Carriers Unsinkable

[Flipwillo]

So after putting about 17 hours into this demo (incredible btw), I've only ever seen a single carrier sink, and that's Lexington. The two Japanese carriers in the scenario, and in custom battles, never seem to "die". I just attempted a one vs one custom battle, and my planes managed to sink every single auxiliary ship, but I only got "damaged" for the enemy carrier. I'm fairly certain she was below the waves, as there were no enemy ships around at all.

It seems like hitting them does stop them launching, which is the main goal, but in real life the Akagi was sunk in a single bomb hit, Soryu in three and Kaga in relatively few also. Admittedly most carriers early on were scuttled, and at Midway their carriers were caught refuelling/rearming planes in their hangars, but overall I've hit carriers with 15+ bombers and a number of torpedoes, and yet still at the end of the scenario they're only claimed as "damaged".

[va_ghost]

Unfortunately a DEV already responded that the three Carriers at MW weren't sunk by the US but by their own side. As ideally the game should in the future model fire spreading and aviation gas explosions so it must "sink" Either modeled at time or finished off by others after abandon ship given. (as scuttling lots of extra coding and modeling vs easier to show a sink)

[Flipwillo]

Originally posted by va_ghost:

Unfortunately a DEV already responded that the three Carriers at MW weren't sunk by the US but by their own side. As ideally the game should in the future model fire spreading and aviation gas explosions so it must "sink" Either modeled at time or finished off by others after abandon ship given. (as scuttling lots of extra coding and modeling vs easier to show a sink)

What post did they comment this on? Soryu and Kaga were on fire bow to stern within 6 minutes of being hit, Akagi also was consumed by fire. Even if they didn't fall below the waves they were completely combat incapable and considered "lost". Yes they were all scuttled, but that only involved firing a single torpedo at the abandoned ship, which if the entire ship is ablaze, and all the crew are dead, a single torpedo bomber should be able to accomplish.

Also on this note, the carriers never seem to be slowed much by my strikes, and will keep pacing it out of the combat zone.

[va_ghost]

Originally posted by Flipwillo:

Originally posted by va_ghost:

Unfortunately a DEV already responded that the three Carriers at MW weren't sunk by the US but by their own side. As ideally the game should in the future model fire spreading and aviation gas explosions so it must "sink" Either modeled at time or finished off by others after abandon ship given. (as scuttling lots of extra coding and modeling vs easier to show a sink)

What post did they comment this on? Soryu and Kaga were on fire bow to stern within 6 minutes of being hit, Akagi also was consumed by fire. Even if they didn't fall below the waves they were completely combat incapable and considered "lost". Yes they were all scuttled, but that only involved firing a single torpedo at the abandoned ship, which if the entire ship is ablaze, and all the crew are dead, a single torpedo bomber should be able to accomplish.

Also on this note, the carriers never seem to be slowed much by my strikes, and will keep pacing it out of the combat zone.

"Really, once we dwelve into the details, only Hermes was ever sunk by bombs alone in 1942. All other carriers got certainly disabled to the point of being smoking hulks, and some like Shoho or Ryujo were done for within minutes of the start of the attacks, as near misses probably took their toll too (they do in our game too), but as long as hull integrity isn't at risk, you'll end up with floating carcasses. Hopefully we managed to model that pretty well."

Whereas I I would say Lex was sunk by IJN carrier attacks and all 4 at MW sunk by US attacks as , especially first attack all three were wrecked - mission kill not just disabled. MAYBE could tow out Hiryu but wasn't going to happen. Same with hornet back in south pacific.

Literally Bismark went below the surface because of scuttling charges but it was sunk by the Royal Navy. Same mindset

[Flipwillo]

Originally posted by va_ghost:

Originally posted by Flipwillo:

What post did they comment this on? Soryu and Kaga were on fire bow to stern within 6 minutes of being hit, Akagi also was consumed by fire. Even if they didn't fall below the waves they were completely combat incapable and considered "lost". Yes they were all scuttled, but that only involved firing a single torpedo at the abandoned ship, which if the entire ship is ablaze, and all the crew are dead, a single torpedo bomber should be able to accomplish.

Also on this note, the carriers never seem to be slowed much by my strikes, and will keep pacing it out of the combat zone.

"Really, once we dwelve into the details, only Hermes was ever sunk by bombs alone in 1942. All other carriers got certainly disabled to the point of being smoking hulks, and some like Shoho or Ryujo were done for within minutes of the start of the attacks, as near misses probably took their toll too (they do in our game too), but as long as hull integrity isn't at risk, you'll end up with floating carcasses. Hopefully we managed to model that pretty well."

Whereas I I would say Lex was sunk by IJN carrier attacks and all 4 at MW sunk by US attacks as , especially first attack all three were wrecked - mission kill not just disabled. MAYBE could tow out Hiryu but wasn't going to happen. Same with hornet back in south pacific.

Literally Bismark went below the surface because of scuttling charges but it was sunk by the Royal Navy. Same mindset

I agree, seems like they're quibbling over sunk (destroyed/out of action) and sunk (below the waves). Once the carriers are dead in the water/without crew and unable to launch, that should be a mission kill.

Especially considering things like how at Midway the Japanese counted the Yorktown "sunk" twice. I do think the models are too lenient in terms of how fire spreads and how the carriers never seem to be slowed down much overall.

