Stats conflict due to CV damaged by landing airplane

[IAF.ViFF]

Hi 4Shades.

Appreciate if you could look at the following:


In the last mission 102nd_Bogida had a landing mishap on the Essex. From what I understood he landed fine and caught the wire, but his right wing clipped the structure, and causing his Corsair to pivot right, which in turn caused his prop to touch the control tower, and his aircraft to exploded (IL2 damage model.. nothing we can do about that).

The stats generated the following ship damage and aircraft loss events:

Code: Select all

71	07:55:00	Essex Class CV	USN Fleet 1, Flotilla 1	shot down	102nd-YU-bogida	F4U-1A Corsair	Marine Fighter Squadron 212 - Cactus Airforce, USMC Flt 1, El. 1

72	7:55:00	102nd-YU-bogida	F4U-1A Corsair		Marine Fighter Squadron 212 - Cactus Airforce, USMC Flt 1, El. 1	damaged	Essex Class CV	USN Fleet 1, Flotilla 1

73	7:55:00	102nd-YU-bogida	F4U-1A Corsair		Marine Fighter Squadron 212 - Cactus Airforce, USMC Flt 1, El. 1	damaged	Essex Class CV	USN Fleet 1, Flotilla 1

74	7:55:00	102nd-YU-bogida	F4U-1A Corsair		Marine Fighter Squadron 212 - Cactus Airforce, USMC Flt 1, El. 1	damaged	Essex Class CV	USN Fleet 1, Flotilla 1


123	8:59:50	102nd-YU-bogida	F4U-1A Corsair	Marine Fighter Squadron 212 - Cactus Airforce, USMC Flt 1, El. 1	destroyed			P-47D-22 Thunderbolt	19th Fighter Squadron, 318th FG Flt 2, El. 1

124	8:59:50	102nd-YU-bogida	F4U-1A Corsair	Marine Fighter Squadron 212 - Cactus Airforce, USMC Flt 1, El. 1	destroyed			P-47D-22 Thunderbolt	19th Fighter Squadron, 318th FG Flt 2, El. 3

125	8:59:50	102nd-YU-bogida	F4U-1A Corsair	Marine Fighter Squadron 212 - Cactus Airforce, USMC Flt 1, El. 1	destroyed	102nd-YU-Pirke	P-47D-22 Thunderbolt	19th Fighter Squadron, 318th FG Flt 2, El. 1

126	8:59:50	102nd-YU-bogida	F4U-1A Corsair	Marine Fighter Squadron 212 - Cactus Airforce, USMC Flt 1, El. 1	destroyed	102nd-YU-Shtele	P-47D-22 Thunderbolt	19th Fighter Squadron, 318th FG Flt 2, El. 3

127	8:59:50	102nd-YU-bogida	F4U-1A Corsair	Marine Fighter Squadron 212 - Cactus Airforce, USMC Flt 1, El. 1	destroyed	R_*{64s}Otsu_I	P-47D-22 Thunderbolt	19th Fighter Squadron, 318th FG Flt 2, El. 1

128	8:59:50	102nd-YU-bogida	F4U-1A Corsair	Marine Fighter Squadron 212 - Cactus Airforce, USMC Flt 1, El. 1	destroyed	R_*{64s}Saburo_l	P-47D-22 Thunderbolt	19th Fighter Squadron, 318th FG Flt 2, El. 1

But... 4x P-47 out the 6x P-47 that SEOW decided to destroy were in the air, piloted by humans.

Code: Select all

102nd-YU-Pirke	19th Fighter Squadron, 318th FG Flt 2, El. 1, Aircraft 4	P-47D-22 Thunderbolt (Fighter)	Landed

102nd-YU-Shtele	19th Fighter Squadron, 318th FG Flt 2, El. 3, Aircraft 2	P-47D-22 Thunderbolt (Fighter)	Landed

R_*{64s}Otsu_I	19th Fighter Squadron, 318th FG Flt 2, El. 1, Aircraft 3	P-47D-22 Thunderbolt (Fighter)	Landed

R_*{64s}Saburo_l	19th Fighter Squadron, 318th FG Flt 2, El. 1, Aircraft 2	P-47D-22 Thunderbolt (Fighter)	Landed

Why is there 3 ship damage events? his aircraft exploded only once...
When SEOW decides to destroy aircraft on board, Is there any way to have a check which aircraft are in flight?

Cheers,

[IV/JG7_4Shades]

Hi ViFF,

... he landed fine and caught the wire, but his right wing clipped the structure, and causing his Corsair to pivot right, which in turn caused his prop to touch the control tower, and his aircraft to exploded

No offence to anyone, but the fact is the pilot crashed on landing and caused significant damage to the carrier.

Why is there 3 ship damage events? his aircraft exploded only once...

Because that is what the HSFX logfile recorded.

When SEOW decides to destroy aircraft on board, Is there any way to have a check which aircraft are in flight?

Yes, but it is tricky. Instead, the rationale used by SEOW is that a carrier damage event is unlikely to have been fully repaired by mission end, and may indeed have caused unknown weaknesses in various carrier systems. When planes subsequently land on that damaged carrier, and are taken below decks for rearm/refuel at the end of the mission, these weaknesses can be stressed, causing virtual mishaps and loss of aircraft. The pilots may survive but their aircraft may indeed be lost in accidents and system failures on the damaged carrier. I don't think this is unreasonable. The airframe losses are in proportion to the total damage state of the carrier. So if a pilot crash lands and causes 30% total damage to a carrier, then roughly 30% of the carried airframes will be destroyed. If a carrier is holding 50 airframes, then 30% damage equates to 15 airframes destroyed. In fact you can estimate the amount of damage done in Bogida's case by looking at the numer of airframes destroyed versus the amount left. I haven't done the airthmetic myself, but you Allies can estimate the amount of damage sustained to the ship itself.

