Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

ship damage !

 
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 >> ship damage ! Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
ship damage ! - 8/14/2002 7:04:42 PM   
tiger claw

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: australia
Status: offline 		ship damage !
I feel ships gain damage to quickly.
wile at sea only a few days the damage climbs up at a fast rate.
it is set a little high {i think}.
During the war the US keep it carriers at sea constantly for long stays. dout i could do this in the game.
port repairs tend to be slow which is fine but maybe the first few points could repair quicker just a idear !
{to help my first complant}

VON WEBBER.
Post #: 1
- 8/14/2002 8:26:39 PM   
Marc von Martial


Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline 		Ships gain increased damage at rough sea or when weather is bad.

_____________________________

Marc von Martial
instagram stream

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 2
Re: ship damage ! - 8/14/2002 9:44:57 PM   
EricLarsen

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiger claw
[B]ship damage !
I feel ships gain damage to quickly.
wile at sea only a few days the damage climbs up at a fast rate.
it is set a little high {i think}.
During the war the US keep it carriers at sea constantly for long stays. dout i could do this in the game.
port repairs tend to be slow which is fine but maybe the first few points could repair quicker just a idear !
{to help my first complant}

VON WEBBER. [/B]

tiger claw,
I agree ships gain systems damage too quickly and when anchored in port do not reduce low systems damage quickly enough. I find too many ships stuck in port with 1 systems damage point for too long trying to get it back to zero. I've also seen where high damage gets repaired several points at a time which I think is wrong since that should be the hardest damage to repair. I really do not like the random chaos of the ship repair system and hope they do something to fix it in WitP. I would like to see "naval support" squads in naval HQ's that would conduct the repairs and give the player something more quantifiable as far as how much repair a port can actually conduct. Too many times I've had a couple of ships with 1 systems damage in a level-9 port with plenty of supply and a naval HQ only to see them repair nothing for weeks on end. I also think that the naval HQ's with naval support squads should have more control over where surface tf's with BB's and air combat tf's can form up and execute missions from. I regularly keep IJN BB's in Lunga and IJN CV's at Tulagi for fending off and usually eliminating USN bombardment ft's that come to visit Lunga. There should be something that limits a player to keeping BB's and CV's at main ports like Truk, Rabaul, Noumea or Brisbane for repairs and for forming up surface and air combat tf's.
Eric Larsen

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 3
- 8/15/2002 11:00:00 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		The only time my ships are at zero system damage is the day they arrive in theater. And I sure don't wait for them to get to zero before sending them back out from Noumea after repairs either.

The system damage represents the wear and tear from operation. And some things you just can't seem to fix. A system like that will never be "out of the box" new if it gets used for any appreciable amount of time.

As a mechanized infantry company commander, keeping my 14 Bradley IFVs running even without somebody shooting at us was a full time job (Maintenance is training and training is maintenance). One vehicle had a quirk with the radiator we just could never fix, and another had a consistent problem with its communication equipment. No amount of time working on the bad boys seemed to fix the problems, but they didn't "deadline" the vehicles or make them "non mission capable". So they operated in a less than perfect state.

So if a ship is anything like a armored fighting vehicle, you always seemed to operating in various states of repair.

I don't see it as a major problem and it seems to accurately reflect usage, and wear and tear effects of extended operations or "bad weather" ops (Some of the guys I know in the Navy have told some good "sea stories" about some ships getting beat up in Pacific storms).

It seems that my biggest problem are the torpedoes that swim in the sea....

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 4
Amen, denisonh - 8/15/2002 11:09:37 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		There is nothing wrong with the system damage accrual rates. I, too, get frustrated when my big, bad ships are in the "plus 10" range without having suffered any enemy-initiated damage, but I know that scraping barnacles, re-rigging the rudder, purging the boilers, and refurbishing the captain's polish plates were all part of a sailor's (and a ship's) life during this era.

