Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

"At Sea" Attrition too high?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> "At Sea" Attrition too high? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
"At Sea" Attrition too high? - 7/2/2002 5:46:01 AM   
segorn

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 6/30/2002
Status: offline 		I have to wonder if the "at sea" attrition rate on ships is too high. As it currently stands, pretty much every turn that a ship maneuvers at high speed, it gets a point or two of system damage.

This means that ships on surface combat, air combat, fast transport, or bombardment missions will rack up massive systems damage in only a week or so of operation.

Fast transport missions burn out destroyers so badly that after a month of fast transport they all have to go back to pearl.

Air combat missions burn out my aircraft carriers so badly that three raids from Luganville to the Lunga area put more systems damage on the Lexington than two 250 KG bombs.

Now, I do understand that there's operations wear and tear on a ship, but I can't think it was this bad historically. Many ships in WW II stayed on station for weeks on end without falling apart. In this game though, two weeks of mobile air superiority missions will pretty much force you to send your carriers back to pearl/truk.
Post #: 1
- 7/2/2002 9:13:34 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline 		Hi Segorn,

I have no data but I agree with you. I would be in favor of toning it down slightly. After it gets to 10 the numbers turn red, which means stop to me. I probably use my ships too sparingly because of this.

The good news is that it's a problem for both sides, although there have been some indications that the AI has trouble dealing with it. I base this on the "Submarines Caught In Loop" thread.

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 2
- 7/2/2002 9:28:19 AM   
anthonykevinluke

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 8/31/2001
Status: offline 		Concur fully. Reducing this may also help the AI which would be good.

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 3
- 7/2/2002 9:54:02 AM   
segorn

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 6/30/2002
Status: offline 		Glad its not just me. The whole use the ship for a week, put it in drydock for three months thing just didn't ring true to me.

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 4
- 7/2/2002 10:13:36 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		No, it's not just you, and it gives the AI fits. Should be a limit on"routine" systems damage, it should accrue slower, and after it reaches the limit, should be a random chance of a major engineering casualty affecting some part of the ships sytems...speed, guns, radar ect. That and a "structural" damage taken in combat, that goes along with "systems" damage taken in combat, and can't be fixed in theatre past a certain point. Would allow a somewhat more advanced damage model.

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 5
- 7/2/2002 7:47:04 PM   
Mark W Carver

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 4/26/2002
From: South-central PA
Status: offline 		FWIW - I'm currently playing scenario #17 as the Americans. I just started a new game and it's May 15th. TF 201 which consists of Lexington and Yorktown and it's support ships have been put to sea from game turn #1 to meet the usual threat to Gili Gili... and Yorktown has 3 system damage, Lexington has 0 system damage and for the most part, rest of the ships in the TF have system damage from anywhere of 1 to 3 system damage, except the cruiser Portland which has 0 system damage and a couple DDs with 4 system damage. I've yet to do any air operations as the Japs have not made a move on Gili Gili but the TF has always been stationed near Gili Gili and moving around but as you can see, my system damage is no where near drastic in the 15 days it's been put to sea.

v1.11

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 6
- 7/2/2002 8:29:27 PM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline 		One remark : System Damages are not that dangerous ... ships are operational with a SD of even 10-15 ! ... and IMO are a good representation of the normal mechanical failures of any ships at that time.

What would be funny is if some kind of flotation damages are added to small ships (ie : SC, PC, PC, ...) because of tropical storms ...

Spooky

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 7
- 7/2/2002 9:20:02 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		Sure it's dangerous. The systems damage reduces speed and effectiveness, and comes right off the top of your "allowable" combat damage. Any combat damage just gets added right on top.

I just moved a "brand new" carrier out of Noumea, it's just over halfway to Cairns, and it already has 5 points of system damage. Given that after about 30% systems damage, it's time to send it back to Pearl, that's 17% of this carriers combat effectiveness burnt in a couple days of steaming, and the IJN hasn't even began to beat on it. Or, to put it another way, this brand new carrier is 10% of the way toward having its flight deck out of service, and hasn't even had its paintwork scratched yet.

