Who uses the allied damage control option and is it fair or unfair???

[Tanaka]

I wanted to start a poll but dont know how [8|]

[Chaplain]

For me, the fact that Allied Damage Control is historical ends the discussion - I use it. Frankly, I wouldn't be able to enjoy the game if I didn't. But then again, I also iron my socks ... [X(]

[Nikademus]

I always use it

Only area i consider it "unfair" is that it's universal and covers merhcants as well as naval vessels!

[MadDawg]

Oh, I didnt realise that! Any chance of a fix for that making it onto the patch wish list? [:D]

[Nikademus]

dont know....its a wish list item. Its not exactly a big deal to be honest as any torp hit or two will often cause severe flooding which even the DC bonus can have a time trying to cope with unless there's a base nearby.

I noticed Xargon and partner had it off via house rule aggreement. Perhaps they'd care to share their reasons for it?

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

dont know....its a wish list item. Its not exactly a big deal to be honest as any torp hit or two will often cause severe flooding which even the DC bonus can have a time trying to cope with unless there's a base nearby.

I noticed Xargon and partner had it off via house rule aggreement. Perhaps they'd care to share their reasons for it?

yea Xargun I was wondering this as well

[Lemurs!]

I think it is much more complicated than many people realize, also i feel that the advantage as it stands is a little much. But it is more or less historical.

The Japanese between 1890-1930 actually improved upon western methods that they felt were too much 'we will muddle through some how' on damage control. The Japanese were big into scientific management in their navy and their economy. In many ways in their army as well.
In the 1930's however, the army leadership gained a great deal of power and removed people(or did not promote) that
had differing views. This included the more liberal scientific officers. This had a negative effect on their damage control efficiency.

Many Americans in their civilian lives had already driven cars, worked on cars or tractors, maybe even built their own radio. This allowed the average American crew member to be helpful with the damage control parties.
The Japanese(and essentially everyone else) on the other hand were not anywhere near as familiar with technology. So if the few highly trained damage control officers and crew were incapacitated in an attack the rest of the crew had very little ability to save their ship.

I do have to laugh at the allied fanboys though, lets see, the Japanese lost... um, the Taiho to a stupid Avgas problem. The Americans lost the Lexington. Sounds pretty even to me! 'But the Yorktown took so much damage at Coral sea and still fought at Midway!' yeah, it was hit by 1 or 2 550lb bombs with less explosive power than an American 500lb bomb.
The Shokaku was hit with 3 or 4 bombs at Coral Sea and 6 1000lb bombs at Santa Cruz and sailed home under her own power.

The Americans deserve an advantage but I think it goes a little far in the game.

Mike

[Fallschirmjager]

I have read enough books to see that once a fire starting on an IJN vessel it was near impossible to put it out due to poor placement and construction of fuel lines and the like. Allied vessels took severve damage and sometimes had vessels gutted by bombs and fire but still got it under control and made it back to port.

[Lemurs!]

see, i do not agree with that.
The Mogami and Shokaku both faced severe fires and got them out, while the Yorktown(Coral Sea), Enterprise(Eastern Solomons), and Hornet(Santa Cruz) all had fire problems.
I agree major fires were a big problem on carriers but AFAIK no other type of Japanese warship had a fire problem.
So you are basing your hypothesis on Taiho and the 4 at Midway? No carrier any where or on any side survived damage like the 4 at Midway except the Franklin and there was one key difference. The Americans essentially controlled the air around the Franklin while the Japanese did not control the air around Akagi.

The Hornet and Enterprise both took light to moderate damage but had trouble fighting fires because all of their hoses used electric pumps and the electrical lines were situated poorly and lost power. The Japanese used back up generators and hand pumps which kept Shokaku alive.

Should the allies get a penalty for poor electrical arrangement?
I enjoy your posting and this was not intended to be rude and if it was i appologize.
I just feel that to many 'it happened this way' cludges circle around our brains.

Mike

[captskillet]

I think from what I ahve read we had real advantage. Case in point is the Frankiln (I think that was the one) that still made it back to US even though it was a burned out hulk after takng those Kama. hits.

[mccavage]

Richard Worth in Fleets of World War II rates the IJN pretty poorly for damage control (page 164) despite an overall high rating for the IJN overall.

Other than Taiho, Shinano certainly succumbed to bad damage control and poor command decisions but was also in a nearly incomplete state without a full compliment of pumps, water tight doors or trained crew.

Kongo certainly went down with very light damage for a ship her size (2 torps) as did Fuso. Mutsu is most probably the victim of her own ammunition, and the failure to detect and eliminate a small fire.

[Ron Saueracker]

I just think of the cruisers at Tassafaronga, CV Franklin, the Okinawa DDs, USS Salmon...the list goes on.

[Xargun]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

yea Xargun I was wondering this as well

My reasoning behind it was that it will be hard enough to sink Allied ships without them having extra damage control - whether its historical or not. Everyone says the US had highly trained Damage Control parties... what about OZ ? England ? Dutch ? I dont think they all were that good and I'm sure not every ship was above average. With the amount of production the Allies have I saw no reason to give them another advantage of having their ships survive more hits than they should. Rob didn't object to it at all, so it was a done deal. I wouldn't care either way if I were playing the Allies either. Some people would object, some won't..

Xargun

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Xargun

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

yea Xargun I was wondering this as well

My reasoning behind it was that it will be hard enough to sink Allied ships without them having extra damage control - whether its historical or not. Everyone says the US had highly trained Damage Control parties... what about OZ ? England ? Dutch ? I dont think they all were that good and I'm sure not every ship was above average. With the amount of production the Allies have I saw no reason to give them another advantage of having their ships survive more hits than they should. Rob didn't object to it at all, so it was a done deal. I wouldn't care either way if I were playing the Allies either. Some people would object, some won't..

Xargun

Good points. Sounds like a good idea to me.