Why do bombs cause huge floatation damage in WitP?

[Feinder]

The reason folks group their CVs such as they do, is that's how you win in WitP.

It's about numbers and healthy dose of luck.

For the Japanese player, an even-exchange doesn't help. So throwing the kitchen sink vs. USN is the way to go. If Allies dare to oppose, they'll likely get killed (like my game vs. Erstad, and that was in 10-42!).

For the Allied player, if Japan doesn't group KB+min-KB, you -do- stand a chance in a CV battle (such as in my first post). There was a lot planning in that as well, it could easily have killed me as Allies. I an extra SBD sqdn on my USN CVs + all RN CVs + a long walk home for IJN. Battle was near Baker Is, Allies own Canton AF(5) + Port(4). IJN's nearest anchorage was Makin, but AFs weren't built up to provide cover, so nearest "safe" anchorage was Kwaj. In my case, I could send cripples to Canton about 8 hexes away, and be covered by LBA. My opponent on the other hand had to steam all the way back to Kwaj without CAP if disater struck. I also managed mid-ocean intercepts of KB the night before, buring some of their ops points, and damaging Kaga (so fewer planes vs. my own CVs the next morning). KB also sent several strikes vs. the "imment threat" of my SC TFs in KB's hex, reducing even more the number of planes vs. my CVs.

"Get there fustest with the mostest" - S. B. Forrest.

I tend to disagree Ursa. I think -most- CV battles in (historical) pacific included most of the carriers available to each side at any given time.

Pearl Harbor = 6x CVs
Andama Raid = 5x CVs (Kaga out for repairs)
Coral Sea = 2x CVs (Kage out for repairs, Akagi, Soryu and Hiryu attempt to intercept Hornet w/ Dolittle).
Midway = 4x CVs (Shok and Zui damged or no air-group, but were intended to participate in Midway).
Eastern Solomons = 2x CVs (most of IJN CV strength at the time, other 4x CVs sunk at Midway).
Phil Sea = 5x CVs (everything IJN had left)

I have no problem with players grouping everything in WitP. I don't actually think it's "un-historical". I do think the strike routines either throw and all-or-nothing result (most battles are very decisive, very few offer even exchagnes in WitP : which might well be un-historical). Most DON'T realize at first that their are few even exchanges. But even when they do realize that battles are decisive, they still chose to mega-group their CVs.

-F-

[tsimmonds]

Grouping ones most powerful ships together only makes sense. To do otherwise is to expose oneself to defeat in detail. I'll never understand the mind-set that seems to feel that strategic concentration is somehow cheating.

That said, I feel that the strategic concentration of CVs game is certainly not without risk (extreme effectiveness of concentrated CAP, coordination rule), and that unless players are very careful in their deployments, battles under such conditions may turn out badly. But as was often the case IRL, even under ideal conditions luck may turn out to be the most important factor in determining success or failure.

[Ursa MAior]

All right I am conviced.

BTW the RAF carriers in The CenPac or the SoPac are not unrealistic either? I mean their ahistorical location is justified with this all eggs in one basket approach?? Just asking please dont take it as an offense.

[Ron Saueracker]

Perhaps we should start a serious thread which is dedicated to the improvement of the air model? If Joe and the boys are looking into and have the OK to improve some of the routines they likely could use hard data and a concensus as to how this can be accomplished in the least complicated manner.

[Feinder]

BTW the RAF carriers in The CenPac or the SoPac are not unrealistic either? I mean their ahistorical location is justified with this all eggs in one basket approach?? Just asking please dont take it as an offense.

It's pretty hard to offend me. Rankle me - yes. Offend me - no. Simply disagreeing with someone, shouldn't offend them anyway.

Historically, by the end of Oct 1942, the disposition of the USN carriers was "sparce". The US didn't have much either...

Lex - Sunk at Coral Sea 05-42.
York - Sunk at Midway 06-42.
Enterprise - Damaged at Eastern Solomons 08-42.
Sara - Damaged by I-26 08-42.
Wasp - Sunk by I-19 09-42.
Hornet - Sunk at Santa Cruz in 10-42.

I think a failing of WitP is that most CVs battles tend to be like Midway, one way or the other. There are few instances from AARs where you see any sort of "attrition".

Re RN CVs in USN service - HMS Victorious joined the USN as "USS Robin" in 04-43, due to an accute lack of USN CVs available at the time...

I really woun't put a penalty for mixing Allied fleets (alto there is historical precedent), simply beacuse there are no pentalties for mixing IJA & IJN (issues just as bad)

-F-

[m10bob]

"It's pretty hard to offend me"

But.......what if we WANT to offend ya'?




(He's still givin' us the bird,too!)[X(]

[ChezDaJez]

Also you said earlier that even in this case the flooding was about 10%, noit the 40-50% usually seen in WitP...

IMO, adding water to a ship in a disorganized manner such as what occurred on the Franklin is not controlled flooding. In a confused situation, I highly doubt that DC Central is able to measure/control the amount of water being poured in or where it goes. Sailors are a fickle bunch... they see fire, they pour water on it until the fire is out, the ship sinks, or someone says, "Whoa, that's too much!"

Controlled flooding IMO is when a set amount of water is added to known spaces to control listing or to flood magazines. In fire fighting onboard ship, you seldom have the opportunity to control where that water goes. You might be adding water to spaces A,B, and C to fight fires but spaces X, Y, and Z are the final repositories.

I have no desire to get into a debate over this as I think we are just talking semantics. Just clarifying my thoughts.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

I really woun't put a penalty for mixing Allied fleets (alto there is historical precedent), simply beacuse there are no pentalties for mixing IJA & IJN (issues just as bad)

If not worse... at least the Allies tried to work together, the IJA and IJN were too stubborn to even try.

Chez

[m10bob]

"Personally, I figure flooding is flooding whether caused directly by the bomb or indirectly due to fire fighting efforts as a result of the bomb hit. And when a ship as large as an aircraft carrier lists 13 degrees, that's one helluva lot of water where it shouldn't be. "

I agree with Chez on this point, and have the same opinion.
Of course bombs would affect flotation, if not from puncturing the hull itself by the bomb, by weakening and loosening hull rivets from fire, concussion, what have you, and it would make sense the larger the fire, over extended turns, there is a die roll chance of improving, or degrading the flotation/fire size.
Wasn't that the case clear back with UV?
I believe it is one of the basic precepts of offering "Allied Damage Control" as an option??
If somebody threw an explosive device in my house, directed at the sofa, I might expect a draft, (even though the walls were not the target??)[:D]