fortification building question

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: fortification building question

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I don't need to test it, CT. I've done it in two PBEM games. Never hit a ship with 4Es. But no, I don't fly them at 2000 feet over flak-infested warships. I hit ships a lot with DBs from 15,000, as they were designed to do.

As for rude, yeah, you are, as usual. I'm accused of that sometimes. I think we probably ought not to talk to each other a lot.

It's scary when the raid comes in, but they always miss. I imagine yours aren't trained in NavB anyway.

Maybe more people should play with the flak updates and see what that does to the 4E losses over the ships. It only takes losing a few of them to flak (not to mention to ops, from damage sustained) to make up for the VPs on ships lost.

And the 500 lb. bombs will just bounce off of the ships for which the VPs can't be made up without a lot more 4E losses (CAs, BBs). It'll hurt CVs, but if the CVs should have CAP to disrupt the bombers if not shoot them down.


The concern about 4Es on naval attack is overrated, overblown.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: fortification building question

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I don't need to test it, CT. I've done it in two PBEM games. Never hit a ship with 4Es. But no, I don't fly them at 2000 feet over flak-infested warships. I hit ships a lot with DBs from 15,000, as they were designed to do.

As for rude, yeah, you are, as usual. I'm accused of that sometimes. I think we probably ought not to talk to each other a lot.

It's scary when the raid comes in, but they always miss. I imagine yours aren't trained in NavB anyway.

Maybe more people should play with the flak updates and see what that does to the 4E losses over the ships. It only takes losing a few of them to flak (not to mention to ops, from damage sustained) to make up for the VPs on ships lost.

And the 500 lb. bombs will just bounce off of the ships for which the VPs can't be made up without a lot more 4E losses (CAs, BBs). It'll hurt CVs, but if the CVs should have CAP to disrupt the bombers if not shoot them down.


The concern about 4Es on naval attack is overrated, overblown.

In my game with Mike I have lots of 2E units with Naval skills in the mid-60s. Against moving targets from 6000-9000 feet they miss virtually all the time. As I would expect. There's a reason those "stupid" folks back in the 1930s perfected dive bombing.

A 500lb bomb will sometimes sink an xAK, and about 30% of the time an IJN DD. Almost never a sub, although the subs and DDs ought to be reversed in real life. At 6-9k and a 2E that's not a terrible trade-off on odds versus VPs. A 4E at 2000 feet to sink an xAK? Nutso.
The Moose
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: fortification building question

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I don't need to test it, CT. I've done it in two PBEM games. Never hit a ship with 4Es. But no, I don't fly them at 2000 feet over flak-infested warships. I hit ships a lot with DBs from 15,000, as they were designed to do.

As for rude, yeah, you are, as usual. I'm accused of that sometimes. I think we probably ought not to talk to each other a lot.

It's scary when the raid comes in, but they always miss. I imagine yours aren't trained in NavB anyway.

Maybe more people should play with the flak updates and see what that does to the 4E losses over the ships. It only takes losing a few of them to flak (not to mention to ops, from damage sustained) to make up for the VPs on ships lost.

And the 500 lb. bombs will just bounce off of the ships for which the VPs can't be made up without a lot more 4E losses (CAs, BBs). It'll hurt CVs, but if the CVs should have CAP to disrupt the bombers if not shoot them down.


The concern about 4Es on naval attack is overrated, overblown.

In my game with Mike I have lots of 2E units with Naval skills in the mid-60s. Against moving targets from 6000-9000 feet they miss virtually all the time. As I would expect. There's a reason those "stupid" folks back in the 1930s perfected dive bombing.

A 500lb bomb will sometimes sink an xAK, and about 30% of the time an IJN DD. Almost never a sub, although the subs and DDs ought to be reversed in real life. At 6-9k and a 2E that's not a terrible trade-off on odds versus VPs. A 4E at 2000 feet to sink an xAK? Nutso.

A couple of hits could sink an IJN CL. It depends on how much System damage they did, and how many fires. And how sucky the crew is.

But really it's that the army bombers carry GP bombs - not SAP bombs. That seems to matter. They have different penetration values.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: fortification building question

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




It's scary when the raid comes in, but they always miss. I imagine yours aren't trained in NavB anyway.

Maybe more people should play with the flak updates and see what that does to the 4E losses over the ships. It only takes losing a few of them to flak (not to mention to ops, from damage sustained) to make up for the VPs on ships lost.

