Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[vanir]

Just to be pedantic Murray, the ships classed as battleships in WW1 remaining in service without increased deck armour for plunging fire in WW2, were all reclassified as battlecruisers. The Hood was a battleship in 1917, it was a battlecruiser in 1940 because of this (improved deck armour was planned but it couldn't be drydocked once the war started as it was needed in service).

And the whole reason for that had nothing to do with poor conception, they knew full well about this problem at the time. The reason is because drydocking and building ships takes tremendous expense, industrial resources and a lot of time. This is the very reason surface action fleets were prestigious in military terms in the day, only a major power could build one.
The Navy maxim is this: "you always fight a war with the ships you had at the start of a war." This is a famous and historical quip.

Secondly, I've seen plenty of extended footage of South Pacific air operations against Japanese merchant fleets. Aside from land based strike operations it was the RAAF primary role, most of our fighter pilots spent the whole war doing it so a lot of local war footage concentrates on this aspect.
And very few ships explode to gunfire. Those that do, are specified as to be completely unarmoured merchant ammunition carriers. This is very clear.

[naki27]

Alright, seeing that so many people have said that strafing ships was used for suppression only, why not model it?  When a gun in a ship is hit, it could be forced to stop firing for a period of time, if not permanently.  This would simulate the gunners being killed and replaced, or the gun itself being damaged.

[HundertzehnGustav]

It is already Possible to damage a Gun in the game.
Did that today with a Seafire 4x20mm in a strafing pass on a Jap CV.

This topic is going round and round.
work on the subject has already begun.
https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,17647.0.html

[SAS~Malone]

I think it's just a fundamental game issue, personally.

exactly. it's a flight sim, not a naval sim. 

This topic is going round and round.

tell me about it. for over 5 or so years already. 

[naki27]

I know it is Possible to damage a ship gun with your guns, but it seems like it takes an awful lot of work to destroy one (HG, you mentioned 4 20mm Hispanos.) So you can't effectively supress their fire with small calibre guns by killing gunners, making them dive for cover, etc.  which is what I meant in my other post. 

I think it's just a fundamental game issue, personally.

exactly. it's a flight sim, not a naval sim. 

In my humble opinion, this is a dangerous attitude.  The ships will probably never have perfect modeling, but that doesn't mean they can't be improved.  We should be open to any changes we can make.  This is most definitely not a naval sim, but ships certainly have a big impact in a WW2 flight sim as advanced as il-2, and therefore should not be forgotten or dismissed as unfixable.

[SAS~Malone]

you mistake my attitude, mate - i have always been a staunch supporter of ships and improvements for them since day one.
my comment there is based on the previous comment, which is why i quoted it.
the quote was ''it's a fundamental game issue...''
my comment was based on that sentence alone, and still stands, for exactly that word 'fundamental'
i know how much coding would be required for ships to take accurate damage, or to even just make realistic manouevres - and this sim simply wasn't designed for it.
if the modders can pull it off, more power to them.
i have always supported and helped progress made in this regard, but it seems we can at least agree on the basic fact that this game was designed and built as a flight simulator, and that ships were added more as target value than much else...
please don't assume someone's attitude from one comment....
i will add that you can get some pretty good results by tweaking the settings of the ships.ini file, as per the ship damage mod...

[Wildchild]

.
Did that today with a Seafire 4x20mm in a strafing pass on a Jap CV.

If that's the only gun that can do that there is a problem right there ???

[vanir]

Have to defer to the regulars and staff that are here much more than people like me and see the same crap over and over going around and around with never any resolution, being people simply never have to agree or stop uselessly arguing if they don't feel like it, it has nothing to do with correctness, just stubborness and various other attitudes rather than intellectualism.

Some of us have just waltzed into topics like these and could probably handle arguing a bit more until we're sick of it too, but that's not fair. It's not fair to the regulars, the community which invites us here and gives their time and tangible support, I think we're dumping on them if we don't listen to them and follow their lead when they say, chill out boys, this is redundant.

After 5 pages only to arrive at "machine guns sinking armoured destroyers IRL" I'd say true enough, the discussion aint going nowhere. It's like arguing about the real world physics of lightsabres or whether dragons have to use casting times for spells like wizards.

[Pursuivant]

For the modders still reading this topic, is the "fundamental game issue" regarding ship damage and AI behavior something that can be fixed, or is it something the IL2 game engine is inherently incapable of handling?

For example, would it be possible to "borrow" some of the damage and AI routines for aircraft and apply them to ship models without buggering up aircraft behavior or otherwise causing problems?

Also, while I'm probably showing my ignorance here, it doesn't seem like it would be too much trouble to create slightly more accurate damage models for ships, since you'd just be creating a series of boxes to roughly mimic the placement of vital systems like steering gear, engines, guns and bridge crew. Time consuming, yes, but is it impossible?

[naki27]

Malone, please understand; I did not mean my comment as a personal dig.  I didn't mean your attitude was dangerous.  All I wanted is to make sure that nothing that could potentially be improved was dismissed as impossible, and it looked to me like your comment, the one you quoted, and several were headed that direction.  I apologize if I was mistaken.

I am relatively new here, so I really don't know much about coding or modding or anything of that nature; I'm just trying to contribute my ideas the best i can.  I am still not very familiar with the online community here, so once again I am sorry if I messed up.

[SAS~Malone]

no worries, naki - we're all good, mate. 
as a newcomer, you would probably not have realised how much i have been fighting for this very cause, but it really is a massive undertaking to do effectively.
i think it's possible that we might slowly - very slowly - see advances in this area, but nothing major will happen, i fear.
vanir summed it up quite nicely in his post, though - this is currently an ongoing argument which i've watched over various forums, over various years, and we are still no closer to finding a happy medium...
by all means continue the discussion chaps, as long as it's civil, no problem.