Matrix Games Forums

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!Command Ops gets a Massive Update!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Non-penetrating hits question

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Non-penetrating hits question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Non-penetrating hits question - 2/28/2009 11:41:13 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1828
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline 		Apologies if this has already been addressed somewhere, but I'm curious if there have been any significant changes made relative to damage caused by non-penetrating hits?
Post #: 1
RE: Non-penetrating hits question - 3/1/2009 12:50:59 AM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad
Apologies if this has already been addressed somewhere, but I'm curious if there have been any significant changes made relative to damage caused by non-penetrating hits?

No. Works same as it always did. If you get a hit, the engine determines where and then compares penetration vs armor (factored by a random). If P > A the routine moves on to the effect routine. Nothing new.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 2
RE: Non-penetrating hits question - 3/1/2009 2:05:56 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2638
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I asked this in the naval thread, but it's more relevant here:

How does AE handle the various ship armor schemes?  Some ships had an "all or nothing" scheme and virtually the entire hull was protected by the deck and belt armors.  Others, though, had partial schemes where the critical areas and enough floatation space were protected and everything else was not.  Then there's the superstructure area, never armored but containing secondary and AA and radar/fire control areas.

Will it be possible to get floatation hits with bombs, as well as System damage even though they may have been fairly light weapons?

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 3
RE: Non-penetrating hits question - 3/1/2009 5:37:32 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8183
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		I always thought that the "all or nothing" scheme referred to ships that had a heavy armoured belt over the critical areas and (next to) no armour anywhere else? 

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 4
RE: Non-penetrating hits question - 3/1/2009 5:38:00 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2579
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		No it doesn't have any model for that and i think that is the biggest issue with AE with the non flight deck armored carriers issue.

I also hope that we will not still see carriers and other armored ships getting 50 hits by 100 or 250kg bombs and almost no damage happens. I imply that with critical and non critical damage now that has been improved.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 5
RE: Non-penetrating hits question - 3/1/2009 9:08:29 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2638
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		bradford,

You're right, of course.  The 'all or nothing' armor scheme protected only the critical areas, as opposed to trying to protect everything.  It's disappointing that AE won't take armor location and thickness into penetration and damage when there's so much effort going into other details, though.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 6
RE: Non-penetrating hits question - 3/1/2009 9:40:28 PM   
CV Zuikaku

 

Posts: 430
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline 		I am great fan of surface combat, and miss many things in current model of it. But you have admit that there were major improvements in naval combat in last 5 years. And if AE improved surface combat further more (as we were told)... I think we'll all enjoy it

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 7
RE: Non-penetrating hits question - 3/1/2009 9:55:02 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 1886
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

bradford,

You're right, of course.  The 'all or nothing' armor scheme protected only the critical areas, as opposed to trying to protect everything.  It's disappointing that AE won't take armor location and thickness into penetration and damage when there's so much effort going into other details, though.


Disapointing? I guess so, but given the people involved in AE I would believe that different armour thickness over different areas is either impossible in the current code or would require such whosale changes to the code that designing a totally new game system would be quicker and or easier.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 8
RE: Non-penetrating hits question - 3/1/2009 10:21:02 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2579
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		I posted this in another thread. I think that there is motives to have hope that AE it is better than the clumsy WITP.

quote:

Actually the new System Damage, Flood Damage, Engine Damage, Fire Damage if done well might mask at least some of problems. I also think that damage to AA and light armored turrets,radar was way too low when a lot of bombs hit a ship and that is not dependent of model but of probablistic values choosen.

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 9
RE: Non-penetrating hits question - 3/2/2009 1:21:48 AM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2638
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		Yes, I find it disappointing that there wasn't an attempt to model how armor only protected parts of a ship, instead of encasing the entire structure with whatever thickness the armor was at its maximum.  Having a 500 lb AP bomb bounce off the armor of a cruiser, or fail to penetrate the flight deck of a carrier, simply because the maximum thickness of the deck at one location was enough to stop penetration, is a big glaring failure in this game.  When the # of torpedoes carried by a CV, and the type of engine needed for a particular fighter type, and the TOE of every ground unit is researched, it just seems to me that something could have been done to make warships more vulnerable to dive bombing attacks.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Non-penetrating hits 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

0.602