View Full Version : Captain is disabled?
Ok...not that I've been playing this game for long, but I still don't think this is very commonplace, in the game or what happened in reality.
I randomly generated a battle. I ended up with the Kasuga and Nissin. The Russians the Tsesarevich and the Poltava. I thought, ok this isn't too bad, I can make use of my superior speed and rate of fire, and if I keep my distance, I should win. My plan is to cross the Russian's T as many time as I can as I'm faster.
Ok so we're steaming straight torward each other at top speed, and at around 9000 metres the Russians opened fire, concentrating on the Kasuga which was in the lead. Then the luck was evidently on their side, when, at 7000+ metres, a shell that was aimed at the Kasuga missed her, and hit Nissin which was directly behind. The update report her hit by a 305mm, bridge damaged and Captain disabled... I was like :shock:
Now I don't know what effect it will have on Nissin with her Captain knocked out. At first I didn't think it'll matter too much. At least, nothing unusual was visually obvious. Then as the battle continued, I noticed that I'm not scoring too many hits by neither the Kasuga or Nissin. That I find really strange. It's clear to me by now that the poor Russian marksmanship, though historically accurate, is not factored into the game, but the Russians scored so many times more than I did, even though I had a higher rate of fire. From what I remembered, Kasuga's 254mm didn't score one hit, ever!
Very soon both my AC's were moderately damaged and I was like F#43CK IT! I'm not playing this anymore.
Can someone explain this to me?
Fairweather
27 May 08, 15:05
Bear in mind that while Kasuga and Nisshin are "Armoured Cruisers", they are far more lightly protected then battleships. You may have been hitting the Russians, but not penetrating their armour. Also, shooting beyond 5000m is a waste of ammo. But I suspect someone more knowledgable than me will answer soon.
Firestorm
27 May 08, 15:07
When I play it also seems like the Russians either have greater accuracy or are just way too lucky. During one game as the Japanese I was chasing down the 1st Pacific Squadron breaking out from Port Arthur. It was my 6 BB's and 8 AC's against 5 Russian BB's (two got sunk by torpedoes from the Destroyers in the opening attack on PA). The Russians started firing at long range during the chase at about 10000 m. At 9000m the Mikasa took a 305 mm hit that destroyed her main fore 305 mm gun. Less than a minute later, still at long range, another hit damaged the aft 305 mm gun on the Mikasa. Making her now almost useless in this battle except for as a target. Soon after that at 8000 m the Asahi took a hit that also knocked out her fore main turret. So at this point the Russians had basically taken one of my BB's out of the fight. Reduced the fighting capability of another in half and I hadn't even started firing at them yet! :mad:
When I play it also seems like the Russians either have greater accuracy or are just way too lucky. During one game as the Japanese I was chasing down the 1st Pacific Squadron breaking out from Port Arthur. It was my 6 BB's and 8 AC's against 5 Russian BB's (two got sunk by torpedoes from the Destroyers in the opening attack on PA). The Russians started firing at long range during the chase at about 10000 m. At 9000m the Mikasa took a 305 mm hit that destroyed her main fore 305 mm gun. Less than a minute later, still at long range, another hit damaged the aft 305 mm gun on the Mikasa. Making her now almost useless in this battle except for as a target. Soon after that at 8000 m the Asahi took a hit that also knocked out her fore main turret. So at this point the Russians had basically taken one of my BB's out of the fight. Reduced the fighting capability of another in half and I hadn't even started firing at them yet! :mad:
It always seems as if the enemy computer player is more lucky. Oddly enough, when I play the Russians, I also tend to lose my main guns all too often. Coincidence... or a plague?
Bullethead
27 May 08, 17:40
Can someone explain this to me?
As for the skipper being disabled, that doesn't have too much of an effect. I'm not completely privy to the under-the-hood stuff, but from what I understand, it makes that specific ship somewhat less effective. It doesn't shoot quite as well and it's slower to react to helm orders. I think. But I'm not entirely sure.
As to the gunfire effectiveness, that's kinda complicated. As Fairweather says, the IJN ships in your battle are ACs while the Russians are BBs. In a nutshell, that means that they are more likely to hurt you with any given hit than you are to hurt them. It also means that the Russians have more guns per ship that are likely to hurt you than you do that are likely to hurt them.
OTOH, you have a higher ROF, so you have to potential to get more hits over a given period of time. This can swing the damage/time ratio back in your favor, provided you're close enough that a) you hit most of the time, and b) your hits do the most possible damage. Of course, if you're that close, they're going to be hitting you, too, and those hits will hurt. At the bottom line, ACs vs. BBs is going to be carnage all around if the ACs really want to fight. An IJN AC can beat a Russian BB, but only at close range, which means it's going to be hurt badly in the process.
There's another factor to consider here, too: effective target area. At effective RJW ranges (5km or less), shells don't arc that much in flight. This means that they're not that likely to fly over the target. There's also a lot more dispersion for deflection than you'll see in Jutland (due to improvements in fire control). This means that in RJW times, being end-on to the enemy means you're less likely to get hit, even if you can't return fire with many guns.
So strange as it is to say, having your T crossed beyond about 3km isn't that bad a thing in the RJW. Even though the enemy can fire all his guns, most of them are going to miss your narrow target area. OTOH, while you can only fire a few of your guns, each of them is more likely to hit the broadside of the enemy than any of the enemy's are to hit you. Thus, things kinda balance out. Now, if you get your T crossed inside 3km, you're in bad trouble, because the enemy is going to hit you many more times than you'll hit him, by virtue of having more guns bearing.
