recently purchased this game. I played the original CAW on my C64 and had CAWII for my early PCs. I've seen indications of aircraft damaged while on deck to attacks and fires. This does not occur while the attack is underway but you can review the squadrons and find out the fate of individual a/c. I agree, though, it would add to the game with reports of a/c caught on deck, etc during an attack.