Will naval combat have Org?

[SwordOfJustice]

I've never understood what Org is for ships. They don't gradually lose cohesion under pressure of combat like large formations of troops. Naval combat should really have its own game model of combat, different to land combat, with torpedo attacks, smoke screens, long range fire, etc and ships taking damage or possibly expending stores.

Anyway, I suppose we won't see that in this game sadly.

 

[Gort11]

Generally speaking if a fleet found itself in a battle it felt it was going to lose, it would seek to extricate itself from that battle before it lost too many of its ships. Org models that.

 

[Secret Master]

I would guess that in a game where the level of abstraction is at the national level, with production worried about the creation of whole units and not individual munitions, ORG represents "...torpedo attacks, smoke screens, long range fire, etc and ships taking damage or possibly expending stores."

 

[lodgers]

I've never understood what Org is for ships. They don't gradually lose cohesion under pressure of combat like large formations of troops. Naval combat should really have its own game model of combat, different to land combat, with torpedo attacks, smoke screens, long range fire, etc and ships taking damage or possibly expending stores.

Anyway, I suppose we won't see that in this game sadly.

They also need to fix the fact that naval bombers have no CAS capability, where in reality EVERY "naval bomber" (ie torpedo bomber) had CAS capability.

 

[CrasherZZ]

I always assumed that Org in naval units had to with resupply, low ammo, casualties, training, replacements, repairs and maintenance and what-not but maybe I was wrong. Maybe it's just using the same code for modeling land, air, and naval units instead of modeling them all uniquely. Hopefully it will be more specific to land, air, and sea in HOI4.

 

[BattleMoose]

Org just doesn't make sense for naval units. Even if it did represent, use of stores, well, at the end of a fight the fleet that won still has all its org and apparently didn't expend any munitions to defeat their enemy...

Naval bombers are typically 2 engine long range bombers, Catalina or Betty, and no, they weren't used for CAS.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Even if it did represent, use of stores, well, at the end of a fight the fleet that won still has all its org and apparently didn't expend any munitions to defeat their enemy...

And even then it still makes no sense, a ship depleted of munition should have better defense than one fully stocked, since it will be lighter (by a small margin) and invulnerble to magazine penetration or fire.

Naval bombers are typically 2 engine long range bombers, Catalina or Betty, and no, they weren't used for CAS.

Apparently carrier-borne torpedo bombers are variants of land-based naval bombers in HoI4 so...

 

[Gort11]

Org just doesn't make sense for naval units. Even if it did represent, use of stores, well, at the end of a fight the fleet that won still has all its org and apparently didn't expend any munitions to defeat their enemy...

Unless your fight was against something that can't fire back (say a convoy or something) then your naval unit will have taken some return fire, costing it organisation, so it won't still have all its org.

 

[RVallant]

Maybe you're looking at it the wrong way.

ORG isn't the ship itself but the crew on the ship. Getting under fire, losing badly, ship getting hit whatever, all causes a lost of organisation on the crew, even if they're normally well-trained.

 

[BattleMoose]

Now consider the comparison between the crew on a ship and a division, both of which have been through a bad fight. A division, well, the commander is likely not to know what the casualties are or even where all of its brigades or companies even are! Not to mention the state of the ammunition. Whole units could have routed and could be god knows where.

On a ship, you kinda know where everyone is and everyone is fully committed to the survival of the ship. A division can take days or weeks to restore order. It just doesn't equate the same to a ship.

 

[Daddl]

ORG on ships represents if they are able to fight back or not.

One hit on a vital place might cause the ship to be unable to take part in combat, while its still floating and can leave the fight just fine, but can't fire its weapons with the precision needed. Then its nothing more than a useless piece of metal that will get sunk if it can't flee in time. So you need ORG for the difference between a combat-ready ship, a ship that can't do a lot more than floating anymore, and a sunk ship.

 

[CrasherZZ]

ORG on ships represents if they are able to fight back or not.

One hit on a vital place might cause the ship to be unable to take part in combat, while its still floating and can leave the fight just fine, but can't fire its weapons with the precision needed. Then its nothing more than a useless piece of metal that will get sunk if it can't flee in time. So you need ORG for the difference between a combat-ready ship, a ship that can't do a lot more than floating anymore, and a sunk ship.

