Matrix Games Forums

Don,
I got an idea for you. In my opinion, in WITP it is too easy for the US to recover from the Pearl Harbor attack. The number of ships lost for good is usually fairly close to the actual amount (two BBs), but, while BB repair takes a realistic amount of time (forever and a day) all of the other vessels are up and going in no time. This little brain storm idea may help ease the issue.

Several of the ships at Pearl on 12/7/41 where there for repairs and maintenance. What I’ve done is taken the ships that were in dry docks, floating docks, anchored alongside the repair facilities, or have a repair vessel anchored alongside and given them sys damage.

BB Arizona 10
PG Sacramento 10
AO Rampo 10
CA New Orleans 10
CA San Francisco 10
CL Honolulu 10
CL St Louis 10
DD Jarvis 10
DD Mugford 10
DD Cummings 10
DD Schley 10
DD Bagley 10
DM Preble 10
DM Tracy 10
DM Pruitt 10
DM Sicard 10
BB Pennsylvania 20 (more than above since it was in the main dry dock)
DD Cassin 30 (ditto)
DD Downes 30 (ditto, in fact they were parked ahead of Penn; unless I’m looking at the pic wrong, Penn would have to be moved before they could. 50 sys wouldn’t be out of the question for these two)
BB California 10 (this represents the fact that her watertight voids were open for an inspection. Flood damage would seem more realistic, but, since flood damage increases the chance of loosing the ship permanently without really increasing the repair time I thought this was unrealistic since California was sunk but not lost permanently.)

It also makes sense in that the US really shouldn’t enter the war with all ships at 100% efficiency. We simply weren’t that prepared.

Also, perhaps the repair yard at Pearl should start 50% to 25% damaged. This doesn’t represent actual damage; it represents the confusion following the attack and the process of gearing a debris cluttered peacetime harbor to an efficient wartime yard.

I tried it out about a half-dozen times and the result seemed slightly more realistic than usual. If the sys damage seems too high, maybe 5 sys for most ships, 10 for Penn, and 15 for the two DDs. Anyway, these are just suggestions.
byron

God idea. Pennsylvania seems a bit high though.[X(]

Pennsylvanias should be lowered, because you can't sink a ship in drydock. You can blow it up, but not sink it. Plus, her only damage was to her screws (bent prop or something like that). Other wise, she was not under major repair. 5 or 10 would be better.

Arizona shouldn't have any, because while Vestal was moored there, the Arizona was not under repair at the time.

Its a good idea, but I don't think it would work. The CAs would be ready to go in about a month, all the tin cans would be ready in a week (provided they weren't damaged). All it would do is by a month or so tops for those few ships, and most Allied players (especially PBEM) won't do anything till February at the earliest anyway. This plan just means a higher (ahistoric) number of ships may go down.

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Pennsylvanias should be lowered, because you can't sink a ship in drydock. You can blow it up, but not sink it. Plus, her only damage was to her screws (bent prop or something like that). Other wise, she was not under major repair. 5 or 10 would be better.

Arizona shouldn't have any, because while Vestal was moored there, the Arizona was not under repair at the time.

Its a good idea, but I don't think it would work. The CAs would be ready to go in about a month, all the tin cans would be ready in a week (provided they weren't damaged). All it would do is by a month or so tops for those few ships, and most Allied players (especially PBEM) won't do anything till February at the earliest anyway. This plan just means a higher (ahistoric) number of ships may go down.

System damage does not sink ships.

I put system damage on ships that were under refit, etc in all ports except Pearl Harbor. I was afraid that any pre-damaged ships would be excessively targeted and destroyed by the Pearl Harbor attack. We can give it a try if you-all think its a good idea.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

System damage does not sink ships.

No, but from the games I've played it makes them more vulnerable to flooding, which does.

I think ships in drydock should have the still, remove the AZ's restriction and I'd be game. That and lower PA's.

We can give it a try if you-all think its a good idea.

I like it!

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I put system damage on ships that were under refit, etc in all ports except Pearl Harbor. I was afraid that any pre-damaged ships would be excessively targeted and destroyed by the Pearl Harbor attack. We can give it a try if you-all think its a good idea.

Go for it! Addition of Utah makes up for any risk.

OK Gentlemen - I've reviewed the posts in this thread and the ships at Pearl and I've come up with this so far:

BB Pennsylvania - Drydock = 10 System Damage
BB California - Open Watertight doors = 10 Flooding Damage
BB Arizona - No Damage
CA New Orleans - Engine Overhaul = 20 System Damage
CA San Francisco - Engine Overhaul = 20 System Damage
CL Honolulu - Tender Upkeep = 10 System Damage
CL St Louis - Tender Upkeep = 10 System Damage
DD Bagley - Minor overhaul = 5 System Damage
DD Cassin - Drydock = 10 System Damage
DD Cummings - No damage, part of initial sortie
DD Dewey - Tender Overhaul = 5 System Damage
DD Downes - Drydock = 10 System Damage
DD Jarvis - No damage, part of initial sortie
DD Mugford - No damage, part of initial sortie
DD Schley - overhaul = 20 system damage
DD Shaw - Drydock = 10 System Damage
DD Tucker - Minor overhaul = 5 System Damage
DM Preble - Overhaul = 15 System Damage
DM Tracy - Overhaul = 15 System Damage
DM Pruitt - Overhaul = 15 System Damage
DM Sicard - Overhaul = 15 System Damage
PG Sacramento - Minor overhaul = 5 System Damage
AO Rampo - Minor overhaul = 5 System Damage
AR Rigel - Major conversion = 33 System Damage
AVP Swan - Drydock = 10 System Damage

How's this sound??

