Auxiliary Durability Theory

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

Auxiliary Durability Theory

Post by el cid again »

I find that stock, CHS and RHS are all over the place in regards to durability. We need a consistent theory. First pass:

1) Very small vessels: durability = 1 per hull. [An RHS multi-vessel small craft unit has 1 durability point for every vessel in the unit. Thus, if there are 24 junks it gets 24 points; 60 sampans = 60 points; 48 LCM = 48 points; etc.]

2) Small vessels: durability = 2 per hull. [An RHS MSW or PC too big to rate as durabilty = 1 gets a 2, and the number of points per unit = twice the number of vessels] An extension of this principle might apply to a special case where the vessel was clearly better than the typical 2 case, using 3 in its place.

3) Normal sized vessels: in the size range 400 to 16000 tons - several principles:

a) If the vessel is a simple AK or very poorly manned civil vessel (limited damage control parties and equipment) use
a multiple of 1

b) If the vessel is a AP manned to civil standards use a multiple of 2 (better compartmentation, 2 DC parties)

c) If the vessel is an AP manned to APA or auxiliary (AS, etc) standards, use a multiple of 3 (4+ damage control parties/equipment)

d) If the vessel is an AO, use a multiple of 4

e) If the vessel is Allied, add 10% (better damage control) [Drop fractions]

f) If the vessel is Axis, subtract 10% (worse damage control) [Drop fractions]

g) If the vessel is French (Free or Vichy), Russian or Chinese, it does not get the 10% Allied boost

h) Basic value = cargo rating (grt) divided by 400

4) If the vessel is very large (16,000 to 32,000 grt) use system 3 above but divide by 500

5) If the vessel is gigantic (over 32,000 grt) we have a problem. We have to solve it case by case - because of field limitations a ship may not usually have over the power of 2 = 32K value.
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Auxiliary Durability Theory

Post by m10bob »

Sounds radical, and good.. IMHO, the Indian registry ships should also not get the Allied "bonus"..
While the ships themselves may have mostly been ex Brit, the crews themselves were not dedicated to damage control.
When the Rhona was hit in November 1943, it is estimated 90% of the crew hit the lifeboats.
Image

User avatar
Mifune
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Florida

RE: Auxiliary Durability Theory

Post by Mifune »

I second this motion.
Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Auxiliary Durability Theory

Post by el cid again »

Noted

In the above I should have written GNT - net tonnage - because that is what is rated in the game (at least in RHS)
OR troop capacity (which may be GNT or it may be trooping capacity as such if known - the game code allocating one "ton" per troop).


For an AK Net (cargo) = 25 to 50% of DWT tonnage.
For an Auxiliary it is always less than that, or zero.
For an AO Net (cargo) = 70 to 110% of DWT tonnage - typically 80%.

GRT is a very slippery thing, not directly related to cargo tonnage or troop capacity, and unfortunately the only figure we have. It varies from type to type, with size range, and from ship to ship by a great factor. Since we have worked out the cargo values - we should use these and not worry about the grt - except when adding a new ship. Cargo is typically a high % of GRT - 60 give or take.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”