There's two ratings, strength and Org. To me it's the strength rating that represents ship damage and caualties, and the Org rating that represents the unit getting reorganized. The problem Is that the Org rating makes sense for land and air units but not for individual ships. Anomalies like that happen because the game is using the same syatem to model air, naval, and units instead of creating unique functions for each kind of unit.

 

[Daddl]

There's two ratings, strength and Org. To me it's the strength rating that represents ship damage and caualties, and the Org rating that represents the unit getting reorganized.

What I meant is that a ship might be at 60% strength but 0% ORG, or at 10% strength but 50% ORG. A ship might be unable to take part in combat but is far away from sinking. A ship might be able to shoot back fine, but one more hit would sink it. ORG is sufficient for me to model the difference between the ability to take an active part in the fight and not being able to be more than the cannon fodder.

 

[CrasherZZ]

What I meant is that a ship might be at 60% strength but 0% ORG, or at 10% strength but 50% ORG. A ship might be unable to take part in combat but is far away from sinking. A ship might be able to shoot back fine, but one more hit would sink it. ORG is sufficient for me to model the difference between the ability to take an active part in the fight and not being able to be more than the cannon fodder.

The mechanic you described works fine as the Strength rating alone, which I have no problem with but I can't visualize what you mean with the Org rating as applied to a warship in combat.

With Army units it does make sense. With air units it makes less sense because although wings of 100 planes are large organizations than need to recover after multiple missions, it's not nearly as bad as an infantry division recovering from a being overrun and routed in an intense battle.

The problem is that HOI3 was being too simplistic in abstracting ship characteristics in the same way as Army units. If the Org rating is going to be used for ships, the recovery time should at least be much quicker since the ship crew is all in one place all the time.

If Org must be used for air, land and sea units then there should be different recovery times. Fast for ships, a little slower for air, and slow for land units.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Unless your fight was against something that can't fire back (say a convoy or something) then your naval unit will have taken some return fire, costing it organisation, so it won't still have all its org.

Why would taking fire reduce organization instead of strength? Crew assigned to a compartment don't get scattered under fire like land units, there's no place to run to. Also places like engine rooms, turrets, magazines and the bridge are the most fortified locations on a ship, while non-vital compartments are likely unarmored at all (the all-or-nothing armor), so without damages that disabled their assigned compartment or damages in other compartments in need of extra damage control crew, they're unlikely to get lost or hide themselves on the ship.

Maybe you're looking at it the wrong way.

ORG isn't the ship itself but the crew on the ship. Getting under fire, losing badly, ship getting hit whatever, all causes a lost of organisation on the crew, even if they're normally well-trained.

Those necesitate damages to the ship, which would be covered by strength, if that's what organiation on a ship represents then it's pretty redundant. And again crew on a ship are not going to be scattered in the manner of land troops under suppressing fire, you'd need to damage the ship to do that.

What I meant is that a ship might be at 60% strength but 0% ORG, or at 10% strength but 50% ORG. A ship might be unable to take part in combat but is far away from sinking. A ship might be able to shoot back fine, but one more hit would sink it. ORG is sufficient for me to model the difference between the ability to take an active part in the fight and not being able to be more than the cannon fodder.

Still there's no plausible reason for a ship without crippling damage to be unrendered to fight because of disorganization that takes weeks to sort out. While there are occations where a ship that's not crippled fails to fight, like confused by orders or mechanic troubles, those would be sorted out in no more than a few hours and the ship would 100% recover assuming it's not damaged in the mean time, which are nothing like the org in game, and there are other occations where it's caused by physical damage to the ship, like damaged radar, rangefinder, rudder, propellers, etc. , they should not be able to recover without drydocking the ship, unlike how org works in HoI.

 

[Gort11]

Why would taking fire reduce organization instead of strength?

It does both.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

It does both.

Then how's it not redundant in a naval setting? There are plenty of land battles where armies are shattered without taking much physical damage, but it's pretty much impossible to shatter the crew of a ship without devastating the ship itself.

 

[SwordOfJustice]

Good comments. I've realised from reading all this is that this series of games has put a very abstract model of combat that works for land combat on top of naval and air combat. It's just how HOI is. I wonder if there is a more realistic WW2 strategic game that won't melt my brain on the market. Actually, I think all the realistic ones *will* melt my brain! LOL

 

[ringhloth]

If it's still in, org would represent small hits that build up over time, and strength represents when the ship starts to seriously be affected by the damage it has taken.

 

[BattleMoose]

It will melt your brain but "War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition" does naval and air combat very well.