Not safer in Kure, that's where all the remaining supplies to finish the work on the half built Shinano were. It's was easier to bring the hull to the stuff rather than the stuff to her.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Not safer in Kure, that's where all the remaining supplies to finish the work on the half built Shinano were. It's was easier to bring the hull to the stuff rather than the stuff to her.
Simple damage control option
A simple combination of ideas here would be to add a research item that would increase the organization of the units, making them harder to defeat. Better organized thus equals stays in fight longer.
A simple combination of ideas here would be to add a research item that would increase the organization of the units, making them harder to defeat. Better organized thus equals stays in fight longer.
Oddly, you get better at researching damage control for your CV's by having a lot of fights with your submarines :rofl:
Completely agreed!
the issue has nothing to do with staying power in a fight, its being able to float while resembling a sieve thats the problem. If strength is down to under 10%, i'd think it fair to assume there is some critical hull damage at or below the waterline by this point. Some ships sank from very little apparant damage, some took obscene poundings and still got home.
while i agree it may be more realistic, i'd be foaming at the mouth i think if i waited a couple years to deploy a BB, only to have it sink after taking 1% losses. in fairness to the concept however, i can't disagree that its possible.
A viable option then might be to have the chance of surviving equal to the ships strength, add to this a bonus from researched damage control, pushing this chance of survival over 100% base, add to this possible related leader traits, add crew experience to this as well. then possibly if doable, have ocean state(calm, rough seas, stormy) detract from this, as a damaged ship is more likely to sink in stormy weather. Im gonna consider a hypothetical here.
DC bonuses from
tech, i will assume 14.5% here
leader trait, 5% here
crew experience, 4.5% here
DC penalties from
organisation, if org is over 75% no penalty, if less then half of missing org below 75% is penalty, so, 74%=.5% penalty, 65%=5%, and so on, peaking at 37.5% for zero org. This is directly multiplying your chance to sink, NOT additive.
weather, stormy weather should impact things, assuming 15% check hourly
sea state, not necessarily linked to a storm, may just be windy, assume 10% for rough seas. check daily
calculate chance of sinking daily.(assume the abstraction as a communication delay, she sank 1hr after combat, but your just now being informed.)
we will have three ships
A)90% strength, 40/40 org
B)95% strength, 20/40 org(12.5% org penalty)
C)80% strength, 0/40 org(37.5% org penalty)
to simplify, the combined bonus is 20%
A)=(100*90% strength)+(20% DC bonuses)=110% chance to survive in calm seas, 100% chance/hour to survive in rough seas(0% chance to sink), 85% chance/day to survive in stormy weather(includes rough seas)(15% chance to sink)
B)=(100*95% strength)+(20% DC bonuses)=115% chance to survive in calm seas, 115%-(10*1.125)=103.75% chance/hour to survive in rough seas, 115%-(25*1.125)=86.875% chance/day to survive in stormy weather(includes rough seas)
C)=(100*80% strength)+(20% DC bonuses)=100% chance to survive in calm seas, 100%-(10*1.375)=86.25% chance/hour to survive in rough seas, 100%-(25*1.375)=65.625% chance/day to survive in stormy weather(includes rough seas)
now, org will recover and as it does, dmg control will improve removing that penalty, Ship C is in no danger of sinking in calm waters and 75% or better org, and ships A and B need only avoid storms and they won't sink either.
And yes, at those levels, a 100% strength/org ship has a 5% chance of sinking in a storm.
if you consider org as a bonus to damage control when above 75%, a 100% org ship gets an additional 2.5% DC(20*1.125=22.5), not enough to save a ship in a storm, but closer, and a little more tech/experience and your set.
on that note, if a storm causes org losses hourly/daily, this would increase the chances of sinking while in a storm, the longer your there the greater the chance of sinking.
Last edited:
You are looking at ship's strength the wrong way. 10% is not "just about to sink." It's 10% away from being so crippled that sinking is inevitable. I look at ship Strength as a measure of how battle worthy the ship is, A ship at 10% strength is not unseaworthy and 0% does not mean literally sunk. The USS Yorktown was at 0% after the battle of Midway despite still being afloat for the next two days.
