Magazine explosions

[Fallschirmjager]

Was the code changed?
I am getting at least one every surface combat. Something is seriously wrong unless this is historical and I don't know about it.

[Tankerace]

I noticed that too. I got 2 Magazine explosions in my first surface combat, but in 2 others have had none. So it could just be random rolls I suppose.

[Ron Saueracker]

I've only seen one in my PBEMs even with 1.21. CL Kuma blew up while anchored in the Pescadores after a B-17 raid from 21,000 feet. Took 1 500lb bomb and kabloowie!

They are a bit too common. Because there is no non-vital hit location, every hit is bad news, however. Sure would have been nice to have "near miss" and "hull/superstructure" hit locations added to absorb some of the hits as was historically the case. Crew would have been a good one too...lose crew the quality goes down, morale suffers,VP for crew tallied like squads. (losing ships becomes more expensive if 1000 seamen go down) Having permanent flot damage until repaired at a naval dockyard would be most welcome as well.

[freeboy]

we don't need no stinken floatation rules changed, we need our turns back [:D]

[Onime No Kyo]

I thought there were "superstructure" hits...."deck hits" I think they are. They dont seem to cause much damage aside from "severe casualties from deck explosion". But maybe I'm not reading this right.

[Fallschirmjager]

Im bumping this back to the top.

I am playing Guadalcanal so granted I am having surface combat at least 2-3 nights a turn, but I am getting a magazine explosion every 2 combats or so.
I want a tester to take a look at this.

[Mike Scholl]

Actually, when a warship was sunk, a magazine or boiler explosion was generally the "final
cause". Either fire spread until it got to the ammunition..., or flooding spread until it got to
the superheated boilers. In both cases, the results were pretty much always fatal.

So what we COULD be seeing is an adjustment that makes ships sinking a more probable
result of actions rather than having damaged vessels wandering around all over. Just a
thought

[Nikademus]

This frequency was noted. Currently the chance of mag explosion per penetration is 4%. I'd prefer it to be 1% as such occurances should be extremely rare.

[esteban]

Yes, the magazine explosion rate seems pretty high, at 4% per penetration. With that kind of rate, you would expect to see a couple magazine explosions in any decent-sized night action.

[Nikademus]

i'd expect to see zero to maybe 1. To use a wargame example as a comparison. Gary's old classic "Warship" allowed the following possibilities for mag explosion based on hit location.

Primary Turret - 1%
Belt armor - 4%
Deck armor - 7%

Even so....Magazine explosions were extremely rare in the game and ironically, most often happened when primary turrets were penetrated. In WitP, I have wondered if there wasn't a math error going on here as admitedly the diff between 1% and 4% is not exactly a wide gulf here, but havn't had time to set up extensive tests. I have noted however numerous surface battles where i've seen more than 1 mag explosion, an occurance which should be very unlikely.

Interestingly enough, i have never seen a merchant suffer one. They seem to be either exempt or the code is working properly in their case.

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Actually, when a warship was sunk, a magazine or boiler explosion was generally the "final
cause". Either fire spread until it got to the ammunition..., or flooding spread until it got to
the superheated boilers. In both cases, the results were pretty much always fatal.

So what we COULD be seeing is an adjustment that makes ships sinking a more probable
result of actions rather than having damaged vessels wandering around all over. Just a
thought

I thought ships took way too much damage before I did all the reading I have done recently. Ships on both sides could take an incredible amount of punishment before sinking.
I like your idea. Ships with a large amount of fire damage should be abandoned and have a greater chance of the fire touching off a magazine explosion.


4% is too high, but it looks alot higher than that to me. One ship a combat seems seems like its greater than 4%.
How are 1% and 4% being arrived at? Just pulled out of the air or historical evidence?

[Nikademus]

Making FIRE damage more dynamic was one of my early "Quests" so i can relate to what you are saying. FIRE is admitedly underrepresented in the game, this was acknowledged during design discussions a while back however due to the economic realities of the situation it could not be changed aside from the increase in incidental FIRE damage for non penetration hits.