Pay attention to Marc's comment, too, that your ships will accrue system damage much faster when at sea during foul weather.

Blimey, mates, she's a stinkin' trawler what 'auls fish fer yer livin'.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 5
- 8/15/2002 11:28:09 AM   
Rabbakahn

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 8/5/2002
From: Sacramento, CA
Status: offline 		Howdy,

Does anybody remember the details of the hurricane that damaged Halsey's carrier fleet? I only remember the vague outline of the event. IIRC, several carriers were damaged quite seriously.

Fred

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 6
- 8/15/2002 11:33:24 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		Which time? I believe he ran his fleet into a typhoon on two seperate occasions, with a number of ships having to go back to Pearl for major repairs.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 7
- 8/15/2002 10:21:01 PM   
EricLarsen

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]The system damage represents the wear and tear from operation. And some things you just can't seem to fix. A system like that will never be "out of the box" new if it gets used for any appreciable amount of time.

I don't see it as a major problem and it seems to accurately reflect usage, and wear and tear effects of extended operations or "bad weather" ops (Some of the guys I know in the Navy have told some good "sea stories" about some ships getting beat up in Pacific storms).

denisonh,
I agree that the systems damage does reflect regular wear and tear from regular usage and should be included. It does seem a bit much at times, but what's really bad is the totally random repair of ships. While it should not be a formula that one can say it will take "X" days to repair "Y" damage points, the repair capacity of ports should be more quantifiable and certain big ships like BB's and CV's should only be repairable at large size 9 ports with major naval HQ's rather than anywhere. I also don't like the way floatation damage is so easily repaired to zero in small ports. I think that the last 5 or 10 points of floatation damage or so should not be repairable anywhere but a major port, as was the case of several USN CA's damaged around Gaudalcanal that had hull repairs done with wood that would float the ship back for complete floatation repairs at Pearl. The last point of systems damage should be more realiably repaired rather than the random chaotic system now in use. I do keep transport ships in port until they reach zero systems damage and have found that it doesn't impair my ability to haul fuel and supplies to the front. Since they have such a slow speed anyway getting that last extra knot of speed for a turn or two really helps.
Eric Larsen

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 8
- 8/16/2002 12:36:56 AM   
tiredoftryingnames


Posts: 1919
Joined: 12/10/2001
From: Chesapeake, Virginia
Status: offline 		Don't let system damage worry you until it starts changing colors and getting high. As was explained to the beta testers when we complained about system damage, a 0 system damage means everything is working perfect, the ship has a fresh coat of paint and no barnacles are on the hull. Basically once a ship reaches the war zone and starts going to sea you're never going to see 0 again. But a 5 system damage doesn't take away from your combat effectiveness. Just means it's not perfect anymore.

Jason

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 9
- 8/16/2002 10:23:51 AM   
Black Cat

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiredoftryingnames
[B]Don't let system damage worry you until it starts changing colors and getting high. As was explained to the beta testers when we complained about system damage, a 0 system damage means everything is working perfect, the ship has a fresh coat of paint and no barnacles are on the hull. Basically once a ship reaches the war zone and starts going to sea you're never going to see 0 again. But a 5 system damage doesn't take away from your combat effectiveness. Just means it's not perfect anymore.

Jason [/B][/QUOTE]

I, and others, assumed that system damage counts toward ship damage when it take hits in battle, so a ship with 10 system damage is significantly more at risk then one with 2 or 3.

I have been playing this way.

If this is true it not like the Chief P.O.`s Coffee pot was out or the aft widget is rusting ......and if it isn`t what the point of it ?

Who cares if the paint is faded....why model that in the game ?

It would be useful to know exactly how and why the System damage effect combat results, so we can make informed decisions.