And the 500 lb. bombs will just bounce off of the ships for which the VPs can't be made up without a lot more 4E losses (CAs, BBs). It'll hurt CVs, but if the CVs should have CAP to disrupt the bombers if not shoot them down.


The concern about 4Es on naval attack is overrated, overblown.

In my game with Mike I have lots of 2E units with Naval skills in the mid-60s. Against moving targets from 6000-9000 feet they miss virtually all the time. As I would expect. There's a reason those "stupid" folks back in the 1930s perfected dive bombing.

A 500lb bomb will sometimes sink an xAK, and about 30% of the time an IJN DD. Almost never a sub, although the subs and DDs ought to be reversed in real life. At 6-9k and a 2E that's not a terrible trade-off on odds versus VPs. A 4E at 2000 feet to sink an xAK? Nutso.

A couple of hits could sink an IJN CL. It depends on how much System damage they did, and how many fires. And how sucky the crew is.

But really it's that the army bombers carry GP bombs - not SAP bombs. That seems to matter. They have different penetration values.

Never thought of that. Good catch.

And the damage from two hits is usually more than twice as much.
The Moose
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: fortification building question

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



In my game with Mike I have lots of 2E units with Naval skills in the mid-60s. Against moving targets from 6000-9000 feet they miss virtually all the time. As I would expect. There's a reason those "stupid" folks back in the 1930s perfected dive bombing.

A 500lb bomb will sometimes sink an xAK, and about 30% of the time an IJN DD. Almost never a sub, although the subs and DDs ought to be reversed in real life. At 6-9k and a 2E that's not a terrible trade-off on odds versus VPs. A 4E at 2000 feet to sink an xAK? Nutso.

A couple of hits could sink an IJN CL. It depends on how much System damage they did, and how many fires. And how sucky the crew is.

But really it's that the army bombers carry GP bombs - not SAP bombs. That seems to matter. They have different penetration values.

Never thought of that. Good catch.

And the damage from two hits is usually more than twice as much.

I've had subs sink from 1x SAP bomb hit, but they do live to GP bomb hits... usually. Just ask I-6 in our game, I think she's taken 2 or 3 now [:D]. The actual "specialization" of the weapon to be used against ships seems to make a world of difference.
erstad
Posts: 1944
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:40 pm
Location: Midwest USA

RE: fortification building question

Post by erstad »

I guess I didn't realize this was a "thing" that all JFBs used.

And AFBs....
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: fortification building question

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
A 500lb bomb will sometimes sink an xAK, and about 30% of the time an IJN DD. Almost never a sub, although the subs and DDs ought to be reversed in real life. At 6-9k and a 2E that's not a terrible trade-off on odds versus VPs. A 4E at 2000 feet to sink an xAK? Nutso.

I've had subs sink from 1x SAP bomb hit, but they do live to GP bomb hits... usually. Just ask I-6 in our game, I think she's taken 2 or 3 now [:D]. The actual "specialization" of the weapon to be used against ships seems to make a world of difference.

The game mechanic reason may be that hits against subs and hits against ships are calculated differently. It is not clear if something that counts as reported "hit" against a sub in the search/ASW phase is the result of the same equations as a direct "hit" in the combat animations of an anti shipping attack. This might explain the different average damage.

A direct 500GP hit against a sub should be a 90-95% kill. Thats why I abstract it. When I read 'hit', to me can be everything from a near miss with some sprung plating (variable sys, low floating, some eng), to a really close call with lots of floating damage, to a direct hit that usually means a kill.
Image
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: fortification building question

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I don't need to test it, CT. I've done it in two PBEM games. Never hit a ship with 4Es. But no, I don't fly them at 2000 feet over flak-infested warships. I hit ships a lot with DBs from 15,000, as they were designed to do.

As for rude, yeah, you are, as usual. I'm accused of that sometimes. I think we probably ought not to talk to each other a lot.


which makes the reply easy then. Don't test it, don't spread wrong information. If you do it wrong, your own fault anyway.
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: fortification building question

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I don't need to test it, CT. I've done it in two PBEM games. Never hit a ship with 4Es. But no, I don't fly them at 2000 feet over flak-infested warships. I hit ships a lot with DBs from 15,000, as they were designed to do.

As for rude, yeah, you are, as usual. I'm accused of that sometimes. I think we probably ought not to talk to each other a lot.

It's scary when the raid comes in, but they always miss. I imagine yours aren't trained in NavB anyway.

