HMS Hood....too vulnerable?

[TriskettheKid]

Long time no post. GWX 2 got me back into the game, and I'm loving it.

Anyway, I'm loving the fact that there is now a significant challenge to raiding ports (as opposed to the ease I found with the previous GWX). The way the DDs react now is, again, top-notch.

However, I seem to remember the larger ships, like the Renown-class, the HMS Nelson, the HMS Hood, etc., were supposed to be able to eat a lot of torps (sometimes, as I had found that only the largest of ships needed more than one torp to sink).

So I was wondering, without the Enhanced Damage thing included with GWX2, just how vulnerable is the HMS Hood supposed to be?

Upon a recent venture into Scapa Flow, I noticed that it took 3 torps to down her. The first was the only torp from a salvo of 4 to detonate at the appropriate spot magnetically (they were G7a's running at around 12m, one exploded prematurely, two didn't detonate), and the other two were set for impact around around 5m, one hit fore, just forward of the forward ammo bunker, and the other hit aft, about 20m from the rudder.

While waiting for my torps to reload (and dodging the lone DD that was in the area), I noticed that I had gotten a message, a mere 1h 32min after my last torp hit the Hood. So I was wondering, with Realistic Sinking Time on, and with GWX2, just how vulnerable are the bigger ships supposed to be?

Because, my God......if the ships are as vulnerable as they were in previous GWX editions, with the challenges of the vastly improved ASW...........I just may relapse into my GWX addiction.....

[kenijaru]

enhanced dammage is just eyecandy

also, HMS Hood (for what i've read in the forums here) is known going under with just a few torpedos (2-3)
as HMS Renown is a Battlecruiser (just like HMS Hood) she might be as "fragile" as Hood is.

[Brag]

The other day, Rodney went down with two torpedo hits.

[Stealth Hunter]

King George: 3 Torpedoes to the Bow.

[TriskettheKid]

Hmm.

Well then, I guess the old 1-shot areas should still work for most of the ships. Wonderful!

And, again, WOW, the ASW presents so much more of a challenge now.

AAAAAAAAAARGH! I'm relapsing!

[Tool]

I put 2 torps into the Hood in port (on day 3 of the war no less), and down she went. A 3rd hit just for kicks.. but i'll take the credit..

Tool.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

As kenijaru stated above, the 'GWX - Enhanced Damage Effects' mod, does not alter the actual damage model of the ships. It only alters the visual effects caused by damage.

For matters relating to the actual damage models for the ships in GWX, please refer to the GWX manual.

[Pablo]

Hi!

Three torpedoes (or fewer) could be quite enough to sink a battleship or battle cruiser. From real life:

HMS Royal Oak: sunk by 3 torpedoes from U-47 (Prien)
HMS Barham: sunk by 3 torpedoes from U-331 (von Tiesenhausen)
HMS Repulse: 4-5 torpedoes from Japanese bombers.
HMS Queen Elizabeth: sunk by a magnetic mine emplaced by frogmen
HMS Valiant: sunk by a magnetic mine emplaced by frogmen
Conti de Cavour: sunk by one torpedo from a Swordfish torpedo bomber

Pablo

[Cohaagen]

Only two of those listed were at sea and at action stations, though. That makes a far bigger difference than can be quantified in a mere game. QE, Valiant and the Italian ships were all salvaged as were, of course, many of the ships at Pearl Harbour. Hood goes down very easily given the sheer size of her. 48,000 tons is a lot of displaced water.

I've found that people who play a lot of computer sims and tabletop wargames become fixated on armour schemes, belt thickness, hit points, etc., sort of a "Top Trumps Syndrome" whereas real-life matelots and soldiers take a far more human-oriented view of things. They also have a much better understanding of actual effectiveness of weapons systems, as opposed to claimed effectiveness.

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

King George: 3 Torpedoes to the Bow.

Do you think a real-life captain, having received three hits to the bow, would continue to order maximum revolutions so as to make the torpedo holes bigger and force even more water into the ship, as they do in SH3?

[rik007]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

Only two of those listed were at sea and at action stations, though. That makes a far bigger difference than can be quantified in a mere game. QE, Valiant and the Italian ships were all salvaged as were, of course, many of the ships at Pearl Harbour. Hood goes down very easily given the sheer size of her. 48,000 tons is a lot of displaced water.

I've found that people who play a lot of computer sims and tabletop wargames become fixated on armour schemes, belt thickness, hit points, etc., sort of a "Top Trumps Syndrome" whereas real-life matelots and soldiers take a far more human-oriented view of things. They also have a much better understanding of actual effectiveness of weapons systems, as opposed to claimed effectiveness.

Do you think a real-life captain, having received three hits to the bow, would continue to order maximum revolutions so as to make the torpedo holes bigger and force even more water into the ship, as they do in SH3?

No, I want him to stop and lay still like a duck waiting for my final torp

[RedChico]

Originally Posted by rik007

No, I want him to stop and lay still like a duck waiting for my final torp

*BONG BONG BONG*

Jackpot!!!!

[NealT]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

Do you think a real-life captain, having received three hits to the bow, would continue to order maximum revolutions so as to make the torpedo holes bigger and force even more water into the ship, as they do in SH3?

The Captain of the Titanic did...

[danlisa]

@ All

Every ship in GWX still has a critical hit point. It's a very small and hard to find area but it's still there. So a 1 torp kill is still possible but very unlikely, which is the way Von made it.

[Cohaagen]

Originally Posted by NealT

The Captain of the Titanic did...

I don't recall the Titanic being hit by any torpedoes. It isn't a particularly good example to use - it's not so much a case of comparing apples and oranges, more like comparing apples and bowling balls. It's also the exact opposite of what actually occurred - one of the first things the First Officer on the Titanic ordered was for engines full astern or all stop, depending on which account you read.

Quite a few ships in WW2 lost their bows to torpedoes or weather. It's much more survivable than you might think, certainly more than when a ship loses its stern. HMS Liverpool, HMCS Saguenay, USS Minneapolis, blah blah

[Sigurd]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

I don't recall the Titanic being hit by any torpedoes.

Maybe he means the Lusitania? It was owned by the White Star Line as well, and it was sunk by torpedo.