Page 1 of 1

It seems to me...

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:22 am
by hbrsvl
Hi-It seems to me the AI is out of whack. Playing 1.3, US, 42B scenario, 9/15/42. Managed to get a real carrier battle in the midst of Coral Sea. One US CV sunk, major damage to 3 of 4 Japanese CV-CVLs. I had moved US BB forces just south of the US CV TF. OK, there is a Japanese Betty night strike on the US BB force which results in one (1) torpedo hit on a US Maryland BB. It sinks! The next day US CV & LBA strike the retiring enemy CV TF east of Bouganville. Again, there are multiple bomb hits on Japanese CV-CVLs. In one ships' case a total of 14 bomb hits & the**$$##%% ship doesn't sink. How come? Remember, Japanese damage repair is not supposed to be as good as the Allies. Just how much damage do I have to inflict on their CVs?-Please don't tell me enough to sink them! Thanks, Hugh Browne

RE: It seems to me...

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:23 am
by SteveV
Hugh, a couple comments.

First, you must have had a magazine explosion to lose that BB that quickly.

Second, if you have 14 bomb hits on a Jap CV, even if that is exagerrated by FOW, just wait a couple turns. It will sink in due time unless it is right next to a major port. Even then it could very well go down in the harbor.

Patience.

SteveV

RE: It seems to me...

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:14 am
by Xargun
Also remember that the ship may sink and you will not be informed (nor will it show up under ships sunk) for up to 60 days due to built in FOW...

Also do not forget that the US do not drop AP bombs - their basic bomb is the 1000 pound GP - which will cause all sorts of sys and fire damage it will not cause that much flt damage which is what sinks ships.. BUT, a BB or CV with 90+ sys damage is out of the war for a year so it is almost as good as a kill.

Xargun

RE: It seems to me...

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:31 am
by freeboy
damage it will not cause that much flt damage which is what sinks ships

Really, Fire is the number one killer isn't it? It was the mantra I always heard so I just thoiugth it was true? Any thoughts?

RE: It seems to me...

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:43 am
by scout1
Fire is by far a more dangerous issue aboard a ship than flooding. Flooding progresses
at a reasonably slow/predictable rate, assuming that the pump won't keep up with it. Also, there is little chance of collerate/additional nasty effects from flooding.
A fire on the other hand is very unpredictable, and can cause all kinds of additional problems. Flood the magazine, bad; fire in the magazine, very, very bad.

RE: It seems to me...

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:04 pm
by Dereck
With flooding a damage control party can shore up the hole, pump the water out or close the hatches, or even toss a body in front of the hole to stop the flooding and stop the spread of flooding if not 100% up to 90% while the water is pumped out.

With fire, on the other hand, it will have other hazards such as igniting aviation fuel (which in a carrier goes through pipes in the overhead which go through just about every compartment on the ship). If a pipe carrying aviation fuel would ignite the ship could literally go up in a puff of smoke like *snaps fingers*

RE: It seems to me...

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:42 pm
by hbrsvl
Steve-Thanks, I'll wait & see. Hugh

RE: It seems to me...

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:32 pm
by PeteG662
One way to guess whether it is sunk is look for Destroyed on Ground or OPS losses in the Intel report after the turn. If you see 27 A6M2, 18 Val, 18 Kate (or whatever numbers) in those columns....you can rest assured you got one. I know this doesn't always work if the carrier is near a base but if flight ops get suspended then you will get this in the Intel Report. Just FYI if you are really curious.