Matrix Games Forums

Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patchNew Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge Update
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Editor question ?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War >> Editor question ? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Editor question ? - 8/9/2008 8:14:57 PM   
Mario Vallée


Posts: 344
Joined: 8/9/2000
From: Montreal
Status: offline
Dear SSG,

I would like to know why I see a 0 on every DECK value on every BB & CV when I look at them on the editor ? There is a number for the Belt but not for the Deck. Has you know, those ships have thick deck.

I check for that because on my last 2 game , the Yamato get just a few bombs hit and sank immediately. That is very strange for that kind of monster.

mv

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Editor question ? - 8/11/2008 2:56:51 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline
Mario,

I'll get Alex to give you a reply on this.

Thanks

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to Mario Vallée)
Post #: 2
RE: Editor question ? - 9/7/2008 2:35:01 AM   
Mario Vallée


Posts: 344
Joined: 8/9/2000
From: Montreal
Status: offline


_____________________________


(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 3
RE: Editor question ? - 9/7/2008 1:07:00 PM   
Erik Nygaard

 

Posts: 564
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline
I remember back in the bad old days of the C64, Ian Trout wrote in Run5 that he had by mistake switched the deck (?) values for destroyers and battleships.
Yamato would sink at a whim and destroyers were nearly invincible...
Deja Vu?

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)
Post #: 4
RE: Editor question ? - 9/7/2008 4:04:41 PM   
random_rail

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 3/11/2008
Status: offline
That would be consistent with my experiences on this.  You can bomb the crap out of the DDs and the BBs will just belly up and die on ya.

(in reply to Erik Nygaard)
Post #: 5
RE: Editor question ? - 9/7/2008 6:09:43 PM   
Mario Vallée


Posts: 344
Joined: 8/9/2000
From: Montreal
Status: offline
Help !

_____________________________


(in reply to random_rail)
Post #: 6
RE: Editor question ? - 9/19/2008 2:56:06 AM   
Mario Vallée


Posts: 344
Joined: 8/9/2000
From: Montreal
Status: offline


_____________________________


(in reply to Mario Vallée)
Post #: 7
RE: Editor question ? - 9/22/2008 12:59:56 AM   
alexs


Posts: 417
Joined: 8/27/2003
From: Sydney
Status: offline
Hi Mario,

This is a mechanic we are developing, and that i forgot to remove from the editor.

You can safely ignore it for now - the values just havent been entered yet.

CAW has always had a single armour value to indicate a ships belt / deck armour combined. We have decided to split that up into deck and belt values to more realistically model damage. The single armour value became the belt armour, and the deck armour will require entries. The actual algorithms that use the 2 values are still being fine-tuned, but are nearing completion.

Alex


_____________________________

AlexS
SSG
Support@ssg.com.au

(in reply to Mario Vallée)
Post #: 8
RE: Editor question ? - 9/22/2008 7:25:38 PM   
random_rail

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 3/11/2008
Status: offline
Cool, thanks Alex.  Are there going to be more scenarios in the update?

(in reply to alexs)
Post #: 9
RE: Editor question ? - 9/24/2008 8:11:47 AM   
Sarconix

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 9/23/2008
From: Atlanta, GA
Status: offline
So do you know why Mario might have had his Yamato sink with just a couple of bomb hits? Just bad luck, or a different problem in the hit computation? The real Yamato (and Musashi) took several bombs and torpedoes before going down.

(in reply to alexs)
Post #: 10
RE: Editor question ? - 10/15/2008 5:46:35 AM   
Mario Vallée


Posts: 344
Joined: 8/9/2000
From: Montreal
Status: offline


_____________________________


(in reply to Sarconix)
Post #: 11
RE: Editor question ? - 10/16/2008 3:48:30 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarconix

So do you know why Mario might have had his Yamato sink with just a couple of bomb hits? Just bad luck, or a different problem in the hit computation? The real Yamato (and Musashi) took several bombs and torpedoes before going down.


The Japanese were not very good at damage control, which they saw as akin to defeatism and unworthy of the attention of a true warrior. The USN started the war better at damage control and learned quickly from their early war experience to become even better. The USN trained hard and instituted a program to get rid of flammable materials which were a leftover from from peacetime ways of doing things. They did this because real world experience showed that fire was the real killer of ships.

The Japanese, never very good at confronting lessons from the real world, did none of these things. The result is that a couple of bombs, in the wrong place, have a much better chance of sinking a Japanese ship than an American one.

Sinking in this context includes a ship abandoned and deliberately sunk by its own side.

