|
Post by janxol on Apr 19, 2021 12:59:35 GMT -6
I can't see how a dud bomb, striking 5.5" of flight-deck armor with no penetration or special damage, set off a fire in readied aircraft which were in a hangar 'below' that armor. Even if the aircraft were on deck, wouldn't the protection keep the damage mostly confined above the hangar? There might actually be an explanation - see 'Taiho' for the intersection of bad luck, poor training and strange circumstances. But in an event as apparently random and strange as this, the game would have to give me more details of an explanation before I would buy it. This is clearly a CTRL-ALT-DEL moment. It sounds like something out of a parody movie like 'Hot Shots'. Bomb hits and goes "THUNK... hssss." In the hangar a pipe running across the ceiling is knocked loose. A crewman flips a switch to run avgas through it, which cross-connects somehow to the fire sprinkler system, spraying avgas everywhere. It explodes just as Our Hero launches off the catapult... An asterisk next to the hit would indicate that the bomb penetrated the armor in which case you ahve an unexploded ordnance smashing into the fueled planes and I can see that doing damage. The question would be "how plausible is that penetration"
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 19, 2021 13:07:19 GMT -6
I mean what you just described is pretty much exactly how carriers work in this game, Director. They can't control fires even when given every advantage, every second bomb hit causes a fire, CAP often takes HOURS longer to get into the air than enemy land-based air does, they refuse to sail in any direction other than into the wind, often delivering them straight to the enemy guns on a silver plate, and as I've mentioned, I once lost a carrier that was never once shot at to a random avgas explosion. Edit: Also, ctrl-alt-deleting is for suckers. Save-editing a battle in the middle of the battle is much faster than fighting the entire battle again. Yes, but it is perhaps not how carriers should behave. As for the CTRL-ALT-DEL, yes I do frequently save during missions. I have on one occasion edited the file. As far as it being for 'suckers', well - you do you. oldpop2000 - And yet, since the bomb was a dud there was no explosion... I understand that strange things can happen. I just think that in the case where a dud sinks a fleet carrier the player deserves a lot more explanation than 'fires out of control'.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 19, 2021 16:44:07 GMT -6
I mean what you just described is pretty much exactly how carriers work in this game, Director. They can't control fires even when given every advantage, every second bomb hit causes a fire, CAP often takes HOURS longer to get into the air than enemy land-based air does, they refuse to sail in any direction other than into the wind, often delivering them straight to the enemy guns on a silver plate, and as I've mentioned, I once lost a carrier that was never once shot at to a random avgas explosion. Edit: Also, ctrl-alt-deleting is for suckers. Save-editing a battle in the middle of the battle is much faster than fighting the entire battle again. Yes, but it is perhaps not how carriers should behave. As for the CTRL-ALT-DEL, yes I do frequently save during missions. I have on one occasion edited the file. As far as it being for 'suckers', well - you do you. oldpop2000 - And yet, since the bomb was a dud there was no explosion... I understand that strange things can happen. I just think that in the case where a dud sinks a fleet carrier the player deserves a lot more explanation than 'fires out of control'. However, director, the explosives are still in the shell and must be deactivated to prevent the explosion accidentally. Many duds have failed to explode but when handled or moved or anything, they go off. This is especially true on a carrier deck or hangar when the crews are trying to tidy up.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 19, 2021 17:43:09 GMT -6
Here is the actual bomb damage report on the HMS Illustrious. I thought it could be informational and possibly useful towards improving the game dynamics. Y'all the experts, not me. www.armouredcarriers.com/adm26783/2014/10/16/illustrious-january-10-damage-report-bomb-shellExtracts: Hit No, 2: Probably 500 Kg. (1100 lb.). Went through the flight deck forward on the port side.
Hit No. 5: - 250 Kg, (550 lb.) or 500 Kg. (1100 ib.) Hit the star-board forward corner of the after lift well.
