Wouldn't it be nice to have fatigue or a training mission for ships

[fbs]

You can train everything in the game, except ships. Wouldn't it be nice to have two training missions, for day combat and night combat, for ships and submarines?

[Grit]

I think they already have that. It's called 25 years in the Navy and becoming an Admiral.

[LoBaron]

Hm but this is already there.

Its called "shakedown cruise" and is a chance to increase both exp values of the ships crew at the end of the day when the ship is undocked.

[TulliusDetritus]

What is missed in the game is ships' crews FATIGUE. This was an important factor in Savo Island battle.

[topeverest]

It's Already there...Keep your ships, especially low expereince ships types out at sea for several months, coming into port only when needed. You will get their experiences up to a more satisfied level. works real well with combat ships. Early entry American ships need to be at sea as much as possible prior to a big row. Also take opportunity to have less risky bombardment, ASW patrol, and surface combat before you take on an expereience enemy fleet in a major fight.

[LoBaron]

Well the peoblem is that this would create a micromanagement hell. How do you include dice rolls that involve crew fatigue?
You´d have to include things like combat readiness, battlestations, weather influence, "percieved" threat,...
 
Nah I think I like it the way it is.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Well the peoblem is that this would create a micromanagement hell. How do you include dice rolls that involve crew fatigue?
You´d have to include things like combat readiness, battlestations, weather influence, "percieved" threat,...

Nah I think I like it the way it is.

Ok, the sailors are super-humans then (the game correctly assumes that pilots and infantrymen get tired though) [:D]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Well the peoblem is that this would create a micromanagement hell. How do you include dice rolls that involve crew fatigue?
You´d have to include things like combat readiness, battlestations, weather influence, "percieved" threat,...

Nah I think I like it the way it is.

Ok, the sailors are super-humans then (the game correctly assumes that pilots and infantrymen get tired though) [:D]

Well its the navy. Nerves of steel and used to sleep 2 hours a day for at least one year. And a captain never sleeps. [:D]

[TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Hm but this is already there.

Its called "shakedown cruise" and is a chance to increase both exp values of the ships crew at the end of the day when the ship is undocked.

Does the ship only have to NOT be docked and be at sea for this to happen, or does it have to be moving?

Otherwise I see no reason to keep any ships you're not using in a port unless they're in range of enemy subs or air power.

[mbar]

Oddly I was wondering about the same thing. Aircraft have pilots. Both the plane and the pilots need to be tended to and micromanaged. But ships are just ships. Seemingly no crew to worry about. Now having said that you might think I'd be for have ship crews and some type of training for them.

As if there isn't enough of a micromanagment quagmire in this UV, WitP, WitP:AE game engine.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

It's Already there...Keep your ships, especially low expereince ships types out at sea for several months, coming into port only when needed. You will get their experiences up to a more satisfied level. works real well with combat ships. Early entry American ships need to be at sea as much as possible prior to a big row. Also take opportunity to have less risky bombardment, ASW patrol, and surface combat before you take on an expereience enemy fleet in a major fight.

Well, that is training by doing it. I argued that doing naval search and training for naval search were basically the same thing for an aircraft crew, and I heard all sorts of arguments of how training for naval search required particular techniques, so that an aircraft crew needs to have a separate train mission through which they will gain experience much faster than just doing naval search.

So, by the same argument, going out on a regular cruise and going out on a training cruise should be different things for a ship. For example, one would expect the ship to use most its ammo during a training cruise, while on a regular cruise there is no expenditure other than fuel.

I mean, I think it was quite common to have gunnery training in WW2. Can't equate that to staying in patrol for 5 years without shooting anything.

[Bullwinkle58]

In a perfect world (maybe WITP2), you'd have work-up periods for ships akin to the current training missions for pilots. From experience, I can say that a pre-deployment work-up probably doubles the combat-effectiveness of a warship, and very little of it is gunnery. Lots of drills, lots of time standing watch, learning your crewmates' habits, figuring out the little quirks of your gear all go to making you a better fighting machine. For the officers, understanding how the CO's mind works and how he intends to fight the ship are also important during this period. In WWII there were fleet training areas off San Diego and San Francisco that I know of, and huge areas near PH as the war moved west. Also lots of bombing and naval gunnery ranges in both oceans.

As for fatigue, I would also vote for this to be a variable, especially for small ships, and mandatory for subs. Currently you can leave a sub at sea for the whole war, except for a couple days here and there to repair minor damage. Men wear out same as gear. R&R was a core part of submarine life in WWII, and absolutely essential to combat effectiveness. I would vote for a massive loss in crew training level if insufficient rest was not provided after a patrol. Same for skimmers, but with different accumulation rates.

