Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: witpqs

If all bombs have the potential, no matter how infinitesimal, to deliver a critical damage hit to EVERY naval platform

I think this would be going too far.

At any rate, go back to Don Bowen's post. He said that the 'hit' chance of near-misses is in there, but the full damage potential is not modeled. And it's not going to be in AE (certainly not in initial release anyway).

Your typical mine had an 80-125 kg explosive charge (effective at 12/20 meters), while your typical torpedo was more like 250 kg (1500 kg total for the torpedo). WWII battleships could theoretically resist a torpedo warhead, but would be damaged by the shock, and in the wrong place a torpedo was still sometimes lethal. A 250 kg bomb (50-60 kg warhead, effective at 10 meters) could sometimes take out a cruiser.

Your typical 10,000 ton cruiser had a beam of 20 meters, and your typical DD had a beam of 10 meters.

Hence if we use 10 meters as the near miss distance, about twice as many bombs will damage a DD by mining as will hit it, about the same number of bombs will mine a cruiser as will hit it, and about 2/3rds as many bombs will mine a capital ship as will hit it. If 10% of your near misses sink a cruiser, that says about 5% of the bombs that damage a cruiser will be critical hits, sinking it. It also says about 4% of the bombs damaging a capital ship will have the potential of sinking it, although in that case, the underwater protective system will have a chance at keeping the bomb blast out of the magazine.

Note that shock damage was not taken into account in the design of capital ship underwater protective systems before WWII, and their effectiveness was less than expected, so torpedo attack was unpleasant.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Dili

Purely anecdotal, but I can't think of any WitP examples were 250lb bombs sunk or seriously damaged Heavy Cruisers or Battleships, although it definitely happened in RL.

I think everyone recognizes that the latitude of model damage in Witp was too strict specially comulative effects. You could have a CA get 25-40 bombs 250lb bombs and only a couple of AA guns were destroyed. So lets hope that is changed.

Well why would it? Any given hit has the same chance to hit any given part of the ship. If hitting a certain AA gun was a 1% chance for example, then the odds of 5 hitting that SAME AA mount would be somewhere around .00001% chance. Remote but certainly possible. Real life a "dumb bomb" doesnt look at the target it is falling on and say to itself: "oh, Bob already hit there, I better land over there...".

As for the numbers of hits, that part has changed. WitP increased the numbers of hits and reduced the damage (I swear Im going to make a macro of that so I dont have to type it out every week).

I've seen enough of this to suspect problems with the RNG.

....

"Summer of 2011 "


[X(]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

"Summer of 2011 "


[X(]

Calm down m10bob, he overstated it just a little...he meant the spring of 2011

Summer in Australia maybe [:D]

Well why would it? Any given hit has the same chance to hit any given part of the ship. If hitting a certain AA gun was a 1% chance for example, then the odds of 5 hitting that SAME AA mount would be somewhere around .00001% chance. Remote but certainly possible. Real life a "dumb bomb" doesnt look at the target it is falling on and say to itself: "oh, Bob already hit there, I better land over there...".

Yes but the odds of that happening in WITP were not 0,0001% and then that increase the chances of penetration by that lesser bombs.

The WitP forum is down the hall. This is AE.

8 pages....do i hear 9?

Let's try not to incite the natives any more, LogBoy...

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Let's try not to incite the natives any more, LogBoy...

incite? lol.....answer was given on page 2.

What have I done.... [X(]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

At any rate, go back to Don Bowen's post. He said that the 'hit' chance of near-misses is in there, but the full damage potential is not modeled. And it's not going to be in AE (certainly not in initial release anyway).

Originally this whole thread had me sort of rolling my eyes, but now I'm academically intrigued by the possibility that near misses could be modeled IF the bomb damage code were flexible enough. For example, how exactly does the code determine whether hit "x" is capable of causing a critical damage "roll" to take place?

If it works like this, then we are out of luck:

1) Determine bomb weight /type
2) Determine strike point
3) <code matches bomb weight/type versus armor at point X and if one is larger than the other, automatically allows or denies the possibility of hull/deck penetration, which in turn is the pre-req for a critical hit "roll" to occur>

On the other hand, if the code works like this, then near miss results could be modeled:

1) Determine bomb weight /type
2) Assign percent chance of causing critical hit
3) Determine strike point
4) Modify chance of critical hit based on armor level at strike point
5) <code runs damage calc based on bomb weight/type vs armor at point X and after damage is calced, THEN runs critical hit calc>

The difference between the two is that the first eliminates the chance of certain bomb type/weights ever causing a critical hit on naval assets of a certain kind, i.e. heavy cruisers and battleships. If it were the second, theoretically you could exclude things like 60 pound bombs causing critical hits but enable it for 250 and above, and alter the percentages accordingly.

Again, none of this is a huge deal, just curious about the workings of the code.

As I remember, the degree of overmatch matters for the terminal ballistics--some protection is better than none--but I don't remember the functional form. So the code should compare the penetration against the protection and use that ratio as the input to a random number draw that outputs a multiplier of the effect of the bomb/torpedo/shell/mine/etc. (Or perhaps three or four numbers reflecting the various kinds of damage.)