It would be better for SEOW to track which carrier the pilots actually land on (rather than where they are ordered to land) and only apply aircraft destruction calculations when their actual landing carrier is damaged during the mission. That way pilots may see that their planned destination carrier is recently damaged so they may divert to a safer carrier nearby (but perhaps incurring an extra refueling delay). However that is a difficult feature to code and I haven't done it yet. Coding volunteers are gratefully accepted.

Cheers,
4S

[Classic EAF19]

I can understand why we have aircraft crashes causing damage to CVs, I guess primarily it gives some credance to kamikaze attacks but at the same time I think it is way way over the top. What follows is just my personal opinion on the matter without causing offence to anyone I hope.

You cannot compare a kamikaze attack with a simple IL2 landing mishap. Perhaps too heavy a landing and the u/c breaks causing the aircraft too explode. Well first lets get one thing straightened out, aircraft in reality do not just explode like they do in IL2, they break, they catch fire but WWII aircraft at those low speeds just do not explode. If simple carrier crash landings caused significant damage to a carrier then the pacific campaign would of taken years longer than it did as the CV's would need major repairs probably after every couple of missions. Another thing to consider is the carrier crews were well trained and expecting crash landings, they had all the gear to hand to quickly put out fires and save pilots and then push the wrecked a/c over the side. All happening very quickly so that the following a/c can continue landing.

We should also consider that the aircraft are made primarily of aluminium, they are coming into land at somewhere between 70 and 100mph, take the carriers speed off of that and we have a closing speed perhaps as low as 40mph. Now we look at the carrier itself, it is made of thick plates of steel. Admittedly the landing deck may well be made of wood but those aircraft were landing at such shallow angles they are most unlikely to cause significant damage to the deck, instead they will just bounce along it perhaps chewing it up a little with their propeller blades, consider also that many propeller blades were not made of metal either but were composite wood construction which is why in the videos below you will see propeller blades shattering on impact.

A quick look on youtube reveals many WWII carrier landing mishaps and one aspect of these stands out more than others, the carrier comes away unscathed 99% of the time, look at the first bit of footage in the video below, its a wildcat landing, well attempting too anyway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpCLeWqY0w

If we did that in IL2 we would simply explode and cause significant damage to the CV but as you can see from the clip above in that first crash in reality little if any damage was actually caused to the CV.

All through that video we see crash landings that are not causing any damage to the CV also a noteable lack of IL2 style exploding a/c. Sure we see a/c catch fire but the crash teams are there and getting to work even before the a/c stops moving. Heres another set of clips

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmxh9RPj ... re=related

again we see a lot of heavy landing mishaps which are destroying the landing a/c but not causing any serious and apparent damage to the CV.

So you see I am of the opinion that the level of damage that a crashing a/c can cause is just simply too high, some may feel that friendly a/c CV damage should be blocked all together but I think that would go too far as without a doubt sometimes things did go wrong. Perhaps the firefighting equipment was damaged in a battle and then an a/c crashlands bursting into flames but without the fire gear working the fire could not be put out quickly and may spread causing further and significant damage.

So perhaps a better solution would be to put a cap limit on the damage a friendly a/c can inflict or an algorithm in the code that looks at the damage it would cause if it had been a hostile a/c and then applies 20% of that damage as it was a friendly making a poor landing (working on the principle that a landing mishap has the aircraft flying slowly and at a shallow angle to the carrier deck, whereas a hostile kamikaze attack is in a steep dive at high speed loaded with fuel and possibly bombs and intent on punching his a/c clean through that deck and into the hangar deck below)

Dont get me wrong I like the systems we have in place but I know I am not alone in my thinking that the level of damage caused by a crash landing is just a little too much to bear, a single crash landing could potentially destroy 30-40 a/c if a CV is fully loaded, which is totally off the mark especially when we consider that the damage event was only logged by the poor coding of the game that has aircraft exploding far more than they did in reality.

Lastly I do agree with Viff, when a damage to CV and aircraft stock event occurs the a/c that are flying in that mission should automatically be protected against damage. Even if the CV deck was awash with flames the a/c could land on another CV. This would mean that only a/c inside the ship could be damaged and also prevent pilots getting credited with killing their own mates who were in fact still flying and landing safely elsewhere at the time the accident occured.

[IAF_Phantom]

Regarding carrier issue, while I agree with Classic and ViFF regarding the general historical behavioral of planes landing on carriers -
SEOW's only input from the log is that a plane exploded on the ship - it could have been a long list of events that may cause significant damage. SEOW doesn't know it was on deck or whatever were the circumstances that caused the plane to explode. Therefore, If the log says that a plane has exploded on a ship SEOW must take this face value and damage the ship accordingly.

I think this should be considered a game "bug", the game knows and can calculate the conditions when a plane should explode on crash landings or when is just damaging itself...


Talking about features, it would be better to have the SEOW track the actual location of the landed planes.
@Shades: sent you a PM regarding the coding.