Bombs blast radius and the CV/cruiser

[bozon]

I wish the blast radius of bombs hitting the water to be significantly reduced than what it is now.

Why?
CV and cruisers are being bombed by heavy bombers and poorly executed dive bombing. Most of the bombs score only water hits but still do what I believe is normal splash damage to the ships (pun intended). True, blasts are enhanced in dense medium like water, but still in reality bombs in the water did little damage to heavily armored surface vessels and real damage was dealt by direct hits. Ships in AH are an easy target for high flying level bombers that carpet-bomb the ship area, missing it with most of the bombs and scoring very few direct hits, but still do full salvo damage.

The effect on gameplay:
* level bombing of a CV becomes more difficult and rewarding - scoring multiple directs hit favors the bomber that can line up the bombing line with the ship direction. bombs drop from the formation members are likely to miss but still increase the chance of some direct hits. Even using the bombers are kamikaze dive bombers is less effective since the drones will only hit the water and the lead must approach from low alt to make an effective dive bomb run.
* AH recently introduced varied types of bombs. In particular, the classic dive bombers received SAP and AP bombs with enhanced damage and small blast radius. If all bombs had reduced blast radius and require a direct hit or a damn near miss, it would make these loadouts relatively more attractive for anti-shipping - as it should be.
* Damaging a maneuvering ship becomes more difficult - in the current state evasive maneuvers only prevent fighters from taking off and make it more difficult for the 5" guns to defend the ship.

[Lusche]

* AH recently introduced varied types of bombs. In particular, the classic dive bombers received SAP and AP bombs with enhanced damage and small blast radius. If all bombs had reduced blast radius and require a direct hit or a damn near miss, it would make these loadouts relatively more attractive for anti-shipping - as it should be.

IIt wouldn't make a difference The few planes carrying AP/SAP would still be massively outperformed in that mission profile by bombers or heavy fighters. Both in flight performance as well as punch carried.

[gyrene81]

Artik would disagree with you.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,350210.0.html

actually, since without battleships, the only ship that could be "heavily armored" in the existing task groups is the cruiser, Artik's reference shows you're assertions to be false. detonation of a 500lbs bomb within a few yards of a ship hull would cause varied amounts of damage depending on how deep it is and how far from the hull is it at detonation.

[Tank-Ace]

Drop the amount needed to sink a CV to 6000, and maybe.

[bozon]

As I said, blasts inside the water increase the blast damage, but that falls off much faster with distance as the thick medium dissipates the energy - it really helps if you attach the bomb to the hull underwater but in AH you can call this a direct hit. If you insist on more accurate modeling then the underwater blast radius should be decreased and damage within that radius increased. I did not go that far with my wish.

Yes, a very near miss will do damage and this is why the blast radius should not be decreased to zero. It is not accurate that a near miss is better than a direct hit. A direct hit may not breach the hull, but it wrecks total havoc on the ship, effectively disabling it for an extended period. Coastal command sank ships or effectively disabled them till they could be repaired at a dock with just 20mm cannon strafing. The fires and explosions did the rest.

IIt wouldn't make a difference The few planes carrying AP/SAP would still be massively outperformed in that mission profile by bombers or heavy fighters. Both in flight performance as well as punch carried.

Not a big difference, but it still gives them more effective loadout without the disadvantage of lower blast radius. So a P47 will bring more total lbs, but now he will need to hit as accurately as the SBD and not settle for a water splash.
In any case, that was not the main goal of the wish.

Drop the amount needed to sink a CV to 6000, and maybe.

Fine tuning that can be done later. Irrelevant to the wish.

[gyrene81]

It is not accurate that a near miss is better than a direct hit.

where are you getting the idea that near misses with bombs is doing as much or more damage to ships? you must not be seeing something that is happening or you're seeing something that isn't happening. i've had near misses while driving pt boats and sitting in tower on cv's with zero damage...

[bozon]

where are you getting the idea that near misses with bombs is doing as much or more damage to ships? you must not be seeing something that is happening or you're seeing something that isn't happening. i've had near misses while driving pt boats and sitting in tower on cv's with zero damage...