Thanks

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 10
Floatation damage - 8/16/2002 12:03:00 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		I agree with EricL about floatation damage too easily repaired. If a ship has it's bow blown off, it should not return to 0% once the flooding is stopped. There should probably be a structure damage level as well, which can only be repaired if sent home. Same goes with specific systems damage, like turrets and such. A destroyed 8" turret was not something that many forward bases could rectify until 1944 on.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 11
- 8/16/2002 9:52:28 PM   
EricLarsen

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiredoftryingnames
[B] the ship has a fresh coat of paint and no barnacles are on the hull. Basically once a ship reaches the war zone and starts going to sea you're never going to see 0 again.

Jason [/B]

Jason,
It seems that system damage level 1 is the barnacle monster as it always drops the ship's speed one knot. I still think that this should be more readily repaired when anchored in port as the crew should be scraping them off. But it seems like the crew is on perpetual R&R for repair purposes when in port, either docked or anchored. That last point of systems damage takes too long to get rid of. In long campaigns I do wait until transport ships get back to perfect to use them again, allowing the ship to sit in port for a few weeks to get the few points of damage taken care of. I don't wait for that with warships but I do keep them anchored in port as much as possible. I do like the damage system because it does inhibit perpetual usage which isn't historically accurate, but the repair system stinks because it is too random and there's no rhyme or reason behind it. A couple of ships with minor damage can sit in a large size 9 port for a week with no damage being repaired while having a slew of damaged ships in the same port for a week will yield lots of repairs on lots of ships solely because the dumb random system works on the "more-the-merrier" random system. I sure hope they fix this for WitP so that players can imitate what Nimitz did with the Yorktown with the repair blitz that got it to Midway.
Eric Larsen

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 12
- 8/16/2002 10:41:24 PM   
Black Cat

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by EricLarsen
[B][QUOTE] repair system stinks because it is too random and there's no rhyme or reason behind it. A couple of ships with minor damage can sit in a large size 9 port for a week with no damage being repaired while having a slew of damaged ships in the same port for a week will yield lots of repairs on lots of ships solely because the dumb random system works on the "more-the-merrier" random system. I sure hope they fix this for WitP so that players can imitate what Nimitz did with the Yorktown with the repair blitz that got it to Midway.
Eric Larsen [/B][/QUOTE]

Exactlly !! and therein is the problem. I`ve had Saratoga sitting alone in Brisbane for 3 weeks and had only 1 point of 12 sys damage repaired.

While the 30+ ships sitting in Noumea are being reasonably quickly if randomly repaired. There is no way to prioritize the damage repair by specific ship now. Could this be looked at for WITP please.

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 13
Ship damage problems - 8/17/2002 5:00:27 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		Sara takes forever to repair no matter where she is. I've had her in Noumea for three weeks without one sys damage point removed. Wasp, Enterprise, and Hornet all dropped two or more in the same period.

My problems with system damage is that it causes a drop in speed far too quickly. I sailed on tin cans that never saw a port period when we were deployed in which anything less than major was never repaired - just minor refit items. - and we did not have a speed drop off anywhere near what happens in the game. BTW, this can had the infamous 1200 psi plants and ran on NSFO - which made them cantankerous as all get out, but we would deploy for weeks at a time from Curacao to Iceland without the problems these guys encounter with keeping the ship up - and that includes time underway chasing the CV's too - for anywhere from two to six weeks of constant ops. From my experience, and others who served in THIS time frame, system damage accrues far too fast and comes off far too slow for minor damage!!! On the other hand, flotation damage gallops off if you can get the beast into a port greater than three. I've saved several ships with greater than 80% damage by anchoring them out in Tulagi. They are ignored by virtually everyone - and some time later sail down to Luganville or even to Noumea, then back to Pearl. Brought the Swayback Maru from 93 percent to Pearl that way. Stout crew, that! I can hear them bragging about that swapping sea stories at the bars in Pearl City.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 14
- 8/17/2002 5:20:47 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Back in my day, we didn't have any of this fancy "timber" for shoring up bulkheads. No, we used the dead bodies of our crewmates to used them to plug leaks. Heck, sometimes we even took live people and had them hold the keel together with their BARE HANDS. The rest of us pulled out the oars and rowed back to New York! One handed! The long way, around the Africa! While fighting off Zeroes with rocks thrown from the top of the stacks!