Maybe more people should play with the flak updates and see what that does to the 4E losses over the ships. It only takes losing a few of them to flak (not to mention to ops, from damage sustained) to make up for the VPs on ships lost.

And the 500 lb. bombs will just bounce off of the ships for which the VPs can't be made up without a lot more 4E losses (CAs, BBs). It'll hurt CVs, but if the CVs should have CAP to disrupt the bombers if not shoot them down.


The concern about 4Es on naval attack is overrated, overblown.

In my game with Mike I have lots of 2E units with Naval skills in the mid-60s. Against moving targets from 6000-9000 feet they miss virtually all the time. As I would expect. There's a reason those "stupid" folks back in the 1930s perfected dive bombing.

A 500lb bomb will sometimes sink an xAK, and about 30% of the time an IJN DD. Almost never a sub, although the subs and DDs ought to be reversed in real life. At 6-9k and a 2E that's not a terrible trade-off on odds versus VPs. A 4E at 2000 feet to sink an xAK? Nutso.


and your post pretty much confirms why ppl use hr on 4E. Omg don't you get it? The hr is about no low level naval bombing with 4E. You have never tested it (why should one?), you don't do it in your PBEM, yet you spread wrong information about it? How many ppl have gone nuts lately? I am AGAINST using 4E at 2000ft because they get absurdly effective, I can sink your whole stinking fleet doing so and trash your airfields at will. Unlike you I don't have a problem to do so easily. And THAT is the reason I would restrict 4E from nav bomb at 2000ft. You, Sir, haven't tested it, have never done so in a PBEM and your comment is coming from experience of using non trained 4E at 6-9k? Heck, what a discussion. Michael Phelps (you) discussing with a non-swimmer (me). It could not be any more absurd, really. Like the cow telling the bird how to fly.
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: fortification building question

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



In my game with Mike I have lots of 2E units with Naval skills in the mid-60s. Against moving targets from 6000-9000 feet they miss virtually all the time. As I would expect. There's a reason those "stupid" folks back in the 1930s perfected dive bombing.

A 500lb bomb will sometimes sink an xAK, and about 30% of the time an IJN DD. Almost never a sub, although the subs and DDs ought to be reversed in real life. At 6-9k and a 2E that's not a terrible trade-off on odds versus VPs. A 4E at 2000 feet to sink an xAK? Nutso.

A couple of hits could sink an IJN CL. It depends on how much System damage they did, and how many fires. And how sucky the crew is.

But really it's that the army bombers carry GP bombs - not SAP bombs. That seems to matter. They have different penetration values.

Never thought of that. Good catch.

And the damage from two hits is usually more than twice as much.


And yet this is just wrong again. Guys, c'mon what's going on? Things have been the way they are for years.

Default loadout of a B-17:

Image


And unlike you I took the time to "test" it. Lol, I knew it anyway but just to give you an absolutely fresh example. Guadalcanal scen, everything stood down but B-17E. Guess that's an Army bomber? Default loadout GP bombs, these are used for land targets. What happens if an Army bomber goes against ships? It changes bombload to SAP...

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Buna at 99,129

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 3,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 13

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAK Takaoka Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAK Ryoka Maru
xAK Josho Maru

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 2000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 2000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 2000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 2000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb


Now this clearly looks like a naval attack on a convoy to me. And before you now take this example to bring up your claim 4E on low naval attack aren't so horrible effective like you know because you use them at 6-9k with inexperienced crews. This is from day 3 of the Guadalcanal scen, the skill of the crews in lownav is whopping 20, it's severe storms and the bomb load is halved because the airfield they fly from is too small which means they would always attack with halve load. Anyways, I've just spent the last 10 min to stand up against yet another wrong claim. And it works for every bomber like this.

That might be just one reason you should test things before you make wrong assumptions and sell them as truth. Ah, this is STOCK scenario, not something I have modded to make it look my way.


Hey ho, just keep discussing stuff on the forum and tell people your truth no matter how wrong it is. I am out of this discussion because like I have said earlier, your claims are absurd so any discussion is mood. You don't have hard evidence for your claims but it is easy to make claims on the internet, just takes a couple of seconds typing and voila. Heck, you didn't test it, didn't even do it in your PBEM and tell the world how it works? I am proud of this forum for all the real life knowledge that has been shown over all the years and there were lots of discussions going on about how the game works. But unlike in the recent past people were knowing what they were talking about. Lots of tests, lots of combat reports, lots of evidence. Lately it has just turned out to vocal blah blah that was usually easily debunked.
Attachments
Unbenannt.jpg
Unbenannt.jpg (301.89 KiB) Viewed 53 times
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: fortification building question

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

You flew 13 B-17s at 3000 feet, got damage on one, risked 26 VPs, used 13 4Es' worth of supply, and incurred 13 4Es worth of maintenance load. To get one 500lb bomb hit on an xAK.

