Naval repair

[plasticpanzers]

If I heard right naval building will get an upgrade in HOIIV tho I am still very concerned with repair capacity vs port size.
It is a bit odd to have Wake Island (size 1 port) hauling 3-4 BBs and CVs up on the sands of that atoll to patch torpedo
hits. Port capacity should also more realistically reflect repair capacity. Size of ship max capacity and speed of repair
based upon port capacity.

 

[Big Nev]

+1

Almost as bad as repairing any ship at the Pacific sub-continent of Midway.

I've suggested (in the Wish-List on the HoI III forum) that the islands are given a development cap. Being generous, Midway would be a 1 for port, maybe a 2 for airfield and that's about all you could squeeze on to it.

I'd also like to see variable province size, or rather frontage. If the combat system is going to work in a similar way. Using Midway as an example again, your shouldn't be able to place (or attack it with) more than two or three bgds before you hit stacking penalties. Whilst I believe this would be difficult to implement, giving tiny islands a frontage of 2 or 3 instead of 10 would simulate this.

It would help simulate the very small size (& utility) of islands if "regular" provinces had greater development caps. Instead of size 10, if it were size 20 and the supplies you can ship in per point were halved then more detail would be brought in to the game without (I think) much additional programming.

Places like Tobruk would still have a relatively low cap equivalent to a 3 or 4 on the HoI III system.

Naval repair could then be restricted to large ports only. Anything of, say, 10 or more can have a repair facility built. Different sizes of repair facility can accommodate different sizes of ships.

 

[BlitzWarfare]

Maybe link max frontage to infrastructure in some way?
Assign a base value (as we currently have) and increase/decrease frontage based on infrastructure, tech and a (default) factor assigned in the province files?
Would be an (IMO) decent sollution untill they improve the battle system.

With port size we could do the same. Just add a variable to the province files that overrides the default port size.

 

[Mezak]

It´s a good point to discuss. For development diaries naval constructions are related to naval industries, AKA shipyards. The main facility necesary for both build and repair big ships, drydock, can´t be used at the same time for shipbuilding and ships repair.
I think that the best solution to use the Port size concept as is used in HOI 3 but should be related with the kind of reparations that can be perfomed in that particular port.
As example;
Port size 1 to 3: minor reparation like AA, antenas, etc, Speed reparation 3 > 2 > 1; limt, up to 50% ship strength
Port size 4 to 6: Medium reparation like cranes, catapult etc, Speed reparation 6 > 5 > 4; limt, up to 65% ship strength.
Port size 7 to 8: heavy reparation like propeller, machinary, etc, Speed reparation 8 > 7; limt, up to 85% ship strength
Port size 9 to 10: Complete reparation, Speed reparation 10 > 9; 100% ship strength.

With this a FRA ship can be repaired in Dakar and set ready to sail Toulon or Saint Nazaire to complete the reparation. Also, that dont overload the ship industry in omly some ports.

 

[degen83]

Sounds very interesting.

I agree that some of the small islands just wouldn't have the space to have huge airfields and naval ports.

I also think it would be a great feature to limit what class of ship can be repaired at a naval base based on the size of the naval base.

A level 1 base could be used for supply. A level 2-3 base could be used for repairing submarines/destroyers/cruisers. Higher levels should be required to repair aircraft carriers and battleships.

This would force a little more micromanagent in that a player would have to see his ships that are damaged then find a level appropriate shipyard to send his fleet in for repair, so I'm not sure how easy it is to do that in the game. This feature would be great if it were easy for the player to find shipyards by level. Perhaps a map mode option where you can see naval supply ranges in a radius around each of your ports would get around this problem, but not sure how much code that would take and if it would really be worth it at this stage.

I think it would be a great feature to simulate a more realistic navy. And even with the feature requiring a little more micromanagement, micromanagement isn't always a bad thing. I'd be for it, but not sure how others would feel about it.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Large ships damaged in the Pacific would often stop at Pearl Harbor for minor repairs but still have to return to the continental US West Coast for
major repairs or even the East Coast for more. I don't think level of infrastructure will work as no matter how much concrete you pour on a
place like Wake Island or even Midway its still as dinky as a small shopping mall. The USN was alone in operating massive mobile repair yard
ships and mobile ports in the Pacific (large groups called Lions and small Cubs) but that is too unique to work into the game I think as well so
modifying the port size to repair size and time needs to be addressed. This would force the AI to send ships home to major ports for major ships
to repair or only have minor repairs at smaller ports (maybe 5% total?)

 

[Big Nev]

This is a very interesting point.

I’d never looked in to it before as it seemed only natural that minor repairs would be conducted there but major work would be performed at the continental USA bases even if a large dry-dock wasn’t required simply because that’s where the majority of skilled workers were.

But...

There wasn’t a dry-dock at all at Pearl Harbour at all! *

So even destroyers couldn’t be repaired there! Only patched-up enough for them to limp to San Diego.