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 15
So, you think that's somethin.... - 8/17/2002 5:27:07 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		I'll tell you a real good one, and this ain't no &^%*&% (I really can't go any further now!).... Survey this round, keep!

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 16
- 8/19/2002 12:19:20 AM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		The damage descriptions are way too simplistic. "Floatation" damage can be fixed by a few turns in a harbor, even if the ship has over a 50% damage level. That to me would signify the kind of damage Chicago or Pensacola took from torpedo hits, which required major time in a US mainland port to repair.

Similarly, the "system damage" appears to categorize every other type of damage a ship can gather, from a hit in the superstructure that doesn't affect her ability to float, to the loss of a main gun turret, to the normal wear and tear caused by regular steaming.

It's the same with the hit location tables. A bomb either hits the deck or belt armor, with sometimes a turret getting hit as well. No shell or bomb ever hits the superstructure; when South Dakota fought Kirishima, for example, nearly every shell hit she took was in the superstructure. San Francisco had her superstructure gutted after Hiei used her for target practice, but her ability to stay afloat was not affected.

Finally, if the system damage caused by routine steaming is increased by severe weather, then SHOW ME WHERE THE SEVERE WEATHER IS ON THE SCREEN!!! The navies in WWII knew where the rough weather was; they avoided squalls and storms all the time. Our task forces can't even avoid them when travelling between ports, because no one knows where they are!!

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 17
- 8/19/2002 8:15:59 AM   
Mark W Carver

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 4/26/2002
From: South-central PA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Lansford
...then SHOW ME WHERE THE SEVERE WEATHER IS ON THE SCREEN!!! The navies in WWII knew where the rough weather was; they avoided squalls and storms all the time.[/QUOTE]

I believe Halsey twice, not once, but twice sailed a TF through a storm and lost some ships. He was almost court-martialed for his actions...

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 18
- 8/19/2002 5:32:54 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I never thought that the stormy weather listed in the game was a typhoon, which was what Halsey got caught in and lost some ships (two or three destroyers, I believe, and only because they didn't take on seawater ballast before the storm hit).

I always thought the "stormy" description in the game was the usual bunch of squalls and thunderstorms that pop up near the equator very routinely. If they are supposed to actually be typhoons, then the weather routine is totally screwed up.

The understanding of weather and the concept of "fronts" was known back in 1942. It wouldn't hurt to show on the screen where the highest chance for severe weather would be and where it isn't.

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 19
SPI's War in the Pacific and Maintence - 8/21/2002 8:30:22 PM   
dtx

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/13/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		SPI's war in the Pacific required constant returns to port to keep ships running. After a certain amount of time, they needed major lengthy overhauls. It was less random than UV, but also less accurate. It makes sense that some sys damage is repaired quickly and some isn't (may be a unique spare part is in short supply and has to be shipped from the US).

As Denison noted, even keeping AFVs fully functional was a challenge during peacetime. During war, the idea that a CV might be running at 99 or 95% peak efficiency makes much sense.

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 20
However! - 8/21/2002 10:39:23 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		It is the rate at which the system damage accumulates which bothers me! In less than two weeks ops, a birdfarm has 11-12% system damage with only a few strikes against land targets, total strike sorties less than 200 over four days. As has been pointed out, these ships just sailed 19 days from Pearl and arrived pristine - in two weeks of sailing around in the Coral Sea they are already down 10-12% before the IJN shows up,and at 5% system damage their speed has dropped between 3-5 kts. Geez, sail the thing to the West Coast and it would be a total wreck!

