Matrix Games Forums

As we all know, the WitP "progressive flooding" model had no parallels in real life. Errrr....

No progressive flooding - just sudden and catastrophic structural failure... lots of stuff not modeled in WITP, like spontaneous magazine explosions destroying a BB, or ammo ship blowing up and taking numerous boats and a couple of ships with them, or grounding of ships which either destroys them or takes them our of action, collisions between ships, typhoons that sank multiple ships, etc., etc.

Most players would scream bloody murder if a CV grounded during operations (yes, it happened), or a BB blew up (again, it happened), or one of the ALMOST DAILY mishaps that occurred operationally during the war on both sides that routinely severely damaged and/or destroyed hundreds of smaller vessels through the war.

One of the precursor games to WITP had a pretty nice weather model - and you picked up more SYS damage in a hurry if you were sailing in it. It DID make it nice to sneak in a carrier group behind a weather front, though. [:)] However, i think we'll have to wait for WITP II for this to happen.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

As we all know, the WitP "progressive flooding" model had no parallels in real life. Errrr....

No progressive flooding - just sudden and catastrophic structural failure... lots of stuff not modeled in WITP, like spontaneous magazine explosions destroying a BB, or ammo ship blowing up and taking numerous boats and a couple of ships with them, or grounding of ships which either destroys them or takes them our of action, collisions between ships, typhoons that sank multiple ships, etc., etc.

Most players would scream bloody murder if a CV grounded during operations (yes, it happened), or a BB blew up (again, it happened), or one of the ALMOST DAILY mishaps that occurred operationally during the war on both sides that routinely severely damaged and/or destroyed hundreds of smaller vessels through the war.

One of the precursor games to WITP had a pretty nice weather model - and you picked up more SYS damage in a hurry if you were sailing in it. It DID make it nice to sneak in a carrier group behind a weather front, though. [:)] However, i think we'll have to wait for WITP II for this to happen.

How many people would want to quit if the had an amunition ship spontaneously explode in San Francisco (WITP's abstraction for all ports in the Bay area) as a total loss, destroying 9 LCM's, and causing serious damage to: 2 cargo ships, 1 tanker, 1 troop ship, 1 oiler, 2 repair ships, 1 destroyer tender, 1 sub tender, 1 destroyer transport, 3 destroyer escorts, 1 destroyer, 2 escort carriers, and causing significant damage to port facilties and port supplies (abstraction of damage/destruction to numerous port vessels and small craft).

It happened in the Port Chicago disaster, when the USS Mount Hood (AE-11 exploded).

In Pacific War

The official death toll was 740, including 476 military personnel, with around 1,800 people injured; unofficial tallies run much higher. In total, twenty-seven other vessels were sunk or damaged in both Victoria dock and the neighbouring Prince's Dock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Explosion_(1944)

The day it rained gold
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000727/edit.htm#5

The eleven Allied merchant ships on this page were lost as a result of the two horrendous explosions aboard Fort Stikine at Bombay, India, on April 14th, 1944.

http://members.tripod.com/~merchantship ... slost.html

Another notable disaster:

"USS Mount Hood tragically exploded accidentally while moored in Seeadler Harbor on 10 November 1944. The ship was carrying ammunition and the tremendous explosion caused 378 fatalities, 372 wounded, damage to surrounding ships and base from debris and sinking or severely damaging 22 smaller craft." 9 LCMs, a floating barge and numerous boats, sunk, as well as damage to:

* USS Abarenda (IX-131)
* USS Alhena (AKA-9)
* USS Argonne (AG-31)
* USS Aries (AK-51)
* USS Cacapon (AO-52)
* USS Cebu (ARG-6)
* USS Kyne (DE-744)
* USS Lyman (DE-302)
* USS Mindanao (ARG-3)
* USS Oberrender (DE-344)
* USS Petrof Bay (CVE-80)
* USS Piedmont (AD-17)
* USS Potawatomi (ATF-109)
* USS Preserver (ARS-8)
* USS Saginaw Bay (CVE-82)
* USS Talbot (APD-7)
* USS Wann (DE-412)
* USS Young (DD-580)
* USS YF-681
* USS YMS-1
* USS YMS-140
* USS YMS-238
* USS YMS-243
* USS YMS-286T
* USS YMS-293
* USS YMS-319
* USS YMS-335
* USS YMS-340
* USS YMS-341
* USS YMS-342
* USS YMS-39
* USS YMS-49
* USS YMS-52
* USS YMS-71
* USS YMS-81
* USS YO-77

ORIGINAL: wwengr

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

As we all know, the WitP "progressive flooding" model had no parallels in real life. Errrr....

No progressive flooding - just sudden and catastrophic structural failure... lots of stuff not modeled in WITP, like spontaneous magazine explosions destroying a BB, or ammo ship blowing up and taking numerous boats and a couple of ships with them, or grounding of ships which either destroys them or takes them our of action, collisions between ships, typhoons that sank multiple ships, etc., etc.

Most players would scream bloody murder if a CV grounded during operations (yes, it happened), or a BB blew up (again, it happened), or one of the ALMOST DAILY mishaps that occurred operationally during the war on both sides that routinely severely damaged and/or destroyed hundreds of smaller vessels through the war.