The other point worth mentioning is that the historical attacks happened just once, whereas ships in CAW are under constant attack, as the web site stats show, so there is a much greater scope for unusual results to show up.

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to Sarconix)
Post #: 12
RE: Editor question ? - 10/17/2008 7:54:22 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
According to Yamato's TROM on Combinedfleet.com, an "uncontrollable" fire occurred in the upper secondary armament magazine aft that could not be contained. This fire was caused by a single bomb, but it is unclear whether or not the failure of Yamato's damage control party (probably owing to broken water mains) was a consequence of the same bomb or one that hit immediately before. In any case, this bomb was either the second or third bomb to hit Yamato, and it would inexorably have detonated her upper secondary magazine, and probably the adjactent 18" magazine next to it. It could be very reasonably hypothesized that Yamato was sunk by two bombs, and that all the rest of the ordnance simply sank her faster yet.

The idea that Yamato or Musashi were relatively durable bomb soaks is largely a matter of the fact that being the biggest target she drew the most fire. In my view, she's the only battleship sunk three times in her final voyage; flooding from torpedo hits put her underwater before her after magazines could explode from the uncontrollable fire. Ironically, modern underwater photography indicates that her forward magazine detonated underwater. Hence "sunk three times."

Edit: Something wierd happened here. I posted this in the "Yamato" thread in WitP and somehow the post wound up in Carriers at War forum. Please dis dis disregard in this forum.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 10/17/2008 7:55:50 PM >


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Mario Vallée)
Post #: 13
RE: Editor question ? - 10/17/2008 8:50:28 PM   
Sarconix

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 9/23/2008
From: Atlanta, GA
Status: offline
Thanks mdiehl and Gregor for the comments... interesting stuff.

Does CAW model poor(er) Japanese damage control? It looks like an editor option, so I guess the scenarios have the Japanese ships set to a lower level?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 14
RE: Editor question ? - 10/19/2008 7:09:50 AM   
Gregor_SSG


Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarconix

Thanks mdiehl and Gregor for the comments... interesting stuff.

Does CAW model poor(er) Japanese damage control? It looks like an editor option, so I guess the scenarios have the Japanese ships set to a lower level?


Yes, damage control is something you set in the editor.

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to Sarconix)
Post #: 15
RE: Editor question ? - 10/20/2008 6:43:04 PM   
Brausepaul


Posts: 464
Joined: 8/11/2004
From: Braunschweig, Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
... Ironically, modern underwater photography indicates that her forward magazine detonated underwater...


Do you have any internet ressources with pictures at hand?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 16
RE: Editor question ? - 11/28/2008 9:02:56 PM   
Mario Vallée


Posts: 344
Joined: 8/9/2000
From: Montreal
Status: offline
Yesterday, the Musashi sank after she received only 2 torpedos.

_____________________________


(in reply to Brausepaul)
Post #: 17
RE: Editor question ? - 11/29/2008 4:08:38 AM   
funkatron3000

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
I had the Yamato go down after one bomb hit and one torpedo hit. The bomb inflicted one fire damage. The torpedo changed every bar to permanently damaged except three, two of which were fire and one green. I was quite surprised.

(in reply to Mario Vallée)
Post #: 18
RE: Editor question ? - 11/29/2008 4:15:24 AM   
Mario Vallée


Posts: 344
Joined: 8/9/2000
From: Montreal
Status: offline
I am sure there is a bug somewhere with those big ships.

_____________________________


(in reply to funkatron3000)
Post #: 19
RE: Editor question ? - 12/2/2008 3:48:27 AM   
Mario Vallée


Posts: 344
Joined: 8/9/2000
From: Montreal
Status: offline
I just made a other test with Midway. That time the Yamato sank with ONLY one torpedo. ONE !

Please do somethink my SSG friends.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mario Vallée)
Post #: 20
RE: Editor question ? - 5/26/2009 9:00:00 PM   
mciann

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
I performed a few experiments, and found the following:

1 - armor (belt or deck) has absolutely no bearing on damage due to aircraft strikes.

2 - the only feature of a surface ship that has any bearing on its ability to sustain airstrike damage is its diplacement, and the relationship is inverse.  If I modify the Yamato class so that it has no armor and displaces 1 ton, it will take about 7 torpedoes or about 15 bomb hits to sink it.  If I set it to 300,000 tons, it takes 2 torpedoes or about 4 bomb hits to sink it.

(in reply to Mario Vallée)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War >> Editor question ? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094