There have to be repair, refit, and yard periods figured into a ships active career - but it sure as all get out isn't on the order of they system damage effects in this game. Working with this type of damage would require major material inspections every six weeks instead of six months, and since the speed drops of so fast, the barnacles in the Coral Sea are either on growth hormones or the engineers are really fubar'd..:rolleyes:

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 21
More realistic repair - 8/22/2002 10:01:27 PM   
EricLarsen

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Black Cat
[B]

Exactlly !! and therein is the problem. I`ve had Saratoga sitting alone in Brisbane for 3 weeks and had only 1 point of 12 sys damage repaired.

While the 30+ ships sitting in Noumea are being reasonably quickly if randomly repaired. There is no way to prioritize the damage repair by specific ship now. Could this be looked at for WITP please. [/B]

Black Cat,
I figure it's too late to fix the random silliness of ship repair in UV, but hopefully they'll take these comments to heart for WitP. I still like the idea of having "naval support" squads in the major naval HQ's to control damage repair the way avaition support does for aircraft. That way a certain amount of repairs can be done at a port, even factoring in a random factor for whether the repair was successful or not. That way a few ships in a large level 9 port with a naval HQ would have just as much repair happening as if there were a 100 damaged ships in the same port. Right now it's a case of the more the merrier for ship repair in any port. I think that the damage rates for steaming around should be reduced a bit to compensate for the lame random repair in UV. I'm also going to try using the patrol order more than the retirement allowed order to see if slowing down the ships helps reduce damage from routine steaming.
Eric Larsen

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 22
Re: However! - 8/22/2002 10:08:27 PM   
EricLarsen

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by RevRick
[B]It is the rate at which the system damage accumulates which bothers me! In less than two weeks ops, a birdfarm has 11-12% system damage with only a few strikes against land targets, total strike sorties less than 200 over four days. As has been pointed out, these ships just sailed 19 days from Pearl and arrived pristine - in two weeks of sailing around in the Coral Sea they are already down 10-12% before the IJN shows up,and at 5% system damage their speed has dropped between 3-5 kts. Geez, sail the thing to the West Coast and it would be a total wreck! [/B]

RevRick,
Isn't that a tad too ironic? Reinforcement ships from Pearl and Japan always arrive pristine, yet a few turns at sea in the game and they're already accumulating damage at a far too prodiguous rate. Coupled with the random ship repair this really makes the ship damage from just plain old steaming around far too excessive. I sure hope something is done to rectify this pernicious problem.
Eric Larsen

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 23
- 8/22/2002 11:09:05 PM   
BPRE

 

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline 		Hi RevRick/Eric,

Reading some of the posts in this thread made me check my TF with Essex and 2 CVLs that have been steaming around the Coral Sea since they arrived in scenario 5. I expected heavy damage but to my surprise it's between 4-6% after more than 3 weeks at sea.
They have been on Patrol all the time and mostly only moved short distances each day. It looks to me like the game models heavy/contra light use of the ships. It would be interesting to see if you get any results to support this Eric if you try patrol more often.

Regards
BPRE

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 24
- 8/23/2002 10:45:02 AM   
EricLarsen

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by BPRE
[B]Hi RevRick/Eric,

Reading some of the posts in this thread made me check my TF with Essex and 2 CVLs that have been steaming around the Coral Sea since they arrived in scenario 5. I expected heavy damage but to my surprise it's between 4-6% after more than 3 weeks at sea.
They have been on Patrol all the time and mostly only moved short distances each day. It looks to me like the game models heavy/contra light use of the ships. It would be interesting to see if you get any results to support this Eric if you try patrol more often.