Howeever if it is demonstratedly shown that the critical hit feature is either malfunctioning or is set at too high a %, i could see that being tweaked as a wish list item. Mike already has a wish list still a mile long. [;)]

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Making FIRE damage more dynamic was one of my early "Quests" so i can relate to what you are saying. FIRE is admitedly underrepresented in the game, this admitted during design discussions a while back however due to the economic realities of the situation it could not be changed aside from the increase in incidental FIRE damage for non penetration hits.

Howeever if it is demonstratedly shown that the critical hit feature is either malfunctioning or is set at too high a %, i could see that being tweaked as a wish list item. Mike already has a wish list still a mile long. [;)]

From my reading it seems a large number of Japanese ships were 'sunk' due to their crews abandoning them and then scuttling them.
American ships seemed to be either outright sunk or abandoned due to flooding.
I think a feature needs to be added where is flooding and fire becomes uncontrollable our virtual bluejackets abandon the ship and scuttle it.

As many things that get fixed in the game new stuff is always poping up [X(]
Still love the game though [:)]

[Nikademus]

One of the aspects of my preposal for more dynamic FIRE interaction was just that....the poss of uncontrolled fires based on the current FIRE level. This was a feature of past GG tactical games. The higher the FIRE level, the greater the possibility of add'l FIRE levels being created. Thus, for example if you had under 20 FL's and good Damage Control, you would have a good chance of reducing FL's and saving the ship. However if you had say, 45 FL's then you were in trouble as the chance for additional FL's would be exponentially greater and if the DC level is not up to the task, you are faced with a losing proposition. Thus FL's could go both UP as well as DOWN. Each turn damage might be caused up to and including a critical event dependant on a random and the current FL. Merchants should be extremely vulnerable to such a thing and it's absense is one reason why merchants are over durable in the game. A quick read from Frank will reveal that the majority of merchant casualties resulted from reletively small numbers of hits that started fires that eventually consumed the ships.

However this would require a complete rewrite of the code because a key difference in WitP/UV is that FL generation is much greater than in those old GG games. In past games any FL above 20 was extremely dangerous, but in the game this is a common occurance. a strike by SBD's with GP bombs for example can routinely cause FL's in the 30's and 40's. Under the old system this would be a virtual death sentance for both sides every time. Never forget my first reaction to this effect after purchasing UV. I had an american tanker hit and next turn i saw that it had 40 fire levels. Because of my past GG game experience, my first thought was "crap! that ship is dead!" I was suprised to see next turn that the FL's had been cut in half. Next turn it was under 10, next turn, fires out. Only some add'l SYS had been caused.

Sadly, such a complete re-write is not economically feasible. To quote Commander Korr though....."It would have been glorious..." [;)]

[Fallschirmjager]

Hmm. I understood some of that [:'(]

My main point however was that I think the game should force ship abandonment and scuttling on us more often than it does. Seeing as that is how most ships were sunk.
I know alot of players wouldn't like that idea but it seems more realistic to me.

[Nikademus]

A thought i've had for a long time now is that Merchant DUR should be halved to represent their greater fragility of construction and/or less emphasis on survival in design (vs. a dedicated warship) I'm playing with this right now and i'm liking the results so far. It helps reduce player tendancies to use their merchants as disposable battering rams.

I'm REALLY looking forward to the implementation of cargo/troop damage per hit on merchants. That will really increase realism and promote more careful historical play.

[Black Cat]

A 4% Chance means it _shouldn`t happen_ 96% of the time which are huge odds, unless the calcs the AI is doing for it is based on each shot, bomb, salvo or single torp, in which case 1-2% would be more accurate.

[Nikademus]

A series of static tests would be helpful here to determine whether or not there is a math error creaping into things.

[Mr.Frag]

4% doesn't seem like much, but reverse the logic ...

The Yank torps have an 80% dud rate yet still sink ships like rabbits breed!

When you factor that 80% dud rate against the accuracy rate, you end up with roughly the same odds of getting a torpedo hit that actually explodes as a super critical. [;)]

[Nikademus]

I have a no "reverse logic" policy this early in the morning before coffee. [:D]

All i know is that based on past game experiences that had similar rules and percentages, the frequency of critical hits i've been seeing is nothing short of puzzling. As to the historical.....mag explosions in battle are very rare so a 1% figure is not unreasonable, more so considering the all critical hit nature of the damage model.