Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Ships too Fragile in AE???

 
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 >> Ships too Fragile in AE??? Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 5:25:04 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
Only 70 US Destroyers were sunk by the Japanese in all of WWII, yet I just saw almost 10% of that number sink in one attack (AE, the real game AAR)? It seems either ships are too fragile or Japanese torpedoes are a wee bit over rated!!

US Ships Sunk
Source http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq82-1.htm
Post #: 1
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 5:41:34 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8172
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Only 70 US Destroyers were sunk by the Japanese in all of WWII, yet I just saw almost 10% of that number sink in one attack (AE, the real game AAR)? It seems either ships are too fragile or Japanese torpedoes are a wee bit over rated!!



Or Fog of War is on...

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 2
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 5:48:28 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Only 70 US Destroyers were sunk by the Japanese in all of WWII, yet I just saw almost 10% of that number sink in one attack (AE, the real game AAR)? It seems either ships are too fragile or Japanese torpedoes are a wee bit over rated!!

US Ships Sunk
Source http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq82-1.htm


Bombing and shelling very rarely sank warships. The expected number of Japanese torpedoes to sink an American DD was 2, but that includes the later classes. The damaged length from a Long Lance was about 80 feet, with a flooded length of about 160 feet--about half the 341 foot LPP of early-war DDs--so you needed two to get enough flooding to sink them or to break their back.

Note that American destroyers were more resistant to torpedo damage than RN cruisers!

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 3
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 5:51:00 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3614
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Only 70 US Destroyers were sunk by the Japanese in all of WWII, yet I just saw almost 10% of that number sink in one attack (AE, the real game AAR)? It seems either ships are too fragile or Japanese torpedoes are a wee bit over rated!!

US Ships Sunk
Source http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq82-1.htm


That may be true but the losses were not necessarily even over the entire war. Most were lost in two periods: 8/42-11/43 and in the first eight months of 1945. So this does not seem to be and odd result. Almost the entire ABDA Naval force was wiped out in a five day period

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 4
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 5:53:14 PM   
rroberson

 

Posts: 2050
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Only 70 US Destroyers were sunk by the Japanese in all of WWII, yet I just saw almost 10% of that number sink in one attack (AE, the real game AAR)? It seems either ships are too fragile or Japanese torpedoes are a wee bit over rated!!



Or Fog of War is on...



Or you aren't reading a history book and are playing a game "based" on history which means you can change the outcome depending on your strategy so you could well sink a lot more then just 70 US destroyers. I hate threads like this, if I wanted the game to play out "exactly" how the war did...I would read one of the 50 plus books on the Pacific War I have in my library.



_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 5
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 6:11:11 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41460
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
pad152, please don't base a general assumption about the whole game on one PH attack which several people have already told you was extraordinary.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 6
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 6:33:05 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9863
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
I hope most people on this board know what a "Bell Shaped" curve is and what it means. Sometimes results will end up in one of the two tails.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 7
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 7:17:01 PM   
Jones944

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 3/3/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jones944
I'm not really sure why people are basing any opinions off of one combat result file. Are they trying to make the game developers wish they hadn't posted this AAR? If after 20 battles there is a discernable pattern then someone should say something, but after one attack? Wow.


Who's basing any opinions about anything, I'm simply discussing flak in the game. I posed a question (which is yet to be answered) and then replied to a question posed to me. I discussed the assumption the numbers weren't FOW, they very may well be FOW and my point is mute.

But if the numbers we see aren't FOW, then my point is a salient one. Or are you saying we shouldn't critique the game at all until after release? Kind of a tall order for a bunch of guys sitting around drooling as we await the release.

Jim

People will say and critique what they want, this being the internet and all. My point is simply that basing any opinion off of one data point is specious at best. Guys sitting around drooling are known for their speciousness, though, I'll grant you that.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 8
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 7:49:25 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jones944
People will say and critique what they want, this being the internet and all. My point is simply that basing any opinion off of one data point is specious at best. Guys sitting around drooling are known for their speciousness, though, I'll grant you that.


Now you understand. You work with what they give you, and if all they give you is one data point, you'll be slobbering all over it until they give you your second data point to slobber over.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Jones944)
Post #: 9
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 8:13:53 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 36880
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Based on my experience, ships are not too fragile in AE.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 10
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 8:39:06 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
I'd rather have more fragile ships, as long as the silly WITP uber Betty/Allied 4E bomber hit rates have been drastically reduced!

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 11
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 8:43:04 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25897
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

I'd rather have more fragile ships, as long as the silly WITP uber Betty/Allied 4E bomber hit rates have been drastically reduced!