Hit No. 6: -001Kg. (gi00 lb.) Pierced the fight deck and burst on hangar deck.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Apr 19, 2021 19:38:17 GMT -6
And yet, since the bomb was a dud there was no explosion... I understand that strange things can happen. I just think that in the case where a dud sinks a fleet carrier the player deserves a lot more explanation than 'fires out of control'. I don't think it's ever been made clear if "dud bombs" include bombs that undergo low-order detonations or "fizzles", or if duds are supposed to only be complete non-detonations.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 19, 2021 20:56:48 GMT -6
And yet, since the bomb was a dud there was no explosion... I understand that strange things can happen. I just think that in the case where a dud sinks a fleet carrier the player deserves a lot more explanation than 'fires out of control'. I don't think it's ever been made clear if "dud bombs" include bombs that undergo low-order detonations or "fizzles", or if duds are supposed to only be complete non-detonations. That is actually a good point, and the team should investigate or at least provide some information. But I understand that that might be too much detail. I will leave that to the team.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 20, 2021 5:03:54 GMT -6
The problem is not whether duds produce fires or not
the problem is that aircraft or fuel lines on fire instantly means your carrier is lost 99.9% of the time
since aircraft explosions (almost gauranteed when the carrier is on fire or hit) always cause fire status 4 and multiple other planes are on deck in addition to that the aircraft exploding causes structure damage which reduces damage control effectiveness
in short when hit you get fire status 4 and your ship is instantly lost
i dont mind dud bombs causing fires or minor fires but a dud bomb (whether a fizzle or not) should not instantly put my ship to fire status 4 with half my structure destroyed
just to point to real life franklin had 33 aircraft fully fueled and loaded of which 13 tons of bombs and rockets went off in and on the hangar on top of several tonnes of fuel and aircraft AND 3 enemy bombs and in addition to that an unsecured fuel line which blew out most of the hangar and ignited every aircraft in the hangar and made 5 tiny tim rockets along with several other munitions go off (with 250kg warheads) with tiny tims flying around in the hangar until exploding one being a dud and getting stuck in the roof of the deck
she survived yet in game i can loose a carrier to 1 aircraft catching fire on the deck
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 20, 2021 7:36:04 GMT -6
The problem is not whether duds produce fires or not the problem is that aircraft or fuel lines on fire instantly means your carrier is lost 99.9% of the time since aircraft explosions (almost gauranteed when the carrier is on fire or hit) always cause fire status 4 and multiple other planes are on deck in addition to that the aircraft exploding causes structure damage which reduces damage control effectiveness in short when hit you get fire status 4 and your ship is instantly lost i dont mind dud bombs causing fires or minor fires but a dud bomb (whether a fizzle or not) should not instantly put my ship to fire status 4 with half my structure destroyed just to point to real life franklin had 33 aircraft fully fueled and loaded of which 13 tons of bombs and rockets went off in and on the hangar on top of several tonnes of fuel and aircraft AND 3 enemy bombs and in addition to that an unsecured fuel line which blew out most of the hangar and ignited every aircraft in the hangar and made 5 tiny tim rockets along with several other munitions go off (with 250kg warheads) with tiny tims flying around in the hangar until exploding one being a dud and getting stuck in the roof of the deck she survived yet in game i can loose a carrier to 1 aircraft catching fire on the deck I understand your point, but how really hard do you think it is to duplicate what is in real history. Franklin was a one off action and she never served again. She was scrapped in 1966. Here is her detailed damage report. Her and the Bunker Hill never served in the active service after the war. USS Bunker Hill was moored on a dock at the end of the runway at North Island and used by NEL as a test bed. I drove by her on a regular basis on the way to the Flight Test area of the depot. Eventually she disappeared. www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-franklin-cv-13-war-damage-report-no-56.html
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 20, 2021 9:05:26 GMT -6
Franklin and Bunker Hill were given a complete rebuild and could have served in the post-war navy had they been needed. Look, we can quibble over what a dud is, and whether a fizzle can reach through 5.5" of armor to light off aircraft (that's a heck of a fizzle). We can talk about whether or not a dud explodes later - atop 5.5" of armored deck. We can call on lightning bolts, meteorites, gremlins and spontaneous human combustion, I guess. The point is: in this game as it currently stands, an armored flight deck is a wasteful use of tonnage because a bomb that the game itself calls a dud, which the game says does not penetrate the armor, which the game says does not light off aircraft on the deck because there is no deck park, SOMEHOW magically lights off aircraft in a hangar on the other side of 5.5" of armor plate, and in that case NO AMOUNT of experience, planning, foresight, damage control ability or anything but sheer blind random chance can save a fleet carrier from being destroyed. WITH NO EXPLANATION other than 'dud bomb' and 'fires out of control'. I understand that this is how the game works but I do not find it believable or reasonable. Some tweak in the fire rules went astray. I don't think these results were intended. I do think - hope - that the mistake will be rectified. But, hey - let's leave off the 'maybe it was...' talk. These results are not explainable by conventional means. Can we just agree that, in some cases, an armored flight deck currently is not very useful due to a broken game mechanic and the damage control part of carrier ops needs some more work? Sometimes you just have to say the emperor's clothes are a bit on the skimpy side.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Apr 20, 2021 9:20:42 GMT -6
I'll bring this subject up in our internal Beta threads for discussion and some analysis - no promises, but we will look at/revisit this.
