Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases?

Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Fallschirmjager -> Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/25/2009 8:51:38 PM)
I have been struggling with this question in some of my recent games. I would like to use some of my larger size 9 forward bases as emergency repair centers and to combat the very annoying problem of routine sys damage from sailing. I would like to establish a few bases where I can get rid of a ships flooding damage and semi repair it a forward base to improve it's speed and thus decrease the amount of time it takes to send it back to a major fleet base. It also makes the ship less prone to submarine troubles. System damage also annoys the hell out of me. I would like to get rid of it at a forward base instead of having to rotate the ship back out the front lines and back to a major base. Will repair ships even help with these problems at anything less than size 10 base? I do not know how AE will handle repairs but the entire in game repair system needs a massive overhaul. In the real war even the most seriously damaged of ships could be repaired at a forward base like Noumea or Kwajalein. Their speed could be improved back to cruising levels and for carrier flight operations could be restored. In WitP forward bases have almost no capability to repair ships.

thegreatwent -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/25/2009 9:21:34 PM)
IMO repair ships help regardless of where they are. While not scientific it seems that ships get fixed faster with them present. Of course it could be like elephant repellent, you only know it works cause you don't see any elephants[:)]

Nikademus -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/25/2009 10:08:26 PM)
yikes. well you may not like that aspect of AE then.....because if you incur Major FLT or SYS damage points, you'll need to send the ships back to a port with a shipyard. (same for "upgrades" too)

herwin -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/25/2009 10:20:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager I have been struggling with this question in some of my recent games. I would like to use some of my larger size 9 forward bases as emergency repair centers and to combat the very annoying problem of routine sys damage from sailing. I would like to establish a few bases where I can get rid of a ships flooding damage and semi repair it a forward base to improve it's speed and thus decrease the amount of time it takes to send it back to a major fleet base. It also makes the ship less prone to submarine troubles. System damage also annoys the hell out of me. I would like to get rid of it at a forward base instead of having to rotate the ship back out the front lines and back to a major base. Will repair ships even help with these problems at anything less than size 10 base? I do not know how AE will handle repairs but the entire in game repair system needs a massive overhaul. In the real war even the most seriously damaged of ships could be repaired at a forward base like Noumea or Kwajalein. Their speed could be improved back to cruising levels and for carrier flight operations could be restored. In WitP forward bases have almost no capability to repair ships. HISTORY The game misrepresents the effect of system damage on speed. Top speed was produced by running every boiler, every turbine, and every available eggbeater. The RN had some destroyer-leader-sized fast minelayers that could make 40 knots, but they were given a cruiser machinery plant. At half power, you were at about 80% of your top speed.

Fallschirmjager -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/25/2009 10:52:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus yikes. well you may not like that aspect of AE then.....because if you incur Major FLT or SYS damage points, you'll need to send the ships back to a port with a shipyard. (same for "upgrades" too) If there is ever a WitP it needs a much more sophisticated damage model. Damage at the highest level should equal damage taken from things like fires and should be easily repairable at forward bases to simulate emergency repairs to simply get the ship back in floating condition with enough speed to get it back to a major repair yard. Splitting up engine and system damage is a good start but is still not enough. The game recognizes every 'point' of damage as being equal.

dpstafford -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/25/2009 11:41:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus yikes. well you may not like that aspect of AE then.....because if you incur Major FLT or SYS damage points, you'll need to send the ships back to a port with a shipyard. (same for "upgrades" too) That's not going to work. How will a ship with FLT damage be ABLE to get back to a shipyard? It will sink. Pleasae tell me AE won't be "dead" out of the virual box.......

jwilkerson -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 1:34:53 AM)
You patch it up and pump it out - but the big holes or the ripped off bows etc. still need to be fixed back in the ship yard. Once the temporary repairs are made and the water pumped out (in game terms - the minor floation damage is repaired and only major floation damage remains unrepaired) then you can send the ship back to the ship yard - and unless the temporary repairs fail (greater than zero chance) then you will make it back and eventually repair the major flotation damage.

