Firefighting Distant Guns vs Jutland

[Lempereur1]

Some here think that damage by on-board fires in Distant Guns is to harsh. As in all commercial wargames, be they board or computer, the simulation systems used in the game is a reflection of the opinions of the game designer.

In this case, Norm Koger is one of the foremost experts on the Russe-Japanese War, that I have ever met. It is his view that the rate of fire damage in Distant Guns is historically acurate. The ships of that era were tinder boxes. We respect the view point of those who differ, but we feel the fire damage rate is just about right.

In our soon to be released Jutland, the fire damage rate is less because the ship construction far better.

Some have also compared Distant Guns to a "more realistic damage" naval game by another company. In a recent review of this same game by veteran reviewer Bill Trotter, and I quote "the game should broken down for parts and sold for scrap".

You may not agree with all of our conclusions, but we feel that our games are the very best naval battle simulator on the market.

 

[Enforcer]

You may not agree with all of our conclusions, but we feel that our games are the very best naval battle simulator on the market.

I agree.

And if Distant Guns is the product of someone who knows A LOT about the RJW and tries to implement it in his game, then I believe it is more or less correct.

thanks

 

[Heinz Fischer]

Well I don't know. I mean, is there anyone here who's had to fight a fire on an RJW ship?... I'd be inclined to take it for accurate in the game, especially considering that what I know seems to suggest that fire was the main nemesis of ships in that era.
And honestly, once I saw the importance of this factor, I simply started giving it more tactical consideration and watching fire levels very, very carefully.

 

[Rhetor]

Some here think that damage by on-board fires in Distant Guns is to harsh. As in all commercial wargames, be they board or computer, the simulation systems used in the game is a reflection of the opinions of the game designer.

In this case, Norm Koger is one of the foremost experts on the Russe-Japanese War, that I have ever met. It is his view that the rate of fire damage in Distant Guns is historically acurate. The ships of that era were tinder boxes. We respect the view point of those who differ, but we feel the fire damage rate is just about right.

Appreciating Mr. Koger's expertise, one might get an impression from the game that the accuracy of practically all artillery has been increased in Distant Guns. Is it so, or am I wrong?

With more shells hitting a ship at a given time, and with accurate representation of fire damage, the ship actually becomes more vulnerable than it was historically accurate.

 

[TBR]

Speaking just for me it's not the danger posed by fire, the additional systems damage incurred by it and the fact that (in RJW most) ships get lost due to fires that I object to. All those are realistic effects. What I criticize is the mechanism you use to bring this about, the great killing of the crews. Fires in DG kill upwards of 80% of the crews, sometimes in a matter of just some two dozen minutes. Part of why you need to do this is, I think, that "crew" in DG represents more than just sailors but also the pumping/firefighting/damage control systems, like for instance the pumps or the firefighting main.

Since you did not model pumps or electric switchboards as critical hit locations and don't seem to model fire on a compartment by compartment basis you don't have catastrophic events like "The fire has reached the pump room in compartment XI, we lost all forward pumping capacity" or "The aft magazine has reached critical temperature, we have to flood" but need a way to represent and gradually reduce damage control and pumping capacity.

As to the mentioned "other" game, this is an extremely buggy arcade game with a certain appeal, but being extremely bugridden and not anymore supported one has to warn people off of it. It's arcade nature is obvious even in it's "simulation mode" and it should not be seen as a simulation. The damage model has some interesting features but also very obvious and glaring deficiencies. Despite of my criticism of DG's damage model it is, by my reckonning, far superior. If anyone does not know the "other" game alluded to, myself being a customer and not a competing producer, I feel able to name it: it's Pacific Storm Allies.

 

[Enforcer]

I think TBR is very right about this issue of too much "fire-consuming"

Let's have a look at the historic numbers of Tsushima:

appr +- 4000 Russians lost their lives.

If we were to stage exactly the same battle in Distant Guns, I bet the numbers of men lost (in particular due to fire on the ships) would be more, waaaay more. at least 1,5 times as much?

 

[rgreat]

Historically most of humal losses in RJW was due to direct explosions, ship sinking/people drowning, and not due to fires itself.

 

[HReardon]

Most of humal losses in RJW was due to ship sinking/people drowning, and not due to fires itself.

I'm curious, is there a contemporary documentation of the breakdown of casualties? I would have thought that hard to determine after a sinking? I would not expect each body washed up to be autopsied to determine if drowning or smoke inhalation was the cause of death?

I just accept the crew losses to fire to be an abstraction of all the factors TBR listed, and curse myself for not managing the damaged ships better as the little balls turn red.