I really can't believe that a ship needs a total overhaul every 3 months or so...which is about what we're getting with the current systems damage effect. A laundry list of minor repairs needed, yes. Even the possibility of a major engineering casualty...but not being combat ineffective after a few months at sea.

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 8
- 7/3/2002 12:31:02 AM   
worr

 

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline 		I can understand it for the smaller ship...but there should be some benefit for staying within the slot.

Worr, out

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 9
- 7/3/2002 3:55:22 AM   
Diealtekoenig

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline 		Rather than argue about what one "feels is right", does anyone have any data for how quickly routine maintenance problems accumulate while just cruising?

By "routine maintenance problems" I guess I mean those that net-acculumate (accumulate faster than the crew fixes them while underway). I am reading (re-reading) a lot more about the Guadalcanal campaign since UV was released but all that sticks in my mind is the Washington losing all electical power (for no reason) for 3 minutes right before (not because of) engaging in combat once.

I don't recall much mention in any source about breakdown rates or maintenance one way or the other.

Perhaps we can as a group ferret out data on how long ships could stay at sea between extended port calls (more than just refuel/rearm and leave) and between major refits in major ports.

Speaking of major refits, I recall off the top of my head ships going to Pearl or Long Beach to repair battle damage, but not just to recover from normal wear and tear. Anybody have a record of a ship having to go back to Long Beach due to just accumulated wear and tear from sailing around for several weeks?

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 10
- 7/3/2002 4:11:43 AM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline 		Seen all the posts here, I must be an awesome player ;) since I never had to send back a ship to PH/Japan because of "wear & tear" damage !

BTW, in a ship, a LOT of things can (and will) break ... and to find the right spare part can take a long time ... especially in a small port in the Pacific ....

Spooky

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 11
- 7/3/2002 6:20:21 AM   
segorn

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 6/30/2002
Status: offline 		Sure, things do break. but there's a world of difference between the wardroom coffee pot breaking and the ship slowing from 33 to 27 knots cruising speed.

Most of the things that break on a ship get fixed right then and there. Warships carry lots of spare parts and repair technicians for everything they consider mission critical e.g. weapons and the drive train.

The way the game models wear&tear, annoying yet unimportant damage, is lumped in and treated identically with damage to critical systems.

I mean, every coffee pot and light bulb in a ship could go out, but its still going to move at 33 knots at flank speed.

And you know what? You could dock that ship back at Nomeau and have 300 new light bulbs and twenty coffee pots on board in about an hour.

As it stands, insignificant attritional damage currently impacts the combat capabilities of ships.

This same "wastage" damage takes just as long to fix as combat damage.

I happen to think that

A) "wastage" damage is largely ignorable.
B) warships keep their weapons and drive train in near perfect condition while on patrol. There's a reason a battleship has over a thousand people on it. They fix things that break.
C) warships carry *lots* of spare parts in case, say, they get into a battle and have to patch up ship's systems.
D) wasteage damage can be fixed very rapidly back at port , in contrast to battle damage like, say, a missing aft turret.

Now I'm sure there have been instances where mission critical system on major warships just plain broke, but the navy is not incapable of making repairs under way.

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 12
I like the damage as modeled - 7/3/2002 6:38:51 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		I know it seems excessive, but ships did spend much of their time in port. I rotate my convoy ships every few weeks and always seem to have enough ships to do so, thereby keeping the system damage levels manageable.

I also regularily send ships to Pearl or Japan to receive weapons upgrades if I've worn them out a bit. Nothing more useless on a ship than a machine gun. They go right away.

I think subs system damage is modeled OK as it makes one leave a sub in port 2 or 3 weeks to repair system damage after a patrol as was historically required. In fact, S boats and IJN subs should be burdened with a higher systems damage potential as these ships were real dogs.

Read Tameichi Hara's "Japanese Destroyer Captain" and you will get a better understanding of this wear and tear. He constantly complained how the "Rat" (Tokyo Express) operations were detrimental to the fighting potential of the ships and crews involved.