* After more than three years work, the new drydock collapsed during construction. This also gives us insight in to how long it takes to build these facilities and tells us that you can't just build one anywhere.


Edit: Scored-out some bollocks.
Very embarrassed :blush:

 

[Peter the Bad]

This is a very interesting point.

I’d never looked in to it before as it seemed only natural that minor repairs would be conducted there but major work would be performed at the continental USA bases even if a large dry-dock wasn’t required simply because that’s where the majority of skilled workers were.

But...

There wasn’t a dry-dock at all at Pearl Harbour at all! *

So even destroyers couldn’t be repaired there! Only patched-up enough for them to limp to San Diego.


* After more than three years work, the new drydock collapsed during construction. This also gives us insight in to how long it takes to build these facilities and tells us that you can't just build one anywhere.

Well, at the time of the attack several ships were in drydocks at the Naval Yard at Pearl Harbour. DD Downes an Cassin and BB Pennsylvania was together in one dock. Then we have two more drydocks and one floating dock...So by early morning december 7 1941 Pearl Harbor had atleast four drydocks.... If they were sufficient to handle wartime workload, no. With the amount of damaged ships many had to go elsewhere for reapairs....

 

[Big Nev]

Well, at the time of the attack several ships were in drydocks at the Naval Yard at Pearl Harbour. DD Downes an Cassin and BB Pennsylvania was together in one dock. Then we have two more drydocks and one floating dock...So by early morning december 7 1941 Pearl Harbor had atleast four drydocks.... If they were sufficient to handle wartime workload, no. With the amount of damaged ships many had to go elsewhere for reapairs....

You know what?
I knew that!

Well, about Pennsylvania anyway.

The moral to the story?
Never ever, [i[ever[/i], ever, EVER take anything from Wikipedia unless you can corroborate it from other sources.

And even then, if it seems strange, it’s probably wrong.

 

[Peter the Bad]

You know what?
I knew that!

Well, about Pennsylvania anyway.

The moral to the story?
Never ever, [i[ever[/i], ever, EVER take anything from Wikipedia unless you can corroborate it from other sources.

And even then, if it seems strange, it’s probably wrong.

But still, repairing ships in the Pacific is a bit hard and many needed to be brought back to homeland ports for larger repairs. No navy had the capability to repair such large numbers of ships that where built during the war. I think it was beyond imagination 1935 how many ships the navy would operate ten years later. Small repairs could and was made in small ports provided they were large enough to accomodate the ship. This could be done at sea too. But as soon as we are talking large ships and heavy hulldamage, real facilitys ar needed.

So I think the game need to limit production and repair to larger ports than any little fishingport...

 

[Big Nev]

But still, repairing ships in the Pacific is a bit hard and many needed to be brought back to homeland ports for larger repairs. No navy had the capability to repair such large numbers of ships that where built during the war. I think it was beyond imagination 1935 how many ships the navy would operate ten years later. Small repairs could and was made in small ports provided they were large enough to accomodate the ship. This could be done at sea too. But as soon as we are talking large ships and heavy hulldamage, real facilitys ar needed.

So I think the game need to limit production and repair to larger ports than any little fishingport...

And I think this goes hand-in-hand with the other coments in DD-5, Production Lines about ships being placed when construction starts, rather than when construction finishes.

 

[Dalwin]

And I think this goes hand-in-hand with the other coments in DD-5, Production Lines about ships being placed when construction starts, rather than when construction finishes.

I agree. The two concepts are definitely connected.

What I would like to see is that if a ship is heavily damaged (maybe below 80% strength), repairing it requires sailing it to a major port at which point it is taken off map and put in the production queue with a completion time based on how heavily damaged it was.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

I agree. The two concepts are definitely connected.

What I would like to see is that if a ship is heavily damaged (maybe below 80% strength), repairing it requires sailing it to a major port at which point it is taken off map and put in the production queue with a completion time based on how heavily damaged it was.

I don't see how this is connected to being able to place a ship anywhere. I came up with the solution in that thread to limit deploys to size of ports where capital ships could only be deployed in 8 or above, and everyone shot it down because they want it to be clicking on a province to build, which is *not going there*... http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...tion-Lines&p=17393391&viewfull=1#post17393391

Anyway... If we took my suggestion to break ships up into parts, where you have a HULL, FRONT GUNS, REAR GUNS, etc this idea could amplify this idea much more. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?773403-New-Naval-warfare-suggestion

Damage suffered to any piece that is above 50% damage requires the ship to return to a drydock for it's respective size. In this case capital ships would have to be 8 or above. So 50% damage to the frontal guns, or Hull, or flight deck, requires a major repair, full drydock to do. Damage below 50% can be repaired in naval ports up to 50% the required deploy. In this case this means a Capital ship requires a level 4 facility to repair damage below 50%, level 8 to repair above 50% damage, level 8 to deploy the ship.

But since things are broken up into pieces, this results in a ship with 80% damage to frontal guns, 40% damage to hull, 20% damage to propulsion, this ship could slowly move it's way to a level 4 port, where the propulsion and hull could be repaired slowly, then either rejoin the fleet with severely damaged guns or, now that it can travel full speed, go back to a level 8 port for major repairs.