|
|
ilyusin28
New Member
I'm Japanese,so I can't write English well.
Posts: 35
|
Post by ilyusin28 on Apr 20, 2021 10:00:28 GMT -6
As internal data, is the Japanese Navy set to be vulnerable to fire? As a result of the war with Britain in 1943, we lost three aircraft carriers to fires started by a single bomb. All three ships had two-inch armored flight decks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 20, 2021 11:12:52 GMT -6
Franklin and Bunker Hill were given a complete rebuild and could have served in the post-war navy had they been needed. Look, we can quibble over what a dud is, and whether a fizzle can reach through 5.5" of armor to light off aircraft (that's a heck of a fizzle). We can talk about whether or not a dud explodes later - atop 5.5" of armored deck. We can call on lightning bolts, meteorites, gremlins and spontaneous human combustion, I guess. The point is: in this game as it currently stands, an armored flight deck is a wasteful use of tonnage because a bomb that the game itself calls a dud, which the game says does not penetrate the armor, which the game says does not light off aircraft on the deck because there is no deck park, SOMEHOW magically lights off aircraft in a hangar on the other side of 5.5" of armor plate, and in that case NO AMOUNT of experience, planning, foresight, damage control ability or anything but sheer blind random chance can save a fleet carrier from being destroyed. WITH NO EXPLANATION other than 'dud bomb' and 'fires out of control'. I understand that this is how the game works but I do not find it believable or reasonable. Some tweak in the fire rules went astray. I don't think these results were intended. I do think - hope - that the mistake will be rectified. But, hey - let's leave off the 'maybe it was...' talk. These results are not explainable by conventional means. Can we just agree that, in some cases, an armored flight deck currently is not very useful due to a broken game mechanic and the damage control part of carrier ops needs some more work? Sometimes you just have to say the emperor's clothes are a bit on the skimpy side. Agreed. Let's let the team evaluate and make the decision. Once that decision is completed, let's leave the subject alone. Keep in mind that there were 24 Essex class carriers including the Ticonderoga class long hull Essex. The government was trying, at the end of the war to reduce defense spending so they prioritized on the newest Essex's and retired the damaged and oldest. This is just what we do in the game.
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 20, 2021 13:13:45 GMT -6
williammiller - Thank you, William - I'd just like to say again that I'm sure the issue was neither intentional nor made from lack of knowledge of the subject. It... just grieves me when I only have a few carriers and this happens. @ilyusin28 - the only built-in vulnerability I know of is the British tendency to magazine explosions, and that tapers down after it occurs. #oldpop2000 - agreed. My info says the USN kept Franklin and Bunker Hill out of service precisely because they had seen so little service. There was an on-going desire to give them a massive re-work, sort of a super-Oriskany refit, but.., carrier size matters, and after the supercarriers came into service another pair of Essexs (Essexi?) just weren't needed. I rarely play the US, though I do sometimes play the USA/CSA variant. 24 fleet carriers... my oh my.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 20, 2021 14:39:38 GMT -6
I would think Essexes would be the most likely English plural form of Essex, following the pattern of 'sex, sexes,' 'box, boxes,' and 'suffix, suffixes.'
Essexi is unlikely as the -i plural form usually occurs when the word either is or looks like it could be second declension in Latin (which typically means the English singular form ends in -us), but if 'Essex' is the nominative singular form of a Latin word then we're most likely looking at third declension and the (nominative) plural form would probably be something like Esseges (following the pattern of rex, regis), Essices (following the pattern of codex, codicis), or Essectes (following the pattern of nox, noctis).
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 20, 2021 16:50:11 GMT -6
Essexi was intended as a joke. I apologize for not making that sufficiently clear.
|
|