System damage of Ships

[hUMan bULLet]

Currently, we have 3 categories of damage for ships which I find extremely unrealistic: System, flotation, and fire. When you have this, and even if you take a small bomb hit which would not have affected the speed of a ship at all, your system damage would go up resulting in the loss of speed. I feel this is quite unrealistic as in real life, a ship could make full speed as long as its engines and its hull was intact.

Even though it may be a knot or two i still do not like the idea of accumulating 1 system damage and having my speed shaved off by a few knots when I know that this was not the case. My idea for an solution to this is as follows:

Replacing the current system with this:

Hull damage- Determines speed, flotation, damage level of hull, and determines if the ship takes on more damage as a result of flodding.
Propultion (Engine) damage- Determines speed.
Propeller damage- Determines speed
Rudder damage- Hey the Bismarck went down due to this... Should'nt this be a big enough issue that its brought into the game?
Bridge Damage- Ability to control the ship's operatoins= how the ship performs.
Personell Damage- Now I know I've seen numerous heavy casualties screen knowing that it does not make a difference in my results. I wish this was changed to reflect any shortages of men= less effectiveness
Fuel damage-If leaking fuel more likely to be spotted or to catch fire and so on.
Fire damage-same as it is. Except may have an impact upon other damage systems.
Deck damage(CVs)- Now, I know that we have the system of planes not being able to fly once we are over a certain system damage but I feel that bringing in deck damage would make it more realistic in terms of system damage as currently if you take one hit all of a sudden you lose 10+ knots even though the hull and the propulsion system is intact. This I feel makes the game extremely unrealistic. Also this should affect the ability to launch/recover aircraft.
Planes- Now we know that planes are lost if they are attacked while on deck. This needs to be fixed up!!!!
Misc. System damage----Now this can be implementd so that when it reaches a certain point, some of the other systems of the ship are damaged. But speed should not be included b/c I would not want to see a repetition of UV where you take 1 damage and see your speed go down by 1 knot.

How do you guys feel?

I feel that this would make the game more realistic, as well as making players play just like local commanders had to in real life.

[caine]

Wonderful idea, indeed.It would add a deeper sense of realism.Many times, you can suffer a lot of system damage and do not Know exactly what was actually affected if you do not review the ship's guns and speed.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Many months ago Nikademus started big thread at UV forum about similar issues.

Let's hope that good ideas will be incorporated in WitP...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Reichenberg]

Sounds amazing. But if it is not implemented in the engine yet, I think it would be a little bit late to work it in to WitP[:(]

Your system works perfect for battle damage, but you have to implement a general wear of the ship that leads to a lowered speed. E.g. plants and alike on the outside of the hulls, general engine wear reducing the max. power.....

Uwe

[hUMan bULLet]

Your system works perfect for battle damage, but you have to implement a general wear of the ship that leads to a lowered speed. E.g. plants and alike on the outside of the hulls, general engine wear reducing the max. power

True, which is why I recommended this solution:

Misc. System damage----Now this can be implementd so that when it reaches a certain point, some of the other systems of the ship are damaged

By doing this we won't have to worry about our ships losing anywhere from 1-5 knots just from traveling from Pearl Habor to Noumea. Because while true that ships pick up incidental damage, and it is very well recorded that ships are never perfect and can never be 'completely fixed', it's ridiculous seeing your max speed drastically slow down by that much. I feel this way especially about speed, because it would take some type of serious/moderate damage for a ship to lose its top speed (engine trouble-which should be under propulsion, and not system damage, hull damage, propeller damage, or that sort of thing.) Because under the current system, you would have never been able to engage your ships like it was actually used. Because by the time 1943 rolls around, your ships would have had so much system damage just from sailing around (and losing about 10-15knots) that you would not be able to operate your ships. Its true that incidental damage does occur, but for it to have affect speed to the degree that it does now for a ship is rediculous.