Agreed.

The AE team previously covered how the effect of hits has been increased while the % of hits has been greatly reduced, bringing the relationships more in line with reality.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 5/14/2009 10:23:42 PM >

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 12
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 10:10:42 PM   
IronWarrior


Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Or you aren't reading a history book and are playing a game "based" on history which means you can change the outcome depending on your strategy so you could well sink a lot more then just 70 US destroyers. I hate threads like this, if I wanted the game to play out "exactly" how the war did...I would read one of the 50 plus books on the Pacific War I have in my library.



To each their own, I find the exact opposite and enjoy seeing threads like this. I would argue that it isn't really "based" on history if you end up getting incredibly unrealistic results. I don't mind "what-ifs" and don't want an exact simulation, however those "what-ifs" need to be in a historically realistic context for me.

The same discussions are happening about COG:EE. In a current pbem, playing as France I took 63k casualties one turn, during a conservative seige. This amounts to a Borodino, which was the bloodiest action of the Russian campaign.

I am in the realism camp, with possibilities of "what-ifs" such as what if the Prussians didn't show up at Waterloo. That is a what-if I can stomach. A what-if that crosses the line and seems silly is what if Borodino was fought every day for a month and take the resulting casualties.

Bottom line... I agree with the OP if it is indeed the case. Even if it isn't and it is due to FoW, it is still a good point to bring up.

< Message edited by IronWarrior -- 5/14/2009 10:11:06 PM >

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 13
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 10:17:08 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41460
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Maybe you need to consider the fact that this game has been worked on for several years, by some of the best-informed, sharpest minds on this forum, and that maybe, just maybe, they've got a good grasp of naval history and know what they're doing.

Notice I say "they", not "we"... I get seasick on a wet pavement, and know diddly-squat about naval history.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to IronWarrior)
Post #: 14
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 10:28:14 PM   
IronWarrior


Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe you need to consider the fact that this game has been worked on for several years, by some of the best-informed, sharpest minds on this forum, and that maybe, just maybe, they've got a good grasp of naval history and know what they're doing.

Notice I say "they", not "we"... I get seasick on a wet pavement, and know diddly-squat about naval history.


I'm not saying that they aren't. I was arguing against the philosophy that realism is somehow bad in wargaming. The OP brought up a good point and gets lambasted for it. Are the developers above listening to feedback? or?

Seems like noone can critique or give feedback on a Matrix game without offending someone.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 15
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 10:30:53 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41460
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
<sigh...> We are not above "listening to feedback", but you're not being fair in your criticism, by making a sweeping generalization based on a single combat result. That's a knee-jerk response on your part, rather than a considered critique.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to IronWarrior)
Post #: 16
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 10:49:36 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 36880
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Seems like I should re-post this here:

Extrapolating anything from one combat report, especially with FOW, is pretty futile. But, I totally understand why everything is scrutinized and why all the questions are asked. You guys only have these results to go on and curiosity and anticipation are very high.

With that said, I always thought that the surprise attacks on December 7th actually were not typical attacks, in that they had several bonuses/penalties applied for the Japanese and Allies that don't apply on other turns (as long as Surprise is on). I don't think that has changed in AE, so I would be particularly cautious about extrapolating from a Dec. 7th surprise attack to make any assumptions about the game.

I can say for sure though that the last replay of the PH attack that I did this morning 2 BBs were lost and more Japanese planes were shot down. My sense is that the median is about 4 BBs lost, but I've seen just about every possible result. I have no idea what the average flak losses at PH are in AE, haven't really tried to keep track of that, though I know others on the team have spent a lot of time over development fine tuning many parts of the design for historical results, including flak losses.

I encourage you all to ask questions, but I also encourage you _not_ to jump to conclusions.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 17
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/14/2009 11:54:33 PM   
Oldguard1970

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 7/19/2006
From: Hiawassee, GA
Status: offline
Hello Iron Warrior and rroberson,

The "Realism vs. Playability" debate is part of every game designer's world. 

WITP has done a grand job of creating a game with a realistic "feel" to it, and it is obviously being played like crazy.  It manages to do that even with all of the necessary concessions to making a game work.  We moan about Betties with endless supplies of torps.  We groan at the simplified land combat.  We marvel at the imperfections of "logistics in the pacific".  We grumble about "uber-cap" and "land death stars" and the high speed of construction or ship loading, etc.  Yet... I can't stay away from this great game, and I won't until AE comes along and trumps it.