So, you have been bomed in you PT boat in real life?
Where did you serve?

[Tank-Ace]

CVs are difficult enough to sink if they're defended anywhere near befitting of the attackers. Go in low, 5" kills you. Go in high, they have sufficient time to turn the boat.


Personally I've found the most reliable way to hit a CV is to take an F8, since 190s aren't typically seen as order trucks. Go in about 5-7k like you're furballing, dive to pick up speed for the final approach, and slam the 500kg SAP bomb and the 12 rockets into her side.

[gyrene81]

So, you have been bomed in you PT boat in real life?
Where did you serve?

where did you see me say anything like that...we're talking about in an aces high arena right? read it again...

[Eric19]

I can attest to it being to easy to take out a cruiser for sure

I was doing one my normal routine patrol duties in the MA with my trusty SBD dive bomber with the 1600lb AP bomb about 30mins into the flight I notice a carrier group just off the shore I turn in and about 2 minutes later I start my dive in at about 1500ft I drop the bomb and MISSED by a good 100-150yds and I get 3 hard manned guns or whatever the 8IN are called on the cruiser and I get the ship destroyed message with it

the fact is I thought AP bombs had a reduced blast radius I have no idea why it killed the ship I completely missed

although I filmed the sortie I forgot to save it

[MK-84]

I can attest to it being to easy to take out a cruiser for sure

I was doing one my normal routine patrol duties in the MA with my trusty SBD dive bomber with the 1600lb AP bomb about 30mins into the flight I notice a carrier group just off the shore I turn in and about 2 minutes later I start my dive in at about 1500ft I drop the bomb and MISSED by a good 100-150yds and I get 3 hard manned guns or whatever the 8IN are called on the cruiser and I get the ship destroyed message with it

the fact is I thought AP bombs had a reduced blast radius I have no idea why it killed the ship I completely missed

although I filmed the sortie I forgot to save it

I believe that the AP bomb does 150% damage at a much reduced blast radius.  It only takes 2000lbs of damage to destroy a cruiser, which I think is actually the same as a destroyer. (8k for the carrier) someone please correct me if I am wrong.

[titanic3]

IMO, the only way to reduce level bomber effectiveness to that of real life standards (which is next to zero) is to make the bombing procedure of lining up your target and calibrating as inaccurate as it was in real life. Or somehow find a balance that allows hitting stationary targets easy (so that level bombers don't become useless with the small targets we have in AH compared to real life), but hitting moving targets extremely hard. The only bad effect I could think of is that jabos and suicidal dive bombers numbers would increase (vJokersChemist I'm looking at you). To which I propose the idea of limiting the amount of bomb-laden fighters able to take off of a field respective to the field's size (small, medium, large). While allowing level bombers to take off unlimitedly. So the result is that you would see either huge gaggles of level bombers (as it was in RL) in order to make up for inaccuracy, or small groups of jabos. And IMO, it's a hell of a lot more fun to see huge formations of level bombers than the suicidal jabos.

[Eric19]

I believe that the AP bomb does 150% damage at a much reduced blast radius.  It only takes 2000lbs of damage to destroy a cruiser, which I think is actually the same as a destroyer. (8k for the carrier) someone please correct me if I am wrong.

I know MK hence my post it SHOULD NOT have killed the crusier

[MK-84]

I know MK hence my post it SHOULD NOT have killed the crusier

I don't think any bomb save for maybe a cookie has a blast that extends to 150yrds. could the cruiser have been damaged already?  Additionally a 1600lb AP bomb is more than enough to sink a cruiser, so with a near miss that would still suffice.  Distance wise I don't know, because I don't know how damage is lessened from distance, only that it is.  Either the cruiser was already damaged, or you hit alot closer than you think.  It is either one or the other.  The part of you only destroying three hard guns is somewhat telling that it was already damaged.

[kvuo75]

I know MK hence my post it SHOULD NOT have killed the crusier

obviously someone else had hit it before you..

that's why you only saw 3 guns killed.