Matrix Games Forums

I have a feeling that, perhaps ships in general, but especially merchant ships take too much damage to be sunk. Let me illustrate.

I have seen photos and movies of merchant ships blowing up from plane strafing, most likely ammunition or fuel has exploded. I have never seen this in WitP, which brings me to the next point, tankers.

I cant for the life of me see how a tanker filled to the brim with fuel can withstand even a stern look, not to mention multiple bombs/torpedos/ shells. Shouldnt the tanker be ablaze from bow to stern from a few shell hits?

How much damage could a merchant typically ship withstand anyway? When I see merchant ships take two fish, or multiple bomb hits and still remain afloat, I wonder.

Yes, FOW and all that, but even with FOW taken into account, it seems something is rotten in Denmark.

I will freely admit I am no expert on the subject, so please enlighten me.

I think you are right on this one. Merchant ships in Surface Combat vs. CAs and BBs sometimes take an incredible amount of hits without sinking. Happened more than once in my Campaign 15. Attach some big guns to AKs and they would win the war. [:D]

I think those merchants in naval combat actually take sufficient damage to sink. But unfortunatelly they keep getting pounded despite being a total loss already. Last night I checked ai losses in my most recent game and found casualties were much higher then my most optimistic estimate (99 ships in one month, among them 1 cruiser, half a dozen subs and maybe a dozen small escorts, all the rest AK, AP and TK (one oiler) that had been pounded by bombers, attacked by MTB's (PT's) and engaged by ships (including a pair of battleships). So merchants are pretty vulnerable, but the same one's tend to be picked repeatedly despite already having taken sufficient damage to sink within a turn or two at most.

Now whether that is accurate is another question (I wish I had hecked whether any of the sunk one's showed machine gun damage as cause of loss (I did quite a bit of strafing and some MTB's were too inexperienced to use their torpedoes for a while).

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: The ai's inability to avoid death traps is another issue again that is clearly shown by that casualty rate (most losses were unescorted or weakly escorted convoys through the Straits of Mallacca while Singapore was still firmly in Britsh hands (about a dozen each were at Davao and Rabaul (cruisers are good to tear up unescorted amphibious forces), half a dozen were lost to submarines anotehr half dozen to mines).

In all GG games that I have played hit probability seems inflated while damage recieved is deflated. At least that is how it has always appeared to me. I suppose the effects balance each other out. It applies to all ship types as you will see carriers get hit 8 or 9 bombs and come away with only modest damage.

Maybe it just makes the game a little more exciting as you get hits more frequently. Perhaps it is to make the game a little less luck oriented. In reality many attacks are all or nothing affairs. You either sink something or do no damage at all. In the game you have a greater chance to do at least some damage.

Its been this way forever and I'd doubt this will change. It works fine once you accept that more hits will be needed then would be required historically. Chalk it up to fog of war if you wish.

The solution to me is to make the chance of a critical blow varible depending on ship size and class. That is, the chance of something like a magazine explosion that would sink a ship would be greater on a DD than a BB.

One torpedo had a greater chance of breaking a merchants back than say a CA.

It just seems to be a bit too linear as it is now.

Here Here! See my thread about "Surface Combat Sux". Brits made over 55 hits on a TK from BB, CLs, DDs, in addition to a couple torpedos. It still didn't sink until after the surface combat phase. This also caused every one of my ships to conintuously pound on the TK instead of perhaps shifting fire to another ship.[:(]

2 torpedos usually sink a DD out right. At least allied DD. One is enough if not close to a port Bombs and shells are a different story.

I had an engagement between the 2 better CL of the Dutch fleet and 4 Japanese DD. The Jappanese scored lots of hits with 4.7 ( I think) inch guns on the armor of the CL. None penetrated for any damage, while my CL laid waste to the DD.

I dont see a problem, since it is the same on both sides, the 5 inch gun is nearly worthless in a surface engagement and the 500 pound bomb isnt much better against Heavyly armored ships.

I think it is all in the roll of the dice, my one PBEM game, my partner had 2 DD's and a CA sunk with one hit wonders, all in the same night !

and the ship that took a Trop and 20 + hits, sailed away and made it to port

sometimes it pays to be lucky

HARD_Sarge

The truth is, in WWII, one to two torpedo hits or 2-4 bomb hits almost always sank a merchant vessel.
Even Allied ones, which tended to be a fair piece larger on average than Japanese ships. There have
already been a few threads about the "Yamato Maru" and her cousins. Don't know if any consideration
is being given to correcting the situation though.

This exact issue has frustrated the heck out me. In part I think the game model has it about right. Case in point, "Submarine Operations in WWII" illustrates time and time again where ships of all classes (including merchants) took catastrophic torpedo damage and were reported sunk only to find from post war records they limped back to port. Submariners and merchant raiders of every nation tell of depleting huge amounts of deck gun ammo trying to take down merchant ships…including oilers that would smoke and burn for days but never sink! A specific example for the warship side, USS LAFFEY, a Sumner class destroyer, on picket duty off Okinawa, was hit by 3 bombs and 5 kamikazes in one attack, yet limped home.

