PDA

View Full Version : Luthier, will ships have complex damage models?



spoonfish
05-19-2004, 03:17 AM
Are ships going to have there own damage modelling? i.e Will it be possible to get a lucky bomb hit on the magazine for example and the ship will blow up? Also, if we can strafe guys on the ground, does this mean the dudes manning guns on the ships can also be killed?

many thanks

spoonfish
05-19-2004, 03:17 AM
Are ships going to have there own damage modelling? i.e Will it be possible to get a lucky bomb hit on the magazine for example and the ship will blow up? Also, if we can strafe guys on the ground, does this mean the dudes manning guns on the ships can also be killed?

many thanks

necrobaron
05-19-2004, 03:21 AM
Yeah,it'd be cool to get a lucky torp hit on the rudder of an enemy ship. We could watch them go around helplessly in circles and then watch the ship be taken out "Bismarck-style". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Not all who wander are lost."

tenmmike
05-19-2004, 03:49 AM
dont know about lucky torps..(the ships are usaly banded by extra armor in that area..the gunners im pretty sure you can kill if i correctly remember luthier post

http://www.2-60inf.com/2-60_crest.gif 84-91

NegativeGee
05-19-2004, 05:45 AM
Lucky torps are worth modelling- two examples of significant WW2 capital ship kills occuring due to them are Bismarck (as NB said) and HMS Prince of Wales.

No amount of armour ever did anything to make the propellers and rudders less than very vunerable.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Col.Thumper
05-19-2004, 08:52 PM
Of course a Lucky Torp hit the USS North Carolina and she kept up with the fleet and never slowed down. The Damage Control Team reacted quickly and isolated the area. It is just amazing that she was able to steam ahead with the fleet guarding the carriers after she took this hit.

luthier1
05-19-2004, 09:04 PM
Ships will have separately damageable components, you'll be able to knock out individual guns or damage individual superstructures.

However we won't model damageable internal components like ammo stores, engines etc - this would require a tremendous amount of effort to pretty much model everything inside each ship to make internal explosions propagate through the ship realistically. Without that we'd for example have an explosion of an aft torpedo tube freely propagate through the ship and take out components that in real life would have been shielded by multiple bulkheads and various other equipment throughout the ship.

I hope I'm explaining this clearly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh, and by the way, just to set everyone's expectations correctly. Individually damageable guns doesn't mean that a single pass with your six .50 cals will take out every single gun on a ship. Ship gunners usually had a fair degree of protection around them, and a few MG rounds fired from hundreds of yards away could rarely do them in.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Yuri_Stupchet
05-19-2004, 09:11 PM
but will you be able to sink a carrier (as in the Battle of Midway) with dive bombing?

Latico
05-19-2004, 09:36 PM
In regards to the Midway sinkings, none of the carriers (US or Japanese) sank immediately. The IJ carriers were set ablaze and left under towering columns of smoke. I'm not sure if they sank on their own later or were scuttled by their screen.

The Yorktown CV5 stayed afloat for 3 days before she finally roled over and sank.

the thing about it is, although the goal was to sink enemy war ships, Damaging them to the point that they had to retire for repairs was the next best thing.

Aztek_Eagle
05-20-2004, 12:25 AM
some sink afther short and long time, and some they had to be torpedo by their own friendly ships as they wouldnt go down, so you can take out of servirce a carrier, and it would be still floating around, hopefully it will be modeled

http://www.angelfire.com/art2/robertosgallery/AztekEaglesig.JPG

Giganoni
05-20-2004, 02:06 AM
I still think even AEP's ship damage model is pretty good. Even the life boats on some of the ships can be individually destroyed. Turrets, masts, cranes, sections of the forecastle, etc can all be destroyed.

NegativeGee
05-20-2004, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
I still think even AEP's ship damage model is pretty good. Even the life boats on some of the ships can be individually destroyed. Turrets, masts, cranes, sections of the forecastle, etc can all be destroyed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. For fun I've set up half a dozen cruisers in formation for each side and a load of static cameras and let them slog it out. All sorts of different outcomes from that and some ships even list as the take on water (like the Niobe AA crusier). It would be nice to see all the ships in PF list when damaged below the waterline.

I should say the Tirpitz is completely bad-*** against enemy capital ships, and normally can kill 4 Marats given a bit of range http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Yuri_Stupchet
05-20-2004, 08:19 AM
so NegativeGee...then which plane was the "epee" according to Gunter Rall?

hehehe

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NegativeGee
05-20-2004, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yuri_Stupchet:
so NegativeGee...then which plane was the "epee" according to Gunter Rall?

hehehe

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haha, good question. As far as Luftwaffe single seat fighters go, the one they didn't make http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

[This message was edited by NegativeGee on Thu May 20 2004 at 08:34 AM.]

Tater-SW-
05-22-2004, 05:21 PM
Great to hear about the ship DMs. This is such an important part of PTO combat, that the more detail the better with respect to ship damage.

Will you have any modelling of fire on ships at all? Many smaller ships were actually sunk by MG fire, fire probably playing a large role (API lighting up the cargo).

Another feature that would be cool to see is that even if crews in exposed gun tubs are hard to actually kill, they would have to duck into their tub to really be safe---suppression might be cool to model. At some low damage threshhold, the guns stop firing for a few seconds, then come right back. When your critical damage happens they stop forever (skip bombers used 50s to supress defensive gunners as well as to damage the ship).

tater

AndrewOC
05-23-2004, 03:53 AM
Capsizes?!
Ships Breaking thier backs?!
WHAT ABOUT subs that raise and lower themselves?

