Page 11 of 20
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:17 pm
by Barb
Belt armor on Lady lex is 175, Yorktowns only 100. This could have some effect on Torpedo damage deflection.
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:21 pm
by TheElf
ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter
Thanks TheElf,
language barriers or not. I sincerely appriciate your response. Excuse my spelling.
Believe it or not - I have been a part of volunteer development groups before. And the pet peeves everyone has ..
And because of that, some "applauding noise" from the fences - touche or not - is well...
So much for making friends or influencing things.
Apart from the CVE/CVL issue - some rumors exist about RHS managing notwithstanding - I cannot confirm.
There is the big question of mutual support of multiple TFs in a single hex. Plus some sort of target "fixation". (like BBs as bomb magnets). The "death star" from UV.
If AE is not adressing the issues - fine by me. State it. It is not a statement of failure but of accomplishment in other areas.
I hope you do not mind, if I utter my expectation, that AE would address the singlehex/multiple TF issue with a very high priority. Because we are talking a naval asset based war ?
And yes, I am a bystander.
Cheers
Copy all Von...sometimes, no matter how much we want to change something, it just can't be done within the bounds of a deadline. And as I said we started BIG, and worked to SMALL. We haven't gotten to some of the BIG items yet, but we did get most if not all of the BROAD ones.
And we are not done. We will continue to improve through regular patches and honest critical thinking and dialogue with the community. After all we are players too...
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:22 pm
by TheElf
ORIGINAL: Barb
Belt armor on Lady lex is 175, Yorktowns only 100. This could have some effect on Torpedo damage deflection.
indeed...
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:54 pm
by vonSchnitter
Once again,
you are very patient and understanding - and I appologize for my earlier - quite personal in retrospect - attacks.
But I mistook some of the thread as a cover-up. Which it aint. On the contrary - you exposed some of the issues quite candidly in the latest posts. (in my rather dim lights)
Sorry, I just jumped the gun.
Considering the developments, your posts just accentuate my concerns.
I am not quite the diplomate [;)] but I am good a stirring a pot or two.
A Gun on hire, so to speak ---
by the way: the "v" in "von" is not supposed to be a capital - so much for - a big pond. If you care for a proper abbrevation it would be "vS" or "v.S."
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:12 pm
by JeffroK
Gday Elf,
You pic of Enterprise's damage shows a pitiful AA fitout, is this just an example and not the real armament??
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:20 pm
by DuckofTindalos
By "Enterprise", do you mean Lexington or Yorktown? Their AA fits are correct and final, but if you're talking about the Lexington, notice the scroll-bar.
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:12 pm
by Dili
Plus some sort of target "fixation". (like BBs as bomb magnets).
As they should, it worked that way in Santa Cruz if i am not mistaken(or was another Battle where american planes spent considersble resources attacking surface combat ships instead of carriers) . There are a lot of circunstances, like for example not finding the target, that makes attacking lesser targets a reality.
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:12 am
by erstad
Elf, just to confirm - we can now disband carrier airgroups/fragments into other groups? You've mentioned twice that you would do that with the IJN fragments which, of course, was not possible in WiTP.
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:53 am
by Q-Ball
ORIGINAL: erstad
Elf, just to confirm - we can now disband carrier airgroups/fragments into other groups? You've mentioned twice that you would do that with the IJN fragments which, of course, was not possible in WiTP.
It is always possible in WITP, just only on dry land, which is where those fragments are. You are right in that fragments can't disband while on board a CV, and I would 'reckon that's probably still the case. But they will disband on land.
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:22 am
by pad152
Ship Damage - flooding, I see the Yorktown shows flooding of 92 (59) major. Will it sink of minor flood goes from 92 to 100, or does it only sink if major flooding goes to 100?
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:28 am
by Iridium
ORIGINAL: pad152
Ship Damage - flooding, I see the Yorktown shows flooding of 92 (59) major. Will it sink of minor flood goes from 92 to 100, or does it only sink if major flooding goes to 100?
