ship damage !

[tiger claw]

ship damage !
I feel ships gain damage to quickly.
wile at sea only a few days the damage climbs up at a fast rate.
it is set a little high {i think}.
During the war the US keep it carriers at sea constantly for long stays. dout i could do this in the game.
port repairs tend to be slow which is fine but maybe the first few points could repair quicker just a idear !
{to help my first complant}

VON WEBBER.

[Marc von Martial]

Ships gain increased damage at rough sea or when weather is bad.

[EricLarsen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiger claw
ship damage !
I feel ships gain damage to quickly.
wile at sea only a few days the damage climbs up at a fast rate.
it is set a little high {i think}.
During the war the US keep it carriers at sea constantly for long stays. dout i could do this in the game.
port repairs tend to be slow which is fine but maybe the first few points could repair quicker just a idear !
{to help my first complant}

VON WEBBER.

tiger claw,
I agree ships gain systems damage too quickly and when anchored in port do not reduce low systems damage quickly enough. I find too many ships stuck in port with 1 systems damage point for too long trying to get it back to zero. I've also seen where high damage gets repaired several points at a time which I think is wrong since that should be the hardest damage to repair. I really do not like the random chaos of the ship repair system and hope they do something to fix it in WitP. I would like to see "naval support" squads in naval HQ's that would conduct the repairs and give the player something more quantifiable as far as how much repair a port can actually conduct. Too many times I've had a couple of ships with 1 systems damage in a level-9 port with plenty of supply and a naval HQ only to see them repair nothing for weeks on end. I also think that the naval HQ's with naval support squads should have more control over where surface tf's with BB's and air combat tf's can form up and execute missions from. I regularly keep IJN BB's in Lunga and IJN CV's at Tulagi for fending off and usually eliminating USN bombardment ft's that come to visit Lunga. There should be something that limits a player to keeping BB's and CV's at main ports like Truk, Rabaul, Noumea or Brisbane for repairs and for forming up surface and air combat tf's.
Eric Larsen

[denisonh]

The only time my ships are at zero system damage is the day they arrive in theater. And I sure don't wait for them to get to zero before sending them back out from Noumea after repairs either.

The system damage represents the wear and tear from operation. And some things you just can't seem to fix. A system like that will never be "out of the box" new if it gets used for any appreciable amount of time.

As a mechanized infantry company commander, keeping my 14 Bradley IFVs running even without somebody shooting at us was a full time job (Maintenance is training and training is maintenance). One vehicle had a quirk with the radiator we just could never fix, and another had a consistent problem with its communication equipment. No amount of time working on the bad boys seemed to fix the problems, but they didn't "deadline" the vehicles or make them "non mission capable". So they operated in a less than perfect state.

So if a ship is anything like a armored fighting vehicle, you always seemed to operating in various states of repair.

I don't see it as a major problem and it seems to accurately reflect usage, and wear and tear effects of extended operations or "bad weather" ops (Some of the guys I know in the Navy have told some good "sea stories" about some ships getting beat up in Pacific storms).

It seems that my biggest problem are the torpedoes that swim in the sea....

[pasternakski]

There is nothing wrong with the system damage accrual rates. I, too, get frustrated when my big, bad ships are in the "plus 10" range without having suffered any enemy-initiated damage, but I know that scraping barnacles, re-rigging the rudder, purging the boilers, and refurbishing the captain's polish plates were all part of a sailor's (and a ship's) life during this era.

Pay attention to Marc's comment, too, that your ships will accrue system damage much faster when at sea during foul weather.

Blimey, mates, she's a stinkin' trawler what 'auls fish fer yer livin'.

[Rabbakahn]

Howdy,

Does anybody remember the details of the hurricane that damaged Halsey's carrier fleet? I only remember the vague outline of the event. IIRC, several carriers were damaged quite seriously.

Fred

[denisonh]

Which time? I believe he ran his fleet into a typhoon on two seperate occasions, with a number of ships having to go back to Pearl for major repairs.

[EricLarsen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
The system damage represents the wear and tear from operation. And some things you just can't seem to fix. A system like that will never be "out of the box" new if it gets used for any appreciable amount of time.