rtrapasso -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 1:54:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager I have been struggling with this question in some of my recent games. I would like to use some of my larger size 9 forward bases as emergency repair centers and to combat the very annoying problem of routine sys damage from sailing. I would like to establish a few bases where I can get rid of a ships flooding damage and semi repair it a forward base to improve it's speed and thus decrease the amount of time it takes to send it back to a major fleet base. It also makes the ship less prone to submarine troubles. System damage also annoys the hell out of me. I would like to get rid of it at a forward base instead of having to rotate the ship back out the front lines and back to a major base. Will repair ships even help with these problems at anything less than size 10 base? I do not know how AE will handle repairs but the entire in game repair system needs a massive overhaul. In the real war even the most seriously damaged of ships could be repaired at a forward base like Noumea or Kwajalein. Their speed could be improved back to cruising levels and for carrier flight operations could be restored. In WitP forward bases have almost no capability to repair ships. HISTORY The game misrepresents the effect of system damage on speed. Top speed was produced by running every boiler, every turbine, and every available eggbeater. The RN had some destroyer-leader-sized fast minelayers that could make 40 knots, but they were given a cruiser machinery plant. At half power, you were at about 80% of your top speed. HISTORY: Hundreds and hundreds of ships during WW2 were severely damaged or sunk in various mishaps... BBs blew up, CVs ran onto reefs, AEs blew up taking a bunch of other ships with them... nothing of this is present in WITP, but the players moan about a few points of SYS damage... Be careful what you wish for: you just might get it... but remember that before complaining about your suddenly missing capitol ship that met with an unfortunate accident.

Dili -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 11:41:10 AM)
I think for this the system is good enough (now don't get me started in battle damage) it very comon to read war accounts that ship is not in very good state and can only do 5kt less of max speed.

castor troy -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 11:50:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager I do not know how AE will handle repairs but the entire in game repair system needs a massive overhaul. In the real war even the most seriously damaged of ships could be repaired at a forward base like Noumea or Kwajalein. Their speed could be improved back to cruising levels and for carrier flight operations could be restored. In WitP forward bases have almost no capability to repair ships. forward bases in WITP have excellent capability to repair ships in WITP. A better capability than in real life. Rabaul can be built up to level 8 port for example and if you put a HQ there you have a level 10. Add 4 ARs and you save a CV after taking five torpw without a problem if it�s disbanded into port. Repair capability in WITP is higher than in real life, not lower.

John Lansford -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 11:52:02 AM)
In my experiments with AR's, I've found that they work best in ports WITHOUT shipyard repair facilities, the bigger sized the better. I put mine in level 6-9 ports right behind the front lines (Darwin, Tarawa, Noumea, Brisbane) and send damaged ships/subs there. They get fixed up fairly quickly there to the point they can then be sent back to the repair facilities at Pearl, Sydney, and the West Coast.

Mistmatz -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 12:20:20 PM)
It would actually be kind of an exploit to be able to keep ships on the front line for excessive periods of time (which I understand is the reason for the question). Under normal circumstances you would send ships back for yardtime on a regular basis to overhaul the systems, repair damaged stuff, rest the crew, train new sailors and the like. In times of emergency these periods could of course get longer and longer but generally spoken every army (and navy) in the world tries to rotate their troops in and out of danger. I believe slow, steady (albeit random) accumulation of sys damage is a way to simulate this and forces the player to keep an eye on their combat readiness of their assets. And what I've read so far it looks like the whole repair stuff will be much more micromanagment but on the other hand much better than it is currently.

EUBanana -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 1:49:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso CVs ran onto reefs Thats rather embarassing. Who managed to do that and to what? [:D]

rtrapasso -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 1:54:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso CVs ran onto reefs Thats rather embarassing. Who managed to do that and to what? [:D] One of the KB... i don't recall which one right at the moment... it got taken out of play for a couple of months for repairs early in the war.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 2:12:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso CVs ran onto reefs Thats rather embarassing. Who managed to do that and to what? [:D] A British or American CV. In Jamaica, in 1942. I'll check at home [8D]

rtrapasso -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 2:22:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso CVs ran onto reefs Thats rather embarassing. Who managed to do that and to what? [:D] One of the KB... i don't recall which one right at the moment... it got taken out of play for a couple of months for repairs early in the war. According to her Combined Fleets TROM: "9 February 1942: KAGA strikes reef at Palau while shifting mooring positions. Bilges are damaged, and Palau can only make temporary repairs. Leakage remains and speed cut to 18 knots." She participated in the Darwin raids, but had to go into drydock, staying there 22 March - 4 May 1942. EDIT: She missed the Indian Ocean raid due to this, and also was too late to chase the "Doolittle Raiders".