[madflava13]

It's been stated numerous times that the SYS damage accumulated through random sailing has been reduced quite a bit in WitP. Using UV numbers to figure them out won't work anymore. It doesn't sound like you'll lose ships simply sailing them to Noumea or Truk...

[pasternakski]

Just so long as we don't get a system where you can drive around all over the Pacific for months at a time and never have to worry about coming in for an oil change and new brakes.

The "system, flotation, fire" damage scheme works for me as being simple and easy to understand. I don't want to act like a "local commander," I just want damage to the ships I have available for use quantified in a way that allows me to make operational (and, in WitP, strategic) decisions.

Boys and girls, we nearly tossed the operational scale out the window with the changes we clamored for in UV. Let's not turn WitP into a "grand tactical" game, okay?

[Xargun]

I am glad to hear that the system used in UV is altered drasically for WitP. Many times my TF have traveled a few hundred miles (a couple days) and accumulated 5 or 6 SYS damage. This would not normally be a problem, but the same ships can sit in a level 9 port for a week or more and not fix the same amount of damage - that scale is just to far off.

Xargun

[hUMan bULLet]

Just so long as we don't get a system where you can drive around all over the Pacific for months at a time and never have to worry about coming in for an oil change and new brakes.

I agree with you regarding that.

But is there any possible chance this could be put on the wish list so that it may be incorporated into the game?

I feel this is an important feature which could make the battles more realistic, and in the end I feel this would only enhance the game much more, especially in the area of battles where one might tend to get unrealistic results, where a ship may be damaged, and its propulsion, hull, prop, etc might all be intact, yet the ship loses speed just because we are going by a generic system damage system. I feel categorizing like suggested could eliminate this and present the player with the type of situations that real commanders were put into: Although the ship's fighting capability is damaged, it can still make top speed, should I add it into the next bombardment fleet? Or should I keep it in port to fix the damage the ship took?

[denisonh]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Just so long as we don't get a system where you can drive around all over the Pacific for months at a time and never have to worry about coming in for an oil change and new brakes.

The "system, flotation, fire" damage scheme works for me as being simple and easy to understand. I don't want to act like a "local commander," I just want damage to the ships I have available for use quantified in a way that allows me to make operational (and, in WitP, strategic) decisions.

Boys and girls, we nearly tossed the operational scale out the window with the changes we clamored for in UV. Let's not turn WitP into a "grand tactical" game, okay?

Most certainly. Lets keep focus on the scale of WitP.

We are already on the verge of overwhelming the theater commander with information about operations.

The theater commander wants to know if a ship is sinking, on fire, or in need or maintenance/repair. More is less IMHO for this scale of game.

[Oleg Mastruko]

I am with pasternakski and denisonh on this. I don't doubt honesty of your idea Bullet but that's just crazy in the game of this scope and focus.

System damage is fine way of aggregating everything you say in one simple numerical value. So, next time you see CA with 45 Sys damage just imagine it has, I don't know, any combination of rudder/engine/deck/crew/fuel/food/lubricant/paint/paper towel/spare underwear damage you want

In the end you'd get generally the same results as regards the future usability of the vessel.

IOW, I am sure some players would love to have report to the tune of "8in shell hit CA Vincennes 3m from the bow, and 0,5 m above the waterline in the region of 23 section 2' from the bulkhead, penetrating, but not exploding, due to humidity in the shooter's magazines" but generally "belt armor hit" or "belt armor penetration" in the game of this scope works perfectly fine for me thank you. [&o]

Now, having German surface raiders in the game, that's whole 'nuther ball game [8D] No Germans no buy, sir! [:-]

O.

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Now, having German surface raiders in the game, that's whole 'nuther ball game [8D] No Germans no buy, sir! [:-]

I too would like to see German raiders but without the ability to react to ships at sea the chances of them ever raiding anyone is quite remote. [:(]

[denisonh]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

I am with pasternakski and denisonh on this. I don't doubt honesty of your idea Bullet but that's just crazy in the game of this scope and focus.

