Durability Question
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:55 pm
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.
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.