One of the precursor games to WITP had a pretty nice weather model - and you picked up more SYS damage in a hurry if you were sailing in it. It DID make it nice to sneak in a carrier group behind a weather front, though. [:)] However, i think we'll have to wait for WITP II for this to happen.

How many people would want to quit if the had an amunition ship spontaneously explode in San Francisco (WITP's abstraction for all ports in the Bay area) as a total loss, destroying 9 LCM's, and causing serious damage to: 2 cargo ships, 1 tanker, 1 troop ship, 1 oiler, 2 repair ships, 1 destroyer tender, 1 sub tender, 1 destroyer transport, 3 destroyer escorts, 1 destroyer, 2 escort carriers, and causing significant damage to port facilties and port supplies (abstraction of damage/destruction to numerous port vessels and small craft).

It happened in the Port Chicago disaster, when the USS Mount Hood (AE-11 exploded).

No - Mount Hood exploded in Seeadler Harbor, Manus (Admirality) Island... the SS SS E. A. Bryan exploded in the Port Chicago disaster.

You're right! I confused the two disasters. It is interesting to note that the E.A. Bryan was obliterated and the SS Quinalt Victory was destroyed. In WITP Terms, it would be 2 AK's sunk, significant port damage and loss of about 7000 supply points or so.

How about writing into the code, random explosions of Allied ports with random loss and damage to ships and supplies?[;)]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: wdolson

It looked like the ships at Guam were bombarding.  Though there is no report of CD guns firing.  A few CD guns cound do that kind of damage.

Bill

i was guessing this was some sort of made up report, like the original... ships do not defend in bombardment attacks... tf's can intercept, but those are reported in separate battles.

Just found out that this is how the game reports things when a ship is disbanded in port when it is bombarded... i think this might be a change in the reporting format since last time i had this happen to me... just had an instance on RUPD's "Repentant Samurai" AAR where something similar happened (although the ship in his report actually took a hit.)

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: wdolson

It looked like the ships at Guam were bombarding.  Though there is no report of CD guns firing.  A few CD guns cound do that kind of damage.

Bill

i was guessing this was some sort of made up report, like the original... ships do not defend in bombardment attacks... tf's can intercept, but those are reported in separate battles.

Just found out that this is how the game reports things when a ship is disbanded in port when it is bombarded... i think this might be a change in the reporting format since last time i had this happen to me... just had an instance on RUPD's "Repentant Samurai" AAR where something similar happened (although the ship in his report actually took a hit.)

I was having fun and made up the report. While the Penguin thing looked slightly plausible from an extremely weird game result, I thought that the transports bombing bombing at night was a good clue as to the authenticity, or lack thereof...

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

In CHS, at least, there are no CD guns at Guam...

In real life there were no guns at Guam. There had been but they removed as a side result of the Washington and London naval treaties (they also removed military aircraft). There were only a few hundred Marines and Sailors to act as police force, man the hospital and support the Govenor (a naval Captain). USS Peguin was the station ship at the Piti naval yard. Not much of a base , more of a boatyard.

ORIGINAL: wwengr

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso



i was guessing this was some sort of made up report, like the original... ships do not defend in bombardment attacks... tf's can intercept, but those are reported in separate battles.

Just found out that this is how the game reports things when a ship is disbanded in port when it is bombarded... i think this might be a change in the reporting format since last time i had this happen to me... just had an instance on RUPD's "Repentant Samurai" AAR where something similar happened (although the ship in his report actually took a hit.)

I was having fun and made up the report. While the Penguin thing looked slightly plausible from an extremely weird game result, I thought that the transports bombing bombing at night was a good clue as to the authenticity, or lack thereof...

heh - there are lots of weird mods out there... i guess one could possibly make a mod where a particular transport could bomb something... it did happen in real life (at least in other wars.)

WOOT!  Page 4!!!!

ORIGINAL: wwengr

How about writing into the code, random explosions of Allied ports with random loss and damage to ships and supplies?[;)]

Then AFBs will demand that a random Japanese BB must explode and sink during the war...

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: wwengr

How about writing into the code, random explosions of Allied ports with random loss and damage to ships and supplies?[;)]

Then AFBs will demand that a random Japanese BB must explode and sink during the war...

Not to mention having a fleet carrier go aground, and have IJN subs collide and sink each other! [:D] [:'(]

Or a BB get hit by one torpedo, sail blythely away, and then stop and sink...

That would be War in the Med!  [:D]
 
You guys are just making this stuff up.  NO WAY THAT COULD HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE!
 
 

How about having Mogami ram two randomly selected Japanese capitol ships during the heat of battle? That could NEVER happen.

How about randomly having one of your biggest and best BB's blow up in harbor due to a magazine mishap (Mutsu). [:D]

Or a US submarine sink at the dock because there was no one below and they left the fresh water hose running (after filling batteries) ?[8|]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Or a US submarine sink at the dock because there was no one below and they left the fresh water hose running (after filling batteries) ?[8|]

Oooh - i hadn't heard that one (and i've read a LOT about subs) [X(] - which sub was that??? [&:]