[H. Guderian]

The carriers likely keep chuggin' because that's a lot of space between the deck and the engines.

I think one problem some people are also encountering is you can't easily stay on station to watch the ship go down. You can do fatal damage to a carrier and it may not sink for some time still.

Another issue to consider is that in the future, someone is gonna model a Musashi. She took how many torpedoes before going down?

So far I am satisfied, a better skilled crew would land more hits and result in more/better sinking.

Also more torpedo bombers would as well - which we have fewest of in this scenario.

[Belrick]

My only game i hit Zuikaku with 8+ bombs in a single strike.
Assumed sunk
Saw that the returning japanese strike just circled the carriers last known position.
Saw that the scouting report had reported only 2 CA and 4DD
Subsequent flights sank both CA. No sign of carrier

Debriefed... carrier listed as damaged. Same points as Yorktowns damage (3 bombs)

OK....

[Belrick]

Originally posted by va_ghost:

Originally posted by Flipwillo:

Literally Bismark went below the surface because of scuttling charges but it was sunk by the Royal Navy. Same mindset

Correction. The RN mission killed the Bismark. The Germans sank their own ship. Proper wording actually matters due to subsequent actions.

e.g: The Japanese Mission killed USS South Dakota. Not sunk her, just with Bismark, she was mission killed. Had the battle gone the Japanese way she too would of been scuttled.
Hiei was scuttled after being mission killed.
Seydiltz was not scuttled after being mission killed because the battle conditions allowed her to limp home.

Now you could argue from a simpleton perspective that proper terminology does not matter. Go ahead, i won't take you seriously but other like minded will.

[Drydock Dreams Games]

Originally posted by Belrick:

Originally posted by va_ghost:

Correction. The RN mission killed the Bismark. The Germans sank their own ship. Proper wording actually matters due to subsequent actions.

e.g: The Japanese Mission killed USS South Dakota. Not sunk her, just with Bismark, she was mission killed. Had the battle gone the Japanese way she too would of been scuttled.
Hiei was scuttled after being mission killed.
Seydiltz was not scuttled after being mission killed because the battle conditions allowed her to limp home.

Now you could argue from a simpleton perspective that proper terminology does not matter. Go ahead, i won't take you seriously but other like minded will.

Please.

First of all, let's be nice to each other. No point being snarky or calling names at the end. Some of what is said here is fact, some of what is said here is hypothesis. Both are fine.

Second, stretching facts is ok too but if you'll do that, let others have their own opinion, Hiei was not exactly mission killed the way Bismarck & South Dakota were. Bismarck & South Dakota couldn't go on with their original mission, that's a fact - but Hiei, circling at 5 knots with her rudder jammed and needing towing, could hardly go on with her life to begin with. Comparing Hiei's ordeal to Sodak's seem a bit extreme, especially when you compare her TROM to Sodak's damage report, which reads "In spite of numerous hits, South Dakota received only superficial damage. Neither the strength, buoyancy nor stability were measurably impaired. [...] Damage to South Dakota did not imperil the ship. Loss of fire control, interior communication and radar facilities seriously impaired her fighting power, particularly in night actions.".

Not sure how it compares to Seydlitz, which had been seriously damaged but still could run away faster than those who were running after her (if you mean her at Jutland). But it's fine, I won't hold it against you. Altogether, let's respect each other's views a bit more, if it can be helped, despite our differing PoVs. Thanks.

Finally, in regard of the game, damage modeling will be tweaked down the road of course, although we're not too far from a good balance here. I don't like ships which sink too fast, and no actual fleet carrier in 1942 sank only due to bombs and fires, that's a fact. Still, arguably our near miss damage influence on floatation is a bit extreme, it helps to compensate for that phenomenon to some extent.

Cheers

[richardscholes50]

Watched a youtuber vid last night and he defo sank a carrier so it can be done,

[SomeoneYouKnow2]

Just implement scuttling and it would solve this issue. Damage control is WAY too powerful, especially this early in the war and especially for the Japanese. They seem to put out ALL fires from bombs given enough time when in reality many of their carriers were completely consumed by fires and had to be scuttled.

Why does it matter that the other side gets the "credit" for a ship sunk by scuttling? Would anyone scuttle a ship that has taken no or only superficial damage? No? The ship has sunk. That's the important thing, not how it was sunk.

[Flipwillo]

Originally posted by richardscholes50:

Watched a youtuber vid last night and he defo sank a carrier so it can be done,

It's a lot easier on a custom scenario with high pilot skill, one wave of dauntlesses can overwhelm the damage control and instakill a carrier if they all hit

[Drydock Dreams Games]

He meant Wolfpack, who sank one of the CarDiv 5 carriers in the Coral Sea scenario with the... Vanilla pilot xp :)

[richardscholes50]

yes thats the one Wolfpack, good vid

[alwaystexan2000]

I was able to sink Zuikaku last night on the hard version of Of Cranes & Patriots - 4 successive strikes with SBDs had left her not moving and slowly taking on water. Very fortunately for me, my fleet actually came with main gun range. The cruisers made quick work of her. I posted the video on reddit tonight https://www.reddit.com/r/computerwargames/comments/1jt8p3j/the_sinking_of_the_zuikaku_task_force_admiral_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button