0% means that the ship is as good as sunk even though it might still be afloat "IRL."
10% means MASSIVELY damaged but still very much seaworthy.
This is why I don't like the idea of ships having a risk of sinking due to storms especially at 90%. You would be fired from the Royal Navy if your ship was at risk for sinking due to storms after one hit. These are Metal battleships, not wooden schooners. They don't get upset by anything short of a hurricane.
The effects of Damage control is better handled by a doctrine called "damage control" that would work with the naval doctrine tech tree the same way the hospital techs in the current game work with the land tech tree. Couple that with naval combat events like "catastrophic hit" and "Fire" that have a chance of popping up anytime a ship is damaged. The chance and duration of these events would be affected by the ship's current strength, org, experience, and damage control tech. A ship at 95% strength is unlikely to catch fire when hit with or without effective damage control, but a ship at 30% strength has a much greater chance of being sunk by that next hit.
I've got to say that that is my reading of the game abstractions as well.
dbl post, was tracking down links and didn't realise this had gone thru. don't see a delete post button, if anyone wants to kill this one...
Last edited:
wasn't even damaged, and yet, this metal ship SANK due to a storm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hull_(DD-350)
it happens.
If a hurricane can put under an intact vessel, all it takes is a little damage in the wrong place and it won't take a full on hurricane to put it under.
A vessel with a list is still quite combat capable, yet that slight list could cause a serious capsize risk in high seas. There's a reason navy's avoid getting caught in major storms, they aren't immune to them, losses do occur as a result of them.
On another note, how does such an abstraction account for the wildly varying amounts of damage it takes to sink a warship, so vessels take an absurd amount of damage, and some get royally shafted by next to nothing. An example that comes to mind are hood and bismarck. Both got shafted by circumstance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Franklin_(CV-13)
should have gone under, by all accounts effectively destroyed.....yet still afloat.
Vessels merely damaged are lost from time to time, it happens, despite the vessel being otherwise very much still seaworthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hull_(DD-350)
it happens.
If a hurricane can put under an intact vessel, all it takes is a little damage in the wrong place and it won't take a full on hurricane to put it under.
A vessel with a list is still quite combat capable, yet that slight list could cause a serious capsize risk in high seas. There's a reason navy's avoid getting caught in major storms, they aren't immune to them, losses do occur as a result of them.
On another note, how does such an abstraction account for the wildly varying amounts of damage it takes to sink a warship, so vessels take an absurd amount of damage, and some get royally shafted by next to nothing. An example that comes to mind are hood and bismarck. Both got shafted by circumstance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Franklin_(CV-13)
should have gone under, by all accounts effectively destroyed.....yet still afloat.
Vessels merely damaged are lost from time to time, it happens, despite the vessel being otherwise very much still seaworthy.
Last edited:
I'm glad that you mentioned the Franklin. You could also mention its sister CV Bunker Hill. Both took astounding amounts of damage. Both were excellent examples of advanced US damage control procedures and crew training. Both were also fortunate not to have received any below-the-waterline damage to speak of, which probably helped save them too. But the fires were so great, and so much sea water had to be pumped aboard both vessels to put out the fires, that they would have capsized were it not for that superior damage control and by counter-flooding.
Which is why there should be a research tech for superior damage control, IMO.
Hood was sunk due to design flaws. Bismarck may well have been deliberately scuttled in the end; it is still debated. But that vessel was an example of superior watertight compartmentalization.
Did storm-sinking happen in reality? Yes.
Did ship sink after receiving minimal damage that got blown out of proportion? Certainly.
Would Paradox get brutally murdered in critical reception, not to mention having their forums filled with rank after rank of "THIS GAME SUX MY SHIP SANK AT 95% strength!" posts, if people started losing ship at 90%? HELL YES.
Of course that doesn't mean you should always pander to the critics. After all, Paradox is not and probably will never be a mainstream game maker, so there will always be thing the critics won't like. However, you have to weight the pros and cons of defying the critics.