 

[rgreat]

In russian literature there are alot of documented losses due to direct shell explosions and splinters, and due to immediate fires caused by direct hits into gun turrets.
Also there are cases of alot people dying due to ship sinking, but i found no accounts about quick and catastrophic losses caused by fires themselfs.
I have to correct my previous post, there was large crew losses by fires themselfs, but not a quick ones.

Btw, in real Tsushima times each russian BS were under heavy concentrated fire ranged from 35-45minutes minimum to 4 hours before ships lose ability to keep formation and was forced to fall out from battle line. Of cause all of these ships have large fires.
But even with largest of fires there are notes about some parts of ships was still habitatable and crew continue fighting.

For example BB Knyaz Suvorov was under fire from 14.15, fall out of line around 15.00, and the was fighting untill around 19:00. There was large fires of stored coal, but ship was under control and even fighting back untill last torpedo attack.
There are accounts about around 75% losses on it.

I can't imagine DG BB last 4 hours under combined attack of a full battle line and later by torpedo boats.
Not after 95% of its crew lost after first 10min of 'uncontrollable fires'.

 

[HReardon]

I can't imagine BB last 4 hours under combined attack of a full battle line and later by torpedo boats in DG.
Not after 95% of its crew lost after first 10min of 'uncontrollable fires'.

I have to agree with this point, my losses certainly seem to occur much quicker than 4 hours. I don't get too worked up about it though, I have yet to see a perfect wargame, and the gameplay itself is pretty good. I don't have enough patience to spend hours (virtually) pounding one ship anyway. My battles tend to turn into free-for-alls with enormous loss of capital and lives on both sides.

 

[Heinz Fischer]

I think one thing that's a little odd is the notion of 'casualties' - perhaps it's just not clarified enough in the game. I personally never thought of the casualties = KIA, but on the other hand they are, for all purposes, permanently taken out of the fighting. Perhaps SES would be willing to expand on how exactly the casualties figure came to be?

 

[Bullethead]

Historically most of humal losses in RJW was due to direct explosions, ship sinking/people drowning, and not due to fires itself.

Saying that the fire "kills" the crewmen is an over-simplification that I myself use. I should rather say that fire, plus incoming shells, removes crewmen from the effective roster in various ways. IOW, not all the "casualties" shown in the current vs. original crew size are really dead or wounded. In the case of fire, consider that some of the crew will likely be trapped in various unimportant compartments, and that internal communications with others will likely be cut, so that neither can contribute much to saving the ship.

 

[vs18]

I'm curious, is there a contemporary documentation of the breakdown of casualties?

Yes - here it is.

 

[PepsiCan]

I don't suppose there is a translation somewhere?

And at L'empereur and Bullethead: given that the simulation of how fire affects damage and death, is there a possibility to give a more in debt account of how the system works in the software? Based on Bullethead's last account it may be a bit more complex then many of us so far understand.

It could help us understand things better and make a better judgement on how close some us feel this is to reality. May be there is an alternative way of doing something that can then make it into a new release.

 

[Double Whisky]

given that the simulation of how fire affects damage and death, is there a possibility to give a more in debt account of how the system works in the software? Based on Bullethead's last account it may be a bit more complex then many of us so far understand.

It could help us understand things better and make a better judgement on how close some us feel this is to reality. May be there is an alternative way of doing something that can then make it into a new release.

Second this completely :clap:

 

[Double Whisky]

I don't suppose there is a translation somewhere?

I can read the Russian, but I can not open the file with a statistics

 

[rgreat]

Translated:
Total Russian losses at sea in RJW:

Known losses:
Wounded or dead: 2888 (79.3%)
Сontused: 408 (11.3%)
Burned: 170 (4.7%)
Suffocated by gases: 118 (3.3%)
Shock: 25 (0.7%)
Heatstroke: 4 (0.1%)
----------
Total: 3613

Unknown cases of death (included drowned): 5691
-------

Not so much losses directly from fires (less then 10% of total), unless you want to greatly change proportion in 'unknown' types of losses...

There are clearly stated: Most of losses comes from wounds (up to 93.5% in different battles):
Port Artur 27.01.1904: 83.2%
ShanTung 28.07.1904: 84.4%
Korean passage 01.08.1904: 93.5%
Tsushima 14-15.03.1095: 85.2%

 

[vs18]

I don't suppose there is a translation somewhere?

Have no idea, probably you're right.

I can read the Russian, but I can not open the file with a statistics

If you have problems downloading I can send you the file (along with Commander Schensnovitch memoirs). Otherwise you need DjView reader/plug-in.

 

[Double Whisky]

Have no idea, probably you're right.



If you have problems downloading I can send you the file (along with Commander Schensnovitch memoirs). Otherwise you need DjView reader/plug-in.

I will be happy to receive this - thank You very much

 

[vs18]

I will be happy to receive this - thank You very much

Check your private messages You're welcome.