Durability Question

[Tom_Holsinger]

I request more information on how durability is computed. I ask because the ratings seem counter-intuitive, particularly for pre-dreadnoughts in War Plan Orange. In WITP-AE, there does not seem to be enough disparity between the older and smaller dreadnoughts and the newer larger ones.

Here are some examples - WPO pre-dreadnoughts in the 12,000 - 16,000 ton range tend to have durability in the 80's compared to @ 105 - 110 for 25,000 - 27,000 ton dreadnoughts such as the Wyoming and Texas classes, while the latter in WITP have 104 - 108 durability compared to 150 - 152 for the North Carolina and South Dakota classes. I also very much doubt that an Iowa should have 192 compared to a South Dakota's 152. Sure the Iowa is 25-30% larger, but durability is clearly not merely a matter of displacement.

Note that World War Two heavy cruisers in the 13,000 - 14,000 ton range (Myoko & Baltimore) have durabilities of 52-58 compared to pre-dreadnoughts of the same displacement having 70 - 85.

I realize that durability is a composite of many factors but these ratings do seem odd.

[anarchyintheuk]

Afaik, in ae durability is directly based on tonnage x 4 for BBs and CAs for example.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Tom_Holsinger
I request more information on how durability is computed. I ask because the ratings seem counter-intuitive, particularly for pre-dreadnoughts in War Plan Orange. In WITP-AE, there does not seem to be enough disparity between the older and smaller dreadnoughts and the newer larger ones.

This forum is for AE only, War Plan Orange is another algorithm entirely.

In AE, durability is used for a couple different calculations, so it's not exactly simple. A good 'rule of thumb', for AE, is warships are based on 4 x "listed, standard tonnage", moving down to 3 x "calculated tonnage" for auxiliaries and merchies, with some residing at 2.5 x "calculated tonnage", with a cutoff at 1. The plot bumps are caused by the construction cost model, so some some ship types are adjusted by block and box rules.

pre-dreadnoughts and such are out of scope. suggest you consult the WPO threads.

[Tom_Holsinger]

I checked after anarchy's first reply and the tonnage x4 concept looks correct for WITP cruisers and larger warships. I was thrown off by the fact that the durability ratings are the same in WITP and WPO for those dreadnoughts which both games have in common, with WPO apparently following a different model for non-dreadnoughts than WITP.

I knew that tonnage was not the sole factor used in WITP, though, and JWE's reply confirms that. It is proper to include some fudge factors for ship classes with significant design flaws, for damage control effectiveness disparities, etc. Friedman points out in his USNI books on cruisers that British WW2 cruisers were much flimsier than American or Japanese cruisers of comparable tonnage, particularly against heavy shock.

But tonnage x 4 does seem to be pretty consistently applied for the durability of larger warships in WITP.