I'm not seeing much consensus here on definitions. We need to speak the same language, have the words mean the same things.
-
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.
That sounds great! But I would like it if a division of light ships would be represented by brigages of ships you can sink induvidually (and you can reassign a division if you have some understrength divisions of the same type just by clicking a button: reassign [if the computer finds other divisions of that type that are understrength, or else the button is greyed out] and all ships that are needed are reassigned, leaving the rest of the ships in this understrength division), because on hit from a battleship can sink a destroyer, not only damage all of them a little bit what you can repair. And if you have a lot of different shiptypes, heck, you have a lot of understrength ships that don't really fit together.
I second this. Sinking from storms could happen but it wouldn't break my heart if this wasn't implemented. And even if it would be implemented: the chances are so low that I don't think it should have a chance you could express it. On the other hand, you should have a tech called seaworthyness if this could happen. This was a point in reality (the german destroyers were so bad in terms of seaworthyness that they couldn't be used in bad weather) but I don't think it has to be in the game. One point less you have to think about. I would like to think about other things rather than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But to add one thing about sinking due to havy damage: in HoI II I had a ship I was sure it survived the battle with a few percent and it sunk on the way back to the harbour. I don't know if it really happend, because I think I have seen it only once, but since that any ship with less than 20% has to get imediatly in the harbour to get emergency repairs. Since that I thought that ships sunk without a victor stated have sunk on the march back because of damage they received in battle.
im not necessarily advocating for storms, merely that there's no reason they couldn't become a terrain that affected this. the main point however, is that a ship that has had the crap kicked out of it is quite easily in danger of sinking, even if its still able to retaliate.
All damage is not above the waterline and then suddenly a kill blow from below the waterline. all damage is intended for delivery at or below the waterline, its how you sink ships, only in cases where belt armor is too think for your armament is this not the case. I mean honestly, if absolutely nothing were done about it, could a single torpedo sink a bb?, quite probably, if no hatches were closed, almost definitely.
the human element is the ONLY thing that prevents a damaged ship from going under. and if this damage is beyond the crew's ability to cope, now your on dangerously thin ice. If the crew takes too long, or forgets something, or neglects a detail, or isn't aware of something, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)#Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea, and down goes your ship.
Im not suggesting we should be aiming for high strength losses, it just made case examples of how it might be done easier to suggest. but a ship under 33% had better have some impressive DC/crew skill imo, or it should be at risk of loss. Remember, im not suggestng a permanent risk of sinking until the strength recovers, link this with org, this permits your DC team to 'shore-up' the hull, and get things under control, nothing compared to a yard job, but certainly more seaworthy. Low org, something between low bonus/penalty, rising to a low/moderate bonus at high org.
This by itself would emulate seaworthiness from low DC capability, lower crew skill, lower liklihood of commander traits, and bang, all the bonuses are out the window, making naval terrain effects, like major storms, that much more dangerous.
All damage is not above the waterline and then suddenly a kill blow from below the waterline. all damage is intended for delivery at or below the waterline, its how you sink ships, only in cases where belt armor is too think for your armament is this not the case. I mean honestly, if absolutely nothing were done about it, could a single torpedo sink a bb?, quite probably, if no hatches were closed, almost definitely.
the human element is the ONLY thing that prevents a damaged ship from going under. and if this damage is beyond the crew's ability to cope, now your on dangerously thin ice. If the crew takes too long, or forgets something, or neglects a detail, or isn't aware of something, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)#Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea, and down goes your ship.
Im not suggesting we should be aiming for high strength losses, it just made case examples of how it might be done easier to suggest. but a ship under 33% had better have some impressive DC/crew skill imo, or it should be at risk of loss. Remember, im not suggestng a permanent risk of sinking until the strength recovers, link this with org, this permits your DC team to 'shore-up' the hull, and get things under control, nothing compared to a yard job, but certainly more seaworthy. Low org, something between low bonus/penalty, rising to a low/moderate bonus at high org.
This by itself would emulate seaworthiness from low DC capability, lower crew skill, lower liklihood of commander traits, and bang, all the bonuses are out the window, making naval terrain effects, like major storms, that much more dangerous.
Arguably the biggest difference between US and Japan carriers was damage control.
Excllent damage control of US carriers made them so successfull.
I believe damage control as levels should be implemented if possible.
Excllent damage control of US carriers made them so successfull.
I believe damage control as levels should be implemented if possible.
I'm well aware of all that, Amram. I said you were right about realism.
The issue here isn't realism, it's good gameplay, which is somewhat important when dealing with a game. And from a gameplay perspective, for a World War II game, it's simply better to have the current system (where ships are lost only in combat, and only by getting to 0%). No, ships didn't have "non lethal hit then suddenly one lethal hit"; in the game hitting 0% is that one point where the damage taken by the ship become too much for your DC teams to manage. The ship is doomed.
(And thus, DC should be represented as either more hit points, or else takign less damage from each hit. Not because the ship is actually sturdier, or because each shot harm its hull less, but because each shot is less of a threat to its crew's ability to keep it floating than the same shot would be to a battle ship with worse DC crews.
Now true, that leave the issue of the doomed ship that went on shooting anyway. Realistically this should be possible; but it's much better to add this to the existing system (for example, with a rule that ships reduced to 0% have a certain chance to stay in the battle until it ends, and keep firing their gun so long as they have organization left. That way you simulate doomed ships that went on fighting, but you don'T end up with frustrating issues like ship randomly blinking off the map out of battle.
Ultimately, this is just a case where the old KISS principle apply (Keep it Simple, Seriously*). If you have the choice between adding lots of mechanisms (out of battle sinking, a DC statistic), or tweaking existing mechanisms (same statistics as ever, a little chance of sinking ship staying in the fight), then the later choice is almost always best, because it's less superfluous data for the player to worry about.
*I know that's not what the principle originally said, but I don't particularly like using the original word.
The issue here isn't realism, it's good gameplay, which is somewhat important when dealing with a game. And from a gameplay perspective, for a World War II game, it's simply better to have the current system (where ships are lost only in combat, and only by getting to 0%). No, ships didn't have "non lethal hit then suddenly one lethal hit"; in the game hitting 0% is that one point where the damage taken by the ship become too much for your DC teams to manage. The ship is doomed.
(And thus, DC should be represented as either more hit points, or else takign less damage from each hit. Not because the ship is actually sturdier, or because each shot harm its hull less, but because each shot is less of a threat to its crew's ability to keep it floating than the same shot would be to a battle ship with worse DC crews.
Now true, that leave the issue of the doomed ship that went on shooting anyway. Realistically this should be possible; but it's much better to add this to the existing system (for example, with a rule that ships reduced to 0% have a certain chance to stay in the battle until it ends, and keep firing their gun so long as they have organization left. That way you simulate doomed ships that went on fighting, but you don'T end up with frustrating issues like ship randomly blinking off the map out of battle.
Ultimately, this is just a case where the old KISS principle apply (Keep it Simple, Seriously*). If you have the choice between adding lots of mechanisms (out of battle sinking, a DC statistic), or tweaking existing mechanisms (same statistics as ever, a little chance of sinking ship staying in the fight), then the later choice is almost always best, because it's less superfluous data for the player to worry about.
*I know that's not what the principle originally said, but I don't particularly like using the original word.
wasn't all amed at you, lol. that aside, much of what i chase after here int he forums is simply the capability to include it, if not represented in stock. i would be surprised if such a function did not see usage in TRP or SR, or any of the numerous realism mods that will inevitably appear, and all it takes is one to put out the right set of numbers to have alot of people go, oh, wow, that actually was a good idea, or its not nearly as much of a problem as we thought.