Congrats. Keep playing dumb.
The Moose
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: fortification building question

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




A couple of hits could sink an IJN CL. It depends on how much System damage they did, and how many fires. And how sucky the crew is.

But really it's that the army bombers carry GP bombs - not SAP bombs. That seems to matter. They have different penetration values.

Never thought of that. Good catch.

And the damage from two hits is usually more than twice as much.


And yet this is just wrong again. Guys, c'mon what's going on? Things have been the way they are for years.

Default loadout of a B-17:

Image


And unlike you I took the time to "test" it. Lol, I knew it anyway but just to give you an absolutely fresh example. Guadalcanal scen, everything stood down but B-17E. Guess that's an Army bomber? Default loadout GP bombs, these are used for land targets. What happens if an Army bomber goes against ships? It changes bombload to SAP...

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Buna at 99,129

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 3,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 13

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAK Takaoka Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAK Ryoka Maru
xAK Josho Maru

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 2000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 2000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 2000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 2000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb


Now this clearly looks like a naval attack on a convoy to me. And before you now take this example to bring up your claim 4E on low naval attack aren't so horrible effective like you know because you use them at 6-9k with inexperienced crews. This is from day 3 of the Guadalcanal scen, the skill of the crews in lownav is whopping 20, it's severe storms and the bomb load is halved because the airfield they fly from is too small which means they would always attack with halve load. Anyways, I've just spent the last 10 min to stand up against yet another wrong claim. And it works for every bomber like this.

That might be just one reason you should test things before you make wrong assumptions and sell them as truth. Ah, this is STOCK scenario, not something I have modded to make it look my way.


Hey ho, just keep discussing stuff on the forum and tell people your truth no matter how wrong it is. I am out of this discussion because like I have said earlier, your claims are absurd so any discussion is mood. You don't have hard evidence for your claims but it is easy to make claims on the internet, just takes a couple of seconds typing and voila. Heck, you didn't test it, didn't even do it in your PBEM and tell the world how it works? I am proud of this forum for all the real life knowledge that has been shown over all the years and there were lots of discussions going on about how the game works. But unlike in the recent past people were knowing what they were talking about. Lots of tests, lots of combat reports, lots of evidence. Lately it has just turned out to vocal blah blah that was usually easily debunked.


Play that same scenario out with the flak updates.

Those dinky xAK's would probably have damaged a fair-few B-17's with just the 25mm guns. Not a sustainable rate of exchange in terms of a campaign.

LowNav 4E's with flak updates are not unbalanced; they're perfect.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: fortification building question

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




Never thought of that. Good catch.

And the damage from two hits is usually more than twice as much.


And yet this is just wrong again. Guys, c'mon what's going on? Things have been the way they are for years.

Default loadout of a B-17:

Image


And unlike you I took the time to "test" it. Lol, I knew it anyway but just to give you an absolutely fresh example. Guadalcanal scen, everything stood down but B-17E. Guess that's an Army bomber? Default loadout GP bombs, these are used for land targets. What happens if an Army bomber goes against ships? It changes bombload to SAP...

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Buna at 99,129

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 3,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 13

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAK Takaoka Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAK Ryoka Maru
xAK Josho Maru

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 2000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 2000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 2000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
2 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 2000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb


Now this clearly looks like a naval attack on a convoy to me. And before you now take this example to bring up your claim 4E on low naval attack aren't so horrible effective like you know because you use them at 6-9k with inexperienced crews. This is from day 3 of the Guadalcanal scen, the skill of the crews in lownav is whopping 20, it's severe storms and the bomb load is halved because the airfield they fly from is too small which means they would always attack with halve load. Anyways, I've just spent the last 10 min to stand up against yet another wrong claim. And it works for every bomber like this.

That might be just one reason you should test things before you make wrong assumptions and sell them as truth. Ah, this is STOCK scenario, not something I have modded to make it look my way.