WITP succeeds on the realism scale because of the "feel" and because most things that do happen in the game might have happpened in the war, had other choices been made, or had the element of luck shifted.

I want a game that lets me see what I can do when I am "in command".  The realism has to be good enough to be believable in a make-believe situation.   WITP does that, and I expect AE will, too.

_____________________________

"Rangers Lead the Way!"

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 18
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/15/2009 3:13:13 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Seems like I should re-post this here:

Extrapolating anything from one combat report, especially with FOW, is pretty futile. But, I totally understand why everything is scrutinized and why all the questions are asked. You guys only have these results to go on and curiosity and anticipation are very high.

With that said, I always thought that the surprise attacks on December 7th actually were not typical attacks, in that they had several bonuses/penalties applied for the Japanese and Allies that don't apply on other turns (as long as Surprise is on). I don't think that has changed in AE, so I would be particularly cautious about extrapolating from a Dec. 7th surprise attack to make any assumptions about the game.

I can say for sure though that the last replay of the PH attack that I did this morning 2 BBs were lost and more Japanese planes were shot down. My sense is that the median is about 4 BBs lost, but I've seen just about every possible result. I have no idea what the average flak losses at PH are in AE, haven't really tried to keep track of that, though I know others on the team have spent a lot of time over development fine tuning many parts of the design for historical results, including flak losses.

I encourage you all to ask questions, but I also encourage you _not_ to jump to conclusions.

Regards,

- Erik

This is one of the VERY few places of WITP where I might be considered an expert, given how I replayed that first turn so often. The flak losses for PH were VERY accurate, almost every time, but where it differed greatly was that about 80% of the time, there was not a single US BB sank. The torpedo bombers were very reluctant to use torps. It sounds as though your results are suggesting that has been fixed. However, I will caution, for what little I had of playing, um, the bad guys, that the results when playing the AI, seemed to change quite a bit, so that if you played the bad guys your BB's sank a lot more in that attack than if you played the good guys.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 19
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/15/2009 4:21:04 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I'm not saying that they aren't. I was arguing against the philosophy that realism is somehow bad in wargaming. The OP brought up a good point and gets lambasted for it. Are the developers above listening to feedback? or?


The question is what variability you do believe is realistic? If Japanese pilots were a bit more competent or had just more luck why this shouldn't happen? While the odds should be in Historical result i don't know why this shouldn't happen . Remember that is just enough that a torpedo/bomb hits in another place in a ship to change from some damage to an eventual catastrophic one.

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 20
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/15/2009 6:33:05 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
US destroyers tended to sink after one torpedo hit; look at the battle reports around Guadalcanal.  There are numerous instances of a DD being hit by one torpedo (have no idea how many were 'long lance') and either breaking in half or blowing up.   I'd say more than 80% of the USN destroyers sunk around Guadalcanal sank from one torpedo hit.   While the physical damage radius of a torpedo might be less than half of a ship's length, that doesn't take into account what is being destroyed or flooded by that hit, plus secondary shock damage and loss of watertight integrity in surviving compartments.  A destroyer had little excess flotation or compartmentalization in the first place, so a torpedo strike amidships leaves little left to keep it afloat.

Cruisers, especially treaty cruisers of 10,000 tons or larger, were more resistant to torpedo damage as should be expected, with none sinking from just one hit, although one torpedo hit always did serious damage (bow blown off, significant flooding, etc).  Nearly every USN cruiser sank after two hits, however; while some took more than two before sinking it's likely they would have sunk with just two hits (Helena is the one I'm thinking of, her back was broken after two hits but was hit by a third before sinking).  The Atlanta class was basically a very large destroyer or destroyer leader and was incapable of surviving more than one torpedo hit; Juneau's back was broken by one hit and Atlanta exploded from one or two hits as well.


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 21
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/16/2009 1:34:42 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
I agree with you. I don't see how anybody could believe most DD's survive from a torpedo hit, especially from the most destructive of torps.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 22
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/16/2009 9:53:03 AM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

I'd rather have more fragile ships, as long as the silly WITP uber Betty/Allied 4E bomber hit rates have been drastically reduced!


Actually now that I am learning to play the Japanese, I think the Betty's should be even uberer; the Zero bonus should not end in May '42, maybe more like August '45. The American Carrieres should always be located at Pearl on Dec 7th, without CAP. And I really like the idea of 6 BS being sunk, at a minimum, every time . At least that's a start.