Thus, ACs really aren't going to win very often standing off at 5-8km and continually crossing the T of Russian BBs. Neither side is going to hit very often at that range, but the likelihood of hitting, PER SHOT, is probably in the Russian's favor. And at that range, the ACs' hits ain't going to do that much damage to the Russians, whereas the Russian hits are going to usually hurt the ACs.
Bear in mind also that both Russian BBs in this scenario have turreted 2ndary guns. These guns can fire on forward bearings, fire faster than the 12", and can hurt ACs.
305mm guns have a slight better precision compared to 208mm. Also they penetrate armor and hit much harder at long range due to lesser reduction in velocity and larger shells.
So, long range is not a very good idea for AC at 2 vs 2 situation. Especially if you sail broadside.
Kasuga and Nissin are VERY tough AC, about on pair with any russian BB in terms of damage absorbing.
But still, typical BB is more powerful due to superior armament.
Unless you suicide in close, or play off AI tactical weakness or you are lucky, you will not kill BB's.
And if you bring it in close fast it will be mutually assured destruction for all participants. ;)
P.S. 'Total carnage' starts from 3500 meters, or less. More than that is a slow battle of wearing off damage controls. 5000+ meters = waste of ammo for AC.
Ok, so in short, keeping my distance and hoping to get more hits because I have a higher rate of fire was a bad move.
Also, I was under the impression that the specific strenght of each ship is an indication of their individual worthiness in the game and not how good they were in history? From what I read of all the replies, it seems as nobody thinks the two AC's stood a chance against the two BB's.
So strange as it is to say, having your T crossed beyond about 3km isn't that bad a thing in the RJW. Even though the enemy can fire all his guns, most of them are going to miss your narrow target area. OTOH, while you can only fire a few of your guns, each of them is more likely to hit the broadside of the enemy than any of the enemy's are to hit you. Thus, things kinda balance out. Now, if you get your T crossed inside 3km, you're in bad trouble, because the enemy is going to hit you many more times than you'll hit him, by virtue of having more guns bearing.
Yes it was frustrating crossing the "T" beyond that range. I feel like I'm getting hit far more often than the opponent who's having his "T" crossed.
Ok, so in short, keeping my distance and hoping to get more hits because I have a higher rate of fire was a bad move.
Also, I was under the impression that the specific strenght of each ship is an indication of their individual worthiness in the game and not how good they were in history? From what I read of all the replies, it seems as nobody thinks the two AC's stood a chance against the two BB's.
They can stand a chance, but you need some fortune smiling on you then, too. And you better don't count on that :smoke:
Nice and frustrating at the same time about this game is, just like in reality, sea war always depends on luck too, to a certain extent. Where a ball exactly comes down et cetera.
As for Japanese battleships VS Russian battleships. (let's say 2 VS 2) The Japanese are far better and with good tactics and not too much bad luck :p you can probably kick some ass, because you have at the same time better armor, a much better rate of fire, and the Japanese balls are heavier (the 305 mm AND the 152mm ...)
of course I'm talking of ships like Mikasa, Shikishima, Asahi and Hatsuse. Not Yashima and Fuji. Oddly enough these need 4 minutes (!) to reload their guns. The former only 1 minute and 20 seconds. (The "good" Russian battleships 2 minutes)
When I've played DG my 2nd time (august 2006), I sunk Mikasa with 1 lucky 7.000 or 8.000 meters shot. I love DG for making such things possible )
When I've played DG my 2nd time (august 2006), I sunk Mikasa with 1 lucky 7.000 or 8.000 meters shot. I love DG for making such things possible )
Care to tell us more of what happened?
Firestorm
28 May 08, 15:11
When I've played DG my 2nd time (august 2006), I sunk Mikasa with 1 lucky 7.000 or 8.000 meters shot. I love DG for making such things possible )
That happen to me also in one game shortly after I bought it back in 2006 when just for one time only I opened fire at 10000 m with just Mikasa on the last Russian Battleship in line which I think was the Peresvyet. On the third savo from the Mikasa one of the 305 mm shells hit just behind the aft turret on the Peresvyet. To my amazment the Peresvyet exploded and went down in less than 30 seconds. Since then I've only seen one other Battleship explode in one of my games and it was when a severly damaged Retvizan took a final torpedo hit.
Fairweather
28 May 08, 15:54
Taking about flukes, when playing as Japan, 2 Russian Battleships (Retvizan and Pobyeda I think)blew up in one battle. Retvizan wasn't even targeted at the time. Range was about 4000m.
Having played Tsushima numerous of times, I've also experienced exploding ships by a single hit.
I lost the Mikasa due to one hit from the Suvarov.
And in better times I sank the Navarin with a lucky long range shot from about 9000 meters.
I can't help wondering what criteria SES uses for this to happen.
Which places are very vulnerable? Or is it just a random process?
Firestorm
28 May 08, 18:48
I can't help wondering what criteria SES uses for this to happen.
Which places are very vulnerable? Or is it just a random process?
I would think it would happen more often when you are firing from longer range as a plunging shell would more easily penatrate the deck which is more lightly armoured (if at all) than the more heavily armoured sides. Of course at longer ranges you are less likely to get a get a hit at all.
Its the plunging shellfire. You're far less likely to hit at long ranges because of very limited fire control systems. However, the chances of getting a magazine explosion are higher because none of these ships had much in the way of deck armor. All of these ships were designed to get in close and pound away at each other. Ramming was still considered one of the best ways to sink a battleship due to the flawed lessons from the battle of Lissa.
Care to tell us more of what happened?
The shell from Tsessarevich or Retvizan hit Mikasa's deck at high angle very close to her forward 305mm turret.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.