MAstaKFC
05-23-2004, 05:07 AM
As long as they have the Yamato/Musashi, I'll be happy. Both are wicked badass ships, I'd love to try to take that down (and die trying). Or maybe even both at the same time. Hmmmm...average FPS of 2 I'd imagine, once the flak starts flying. Luthier? Please?

Kitakami
05-23-2004, 07:32 AM
I wonder if herr Gunter Rall realizes that a foil or a florett would have been pretty useless on any battlefield where sabers were used (just imagine napoleonic cuirassiers charging with floretts). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Essientially he's saying: "109? Well, it's good for aerial shows and such, but utterly usless for wartime duty". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


As for the actual topic, I really hope that capsizing is included. It was the clearest indication that a ship is going to sink. Normally ships should take their time going under, leaving the player uncertain whether to drop a bomb on that burning wreck or choose more intact target and risk the chance that the damaged ship might turn up again few months later as good as new. There are historical examples of shells and even torpedos being wasted on already doomed ships just because they didn't want to go down, afterall.

And I do hope that the development team finds a way to create some kind of an abstract model for internal damage on ships. How crucial the inclusion of such a model is depends how much aerial attacks on ships the game will feature though.

PS. Is every successful bomb hit going to damage the watertight integrity of a ship? Or is it possible to flatten the superstructure without the ship taking a gallon of water?

PSS. Also is the rate at which ships takes water going to be important. Eg. 3 torpedo hits within 3 seconds could (or would) spell the doom on pretty much any ship used during the war. Too much water coming in in such a short period -&gt; no time to counterflood efficiently -&gt; ship lists beyond help. On the other hand, a ship could technically keep taking torpedo hits until she sinks with even keel if she has enough time to counterflood.

[This message was edited by Kitakami on Sun May 23 2004 at 06:45 AM.]

NegativeGee
05-23-2004, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitakami:
I wonder if herr Gunter Rall realizes that a foil or a florett would have been pretty useless on any battlefield where sabers were used (just imagine napoleonic cuirassiers charging with floretts). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Essientially he's saying: "109? Well, it's good for aerial shows and such, but utterly usless for wartime duty". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm not sure about this Gunter guy, but Gunther Rall was refering to technique, application and fighting style through the scope of Sabre and Foil in the sport of Fencing as an analogy to the two fighter types.

If you believe Herr Rall was implying the Bf 109 was an ineffective air combat plane, I suggest you read up on some of his exploits while flying the type http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Tater-SW-
05-23-2004, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>PS. Is every successful bomb hit going to damage the watertight integrity of a ship? Or is it possible to flatten the superstructure without the ship taking a gallon of water?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would allow for the critical difference between GP and AP bombs, as well.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> PSS. Also is the rate at which ships takes water going to be important. Eg. 3 torpedo hits within 3 seconds could (or would) spell the doom on pretty much any ship used during the war. Too much water coming in in such a short period -&gt; no time to counterflood efficiently -&gt; ship lists beyond help. On the other hand, a ship could technically keep taking torpedo hits until she sinks with even keel if she has enough time to counterflood.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would certainly be neat to see ships have more than simply hit points. Many times during the war pilots returned having sunk ships that made it back to port in reality. It's a tough nut to crack for a game, perhaps each ship has a damage control ability that negates X points of hit every Y minutes.

tater

PS-- did I mention FIRE?

Kitakami
05-23-2004, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
Well, I'm not sure about this Gunter guy, but _Gunther_ Rall was refering to technique, application and fighting style through the scope of Sabre and Foil in the sport of Fencing as an analogy to the two fighter types.

If you believe Herr Rall was implying the Bf 109 was an ineffective air combat plane, I suggest you read up on some of his exploits while flying the type http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bleh! You took my post in a compleatly wrong way. It was written tongue in the cheek.

FI-Aflak
05-23-2004, 04:26 PM
Will you model fires? As you said, most carriers lost in WWII were lost because they got lit on fire, not because their hull lost integrity.

Will you please model a bomb or two starting a catastrophic fire that engulfs the entire ship, leaving a burning mass floating until someone finally puts it out of its misery.

Please? I'll love you forever. I swear.

tfu_iain1
05-23-2004, 06:29 PM
in the case of gunners being killed, especially anti aircraft gunners, surely those killed would be rapidly replaced by other crew members, who might however be less skilled with the weapon in question? i doubt in an attack an AA gun would be left unmanned for long

Freycinet
05-24-2004, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitakami:
I wonder if herr Gunter Rall realizes that a foil or a florett would have been pretty useless on any battlefield where sabers were used (just imagine napoleonic cuirassiers charging with floretts). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Essientially he's saying: "109? Well, it's good for aerial shows and such, but utterly usless for wartime duty". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm not sure about this Gunter guy, but _Gunther_ Rall was refering to technique, application and fighting style through the scope of Sabre and Foil in the sport of Fencing as an analogy to the two fighter types. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, too funny, you "correct" one erroneous spelling with your own erroneous spelling... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

He is called Günther Rall. "U umlaut" as the letter is called. If you insist on not using the letter ü (which can be made with your keyboard or can be copy-pasted from the internet) then at least you should transcribe it correctly as "Guenther Rall".

NegativeGee
05-24-2004, 11:33 AM
Sorry, Kitakami I must have been a bit tetchy when I replied to your post http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif I see the funny side now!


And talking of people being tetchy, Freycinet, I know about the "ü", but had not found one, so I'll borrow yours http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif As to the rest, well, I'm not a german speaker, so to speak, but I' sure you took that into account when you wrote your reply http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!