|
herwin -> RE: Damage Ideas (9/5/2006 1:07:33 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager
I have been pondering the damage system in WitP and I think that it could be improved (in the theoretical WitP II) by adding two new damage types..."STRUCTURE" and "WATERLINE".
The way I see it now, SYSTEM damage represents damage to the various systems within the ship, i.e. engines, fire control, etc.
FLOOD represents the total amount of flooding in the ship.
How much of the waterline area has had its watertight integrity destroyed.
You need something to model the loss of structural integrity.
quote:
FIRE represents the total level of fire in the ship.
Contributes to destruction of structural strength and floatation.
quote:
the proposed additions would wok like this:
STRUCTURE would represent the actual structural integrety of the ship...it should be hard to repair (requiring yards). When STRUCTURE damage reaches 100% the ship should sink, and increasing STRUCTURE damage might affect the WATERLINE of the ship as well.
WATERLINE would be a measure of how fast FLOOD increased.
This would make hits work as follows:
Penetrating shells:
SYSTEM: random from nothing to severe...the shell might not hit anything vital...or it might smash a boiler or command space.
FIRE: Proportional to shell weight.
Each penetrating hit should have a probability distribution of how big a fire it produces. Penetration should matter, not size of hit.
quote:
STRUCTURE: Proportional to shell weight...this is where PT's smacked by 14" shells should simply disintegrate, while DD's strafed by machine guns might take some SYSTEM damage, but aren't going to fall apart.
Effect was proportional to 2/3rds power of the explosive charge weight for penetrations.
quote:
WATERLINE: Would depend on hit location, whether the shell has enough explosive charge to damage seams, or whether the shell can penetrate completely through the target.
Effect was proportional to 2/3rds power of the explosive charge weight for penetrations.
quote:
Non-Penetrating Shells:
SYSTEM: Keep as is.
FIRE: Keep as is except that a hit on an exposed weapon position should destroy that possition and possibly start fires...in the case of torp mounts, heavy fires.
Torpedo warhead explosions, too. Hits on 24" torpedo nests killed some Japanese cruisers.
quote:
STRUCTURE: Probably none...though a point or two might happen from shock damage depending on the shells weight.
More like systems damage.
quote:
WATERLINE: None.
Minor.
quote:
Bombs:
As Shells with the provision that bombs generally have a higher proportion of explosive charge for their weight.
Accurate.
quote:
Torpedoes:
SYSTEM: As is...assuming that the SYSTEM damage from torps is mostly to the machinery spaces.
No, it was much more general. The shock from an exploding torpedo warhead was massive.
quote:
FIRE: As is.
STRUCTURE: probably less than penetrating bomb/ shell hits since the torpedo is detonating on the skin of the ship as opposed to inside of it.
Actually quite a bit more as the detonation created a shock wave and tended not to vent as readily.
quote:
WATERLINE: All the current FLOOD damage should be this instead...FLOOD damage should accumulate directly as a consequence of WATERLINE damage.
If the torpedo warhead blast was contained by the side protective system, it had an effect on floatation similar to that of a bomb. If it wasn't contained, it would flood a cross-section of the ship whose length was a function of the 1/3rd power of the warhead weight. Japanese 24" torpedoes tended to overmatch side protection systems designed for 18" torpedoes and often broke the back of the ship.
quote:
Repairing.
FLOOD damage should be relatively easy to repair...FLOOD in particuallar should be coded to each ships' pump capacity. If the WATERLINE damage is not adding FLOOD faster than the pumps, then FLOOD should fall every repair check. Ports should also be rated for their dockside pump ratings...perhaps tied to Port Size? High FLOOD levels on a ship should cause relatively little extra damage from day to day...maybe a little SYSTEM?
AR's should be able to help immensely with FLOOD damage.
It also involves watertight integrity--waterline area.
quote:
FIRE damage should be quick to repair...though each ship should be given their own ratings. FIRE damage should cause a host of other damages every time a repair check is made. Certainly STRUCTURE and SYSTEM should be added to for fires on board. WATERLINE should probably not be added to...Fires kill ships by weakening their structure, causing secondary explosions, and killing crew/ damaging sub systems...not by opening the ship to the sea generally. AR's should be able to help a lot with FIRE. Also fighting FIRE should add a little to FLOOD every check...IIRC this was a concern when fighting fires with water.
Fire damages structural integrity and systems.
quote:
SYSTEM damage should be easy to repair in a dockyard...harder in a makeshift anchorage. SYSTEM damage should make repairing other damages...specifically FIRE and FLOOD...harder.
WATERLINE damage should be patchable in a substandard facility...such as an anchorage with an AR present.
STRUCTURE should be really only repairable at any reasonable rate in a real dockyard. This is what should get your BB's tied up in San Fran for a year after Pearl Harbor. This is also what would have made towing the Kaga back to Japan pointless...with such excessive structural damage it would have almost been like building a whole new ship instead of repairing a damaged one.
Anyways...comments or ideas on this guys?
|
|
|
|