Hey ho, just keep discussing stuff on the forum and tell people your truth no matter how wrong it is. I am out of this discussion because like I have said earlier, your claims are absurd so any discussion is mood. You don't have hard evidence for your claims but it is easy to make claims on the internet, just takes a couple of seconds typing and voila. Heck, you didn't test it, didn't even do it in your PBEM and tell the world how it works? I am proud of this forum for all the real life knowledge that has been shown over all the years and there were lots of discussions going on about how the game works. But unlike in the recent past people were knowing what they were talking about. Lots of tests, lots of combat reports, lots of evidence. Lately it has just turned out to vocal blah blah that was usually easily debunked.


Play that same scenario out with the flak updates.

Those dinky xAK's would probably have damaged a fair-few B-17's with just the 25mm guns. Not a sustainable rate of exchange in terms of a campaign.

LowNav 4E's with flak updates are not unbalanced; they're perfect.


In that you would be making a mistake to use them on Low Nav attack because you'll lose a lot of them, either directly to flak or to damage/ops. CT, you need to get the flak updates in the updated scenario DB files (same as Babes, I think?). They make a world of difference.


I wasn't aware of the bomb load changing to SAP. Interesting, I guess.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: fortification building question

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
A 500lb bomb will sometimes sink an xAK, and about 30% of the time an IJN DD. Almost never a sub, although the subs and DDs ought to be reversed in real life. At 6-9k and a 2E that's not a terrible trade-off on odds versus VPs. A 4E at 2000 feet to sink an xAK? Nutso.

I've had subs sink from 1x SAP bomb hit, but they do live to GP bomb hits... usually. Just ask I-6 in our game, I think she's taken 2 or 3 now [:D]. The actual "specialization" of the weapon to be used against ships seems to make a world of difference.

The game mechanic reason may be that hits against subs and hits against ships are calculated differently. It is not clear if something that counts as reported "hit" against a sub in the search/ASW phase is the result of the same equations as a direct "hit" in the combat animations of an anti shipping attack. This might explain the different average damage.

A direct 500GP hit against a sub should be a 90-95% kill. Thats why I abstract it. When I read 'hit', to me can be everything from a near miss with some sprung plating (variable sys, low floating, some eng), to a really close call with lots of floating damage, to a direct hit that usually means a kill.

I was referencing actual hits, not the reported ones in the daily search/ops reports. I look at the subs and see what they were last hit by in the ship information screen.

In my experience, 250 lb. bomb hits (sometimes from search planes, more likely from ASW planes) result in anywhere between 20-40 Sys/Flt and sometimes Engine damage. I can't recall seeing a 500 lb. bomb hit at sea on a sub, but I'm sure it's happened.

The I-6 in question has taken at least 1, but I think if I look back I'd find 2, bomb hits from 500 lb bombs dropped by B-17s on port attack. She's still afloat.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: fortification building question

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




I've had subs sink from 1x SAP bomb hit, but they do live to GP bomb hits... usually. Just ask I-6 in our game, I think she's taken 2 or 3 now [:D]. The actual "specialization" of the weapon to be used against ships seems to make a world of difference.

The game mechanic reason may be that hits against subs and hits against ships are calculated differently. It is not clear if something that counts as reported "hit" against a sub in the search/ASW phase is the result of the same equations as a direct "hit" in the combat animations of an anti shipping attack. This might explain the different average damage.

A direct 500GP hit against a sub should be a 90-95% kill. Thats why I abstract it. When I read 'hit', to me can be everything from a near miss with some sprung plating (variable sys, low floating, some eng), to a really close call with lots of floating damage, to a direct hit that usually means a kill.

I was referencing actual hits, not the reported ones in the daily search/ops reports. I look at the subs and see what they were last hit by in the ship information screen.

In my experience, 250 lb. bomb hits (sometimes from search planes, more likely from ASW planes) result in anywhere between 20-40 Sys/Flt and sometimes Engine damage. I can't recall seeing a 500 lb. bomb hit at sea on a sub, but I'm sure it's happened.

The I-6 in question has taken at least 1, but I think if I look back I'd find 2, bomb hits from 500 lb bombs dropped by B-17s on port attack. She's still afloat.

I was referring to the actual hits as well. I attempted to point out that the hits happen at different phases of the game and might use a different algorithm, thus my reference to the NavS/ASW phase.

You got a point there with the port attack.
Image
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: fortification building question

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: LoBaron



The game mechanic reason may be that hits against subs and hits against ships are calculated differently. It is not clear if something that counts as reported "hit" against a sub in the search/ASW phase is the result of the same equations as a direct "hit" in the combat animations of an anti shipping attack. This might explain the different average damage.