_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 23
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/16/2009 12:07:18 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5372
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

Extrapolating anything from one combat report, especially with FOW, is pretty futile. But, I totally understand why everything is scrutinized and why all the questions are asked. You guys only have these results to go on and curiosity and anticipation are very high.

With that said, I always thought that the surprise attacks on December 7th actually were not typical attacks, in that they had several bonuses/penalties applied for the Japanese and Allies that don't apply on other turns (as long as Surprise is on). I don't think that has changed in AE, so I would be particularly cautious about extrapolating from a Dec. 7th surprise attack to make any assumptions about the game.

I can say for sure though that the last replay of the PH attack that I did this morning 2 BBs were lost and more Japanese planes were shot down. My sense is that the median is about 4 BBs lost, but I've seen just about every possible result. I have no idea what the average flak losses at PH are in AE, haven't really tried to keep track of that, though I know others on the team have spent a lot of time over development fine tuning many parts of the design for historical results, including flak losses.


I agree that there should be some results that lie in the tails of the bell of the bell curve. I don't know how port hits, port supply, and airfield hits, and airfield supply hit, and runway hits relate to one another in the code but if they are distinct from one another (one hit can not fall within two categories) then the attack discussed in this thread seems to sit well beyond the edge of any bell: the number of hits exceeds the number of attacking aircraft (including fighters).

Knocking out 5+ airfields completely and sinking or damaging almost 3 times the number of ships that were hit in the original completely successful raid seems a bit too much.

My biggest problem with results such as these is that for the Japanese Player there is no possibility that the biggest gamble the IJN ever took can turn out badly: the only question anybody has is how good it turns out in each instance.

< Message edited by spence -- 5/16/2009 12:15:00 PM >

(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 24
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/16/2009 2:00:56 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

I agree with you. I don't see how anybody could believe most DD's survive from a torpedo hit, especially from the most destructive of torps.


It depended on the DD class. Fletcher, Sumner, and Gearing class DDs at 2,000-2.500 tons standard displacement did better when hit by a torpedo than some of the pre-war DDs at 1,400-1,600 tons and a lot better than the 4-stackers at 1,200 tons.

Six RN CLs sank after one underwater hit, as did the Ark Royal. Ten IJN cruisers sank after an engine-room hit.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Charles2222)
Post #: 25
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/16/2009 2:07:27 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Six RN CLs sank after one underwater hit, as did the Ark Royal. Ten IJN cruisers sank after an engine-room hit.


I want to say that most IJN cruisers were getting hit by a lot more than just engine room hits when they did finally get their come-uppins. British ships as a whole were oddly lacking in damage control coordination and backup power. Though one needs power in order to coordinate damage control so if it's lost...

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 26
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/16/2009 2:18:49 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Six RN CLs sank after one underwater hit, as did the Ark Royal. Ten IJN cruisers sank after an engine-room hit.


I want to say that most IJN cruisers were getting hit by a lot more than just engine room hits when they did finally get their come-uppins. British ships as a whole were oddly lacking in damage control coordination and backup power. Though one needs power in order to coordinate damage control so if it's lost...


The problems with the RN and IJN ships were design errors, not damage control problems. The Clevelands came close, but the USN was very careful about controlling their topweight.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 27
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/16/2009 2:25:09 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The problems with the RN and IJN ships were design errors, not damage control problems. The Clevelands came close, but the USN was very careful about controlling their topweight.


I dunno, when a 40,000 ton ship sinks from one torpedo, no matter how badly designed (unless built with no WTCs), I consider that a damage control issue.


EDIT:

Granted, large fleet vessels should have aux. power (poor design) but one would hope that since this was the fleet you have to work with, you would train your crews to deal with the unique oddities that might come up on these ships.

< Message edited by Iridium -- 5/16/2009 2:35:52 PM >


_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 28
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/16/2009 2:51:19 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The problems with the RN and IJN ships were design errors, not damage control problems. The Clevelands came close, but the USN was very careful about controlling their topweight.


I dunno, when a 40,000 ton ship sinks from one torpedo, no matter how badly designed (unless built with no WTCs), I consider that a damage control issue.


Which 40,000 ton ship? The Ark Royal sunk by one torpedo was a 22,000 ton pre-war CV. The uninterrupted boiler room flat turned out to be more of a design error than was understood at the time by the Board of Inquiry. The Illustrious nearly sank in the same way.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 29
RE: Ships too Fragile in AE??? - 5/16/2009 5:46:49 PM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Somehow posted to the wrong thread, sorry!

< Message edited by jrcar -- 5/16/2009 5:48:47 PM >

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Ships too Fragile in AE??? Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
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

0.336