I was under the impression that 'major' damage was only repaired when at a major facility (ie port with repair yard). The rest can be fixed at sea or lesser ports. However no matter the type, a total of 100 = sunk.
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:52 am
by pad152
ORIGINAL: Iridium
ORIGINAL: pad152
Ship Damage - flooding, I see the Yorktown shows flooding of 92 (59) major. Will it sink of minor flood goes from 92 to 100, or does it only sink if major flooding goes to 100?
I was under the impression that 'major' damage was only repaired when at a major facility (ie port with repair yard). The rest can be fixed at sea or lesser ports. However no matter the type, a total of 100 = sunk.
Your right, when my brain sees the word major next to one number, it assumes the other one must be minor![;)] The long term effects of too much data mining and pattern recognition!!
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:30 am
by TheElf
ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
ORIGINAL: erstad
Elf, just to confirm - we can now disband carrier airgroups/fragments into other groups? You've mentioned twice that you would do that with the IJN fragments which, of course, was not possible in WiTP.
It is always possible in WITP, just only on dry land, which is where those fragments are. You are right in that fragments can't disband while on board a CV, and I would 'reckon that's probably still the case. But they will disband on land.
Q-ball is correct. In this case I disbanded the Zuikaku Zeroes into the Tainan Ku S-2 at Rabaul...on dry land.
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:16 am
by moose1999
ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
ORIGINAL: erstad
Elf, just to confirm - we can now disband carrier airgroups/fragments into other groups? You've mentioned twice that you would do that with the IJN fragments which, of course, was not possible in WiTP.
It is always possible in WITP, just only on dry land, which is where those fragments are. You are right in that fragments can't disband while on board a CV, and I would 'reckon that's probably still the case. But they will disband on land.
Is it possible to gather all the fragments of a squadron that has evacuated to different airfields after the carrier sank and join them together?
This was not possible in WitP - at least not, as I remember it, if the main fragment had been destroyed. Then the other fragments could never be joined...
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:19 am
by JeffroK
ORIGINAL: Terminus
By "Enterprise", do you mean Lexington or Yorktown? Their AA fits are correct and final, but if you're talking about the Lexington, notice the scroll-bar.
That reading thing always gets me into trouble[8|] it's about the same length as the Yorktown's and I didnt look again.
? .303 Vickers ? on the Lex.
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:08 am
by Reg
ORIGINAL: JeffK
? .303 Vickers ? on the Lex.
That's to round up prisoners after they crash on the deck (VTIC [:D])
[size=-1](Can't think of anything else they would be any good for...)[/size]
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:39 am
by DuckofTindalos
I apologize. That's an error; wrong device assigned in the correct numbers. It should be 32 Oerlikons, rather than 32 Vickers guns. Will be fixed.
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:58 am
by PeteG662
No wonder why they got waxed! Their AA armament was SNAFU! j/k Terminus!
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:55 pm
by JWE
Yo Pad, a real quickie. Damage is a bit “different” in AE. Can’t give details yet. Yorkie FlotDam is 92, ‘of which’ 59 is major (BIG holes – shipyard time). Oh yeah, when FlotDam gets to 100 you are 100% full of water, i.e., sunk.
This should please go onto another thread – this one is Elf’s AAR for air thingys.
RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:12 pm
by HansBolter
Quick question about the major flooding/shipyard repair issue.
Is there ANY way to temporarily patch the the holes at a minor port so a ship with heavy major float damage can have a prayers chance in hades of making to a repair yard?
I envision a ship with 80+ major float damage limping back to a minor port where the non-major float damage is dealt with yet the ship reamins unable to move from that minor port to a repair yard because the major float damage would increase along the journey at too fast a rate for the ship to ever make it to the repair yard.
Are we going to end up with a map littered with heavily damaged ships stuck for the duration of the war in minor ports? Or, will we be able to move a repair ship to that port to patch up the damage sufficiently to allow the ship to return to a major repair yard?