Different Damage control philosophy for ships

[Ruthlesssamuria]

I'd like to see each nation have their own Damage control philosophy in the game. Example: USA trained entire crews to put out fires and stop leaks, USA also injected "Evil Global Warming gas C02 LOL" into fuel lines to prevent fires. Japan only had trained crews and required central control direction to put out fires and stop leaks on ships

 

[Axe99]

"Evil Global Warming gas C02 LOL"

Hahaha, US WW2 naval practice responsible for global warming, I heard it here first .

More seriously, could make a decent doctrine/tech tree choice?

 

[Denkt]

You also have ship reability which is supposed to protect you from critical hits so your navy don't end up like Hood.
I would expect US to put alot of exp points into reability while Japan focus on other stuff such as larger carrier capacity.

 

[Secret Master]

So, you want damage control doctrines to be divided into the following groups:

Excellent damage control doctrine (the US example you cite)
Mediocre damage control (say, British or Italian damage control)
Lousy damage control (Japan on Shinano)

I already know what philosophy I'd pick.

Without there being advantages or disadvantages, why bother having different ones at all? Just have a tech or doctrine that gets better if you invest/research it. Japan can lag behind, or not as the player chooses.

 

[Cynical Dreamer]

So, you want damage control doctrines to be divided into the following groups:

Excellent damage control doctrine (the US example you cite)
Mediocre damage control (say, British or Italian damage control)
Lousy damage control (Japan on Shinano)

I already know what philosophy I'd pick.

Without there being advantages or disadvantages, why bother having different ones at all? Just have a tech or doctrine that gets better if you invest/research it. Japan can lag behind, or not as the player chooses.

I agree with this post. What you propose is too technical for most naval simulators, let alone a Paradox grand strategy game. I don't really see the point of having it in the game, other than as a tech you could research.

 

[Axe99]

So, you want damage control doctrines to be divided into the following groups:

Excellent damage control doctrine (the US example you cite)
Mediocre damage control (say, British or Italian damage control)
Lousy damage control (Japan on Shinano)

I already know what philosophy I'd pick.

Without there being advantages or disadvantages, why bother having different ones at all? Just have a tech or doctrine that gets better if you invest/research it. Japan can lag behind, or not as the player chooses.

+1 - there's gotta be a cost/benefit (in this case, the cost of researching this tech instead of others) or it's a no-brainer and a silly 'choice' to have in the game.

 

[Clueless636]

So, you want damage control doctrines to be divided into the following groups:

Excellent damage control doctrine (the US example you cite)
Mediocre damage control (say, British or Italian damage control)
Lousy damage control (Japan on Shinano)

I already know what philosophy I'd pick.

Without there being advantages or disadvantages, why bother having different ones at all? Just have a tech or doctrine that gets better if you invest/research it. Japan can lag behind, or not as the player chooses.

+1

 

[Cheese Police]

I think this could be part of the deployment system, whatever it will be.The industrial cost of making the ship will, hopefully, be independent of training the crew. Whatever system is used for actually manning and deploying the ship will hopefully have some kind of resource use.

I don't know if they are sticking with leadership, but it's a good touchstone for thinking about it. Imagine, once you've built the ship, you need to spend leadership to train the crew. The more training you give them the better the ship will perform, but the longer the training will take and the more leadership it will cost. You could even select different levels of training for different ship functions, and it would all get added up into the final leadership time/cost. If they don't use leadership, then whatever the training resource is would be the limiting factor.

 

[Centurion1973]

So, you want damage control doctrines to be divided into the following groups:

Excellent damage control doctrine (the US example you cite)
Mediocre damage control (say, British or Italian damage control)
Lousy damage control (Japan on Shinano)

I already know what philosophy I'd pick.

Without there being advantages or disadvantages, why bother having different ones at all? Just have a tech or doctrine that gets better if you invest/research it. Japan can lag behind, or not as the player chooses.

It could be multilevel doctrine/tech.

 

[Denkt]

I would just keep it represented by ship reability score, that way it do have a cost to have hard to sink ships.