I don't see it as a major problem and it seems to accurately reflect usage, and wear and tear effects of extended operations or "bad weather" ops (Some of the guys I know in the Navy have told some good "sea stories" about some ships getting beat up in Pacific storms).

denisonh,
I agree that the systems damage does reflect regular wear and tear from regular usage and should be included. It does seem a bit much at times, but what's really bad is the totally random repair of ships. While it should not be a formula that one can say it will take "X" days to repair "Y" damage points, the repair capacity of ports should be more quantifiable and certain big ships like BB's and CV's should only be repairable at large size 9 ports with major naval HQ's rather than anywhere. I also don't like the way floatation damage is so easily repaired to zero in small ports. I think that the last 5 or 10 points of floatation damage or so should not be repairable anywhere but a major port, as was the case of several USN CA's damaged around Gaudalcanal that had hull repairs done with wood that would float the ship back for complete floatation repairs at Pearl. The last point of systems damage should be more realiably repaired rather than the random chaotic system now in use. I do keep transport ships in port until they reach zero systems damage and have found that it doesn't impair my ability to haul fuel and supplies to the front. Since they have such a slow speed anyway getting that last extra knot of speed for a turn or two really helps.
Eric Larsen

[tiredoftryingnames]

Don't let system damage worry you until it starts changing colors and getting high. As was explained to the beta testers when we complained about system damage, a 0 system damage means everything is working perfect, the ship has a fresh coat of paint and no barnacles are on the hull. Basically once a ship reaches the war zone and starts going to sea you're never going to see 0 again. But a 5 system damage doesn't take away from your combat effectiveness. Just means it's not perfect anymore.

Jason

[Black Cat]

Originally posted by tiredoftryingnames
Don't let system damage worry you until it starts changing colors and getting high. As was explained to the beta testers when we complained about system damage, a 0 system damage means everything is working perfect, the ship has a fresh coat of paint and no barnacles are on the hull. Basically once a ship reaches the war zone and starts going to sea you're never going to see 0 again. But a 5 system damage doesn't take away from your combat effectiveness. Just means it's not perfect anymore.

Jason

I, and others, assumed that system damage counts toward ship damage when it take hits in battle, so a ship with 10 system damage is significantly more at risk then one with 2 or 3.

I have been playing this way.

If this is true it not like the Chief P.O.`s Coffee pot was out or the aft widget is rusting ......and if it isn`t what the point of it ?

Who cares if the paint is faded....why model that in the game ?

It would be useful to know exactly how and why the System damage effect combat results, so we can make informed decisions.

Thanks

[Ron Saueracker]

I agree with EricL about floatation damage too easily repaired. If a ship has it's bow blown off, it should not return to 0% once the flooding is stopped. There should probably be a structure damage level as well, which can only be repaired if sent home. Same goes with specific systems damage, like turrets and such. A destroyed 8" turret was not something that many forward bases could rectify until 1944 on.

[EricLarsen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiredoftryingnames
the ship has a fresh coat of paint and no barnacles are on the hull. Basically once a ship reaches the war zone and starts going to sea you're never going to see 0 again.

Jason

Jason,
It seems that system damage level 1 is the barnacle monster as it always drops the ship's speed one knot. I still think that this should be more readily repaired when anchored in port as the crew should be scraping them off. But it seems like the crew is on perpetual R&R for repair purposes when in port, either docked or anchored. That last point of systems damage takes too long to get rid of. In long campaigns I do wait until transport ships get back to perfect to use them again, allowing the ship to sit in port for a few weeks to get the few points of damage taken care of. I don't wait for that with warships but I do keep them anchored in port as much as possible. I do like the damage system because it does inhibit perpetual usage which isn't historically accurate, but the repair system stinks because it is too random and there's no rhyme or reason behind it. A couple of ships with minor damage can sit in a large size 9 port for a week with no damage being repaired while having a slew of damaged ships in the same port for a week will yield lots of repairs on lots of ships solely because the dumb random system works on the "more-the-merrier" random system. I sure hope they fix this for WitP so that players can imitate what Nimitz did with the Yorktown with the repair blitz that got it to Midway.
Eric Larsen

[Black Cat]

Originally posted by EricLarsen

repair system stinks because it is too random and there's no rhyme or reason behind it. A couple of ships with minor damage can sit in a large size 9 port for a week with no damage being repaired while having a slew of damaged ships in the same port for a week will yield lots of repairs on lots of ships solely because the dumb random system works on the "more-the-merrier" random system. I sure hope they fix this for WitP so that players can imitate what Nimitz did with the Yorktown with the repair blitz that got it to Midway.
Eric Larsen

Exactlly !! and therein is the problem. I`ve had Saratoga sitting alone in Brisbane for 3 weeks and had only 1 point of 12 sys damage repaired.

