Near misses

String · Post by **String** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:46 am

Are they in?

treespider · Post by **treespider** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:51 am

ORIGINAL: String

Are they in?

Near misses of what?

herwin · Post by **herwin** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:02 am

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: String

Are they in?

Near misses of what?

I suspect he's referring to the mining (flooding) effect of bomb near-misses. It's how most warships are sunk by bombing attack. Direct hits may make a mess, but they don't do nearly as much flooding damage.

String · Post by **String** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:48 pm

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: String

Are they in?

Near misses of what?

I suspect he's referring to the mining (flooding) effect of bomb near-misses. It's how most warships are sunk by bombing attack. Direct hits may make a mess, but they don't do nearly as much flooding damage.

Yeah, I thought it was obvious [:o]

steveh11Matrix · Post by **steveh11Matrix** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:29 am

Not so obvious: For example, near-misses in ASW attacks have been in for a long time. [;)]

But I'm curious to know about flood damage from bomb near-misses as well.

Steve.

herwin · Post by **herwin** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:36 am

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

Not so obvious: For example, near-misses in ASW attacks have been in for a long time. [;)]

But I'm curious to know about flood damage from bomb near-misses as well.

Steve.

For British cruisers:

3 lost due to shelling, 9 bombing (6 or 7 sunk by near-misses), 1 mining, 11 torpedoing, 24 total
18 damaged by shelling, 56 bombing, 9 mining, 19 torpedoing, 102 total
An average of 1.6 months to repair shelling or bombing damage, 6 months for mining, 9 months for torpedoing.
Bombing damage was either fire started by a direct hit or mining by near misses.

Reference: Morse and Kimball, p.49.

Does that help?

Ron Saueracker · Post by **Ron Saueracker** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:17 pm

Nikademus has been trying to get near misses in since I joined and still no joy.  Not sure why really, but it just gets overlooked and denied everytime it gets mentioned.

witpqs · Post by **witpqs** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:04 pm

Maybe near misses were just abstracted in as 'hits'. Do you know otherwise? They abstracted lots of things in this game engine (as they had to).

Sardaukar · Post by **Sardaukar** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:17 pm

Indeed.
If bomb or shell is "near miss" and does damage, in my books it's classified as "hit". [:'(]

witpqs · Post by **witpqs** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:21 pm

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Indeed.
If bomb or shell is "near miss" and does damage, in my books it's classified as "hit". [:'(]

Agreed!

herwin · Post by **herwin** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:25 pm

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Indeed.
If bomb or shell is "near miss" and does damage, in my books it's classified as "hit". [:'(]

Agreed!

It needs to get the terminal ballistics right, though. Flooding should be commonly lethal and very hard to repair. Flooding from bombing should be rare. Systems and fire damage should be very easy to repair, once you've put out the fires.

Subchaser · Post by **Subchaser** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:49 pm

According to a review of post action damage reports, some of the most damaging hits a ship can endure are the close aboard near misses that cause flooding. Sometimes, to score a near miss is the only way to cripple a heavily armored ship. If bomb fails to penetrate ship’s armor, it does only minor damage, if the same bomb goes near and explodes below waterline close aboard, damage can be quite serious. Besides, bomb effectiveness in witp/ae depends on ‘armor penetration’ parameter, and if “near miss” is just a “hit” than some small and medium caliber bombs are almost useless against armored ships, if it cannot penetrate armor – it does no real damage while damage factors of a different nature are not taken into account.

herwin · Post by **herwin** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:56 pm

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

According to a review of post action damage reports, some of the most damaging hits a ship can endure are the close aboard near misses that cause flooding. Sometimes, to score a near miss is the only way to cripple a heavily armored ship. If bomb fails to penetrate ship’s armor, it does only minor damage, if the same bomb goes near and explodes below waterline close aboard, damage can be quite serious. Besides, bomb effectiveness in witp/ae depends on ‘armor penetration’ parameter, and if “near miss” is just a “hit” than some small and medium caliber bombs are almost useless against armored ships, if it cannot penetrate armor – it does no real damage while damage factors of a different nature are not taken into account.

Amen brother. We're talking about the tail of the distribution here--it shouldn't be truncated just because direct hits bounce. And this tail has a nasty sting.

witpqs · Post by **witpqs** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:18 pm

Well, that could (might already be) worked into the damage routine (as opposed to the 'hit or not' routine). A certain percentage that the 'hit' is actually a near miss with appropriate damage model applied.

My whole point is that because of the huge number of things already accounted for in the routines but not revealed to us as such, it might be that the original designers did so with near misses as well. Without documenting same.

JWE · Post by **JWE** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:28 pm

Really sorry, but this is a game of the Pacific War, not a game of Mogami v Boise. The enigine doesn't care about individual ship shot counts or near misses. Never did, never will. According to the engine, a hit is a hit; a miss is a miss. Deal with it.

Sometimes a miss shows up on the pretty little combat screens as a 'near miss'. That's nothing but show & tell chrome. There is no such thing as a 'near miss'. Never has been, never will be.

You people don't like what the game has to offer, and how it does things, then write your own game. I've seen people who hold themselves out as infinitely smarter than the developers. If you really are, either do it, or shut up.

Subchaser · Post by **Subchaser** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:47 pm

I choose “shut up” option, obliviously. No insults intended, we all respect AE team, be more friendly please. Honestly I don’t think this issue is so “out of scope” in the game where nose-mounted aircraft armament had advantages compared with wing-mounted guns, so it’s “Mogami vs Boise” actually, I understand though that it’s pointless to talk about it at this stage of development.

witpqs · Post by **witpqs** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:57 pm

John I think that's a bit over the top for the queries being made.

JWE · Post by **JWE** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:03 pm

ORIGINAL: witpqs

John I think that's a bit over the top for the queries being made.

Yes it is. You are quite right. Getting a bit testy.

witpqs · Post by **witpqs** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:05 pm

Beer is on me. How soon can you make it Arizona?

Dili · Post by **Dili** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:14 pm

Honestly I don’t think this issue is so “out of scope” in the game where nose-mounted aircraft armament had advantages compared with wing-mounted guns

That is one of most strange things about witp and it seems AE. Excellent detail in some situations, but some essential air-naval warfare issues not modelled at all. The most outrageous is obviously the carrier deck armor issue. Its a strange lack of focus on what should be some the core of the game.

Near misses

Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses

RE: Near misses