ship damage !

[denisonh]

Spooky, that is what I have seen.

I had a single carrier TF with the Hornet. Traded strikes with LBA, and recieved 20+ sys damage. Reduced operations would explain why even though my losses were minimal, I lost a large number of aircraft. It's reduced ops (much like an airfield with 20+ runway hits I imagine) wouldn't permit the a/c to land so they ditched.

Somebody may know for sure, but I have never seen a carrier with 20+ damage land all it's a/c from strikes and/or CAP.

[RevRick]

[QUOTE]It's only logical that the harder you run machinery the more often it will need maintenance, but I still think the game overstates that normal wear and tear. [QUOTE]

I agree. USN ships are not as fragile as the game makes it under operating conditions. Tin Cans, Carriers, BB's etc are designed for continuous ops for a goodly amount of time at everything from crusing speed to high speed runs during the course of the day, as when the carrier is conducting flight ops. Some break down faster and some slower, but even the old WWII cans I steamed with in the Med didn't break down as fast as these cans do, and they were 'OULDE' when I was in the Navy - late 60's. They had periods of upkeep, but good grief, we chased the Sara and the FDR all over the MED and didn't have the kind of repair times these ships are having. Granted, no one was shooting at us, but we were in continuous flight op condition most of the time UW chasing those two old ladies around. The only thing not in constant operations on board was the WEPS department - everything else was full bore - OPS, ASW, ENG. What we are missing is the repair ships, tenders, etc, that accompanied the fleet.

[EricLarsen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Lansford
Well, if the floatation rating is based only on flooding, a severely damaged ship, especially from torpedoes, would still not be able to completely fix the floatation rating. Chicago lost her entire bow; that's both a flotation and a system damage loss. Similarly, Pensacola had her back broken by a Long Lance torpedo. The main deck was all that held the two sections of the ship together, yet the ship made it back to harbor after welding some patches over the hole.

John,
In the game only the systems damage would reflect the severe hull damage the Chicago took, the flotation damage would just mean there's water in the hull and when it's fixed the game is saying the water has left the hull. While there's separate damage columns for fire and water there's only the systems damage to account for structural and operational damage which might be a bit much. Throw in that overblown operational damage from sailing around and it's no wonder ships sink so fast. I say tone down the operational damage from sailing around or improve the crew reapir ability for repairing minor damage while at sea. I still think that minor damage ought to come off more quickly in port.
Eric Larsen

[EricLarsen]

Originally posted by juliet7bravo
What the game doesn't do is figure in crew maintenance and repairs at sea. A ship under heavy use will rack up a lot of minor (or not so minor) damage, this is indisputable. But, in UV, none of it gets repaired by the crew, it just keeps piling up and up and up.

And yes, I've been saying it since the game came out...there needs to be a structural damage rating from combat, that will include permanent systems and flotation damage as is pertinent.

juliet7bravo,
Weapons and radar systems can be individually damaged and require separate repair but there is no distinction between structural damage and operational damage since it's all lumped into systems damage. That makes systems damage a bit overstated I think and coupled with poor crew repair at sea and even worse or nonexistent crew repair in port (they seem to be on permanent R&R in port) this makes the systems damage too much of a limiting factor. The limiting factor should be fuel, especially for the IJN, and with unlimited fuel in the game this isn't happening the way it should be.
Eric Larsen

[JohnK]

Originally posted by John Lansford
The understanding of weather and the concept of "fronts" was known back in 1942. It wouldn't hurt to show on the screen where the highest chance for severe weather would be and where it isn't.

There are NO Fronts in the Tropics; There's no steady march of easily-discerned, and measured, fronts from East to West. There's just the erratic wandering of the Intertropical Convergence Zone and associated Thunderstorms North and South, and erratically moving (especially erratic in this part of the world) Tropical Cyclones. There's not even the fairly well defined East-to-West movement of tropical waves that is in the Tropical Atlantic.

And they didn't have any weather satellites either.