On the other hand multiple historical sources are filled of reports where that “one lucky hit” meant a quick end for ship and sailor alike. Examples include merchants exploding after being strafed, merchants going down in minutes after one torpedo hit, the HMS HOOD’s demise at the hands of BISMARK, The unsinkable IJN SHINANO taken out with a lucky spread of torps from ARCHERFISH , etc… I don’t believe this has been accurately modeled in the game. Of course how do you model in “dumb luck”?

I do love the FOW aspect and not knowing the accuracy of the reports I’m seeing.

My opinion is, awesome game regardless!!!

Well, they kind of tried with the "massive explosive damage" thing. Maybe it needs to come up a little more often.

Every heard of the Hood?

and be quite more damaging...

historically the "massive explosive damages" weren't exactly light issues. Four of those forced the Japanese to scuttle four CVs at Midway, mostly with only 1 or 2 1000lb bomb impacts yet in WitP I've seen carriers standing 5-10 1000pound bombs without the extreme damage that should mean...and this is not right.


And yes ,I know at Midway the KB had the whole air groups on the decks when the Dauntlesses rained over them, and that added to the havoc of the bombs themselves; however at Coral Sea the Shokaku was quite lucky to survive after 2 or 3 impacts when her hangars and decks were almost empty and was forced back to japan for more than a year of repairs and refittings. One more bomb put into her, and she'd have gone down...in fact she was terribly lucky reaching Japan after a gale almost capsized her in the extremely sorry state she was.

And the Zuikakus where ,according to almost every source, the best designed japanese carriers to stand damage...

yet in WitP they stand damage and stand, and stand ,and...yet they refuse to go down.

It's not a extreme gripe for me, as it's the same for both sides, but for the realism lovers like yours truly, it's a tad frustrating...

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Every heard of the Hood?

Chris, I know it was another theater but the HMS HOOD is a great example of bad "dumb luck." She was a British Battle Cruiser sank in an engagement with the Geman Battle Ship BISMARK. Most resources seem to agree that a single shell penetrated one of her magizines. She went down so fast that there were very few survivors... 2 or 3 IIRC.

I think that there's an item on "the list" to take a look at the damage effect of the US 1,000-pound GP bomb, which some have suggested is under-represented in WitP, particularly against lightly armored targets like CVs, escort vessels, and merchant shipping.

ORIGINAL: MasterChief

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Every heard of the Hood?

Chris, I know it was another theater but the HMS HOOD is a great example of bad "dumb luck." She was a British Battle Cruiser sank in an engagement with the Geman Battle Ship BISMARK. Most resources seem to agree that a single shell penetrated one of her magizines. She went down so fast that there were very few survivors... 2 or 3 IIRC.

H.M.S. Hood was a design from the British "exploding battlecruiser" period of 1914-1917. Several other examples were detonated at Jutland. It should have been no surprise that this ship went up like a celluloid collar against Bismarck.

The thread is about "unsinkable merchant ships". Warships are designed with resistance
to damage in mind (not always successfully, but it is in the designer's mind). Merchant
Ships are designed to maximize cargo space and minimize operating costs. Most of the
ships lost by the Allies in the Battle of the Atlantic were hit with ONE torpedo. Yes, some
took two, three, and even four..., but if you average the number of hits needed to sink a
merchant vessel it comes out at between one and two.

Nor were dozens of bomb hits needed. The Lustwaffe's Condors didn't fly in squadrons
but as individual planes hunting targets of opportunity. Yet they sank over a half million
tons of Allied shipping. They couldn't carry a big enough bomb load to obtain more than
1-3 hits on a target, but they still sank a lot of targets. Merchants aren't designed for war.
Damage control might amount to a couple of guys with buckets. Internal subdivision
wasn't based on survivability, it was for optimum cargo handling. Unless loaded with
cork or balsa wood or some such cargo, they didn't float very long once a good sized
leak (like a torpedo hole) appeared, or a fire (like from a bomb) got a good hold.

These ships had very soft hulls - a bomb/ shell could quite easily just pass through without exploding or hitting anything.

ORIGINAL: watchtower

These ships had very soft hulls - a bomb/ shell could quite easily just pass through without exploding or hitting anything.

IF you are talking about heavy calibre AP ammo or bombs, maybe---but you don't use
that kind of ordnance on such targets anyway! You use HE, or GP, or maybe SAP.
And AP ordnance still explodes in the water, so all that happens with an AP bomb that
passes through a ship from top to bottom is that it becomes a mine when it detonates
below the ship and breaks her back. Same with an AP shell---a "hit" might pass through
and become an "over"---but a "short" plows into the water and detonates as a torpedo.

In a way I think a lot of peeps get a litlle over enthused on the reliability of WW2 munitions - they were not smart bombs!!