PDA

View Full Version : Us Carrier Deck Damage...



ElAurens
06-19-2005, 09:22 PM
...or lack thereof.

As we all know, USN carriers in WW2 had wooden decks. So why does it take so many direct hits with 250kg bombs to damage the deck? One hit with a 250kg bomb should put a hole in the deck. Period.

So much for reality.

Fennec_P
06-19-2005, 09:24 PM
The deck is handled as part of the hull, which is seperated into fore, middle and aft.

So deck hits have the same effect as hull hits. Superstructure, guns, stacks, are seperate hit locations.

As well, the 'holes' you see in the deck are just for show. Planes aren't affected by them.

ElAurens
06-19-2005, 09:36 PM
So I am correct in thinking that the DM is incorrect.

Fennec_P
06-19-2005, 09:39 PM
Since it was never intended to have seperate deck damage, it's perfectly correct.

Think about it this way, other games have the entire ship as one hit location. Is that incorrect, or a limitation? It is not a failing of the game that it doesn't model damage the way you want, or in as much precision as you want.

BBB_Hyperion
06-19-2005, 09:54 PM
Hmm carrier decks should have the same troubles as land based bomb cratered runways. But then might be possible that no one can takeoff at all from that carrier and it doesnt have repair crews working on it...

LEBillfish
06-19-2005, 10:02 PM
As well, the 'holes' you see in the deck are just for show. Planes aren't affected by them.

That's incorrect...In 3.04 flew many times where you could no longer take off or land as the "deck" showed damage....IOW...was hit enough times the ship was damaged (some even beginning to list).

I agree with EL on this, however also believe the deck barring no further damage should repair in say 15-30 minutes like AAA respawning. Reason being ACC crews had deck repair for that very reason down to a science...called "MOVE YOUR A**!!!"
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh, and think it should be the same for land based runways....What happens when a ship deck is damaged?...Nothing lands or takes off till fixed......Same for ground OR you drive around it.

Was an excellent feature to introduce....just timed to short to be of any value or reality.

Fennec_P
06-19-2005, 10:53 PM
In 3.04 flew many times where you could no longer take off or land as the "deck" showed damage

Cool, didn't know that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VF-29_Sandman
06-21-2005, 05:30 AM
i belive the japanese carriers were more likely to have wooden flight decks than american. i say this cause attacks to japanese carriers from dive bombers were devastating; took less to sink their flattops than vice versa, tho if a lucky bomb managed to hit the ammo mag, bye bye flattop...another thing that should have been added but wasnt.

lbhskier37
06-21-2005, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
i belive the japanese carriers were more likely to have wooden flight decks than american. i say this cause attacks to japanese carriers from dive bombers were devastating; took less to sink their flattops than vice versa, tho if a lucky bomb managed to hit the ammo mag, bye bye flattop...another thing that should have been added but wasnt.

US carriers did have wooden flight decks. I think it was something like 3 250lb bombs that took the Yorktown out of commission. Carriers should be fairly fragile, that's why they are covered in so much flak and surrounded by a large group of support ships.

VW-IceFire
06-21-2005, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
i belive the japanese carriers were more likely to have wooden flight decks than american. i say this cause attacks to japanese carriers from dive bombers were devastating; took less to sink their flattops than vice versa, tho if a lucky bomb managed to hit the ammo mag, bye bye flattop...another thing that should have been added but wasnt.
Pretty much the only carriers serving in the war with armored decks were the British carriers (like the Illustrious) and this no doubt comes from a fine Royal Navy tradition of building eveything to rediculous specifications...but that of course had its advantages.

I think the joke amongst the RN gunner crews was that while everyone else was heading below decks for cover (during kamikazi attacks) the cleaners would be on the deck sweeping debris off the side. Maybe someone else can tell that one better.

So yeah, Essex, Yorktown, and Saratoga class carriers were wooden decked. Under that wood deck was some more serious heavy steel construction. But yeah, all carriers in this game seem to take quite a beating actually...and I never considered that before.

JG53Frankyboy
06-21-2005, 01:11 PM
i think 2000kg bomblaod to sink a large carrier, that is needed in the game, isnt too much. the only problem is that the D3A bombload is so samll - what is correct.

and i think 6 US/japanese ore 14 german Torpedoes are also ok...............................

escort carriers can be sunk with 1000kg ore 2 torpedoes

Tater-SW-
06-21-2005, 03:02 PM
I dislike any simple formula for sinking a large ship. Ideally a CV (since it is more vitally connected to the flight-sim aspect of the game) should have a DM at least as complicated as a large AI bomber, probably as complex as a flight of 4 AI bombers together.

tater

lbhskier37
06-21-2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
i think 2000kg bomblaod to sink a large carrier, that is needed in the game, isnt too much. the only problem is that the D3A bombload is so samll - what is correct.

and i think 6 US/japanese ore 14 german Torpedoes are also ok...............................

escort carriers can be sunk with 1000kg ore 2 torpedoes

Yorktown needed 750kg and 2 (or was it three) Japanese torpedoes to go down.

I'm pretty sure the carrier toughness right now is for gameplay. In real life they couyld send close to a hundred aircraft out after a single large ship and be lucky to get any hits at all on it. In our game single divebombers, or maybe 4-8 if in a co-op will go after a carrier and the majority of them will get hits. In reality if that few were sent, none would ever come back. IMHO this engine isn't really suited for any descent representation of a PTO carrier attack. The ammount of planes in the air, combined with tons of ships all throwing up tons of flak isn't really even possible in this game. The only real carrier opps that can be descently represented in this game are Atlantic ASW escort carriers.