Wow! I had a good idea! [:D]

* * * *

BB California - Open Watertight doors = 10 Flooding Damage

I'd use sys damage. Flood damage would seem more realistic, but, since flood damage increases the chance of loosing the ship permanently without really increasing the repair time this is somewhat unrealistic since California was "sunk" but not lost permanently.

Sounds and looks great!.

I wouldn't give California Flood damage. Unless you can code things like not allowing any torpedo to hit Pennsylvania, or the inside BB's on BB row. You're just giving a much better shot at permanently losing California. Add Sys damage like you're doing with the rest. As the game is, each BB at Pearl has the same chance of being permanently sunk. Giving more or less and different types of damage to specific BB's gives them a higher chance of being permanently sunk.

I'd just add 10 or 15 SYS damage to all the ships (if you want to implement this idea). I just think you should apply a blanket amount to all ships, since you can't give the beneficial bonuses to the BB's who were more protected.

FYI, my opinion is that you should consider this option very carefully. I hear about Pearl attacks that sink 4 BB's without this option. (I also hear about them that don't sink any.) If this causes an average of more than historic, you'll hear a lot of whining.

FYI, my opinion is that you should consider this option very carefully. I hear about Pearl attacks that sink 4 BB's without this option. (I also hear about them that don't sink any.) If this causes an average of more than historic, you'll hear a lot of whining.

This is without the Utah drawing fire and with the 4% chance of a magazine explosion with each penetration. The Utah does wonders. I believe the 4% chance is cut to 2%. (Be better if they implemented a more advanced form of critical hit/magazine explosion as I advocated, but 2% is better than 4%.) Further, since all ships are vulnerable to torpedo hits, this makes those ships actually vulnerable more likely to survive based on probability. I can't see a 4 BB loss rate as anything but an extremely rare occurence in the mod. Go with the specific ship damage list as posted by Don Bowen I say.

Yeah, I forgot about the lower mag explosion thing. You're probably right about this. We'll probably end up seeing less than average sinkings, even with the added damage. (maybe)

Don't get me wrong, but I think this thread is so typical of you CHS guys - obsessing over some ultra-minor stuff (in 95% of cases it's Allied ultra-minor stuff you obsess over), while losing the "big picture".

What if IJN player does not even go for historic PH attack?

O.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Don't get me wrong, but I think this thread is so typical of you CHS guys - obsessing over some ultra-minor stuff (in 95% of cases it's Allied ultra-minor stuff you obsess over), while losing the "big picture".

What if IJN player does not even go for historic PH attack?

O.

Then it's not an historical opening turn! Totally negates need for first turn move bonus (put in to get KB to PH but Japanese players use it for gamey simultaneous landing all over Kansas).

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Don't get me wrong, but I think this thread is so typical of you CHS guys - obsessing over some ultra-minor stuff (in 95% of cases it's Allied ultra-minor stuff you obsess over), while losing the "big picture".

What if IJN player does not even go for historic PH attack?

O.

Then it's not an historical opening turn! Totally negates need for first turn move bonus (put in to get KB to PH but Japanese players use it for gamey simultaneous landing all over Kansas).

Um, no... first turn move bonus is there to allow IJN player some (note: *some*) freedom in planning his crucial opening offensives of the Pacific war. Without that freedom simulated in some manner, IJN would be doomed from the start.

As for Kansas, I see you Allied-obsessives already added Salt Lake City and Manitoba Lake and whatnot to the map, so Kansas seems like a natural next step, good you mentioned it [;)] Do not forget to add some Mississippi riverboats and Great Lakes paddle-powered training CVs while you're at it. [;)]

(Note I said Allied-obsessives, not necesarilly Allied fanboys - distinction is barely visible but it's there [8D])

O.

Then it's not an historical opening turn! Totally negates need for first turn move bonus (put in to get KB to PH but Japanese players use it for gamey simultaneous landing all over Kansas).

Ron,

The Japanese were somewhat expected to launch a "surprise" attack somewhere. The braintrust in Washington thought it to be PI. The IJN thought otherwise in RL. Accordingly,
a first turn surprise advantage is in order .....

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

FYI, my opinion is that you should consider this option very carefully. I hear about Pearl attacks that sink 4 BB's without this option. (I also hear about them that don't sink any.) If this causes an average of more than historic, you'll hear a lot of whining.

This is without the Utah drawing fire and with the 4% chance of a magazine explosion with each penetration. The Utah does wonders. I believe the 4% chance is cut to 2%. (Be better if they implemented a more advanced form of critical hit/magazine explosion as I advocated, but 2% is better than 4%.) Further, since all ships are vulnerable to torpedo hits, this makes those ships actually vulnerable more likely to survive based on probability. I can't see a 4 BB loss rate as anything but an extremely rare occurence in the mod. Go with the specific ship damage list as posted by Don Bowen I say.

I'm with ron. I tested the pearl attack a little. When I first got the mod I adjusted the sys to several ships. In fact, I added more damage than we finally decided on. I can't remember how many times I ran the attack, but I would guess around ten. I only came up with 1 attack that recieved heavier than historic damage - I lost Utah, 2 other BBs and a CA. I had another attack that was exactly historic - Utah, 2 other BBs. And around 8 that were under historic, one BB and a frigging PT boat being the most common.

Okay, so maybe ten isn't exactly an extensive test. [;)]

bs