While the 30+ ships sitting in Noumea are being reasonably quickly if randomly repaired. There is no way to prioritize the damage repair by specific ship now. Could this be looked at for WITP please.

[RevRick]

Sara takes forever to repair no matter where she is. I've had her in Noumea for three weeks without one sys damage point removed. Wasp, Enterprise, and Hornet all dropped two or more in the same period.

My problems with system damage is that it causes a drop in speed far too quickly. I sailed on tin cans that never saw a port period when we were deployed in which anything less than major was never repaired - just minor refit items. - and we did not have a speed drop off anywhere near what happens in the game. BTW, this can had the infamous 1200 psi plants and ran on NSFO - which made them cantankerous as all get out, but we would deploy for weeks at a time from Curacao to Iceland without the problems these guys encounter with keeping the ship up - and that includes time underway chasing the CV's too - for anywhere from two to six weeks of constant ops. From my experience, and others who served in THIS time frame, system damage accrues far too fast and comes off far too slow for minor damage!!! On the other hand, flotation damage gallops off if you can get the beast into a port greater than three. I've saved several ships with greater than 80% damage by anchoring them out in Tulagi. They are ignored by virtually everyone - and some time later sail down to Luganville or even to Noumea, then back to Pearl. Brought the Swayback Maru from 93 percent to Pearl that way. Stout crew, that! I can hear them bragging about that swapping sea stories at the bars in Pearl City.

[XPav]

Back in my day, we didn't have any of this fancy "timber" for shoring up bulkheads. No, we used the dead bodies of our crewmates to used them to plug leaks. Heck, sometimes we even took live people and had them hold the keel together with their BARE HANDS. The rest of us pulled out the oars and rowed back to New York! One handed! The long way, around the Africa! While fighting off Zeroes with rocks thrown from the top of the stacks!

[RevRick]

I'll tell you a real good one, and this ain't no &^%*&% (I really can't go any further now!).... Survey this round, keep!

[John Lansford]

The damage descriptions are way too simplistic. "Floatation" damage can be fixed by a few turns in a harbor, even if the ship has over a 50% damage level. That to me would signify the kind of damage Chicago or Pensacola took from torpedo hits, which required major time in a US mainland port to repair.

Similarly, the "system damage" appears to categorize every other type of damage a ship can gather, from a hit in the superstructure that doesn't affect her ability to float, to the loss of a main gun turret, to the normal wear and tear caused by regular steaming.

It's the same with the hit location tables. A bomb either hits the deck or belt armor, with sometimes a turret getting hit as well. No shell or bomb ever hits the superstructure; when South Dakota fought Kirishima, for example, nearly every shell hit she took was in the superstructure. San Francisco had her superstructure gutted after Hiei used her for target practice, but her ability to stay afloat was not affected.

Finally, if the system damage caused by routine steaming is increased by severe weather, then SHOW ME WHERE THE SEVERE WEATHER IS ON THE SCREEN!!! The navies in WWII knew where the rough weather was; they avoided squalls and storms all the time. Our task forces can't even avoid them when travelling between ports, because no one knows where they are!!

[Mark W Carver]

Originally posted by John Lansford
...then SHOW ME WHERE THE SEVERE WEATHER IS ON THE SCREEN!!! The navies in WWII knew where the rough weather was; they avoided squalls and storms all the time.

I believe Halsey twice, not once, but twice sailed a TF through a storm and lost some ships. He was almost court-martialed for his actions...

[John Lansford]

I never thought that the stormy weather listed in the game was a typhoon, which was what Halsey got caught in and lost some ships (two or three destroyers, I believe, and only because they didn't take on seawater ballast before the storm hit).

I always thought the "stormy" description in the game was the usual bunch of squalls and thunderstorms that pop up near the equator very routinely. If they are supposed to actually be typhoons, then the weather routine is totally screwed up.

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.

[dtx]

SPI's war in the Pacific required constant returns to port to keep ships running. After a certain amount of time, they needed major lengthy overhauls. It was less random than UV, but also less accurate. It makes sense that some sys damage is repaired quickly and some isn't (may be a unique spare part is in short supply and has to be shipped from the US).

As Denison noted, even keeping AFVs fully functional was a challenge during peacetime. During war, the idea that a CV might be running at 99 or 95% peak efficiency makes much sense.