System damage is fine way of aggregating everything you say in one simple numerical value. So, next time you see CA with 45 Sys damage just imagine it has, I don't know, any combination of rudder/engine/deck/crew/fuel/food/lubricant/paint/paper towel/spare underwear damage you want

In the end you'd get generally the same results as regards the future usability of the vessel.

IOW, I am sure some players would love to have report to the tune of "8in shell hit CA Vincennes 3m from the bow, and 0,5 m above the waterline in the region of 23 section 2' from the bulkhead, penetrating, but not exploding, due to humidity in the shooter's magazines" but generally "belt armor hit" or "belt armor penetration" in the game of this scope works perfectly fine for me thank you. [&o]

Now, having German surface raiders in the game, that's whole 'nuther ball game [8D] No Germans no buy, sir! [:-]

O.

Hey, let's not forget about toilet paper stock damage. Americans don't buy into the "left hand toilet hand" concept.[:D]

[denisonh]

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Now, having German surface raiders in the game, that's whole 'nuther ball game [8D] No Germans no buy, sir! [:-]

I too would like to see German raiders but without the ability to react to ships at sea the chances of them ever raiding anyone is quite remote. [:(]

Oversimpliyfying surface interception during the day does not accomplish this IMHO.

It needs to be a different mission than surface combat, particularly in respect to operations in the Pacific.

Surface raiders do not work in the Pacific, although the Indian ocean is a good candidate.

Let us not create a situation that makes surface groups overly effective (hey, this is my area of expertise, as I have aquired a certain skill with surface forces as the Alllied player for lack of CVs[8|]) simply to model something that worked in areas outside the Pacific, which, by the way, is the focus of the game (War in the PACIFIC).

[Drex]

With the latest addition of speed and direction to the sighting reports, your interceptions will now improve significantly.

[TIMJOT]

I agree with Denisonh, It would take considerably more than improved mid-ocean interception to make them work right. It would take most crucially some sort of special stealth/cloaking code to allow them to operate undetected. Historically they were somewhat effective in the Indian Ocean because much of the shipping was unescorted there. Not so in the pacific. A single ship plying the waters around the Solomons would not have gone undetected for long. Besides if IIRC, the German Raiders incursions into the Pacific were all prior to the outbreak of the Pacific war, when the could easily blend it to all that unescorted traffic.

IMO they are not worth a single day delay of this game. If you MUST have them then you can create unusually well armed merhant ships in the editor, but without the stealthy code they are not going to last long.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT
IMO they are not worth a single day delay of this game. If you MUST have them then you can create unusually well armed merhant ships in the editor, but without the stealthy code they are not going to last long.

Geez I was joking, thought it was obvious... I'd love to see German ships just because, as I said, "every good wargame must have Germans one way or another", but in reality I don't care, because they had zero influence on Pacific campaign.

I'll buy WITP the day it is finished, and that's it [&o]

O.

[TIMJOT]

Sorry Oleg if I came off a little strong, just that it seems that the specter of German Raiders keeps reappearing on this forum for close to two years now. If all they were is added chrome I would be all for them, but because they need there own specific programming they are just not worth it IMHO. I want this game yesterday. [:)]

Regards

PS; If we need German Chrome; How about U-boats? Historically, a few were based out of Singapore for a time and they wouldnt need any special programming.

[Raverdave]

Ok ladies, this is how it works in WiTP. If you set "Full Speed" then your ships are going to get the same amount of SYS damage as you now see in UV but if you set your ships to steam at "Cruise" they will still attract sys damage but at half the rate that you now see in UV.

[Reichenberg]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Ok ladies, this is how it works in WiTP. If you set "Full Speed" then your ships are going to get the same amount of SYS damage as you now see in UV but if you set your ships to steam at "Cruise" they will still attract sys damage but at half the rate that you now see in UV.

What is than the normal ratio between "cruise" and full speed?? Or let me ask it different: What is the ratio for system damage for the same distance, once traveled on cruise and once on full speed??

Uwe