A direct 500GP hit against a sub should be a 90-95% kill. Thats why I abstract it. When I read 'hit', to me can be everything from a near miss with some sprung plating (variable sys, low floating, some eng), to a really close call with lots of floating damage, to a direct hit that usually means a kill.

I was referencing actual hits, not the reported ones in the daily search/ops reports. I look at the subs and see what they were last hit by in the ship information screen.

In my experience, 250 lb. bomb hits (sometimes from search planes, more likely from ASW planes) result in anywhere between 20-40 Sys/Flt and sometimes Engine damage. I can't recall seeing a 500 lb. bomb hit at sea on a sub, but I'm sure it's happened.

The I-6 in question has taken at least 1, but I think if I look back I'd find 2, bomb hits from 500 lb bombs dropped by B-17s on port attack. She's still afloat.

I was referring to the actual hits as well. I attempted to point out that the hits happen at different phases of the game and might use a different algorithm, thus my reference to the NavS/ASW phase.

You got a point there with the port attack.

If she were at sea, I would expect her to sink. But maybe not. Some subs are surprisingly durable.
User avatar
Symon
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: De Eye-lands, Mon

RE: fortification building question

Post by Symon »

When are you folks going to realize that the in-game graphic displays and messages are just pulling up random text strings from a pre-prepared list. None (mostly) of the text reports represent reality. Some things for your consideration:

ASW has a different algorithm from Nav, which has a different algorithm from Air. They are all separate and distinct. One size does not fit all.

If the anti-sub algorithm (there’s several of them) records a “hit”, it may not be an actual physical “hit”. What it is, is the “hit” algorithm reaching a threshold (depending on many factors) that calls the damage sub-routine. If you call the sub-routine you technically get a “hit”, but there are “hits” and then there are “hits”. Depending on where you are on the “did I hit” distribution, the damage algorithm comes into play.

If you are low on the curve, you will rattle the swine; a bit closer, you’ll start popping valves and making life difficult; a bit closer you’ll start leaking; a bit closer you’ll start praying. All this is represented in the “damage” algorithm. A bomb (or anything else) that gets close enough to cause “damage” is recorded as a “hit”, even if it isn’t.

You guys are looking at pre-packaged calls to a limited set of pre-packaged message text strings. By discussing the graphic display messages, you are trying to wag the dog by the fleas on the end of its tail. Ciao. JWE
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: fortification building question

Post by LoBaron »

Whatever the reason may be, they can sometimes definitely take a lickin´.

Below is Sailfish, shrugging off an 800kg monster on the initial Manila port strike in my current PBEM:
Afternoon Air attack on Manila , at 79,77

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 62
B5N2 Kate x 27

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
AVD Childs, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Neptuna, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Sailfish, Bomb hits 1
SS Sculpin, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb

She was hit in the previous morning strike by a 250kg bomb as well.

Subs can absorb serious punishment by bombs.
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: fortification building question

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: Symon
ASW has a different algorithm from Nav, which has a different algorithm from Air. They are all separate and distinct. One size does not fit all.

If the anti-sub algorithm (there’s several of them) records a “hit”, it may not be an actual physical “hit”. What it is, is the “hit” algorithm reaching a threshold (depending on many factors) that calls the damage sub-routine. If you call the sub-routine you technically get a “hit”, but there are “hits” and then there are “hits”. Depending on where you are on the “did I hit” distribution, the damage algorithm comes into play.

Right. This was about what I was trying to hint at. [:)]
Image
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: fortification building question

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Symon
ASW has a different algorithm from Nav, which has a different algorithm from Air. They are all separate and distinct. One size does not fit all.

If the anti-sub algorithm (there’s several of them) records a “hit”, it may not be an actual physical “hit”. What it is, is the “hit” algorithm reaching a threshold (depending on many factors) that calls the damage sub-routine. If you call the sub-routine you technically get a “hit”, but there are “hits” and then there are “hits”. Depending on where you are on the “did I hit” distribution, the damage algorithm comes into play.

Right. This was about what I was trying to hint at. [:)]

Well, yeah. There are hits and there are hits and then there are hits. It's random but there's still going to be a distribution and an expected value for the "typical" hit.

I've not seen a sub shrug off an 800 kg. bomb, though. I want one of those subs!
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”