Shoud Bombardment increase Sys Damage?

[Renegade]

Currently Bombardment is limited only on Supplys. So Players tend to use Bombardment Missions far too often compared to historical use. I think the historical reason for not using B.ment missions so often was not shortage of supplys but the fact that the main gun-barrels of a ship has a limited service life which CANNONT fire unlimited rounds of ammo. So if we add a percentage of sys Damage after every Bomb. mission took place we would be more historical and would slow it down, cause of more often Repairs in Main Ports. I doubt Yamatos 18,1 Inch Gun Barrel copuld be exchanged in a Port Size 3...

What's your Opinion about this matter?

[The Dude]

i agree, it makes sense

[freeboy]

I agree but the figure should be relatively high for use ....
Maybe the navies where, in hindsight, still thinking ship v ship as apossed to using these BBsas floating artillery

[mogami]

Hi, Anyone sending TF's on repeated bombardment missions is doing so dispite the ships increasing sys damage from use. Main guns in WITP carry 9 rounds. Each gun only fires 9 rounds before the ship is out of ammo. On a bombardment mission the heavy guns only fire 1 or 2 rounds per tube. The normal service life for the gun liners of the period was between 300 to 600 rounds per tube. So before a ship would be requiring changing the liner it could conduct 150 to 300 bombardment missions. (WITP style) Last I heard the USN still had several hundred liners for WWII era 16in /45 gun tubes.
If we began tracking rounds expended per tube the impact should be noticed in accuracy not system damage.

Or did I misunderstand and you mean break a gun from time to time?

[freeboy]

mog,
totally agree, accuracy is affected after the liners are shot

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Anyone sending TF's on repeated bombardment missions is doing so dispite the ships increasing sys damage from use. Main guns in WITP carry 9 rounds. Each gun only fires 9 rounds before the ship is out of ammo. On a bombardment mission the heavy guns only fire 1 or 2 rounds per tube. The normal service life for the gun liners of the period was between 300 to 600 rounds per tube. So before a ship would be requiring changing the liner it could conduct 150 to 300 bombardment missions. (WITP style) Last I heard the USN still had several hundred liners for WWII era 16in /45 gun tubes.
If we began tracking rounds expended per tube the impact should be noticed in accuracy not system damage.

Or did I misunderstand and you mean break a gun from time to time?

Are you mixing up reality and WITP? Ships fired more than a few rounds per gun on a Bombardment mission. Come up for air Mog![;)]

[freeboy]

not real rounds ron, the "9" stands for a unit of rounds, so 1 or 2 units of rounds, lets call them groups

now say the first four words of this post quickly

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

not real rounds ron, the "9" stands for a unit of rounds, so 1 or 2 units of rounds, lets call them groups

now say the first four words of this post quickly

But barrel liners were good for how many rounds in real life?

[freeboy]

Well it looks like mog is stating 300 - 600 in real life... or in witp terms 8 -15 groups x number of tubes... ok so that would be roughly ten missions

[mogami]

Hi, The way I understand it is not all ammo can be used versus ship or against shore.
I'll use an Iowa class BB here as example.

Iowa class carry around 400 rounds per turret. (133 rounds per tube) /9=15 rounds per tube per ammo point. Since not ammo all can be used for any one type of targets ships with heavy guns in fact run out of ammo depending on the type of action fought. TF commanders will not bombard below 5 rounds. (a ship with less then 5 rounds is out of ammo for naval bombardments)
These ships cannot reload ammo at sea. So everytime they expend ammo before they can replace it they have to go to a port where at the same time they can service the guns.
It is not easy to keep a BB in the gun line in WITP
They could take part in more actions before gun wear would be an issue then can be accounted for by adding system damage to ship. If we make actally disabling a gun an option thats a differnt matter since I think a ship needs a size 5 port to repair a gun.
But ships only fire 1 or 2 points of their alloted ammo per bombardment mission and this is not enough to say they are wearing out the barrels faster then they can maintain them .

[grumbler]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

They could take part in more actions before gun wear would be an issue then can be accounted for by adding system damage to ship. If we make actally disabling a gun an option thats a differnt matter since I think a ship needs a size 5 port to repair a gun.
But ships only fire 1 or 2 points of their alloted ammo per bombardment mission and this is not enough to say they are wearing out the barrels faster then they can maintain them .

There isn't any "maintenance" of gun barrel liners - they are used until they need replacement.

If I understand your argument, you are saying that system damage can be repaired too easily to make this idea a meaningful limit on the number of bombardment missions run? I am not sure that this is true. If every mission inflicted, say, 5 SYS on the ship conducting it, this would limit the number of bombardment missions run. However, I am not sure what it would be "simulating."

I think a more "realistic" limit would be to raise the supply cost for rearming larger guns (or else only allow bombardment missions to be formed or resupplied in a port with a naval HQ) under the theory that supply is "push" and only a small percentage of shells would be HE, thus requiring a larger supply expenditure (or a specialized supply system) to get that number of HE shells in the right place.

As I think about what I wrote, I think I like the Fleet HQ idea best. Maybe even a fleet HQ with at least 25,000 supply present.

[madmickey]

A BB will fire 6 rounds out of 9 during a bombardment phase. The game should reduce casualties on invasion TF by including BB and limit bombardment to 1 round per phase. In addition air attack on ground units should be more efficient.

[Tankerace]

Each gun only fires 9 rounds before the ship is out of ammo.

Also don't forget, this too is gamey. At the Battle fo Jutland, for instance, each ship fired several hundred rounds of 11" and up ammo, in a period of less than 10 hours. If we take HMS Tiger, for instance, she fired 303 rounds in the battle. Divided by 8 guns, that comes out to roughly 38 rounds per gun fired. That is 4.2 times the max rounds carried by any large caliber gun in the game. The only way I would agree cause sys damage during bombardments (or combat in general) would be if ships got realistic ammo loadouts.

[mogami]

Hi, When I said maintain I didn't mean maintain the liners per say but the gun mount overall. In this sense maintain means replace the gun liners as required.

I was a Gunners Mate Guns First Class if we think the guns are being over used then break a gun don't add sys damage to ship. The guns can only be repaired at a size 5 or larger port. A ship can have no system damage and still have a mount or gun out of service.

[rogueusmc]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

...would be if ships got realistic ammo loadouts.

The do really....so many rounds times so many mounts.

[Tankerace]

where is 9 rounds per gun versus 38 rounds per gun realistic?

[Tankerace]

In my experience, one combat round equals 1, or at the most 2 shells fired. That is still at least half of the 38 number I have used.

[rogueusmc]

Yes, but you were talking about 'realistis' loadouts...and there are for our purposes.

[Tankerace]

I was meaning that if you have it where the guns fire off a lot of shells (more than now), then have sys damage. But at the WitP loadouts, its too few to warrant it, IMO.

[mogami]

Hi, I still think system damage is the wrong way to go even if you think the ships are being used to much. Ships already get system damage from staying at sea and from moving at high speed. If you think they are fighting too much start breaking the guns. A player may not go to a port at system damage 7 but knock out one of his gun mounts and he has to go to a size 5 or larger port to fix it and they don't always repair overnight. There will be ships with system 0 but guns damaged. A ship operating in one location may have to make a trip of considerable distance just to get a mount fixed. Break everything (random chance) Radar, depth charge mount , torpedo tube. These things go down all the time.
I'm not sure the game needs this but if the complaint is over using guns why would you add system damage that didn't effect the fire power or accuracy of the ship?