And frankly, the pros of this move...are pretty limited. The number of ships that sank in storms during the war is extremely low (Halsey's Typhoon and one or two other cases, I think?), so the increase in realism from adding it in is minimal. As others have noted, strength is probably best understood as including "Will it be able to return to base", so no benefits to adding losses from minimal damage there.
Ultimately, I just don't see how the benefits of your idea outweigh its massive disadvantages in terms of popular reception.
Did ship sink after receiving minimal damage that got blown out of proportion? Certainly.
Would Paradox get brutally murdered in critical reception, not to mention having their forums filled with rank after rank of "THIS GAME SUX MY SHIP SANK AT 95% strength!" posts, if people started losing ship at 90%? HELL YES.
Of course that doesn't mean you should always pander to the critics. After all, Paradox is not and probably will never be a mainstream game maker, so there will always be thing the critics won't like. However, you have to weight the pros and cons of defying the critics.
And frankly, the pros of this move...are pretty limited. The number of ships that sank in storms during the war is extremely low (Halsey's Typhoon and one or two other cases, I think?), so the increase in realism from adding it in is minimal. As others have noted, strength is probably best understood as including "Will it be able to return to base", so no benefits to adding losses from minimal damage there.
Ultimately, I just don't see how the benefits of your idea outweigh its massive disadvantages in terms of popular reception.
Last edited:
One should also remember that, particularly for the Japanese vessels, as one get desperate crew training time starts to drop. Should we therefore allow DC to get worse as barely trained crews are put to sea in ships that have barely finished trials?
I think the best way to represent this and normal DC is with the 'officers' slider, you know the one that represent the skill and training of your lower ranking officers. As you start taking great losses the bonus from this slider should be affected, and it should take time ti build up this skill again. Crew exp should also affect DC, but a doctrine in itself feels unecessary. Perhaps it would then be better with a slider system, where you can choose in which fields to focus crew training.
Just my two öre
I think the best way to represent this and normal DC is with the 'officers' slider, you know the one that represent the skill and training of your lower ranking officers. As you start taking great losses the bonus from this slider should be affected, and it should take time ti build up this skill again. Crew exp should also affect DC, but a doctrine in itself feels unecessary. Perhaps it would then be better with a slider system, where you can choose in which fields to focus crew training.
Just my two öre
Obviously, the survivibilty of a warship not only depends on the thickness of her armor but also her damage control capability.
I think that there should be some research about damage control.If the research is done, Naval ships can sustain more damage and the Org recovers faster(Simulate less crew loss).
Historical examples:
1.Generally, the damage control capability of the USN ships were better than the IJN ships. Many USN ships heavily damaged survived and had a chance to fight another days, while the IJN ships can't.
2.In Falkland War, HMS Sheffield was sunk not because the Exocet missile blew her apart, it's because RN couldn't control the fire raging in the ship.
Well, I think RN learned the lessons.
Actually they couldnt control.Because of cost cutting the Royal navy used shitty materials to build its ships and materials that would last but were also inflamable.
prevention of losses at high 90's is why i suggested using bonuses to push DC capability over 100%, so that it takes considerable damage to the ship, or rather horrible weather, to even have a risk of loss. As to suggesting a 90% chance ship might go down, i was just pulling numbers out of my ass for the moment, it could just as easily be shifted so that the first risk of sinking occurs at 60%, or for that matter, at 30%, anything desired,
Proficient DC would be simulated by higher experience and doctrine would it not? High training in HoI is usually simulated with high organization, or regain of organization perhaps. But the loss of a ship due to lack of DC would be hard to simulate, as well as the keeping of a ship due to superior DC...
So perhaps DC would be best simulated with a leadership contribution to ships, just as it will be part of land divisions and most likely air units. Also the doctrine/naval techs and experience could help.
I proposed in another thread a while ago that ships could be "shattered" kind of like land units. If the ship took a random big hit it would have a chance of being "stricken" and out of the fight, rather than hanging around in the battle to be sunk. Whether it was "stricken" would be based on factors similar to the land unit shattering. Obviously the effect would be different, where instead of dissappearing and reappearing at the capital, the ship would try to make its way back to port, and the various factors concerning DC would determine if it sank on the way home.