At least we don't have to deal with complete breakdowns. USS Patterson suffered an engineering casualty when operating as part of Brown's TF 11 in early 1942. As Lexington attempted to bomb Rabaul (when Butch O'Hare became an ace in a day), Patterson went dead in the water and was left to her own devices in the middle of the Coral Sea. She regained mobility and made it back to base but constant steaming since Pearl Harbor caused the breakdown and she was in drydock for three months as a result.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 13
Just some info . . . - 7/4/2002 2:16:18 AM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline 		Well, here is a quick (and roughly approximate) breakdown of the Enterprise service from Dec '41 through Nov '43:

[SIZE=1]» 2 months @ sea (in port for replenishment only; Marshall-Gilbert raids)
» 8 days @ Pearl
» 1 month @ sea (Wake-Marcus raids)
» 1 month @ Pearl (.50cal to 20mm Oerlikons upgrade)
» 2 months @ sea (Doolittle raid-Midway)
» 1 month @ Pearl (including 2 weeks specifically for upkeep, repair & maintenance)
» 6 weeks @ sea (Battle of Eastern Solomons - 3 bomb hits)
» 6 weeks+ @ Pearl (except for ASW & CAP, the air groups (Six) left behind in theatre; repairs & 40mm Bofors upgrade)
» 2 weeks @ sea (new air groups (Ten); Battle of Santa Cruz; 1 bomb hit, 1 near miss)
» 2 weeks @ Noumea (emergency repairs)
» 1 week @ sea (Battle of Guadalcanal [3rd Savo]; continuing repairs)
» 10 weeks @ Noumea (continuing repairs; some sorties)
» 1 week @ sea (Battle of Rennel Is.)
» 2 months @ Espiritu Santo (several short sorties/patrols)
» 1 week @ sea
» 2 months @ Espritu Santo (several short sorties/patrols)
» 10 weeks @ Pearl (train new air group)
» 3 months @ Bremerton (major refit/repair/upgrade)[/SIZE]

Can't guarantee exact accuracy, but it's fairly close. FYI

_____________________________


(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 14
Geeez.... - 7/4/2002 12:34:32 PM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline 		This must be about the 10th or 11th example of someone complaining about something in the game that too harshly impedes them, when in reality it's NOT BAD ENOUGH.

Play #17 with 100% reinforcement, as, say, the Americans, and compare the total number of ships you have on 1 Jan 43 or whatever with some of the scenarios that start later; even if you've lost a lot of ships in combat, you have a LOT more ships than you start out with in the later scenarios.

One problem is that you aren't seeing ships WITHDRAWN from the SW Pacific; they only leave if you send them back. You just keep accumulating ships.

And if anything, ships are spending too LITTLE time in port, and not being sent back to Pearl enough, not too much.

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 15
Well said John K!!!!!!!! - 7/4/2002 4:49:28 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		I for one think we have TOO many ships to work with. I had asked that question before. If one is doing well, or if the war is going poorly in other theatres (randomly determined), ships should be retired as they belonged to a bigger, more voracious organization. At the very least, if a ship is sent back to PH or Japan, an escort should be yanked from your pool (the size of the escort dependent on the size/number of ships being sent home). An example: when Saratoga was torpedoed in August 1942, her destroyer screen went with her as I believe her cruiser escorts. Never again during the Solomons campaign does one see a Farragut class destroyer (they ended up in the Aleutians) and the New Orleans and Minneapolis are nowhere to be seen until Carleton Wright showed up in CA 36 ready to drop the ball vs Tanaka at Tassafaronga in November 42.

This would definitely reduce the bizarre number of naval battles and bombardments to a more historically accurate level. Might also keep people from expending TRs like bottles of beer and mounting ahistorical invasions with little logistical support.