This would dramatically change the war in the pacific, because the US did not have these large ports, and thus could not field large fleets all the time like you are able to in game. The US and Britain would have to spend years thinking about long term naval deployments and where they wanted ships to be able to dock etc. This also makes very attractable targets to Japan and Germany. Taking control of this port means knocking out repair facilities for hundreds of miles for large ships.

 

[Joppos]

...

I recon it's connected in the way of delivering a better naval system. Anyway, the idea to break up ships into parts is one i can really stand behind. It goes along well with land units now comprising of components (tanks, small arms general equipment and so on) which will hamper the unit in specific attributes if diminished.

That said, the reason at least i did not take liking to your idea on deployment was that it aspire to be no more than a band aid to hoi3 mechanics. A sequel should definitely aspire to be more than that, especially when the system under revision is as sorely lacking as it is.

 

[SEMPER FI]

On a similar subject, I would like to see heavily damaged ships at sea have a high chance of just sinking. Too many times I've sailed my ships with less than 10% strength full speed back to port.

Also, does weather ever damage ships? Quite a few ships were lost to typhoons and such...

 

[Mannstien]

Also, does weather ever damage ships? Quite a few ships were lost to typhoons and such...

Nope, just effects combat modifiers.

 

[SEMPER FI]

Nope, just effects combat modifiers.

Maybe something for the developers to consider...

 

[Mannstien]

Maybe something for the developers to consider...

I agree

 

[Big Nev]

I don't see how this is connected to being able to place a ship anywhere. I came up with the solution in that thread to limit deploys to size of ports where capital ships could only be deployed in 8 or above, and everyone shot it down because they want it to be clicking on a province to build,...

Yeah... As has been mentioned, many of us don’t think this is actually a solution. Not to the major of issue of building a fleet pop-up battleships, out of harm’s way in the production queue, prior to deployment at least.

As for your other suggestion about representing the main ship components.

I...where you have a HULL, FRONT GUNS, REAR GUNS, etc this idea could amplify this idea much more. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?773403-New-Naval-warfare-suggestion... .

I think it’s great idea. I really do.

And give me a damage report that shows a cartoon of the ship’s outline with red bits (maybe even flashing red bits wooaahh… immersion!!!) alongside a list of “equipment” that’s been knocked-out/destroyed.

I really don’t think it would be that much of a drain on processor power either and, for the amount of realism, tactical representation and strategic impact a single hit could cause (imagine getting a battleship neutralised by a 5” shell, taking-out her fire control or an escort carrier sinking a heavy cruiser by hitting her torpedoes!), it would be a vast improvement to the game. IMO anyway.

I’m not so much of a fan of the mechanics you suggest for repair though. In my mind, temporary repairs and patching-up are represented by regaining Org. Any major component of a ship put out of action would almost always require the ship to return to a port capable of building her. And so it should be in game.

Exceptions to this would be:-

Hull: You can patch & pump-out any flooding (restoring Org) but, perhaps, only 10% of the damage suffered should be repairable (regain of 10% Strength lost)

Flight deck: There are many instances where these were patched-up with concrete and put back in to service in about an hour or so. Perhaps this was Brit’ carriers. The odd occasion where a centreline lift was crippled is another matter, of course.

Engines: Again, you’re going to struggle to do much to repair damage to this kind of equipment without the proper machine shops so I’d suggest, perhaps, 10% damage (Strength?) recovery but this would need to be tied-in to a speed reduction for engine damage mechanism in the first place. We used to use two rules. After losing 50% of a ships “hitpoints” it lost 25% of its top speed, after 75% it would lose another 25% of its top speed and… that a penetrating hit on engines caused a 1kt reduction in speed per inch in diameter of the weapon. You could get half your loss back (if you were still afloat) at the end of a battle. Anything else required facilities.

I can still see most of this repair-at-sea/damage control being adequately represented by regain of Org (if this exists in HoI IV) which goes more quickly in any port. But the big stuff, as you say, requires a big port, with a big dock & appropriately large facilities (infra? Specific dry-dock building?).

A lot would depend upon how damage is tracked and if there’s a distinction made between crippled (repairable at sea) and destroyed. We used to keep track of the ships “hitpoints” and any specific component that got hit was either knocked-out (if its armour didn’t protect it) or not. This was a convenient way to track cumulative damage against the ship and critical hits without being overly complicated.


Weather damage would be another good idea.

I’ve seen me send de-orged ships below 10% strength to the nearest friendly port.
Why did I do that? I could have just sent them home.

 

[RisingSun]

Yeah i hope they do, cant build a capitol ship without a major port. Just because you have a major port, doesnt mean you can build ten battleships either. Each major ports, cant say what size, that something for them to figure out. For example a large port size of 10 (highest) should be able to construct/repair up to four BC/BB/CV. Let them do the math on smaller ports on how the setups should be.