Regards
BPRE [/B]

BPRE,
Thanks for the tip on your experience with patrolling. I suspect you are setting short one-turn hops, or staying in the same hex to get such results since each hex entered causes a damage check. One problem is when the tf heads for home the program sets it to retirement allowed and that will cause the tf to move fast if within 25 hexes of home. But steaming around slowly in little circles isn't always viable and realistic, when you have to move long distances in a short time then the damage will be a concern to you too. The more I think about how the IJN used their main 6 carriers from Pearl to bombing Australia to the raid on Ceylon and then back to Japan in the space of 4 to 5 months I think the game overstates systems damage far too much. They certainly weren't steaming around in little circles and were used heavily with no real big deal for wear and tear. They were stuck in port in Japan not due to systems damage but due to lack of pilots, not to mention fuel oil wasn't something the IJN cuold waste profusely! That's why the other 4 carriers weren't here in the South Pacific. Then there's Halsey who certainly didn't dilly dally around sailing slowly in little circles all over the Pacific, he pushed his cv tf's to get from point A to point B even through typhoons with a lot less damage than this game models. While patrolling might help ameliorate the problem a little, the systems damage check should probably be only once each movement phase not once each hex traveled.
Eric Larsen

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 25
- 8/23/2002 10:54:48 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		I am not sure about the system damage algorithm, but I think that the harder you run the ship, the better the chance for system damage.

If you are running night runs at full speed, the greater wear and tear on the system. Whether it ba a car, a tank, or a ship, running it at a comfortable cruise speed should have a much smaller impact on system damage than high speed runs.

If you are driving the hell out of you car at 100 mph every day for 6 hours, it will require maintenance faster than if you drive it for 6 hours a day at 35mph.

So, if you are running your ships on "patrol/do not retire", you should be running at cruise speed and much less subject to sys damage, as opposed to the high speed runs associated with the "Tokyo Express" Night runs.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 26
- 8/23/2002 11:43:46 AM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by denisonh
[QUOTE]If you are driving the hell out of you car at 100 mph every day for 6 hours, it will require maintenance faster than if you drive it for 6 hours a day at 35mph. [/QUOTE]

Thank God that doesn't apply to motorbikes.:)

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 27
True - 8/23/2002 12:00:12 PM   
Black Cat

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]I am not sure about the system damage algorithm, but I think that the harder you run the ship, the better the chance for system damage.

If you are running night runs at full speed, the greater wear and tear on the system. Whether it ba a car, a tank, or a ship, running it at a comfortable cruise speed should have a much smaller impact on system damage than high speed runs.

If you are driving the hell out of you car at 100 mph every day for 6 hours, it will require maintenance faster than if you drive it for 6 hours a day at 35mph.

So, if you are running your ships on "patrol/do not retire", you should be running at cruise speed and much less subject to sys damage, as opposed to the high speed runs associated with the "Tokyo Express" Night runs. [/B][/QUOTE]


Good response there.

If I may comment please.


1: Yes, as the US Run a few DD High Speed Transports up to Lunga and the ships burn out into the Red ( and lose speed ) in 3 missions...

2: I`m not so sure, they still acquire SD very fast set on Patrol so I think it`s also associated with distance and time at Sea.

As an aside, I suspect that some of this may be hardcoded in certain ships, somewhat like the Chicago is a torp magnet and Sara takes forever to repair, when I have some time I think I`ll take a look at the stats with the Handy Dandy Editor...

In any case the SD modeling is a nice feature of this Great Game.

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 28
Just a question - 8/23/2002 6:16:33 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		Has anyone had Lex and Sara in the game at the same time to see if Lex takes as long to repair as Sara. She takes virtually forever to take any SD points off. I've had her in port four weeks. In that time Wasp and Enterprise have taken SD points off, steamed and accumulated more, and taken some of them off. Sara is still sitting on 12. If Lex is the same, it could be an attempt to model that turbo-electric drive they had. Complicated beast, that!

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 29
Lex and Sara - 8/23/2002 7:01:49 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		I think it has more to do with size. Lex and Sara, being ex Constellation class BCs, were the biggest ships in the USN at this point. 1% of 35000 tons takes longer to fix than 1% of 20000 tons.....etc.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to tiger claw)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> ship damage ! Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.953