Maintenance ratings for ships

[sventhebold]

A thought struck me earlier today. (Yes Painfull I know)
Why not have maintenance ratings for ships? Airplanes have them.
I was reading about the submarines and the trouble they had with the HOR motors. Let alone any other type of ship also had their own particular weaknesses or just plain faulty construction. Like the early Liberty ships.

[spence]

Pretty sure this is handed by the accumulation of systems/flotation/engine damage as you use your ships. It's very abstract. Individual ship/class evaluation would involve a pretty serious evaluation of the particular engineering/electronics/etc for each class of ship...way too much work for little return.

I'm not sure but I think the game engine was originally designed by a "wingnut". Pilots are evaluated on everything under the sun. Yet the 2500 man crew of a carrier gets one rating for "experience" at night and during the day: like firing AA guns, fog navigation and keeping a steam plant running require exactly the same skills (and vary every 12 hours).

Frankly I think the pilot thing is a bit overdone but there's more than enough micro-management as it is currently. Adding maintenance rating to ships would necessarily subjective and add next to nothing to the overall game besides extra clicks.

Clicks we have enough of I think.

[sventhebold]

True

[BBfanboy]

Right, the service rating is built into the repair times the AI assigns. For example a DD with 2 points of systems damage might take one day to repair while a BB with two points of systems damage would take four days to repair at the same port. I think the tonnage or the durability of the ship figures into the calculation of repair times. Big liners like the Queen Elizabeth seem to take forevvvver to repair systems damage, even in a big port.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: sventhebold

A thought struck me earlier today. (Yes Painfull I know)
Why not have maintenance ratings for ships? Airplanes have them.
I was reading about the submarines and the trouble they had with the HOR motors. Let alone any other type of ship also had their own particular weaknesses or just plain faulty construction. Like the early Liberty ships.

It can be done. For example, scen049 by Large Slow Target has service penalties for USN subs with H.O.R engines

[packerpete]

How did he do this? Do you have a link?

[Yaab]

Here is the link

tm.asp?m=3233487&mpage=2

Open the linked PDF document which LST provides in post #1. In the document there are links to scen, art and map files.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: spence

Pretty sure this is handed by the accumulation of systems/flotation/engine damage as you use your ships. It's very abstract. Individual ship/class evaluation would involve a pretty serious evaluation of the particular engineering/electronics/etc for each class of ship...way too much work for little return.

I'm not sure but I think the game engine was originally designed by a "wingnut". Pilots are evaluated on everything under the sun. Yet the 2500 man crew of a carrier gets one rating for "experience" at night and during the day: like firing AA guns, fog navigation and keeping a steam plant running require exactly the same skills (and vary every 12 hours).

Frankly I think the pilot thing is a bit overdone but there's more than enough micro-management as it is currently. Adding maintenance rating to ships would necessarily subjective and add next to nothing to the overall game besides extra clicks.

Clicks we have enough of I think.

The menus of the WITP release in 2004 looked just like (style/technology-wise) the menus of Grigsby games from more than a decade before. The real internals, I don't know. They might have started over, or had some things from Uncommon Valor, or even from Pacific Way (the ~1990 version, I might have the name somewhat wrong); I just don't know. Certainly they had far, far less to work with technologically speaking no matter which of those periods the engine internals came from.

But the pilot stuff was, AFAIK, by popular demand. I never had Uncommon Valor, but I thought it was mentioned that it did not have individual pilot stats. Customers/fans wanted them. The additional pilot stats were introduced in 2008 with WITP-AE, again by popular demand. Not everybody wanted more to micromanage (including me), but the point is that the developers expanded the pilot thingies to satisfy players' requests.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: sventhebold

A thought struck me earlier today. (Yes Painfull I know)
Why not have maintenance ratings for ships? Airplanes have them.
I was reading about the submarines and the trouble they had with the HOR motors. Let alone any other type of ship also had their own particular weaknesses or just plain faulty construction. Like the early Liberty ships.

It can be done. For example, scen049 by Large Slow Target has service penalties for USN subs with H.O.R engines

You are misrepresenting what Large Slow Target did.

This comes from his PDF document.

"US submarines equipped with the infamous und unreliable H.O.R. engines (“whores”) have been

split into separate classes with penalties on speed and endurance > upgrade paths including a

long refit (for new engines, requiring a West Coast shipyard), then merge with the normal upgrade

path > class name includes H.O.R. designation and ship icon shows a wrench for easier

identification"

Which means the new sub classes have a lower max speed and lower max endurance. It does not mean that they have a maintenance rating.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: packerpete

How did he do this? Do you have a link?

He didn't "do" it. See post #9.

Alfred

[packerpete]

Thanks Alfred.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Alfred's interpretation is correct - the HOR boats in my mod have reduced speed (lowered by 2 knots) and endurance (less 2k or 3k ) to "approximate" that IRL often one or even two engines would go out of commission on a patrol (Gunnel once lost all four HOR engines and had to limp home with the help of an auxiliary engine!) and that many patrols had to be cut short due to engine issues. Btw, the scenario files of my mod are outdated, I have found a couple of data glitches and have added some more stuff - will update the files when I find the time.

[Reg]

I think the designers have it right. [&o]

Maintenance on aircraft has a big impact on airframe availability and is a major consideration to airpower planners even today.

Maintenance issues on ships tends to reduce capability of individual units, covered quite nicely by accumulation of system/engine damage with the occasional random event to simulate those catastrophic events.

Perfect, no but works for me. [:)]

[Pilsator]

Every crew man with a rating in different skills, a dream is comming true [:D]

[Lokasenna]

Ships do have a certain "repair density". Some ships require more repair points to repair a single point of damage than other ships of the same type and similar durability (which may be a factor in the "repair density"). I don't know how many people actually know what it looks like under the hood, but it isn't very public. Which is fine - the ship repair screen is pretty useful overall for figuring out what you should do.