You guessed it. I'm one of those guys who likes to play Age of Empires etc. with the force size settings set to minimal or small. I like to concentrate on tactics and strategy, not mass production and blood bath orgies involving hundreds of units.;)

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to segorn)
Post #: 16
- 7/5/2002 8:52:31 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		What looks like the general thrust to me is the following:
[list]
  • System damage shouldn't affect a ship's speed so directly
  • superficial damage should be allowed to be fixed better at a large sized base- say a port size 7 or higher than currently. A ship with 15 System Damage should be able to be brought to 3 or so at such a base in a week or 2. It shouldn't be able to be gotten to 0, but close.[/list]In Nov42 Enterprise had an aircraft elevator inoperable becuase it was damaged in battle. UV would probably interpret that as at least 20 System Damage, but IRL, she could still make 30+ knots.

    A ship operating at sea (USN or IJN) should be able to suffer System Damage that does not affect its speed. And it should be able to suffer damage that affects its Speed, but not its System.

    USN ships were long-legged: designed to operate for long periods away from base (as the USN was short on bases). IJN ships should be able to better use Truk as a repair base (as it was developed as such).

    I don't think the game models such things as well as it could. It doesn't do badly, but it could do better.

    _____________________________

    Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
    (\../)
    (O.o)
    (> <)

    CVB Langley:

    (in reply to segorn)
    • Post #: 17
    Re: Well said John K!!!!!!!! - 7/5/2002 9:31:26 AM   
    juliet7bravo

     

    Posts: 894
    Joined: 5/30/2001
    Status: offline     		A ship could take systems damage that would effect speed...but the current systems damage accumulates to quickly, and impacts to directly on combat readiness. Given that the recommended rotation point is at 30+% systems damage, you're pretty much limited to about 3 months "at sea time" for a major unit.

    I think there should be a systems damage rating that is repairable in theatre, doesn't accumulate so quickly (or is repaired in port more quickly), and can be incurred via "regular duty" and by combat damage. There should also be a "structural damage" rating, to indicate damage that is non-repairable (past a certain point) in theatre (or a major repair facility in WiTP), that specifically targets ships systems, ie. turrets, gun mounts, radar, engines, armor ect. This could take the place of "fire" which really doesn't indicate much. Structural damage could be incurred very slowly at sea, or in combat. Systems damage incurred at sea and in combat, but can be repaired more quickly in port.

    This would allow a more flexible damage model and be more realistic. You'd still get an annoying amount of systems damage that would require sitting in port, but it could be repaired more quickly without having to send ships to the rear. Routine structural damage could still be incurred at sea, and below a certain point repaired in theatre. Serious structural damage incurred through abuse/overuse or combat would require being sent to the rear for repair. You could even target specific systems via combat damage or a random chance of a catastrophic engineering casualty.

    (in reply to segorn)
    Post #: 18
    Fast Carrier TF - 7/5/2002 8:25:11 PM   
    Ron Saueracker


    Posts: 12121
    Joined: 1/28/2002
    From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
    Status: offline     		During the war, all new construction destroyers were assigned to the FCV TF. DDs that have spent much time operating with FCV TF were replaced by new construction DDs and reassigned to other duties. Ever notice that photos of a prewar DD alongside an Essex are exceedingly rare? System damage does affect speed considerably and only thorough overhauls can rectify this.

    I'm not painting myself in a corner either. In UV, as in reality, all ships are affected by hard steaming, including Essexes. I'm just pointing out that escorts require more speed to remain on station within the screen, and the newer ships were more able (until they needed an overhaul). I think UV models this adequately.

    _____________________________





    Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

    (in reply to segorn)
    Post #: 19
    Another Vote - 7/6/2002 1:03:57 AM   
    Rex Bellator

     

    Posts: 66
    Joined: 4/26/2002
    From: Kent UK
    Status: offline     		FWIW I'm in the system damage accrues too quickly camp. The real problem is that once your ships start to slow down they become much easier targets in their next action.

    I'd be much happier with a slower damage routine or a quicker repair routine.

    (in reply to segorn)
    Post #: 20
    Page:   [1]
    All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> "At Sea" Attrition too high? Page: [1]
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

    1.016