It would add another thing for the player to manage, but it's an important thing. If LCUs get tired, so do ships' crews. Fatigue should have to be a consideration in afloat op tempo.

[LoBaron]

Thanks thats interesting info.

And the point in long time fatigue that only depends on time spent at sea is interesting. Its hard to abstract though. When its value depends on things like
ship class this will be tough micromanagement. Shuttling DD´s in and out of CV forces come to my mind for example.
It already takes enough time to micro pilot training already, even if its loads of fun.

Even a slow thinker like me, with limited time for one of his favourite hobbies should be able to finish a GC in less than 5 years. [:'(]

[Chickenboy]

It's an idea with merit. It would also be neat if the game reflected the differences in combat readiness between groups that stayed together for months or years on end (some of the IJN DD squadrons) versus some that were thrown together at the last possible minute (USN at Tassafaronga).

The difference in capabilities to act as a cohesive unit can be striking. This goes beyond individual ship crew skills.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Thanks thats interesting info.

And the point in long time fatigue that only depends on time spent at sea is interesting. Its hard to abstract though. When its value depends on things like
ship class this will be tough micromanagement. Shuttling DD´s in and out of CV forces come to my mind for example.
It already takes enough time to micro pilot training already, even if its loads of fun.

Even a slow thinker like me, with limited time for one of his favourite hobbies should be able to finish a GC in less than 5 years. [:'(]

On deep strikes, the escorts that went with the carriers just sucked it up. There was no real shuffling in and out, until late in the war, when there were large fleet anchorages up front, as at Ulithi.

One thing the game doesn't model, as it woud scramble beginners' minds as well as really flog the DB, is the Task force/group/unit/element system that the USN developed during the war, and still uses today. Formations were organic; they grew and shrank as the admiral directed. The decimal system was used to easily designate the level of formation being talked to in op orders.

So, Task Force 57 might split off a five ship scouting group, Task Group 57.1. That commander, two days and 500 miles later, might decide the tactical situation called for a re-split, so he would form two task units--57.1.1 and 57.1.2. Two days later, TU 57.1.2 runs into a submerged palm log, and one of the ships bends a shaft. Needs to go to PH for repairs. The on-scene commander reports up the chain, all the way to the TF commander, that he's forming task elements 57.1.2.1 and 57.1.2.2, and the latter is departing. At some predetermined longitude (normally) PH-bound TE 57.1.2.2 "in-chops" to a new task force commander, or possibly a fleet commander, and "out-chops" from CTF 57's accountability. All very orderly, everybody knows who they work for all the time.

In the game, you can only subdivide away from a base if there's another TF already formed, either by you on purpose, or as a result of damage (an Escort TF probably.) This makes the game easier, and keeps the DB manageable, but it removes some operational flexibility. Say that 800 miles along on the transit from PH to invade Saipan you realize you need a dedicated ASW TF. In the game, you can't make one without pulling in somewhere, or reversing course. In RL, you just split off a task unit (probably--you can jump levels) and tell it to sprint ahead and look for subs. When it doens't find any, you can leave it in the ASW role, or have it rejoin the TF as anti-air assets.

The above is why Operations Officer is a Department Head job on every USN warship.[:)]

If you could manage ships in and out of TFs on the fly, you could manage fatigue directly. Without it, you would have to absorb penalties in the small boys on long missions. Realistic though.

I don't think there would need to be comlex code to manage this. Maybe just three buckets--large, medium, small. Large CVs down to CAs, plus heavy support ships like ASes. Medium everything from CLs to DDs, inclusive. Small everything else. Maybe make subs their own bucket. I wouldn't worry about fatigue on merchants, but that's me.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

The difference in capabilities to act as a cohesive unit can be striking. This goes beyond individual ship crew skills.

Admiral H. Nelson certainly proved that.

[Rankorian]

I had thought the "Endurance" part of the ship sort of reflected crew fatigue.

[fbs]

Adjusted the thread title to add fatigue too

[CapAndGown]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

In the game, you can only subdivide away from a base if there's another TF already formed, either by you on purpose, or as a result of damage (an Escort TF probably.) This makes the game easier, and keeps the DB manageable, but it removes some operational flexibility. Say that 800 miles along on the transit from PH to invade Saipan you realize you need a dedicated ASW TF. In the game, you can't make one without pulling in somewhere, or reversing course. In RL, you just split off a task unit (probably--you can jump levels) and tell it to sprint ahead and look for subs. When it doens't find any, you can leave it in the ASW role, or have it rejoin the TF as anti-air assets.

This is not true. You can create a new TF at any time. Just go to the TF screen and on the upper right corner you will find the "create new TF" button. I do this all the time.

[CapAndGown]

System damage in many ways has always been meant to abstract fatigue.