Thoughts?
So perhaps DC would be best simulated with a leadership contribution to ships, just as it will be part of land divisions and most likely air units. Also the doctrine/naval techs and experience could help.
I proposed in another thread a while ago that ships could be "shattered" kind of like land units. If the ship took a random big hit it would have a chance of being "stricken" and out of the fight, rather than hanging around in the battle to be sunk. Whether it was "stricken" would be based on factors similar to the land unit shattering. Obviously the effect would be different, where instead of dissappearing and reappearing at the capital, the ship would try to make its way back to port, and the various factors concerning DC would determine if it sank on the way home.
Thoughts?
The actual % doesn't change the underlying principle - people would complain about losing units at 50% strength while out of combat.
A straightforward rule ("Units are lost in combat, when their strength hit 0% or when they break") is incalculably better from a gameplay perspective than a "Your unit could blink off the map at any time if damaged" that really only tells the player "Well, you may or may not lose the ship. It's all luck..."
I think, given the arguments I've heard so far, that I'd prefer naval event %'s to simulate damage control issues, which then get modified by techs/doctrines. Only problem would be the display, as effects would be unit-specific instead of fleet-wide. Though I guess with the current interface you could add an 'on-fire' animation to the ship sprites, and thus make it clear that something bad is happening...
Jonathan Fisher
Jonathan Fisher
I should think DC should be a part of Doctrine,a researchable one that myou could choose.
After a ship sustained major damage I was under the impression that a commander’s first priority was to “retire” from battle, stabilize his ship to keep it from sinking and then get it to the nearest port where it could be fixed or made “more” stable. None of those three things is simple during combat. I’m hoping that the new naval combat system will have damaged ships break off and try to save themselves to simulate how a naval combat normally worked.
I think that the DC discussion is very valid when simulating survivability of ships in combat based on differing technical abilities or training of respective Navies. I think the best suggestion so far is to have researchable techs that increase org % that would make certain ships harder to sink.
I think that the DC discussion is very valid when simulating survivability of ships in combat based on differing technical abilities or training of respective Navies. I think the best suggestion so far is to have researchable techs that increase org % that would make certain ships harder to sink.
not only is the the end of combat ability NOT the same as when the ship goes under, saving the ship is not always order number one either
http://www.bosamar.com/usforces/dd557.html
adding org is a poor solution imo, all it will do is keep a ship in battle when it should have already been defeated, if it should have already lost the fight and retreated, but hasn't due to artificially raised org, it will take further damage, making it that much more likely it will sink this fight.
The goal isn't to make sinkings more likely, its to take into account that most ships aren't lost during a battle, most are lost at some point afterwards. And with that, that not all ships/crews/captains are the same, one captain might give the order, while another might stay that critical 5 minutes more, and in the end save ther ship.
http://www.bosamar.com/usforces/dd557.html
adding org is a poor solution imo, all it will do is keep a ship in battle when it should have already been defeated, if it should have already lost the fight and retreated, but hasn't due to artificially raised org, it will take further damage, making it that much more likely it will sink this fight.
The goal isn't to make sinkings more likely, its to take into account that most ships aren't lost during a battle, most are lost at some point afterwards. And with that, that not all ships/crews/captains are the same, one captain might give the order, while another might stay that critical 5 minutes more, and in the end save ther ship.
Last edited:
Of course it's not the same. But 0% is not merely "not combat capable". It's "no longer seaworthy". The captain has ordered abandon ship, or is about to do so. It may still float, but it's a foregone conclusion that it will be lost.
Whereas a ship that's at 5% or 10% is more like out of combat capacity. It may still have auxiliary power to a few light guns, if even that, but otherwise it's out of the fight.
Whereas a ship that's at 5% or 10% is more like out of combat capacity. It may still have auxiliary power to a few light guns, if even that, but otherwise it's out of the fight.