Nikademus -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 2:53:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager If there is ever a WitP it needs a much more sophisticated damage model. Damage at the highest level should equal damage taken from things like fires and should be easily repairable at forward bases to simulate emergency repairs to simply get the ship back in floating condition with enough speed to get it back to a major repair yard. Splitting up engine and system damage is a good start but is still not enough. The game recognizes every 'point' of damage as being equal. This is represented in AE as Joe explained. You "patch up" the ship at the forward base (reduce non-Major FLT damage for example) then the ship journeys back to a shipyard for permanent repairs. One does have to be cautious with ships with serious major floatation damage as there is a risk of emergency repairs "failing" Overall, i like the feel of the new system, especially in regards to "upgrades". It forces the player to balance maintaining certain strength levels in forward areas with the need to send ships back to "refit" (aka, upgrade) and the provisioning of "major" damage now requires ships to travel back to shipyards for complete repairs. The end result is less ships at the front which helps slow the pace of the game.

ckammp -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 3:22:19 PM)
deleted

herwin -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 3:32:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso CVs ran onto reefs Thats rather embarassing. Who managed to do that and to what? [:D] A British or American CV. In Jamaica, in 1942. I'll check at home [8D] The HMS Indomitable hit a reef in Jamaica on 3 NOV 41, and was forced to go to Norfolk,VA for repairs. This prevented her from carrying out her original mission: accompany Force Z to Singapore. Kaga at Palau

USSAmerica -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 3:39:42 PM)
[8\|] Scroll up 3 posts.... [;)]

DivePac88 -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 3:43:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp The HMS Indomitable hit a reef in Jamaica on 3 NOV 41, and was forced to go to Norfolk,VA for repairs. This prevented her from carrying out her original mission: accompany Force Z to Singapore. I wonder if Indomitable had been part of Force Z, would the outcome have been any different. Would Tom Thumb have taken the Carrier and her Fulmars into the Gulf of Siam with him. Would the Fulmars have been able to handle the Betties and Nells, or would Indomitable have joined POW and Repulse on the bottom?

Nikademus -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 3:51:28 PM)
its questionable as to whether her small airgroup could have influenced the outcome to a major degree. Similar speculation revolves around if the RAF had provided a rudimentary LRCAP. However, the presense of a third major target coupled with interfering with at least one major element might have saved one of the ships from being crippled/sunk. Hindsight guessing is made all the harder given that PoW was crippled by a single torp. Her crippling alone ends the threat of Force Z.

bobogoboom -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 4:24:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso CVs ran onto reefs Thats rather embarassing. Who managed to do that and to what? [:D] A British or American CV. In Jamaica, in 1942. I'll check at home [8D] The HMS Indomitable hit a reef in Jamaica on 3 NOV 41, and was forced to go to Norfolk,VA for repairs. This prevented her from carrying out her original mission: accompany Force Z to Singapore. which was actualy a lucky break for the rn as she would have just been sunk at singapore along with the rest of force z.

bobogoboom -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 4:25:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DivePac88 quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp The HMS Indomitable hit a reef in Jamaica on 3 NOV 41, and was forced to go to Norfolk,VA for repairs. This prevented her from carrying out her original mission: accompany Force Z to Singapore. I wonder if Indomitable had been part of Force Z, would the outcome have been any different. Would Tom Thumb have taken the Carrier and her Fulmars into the Gulf of Siam with him. Would the Fulmars have been able to handle the Betties and Nells, or would Indomitable have joined POW and Repulse on the bottom? i believe she still had sea gadiators at the time. and no it wouldn't of made a diff it would of just got it sunk. there were not enough fighters to deal with all the bombers.

bobogoboom -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 4:26:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus its questionable as to whether her small airgroup could have influenced the outcome to a major degree. Similar speculation revolves around if the RAF had provided a rudimentary LRCAP. However, the presense of a third major target coupled with interfering with at least one major element might have saved one of the ships from being crippled/sunk. Hindsight guessing is made all the harder given that PoW was crippled by a single torp. Her crippling alone ends the threat of Force Z. didn't she take a torp to the propeller shaft what ripped her open over almost the entire length of that shaft?

Fallschirmjager -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 4:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager If there is ever a WitP it needs a much more sophisticated damage model. Damage at the highest level should equal damage taken from things like fires and should be easily repairable at forward bases to simulate emergency repairs to simply get the ship back in floating condition with enough speed to get it back to a major repair yard. Splitting up engine and system damage is a good start but is still not enough. The game recognizes every 'point' of damage as being equal. This is represented in AE as Joe explained. You "patch up" the ship at the forward base (reduce non-Major FLT damage for example) then the ship journeys back to a shipyard for permanent repairs. One does have to be cautious with ships with serious major floatation damage as there is a risk of emergency repairs "failing" Overall, i like the feel of the new system, especially in regards to "upgrades". It forces the player to balance maintaining certain strength levels in forward areas with the need to send ships back to "refit" (aka, upgrade) and the provisioning of "major" damage now requires ships to travel back to shipyards for complete repairs. The end result is less ships at the front which helps slow the pace of the game. This sounds more in line with history, especialy the way the Allies handled damage.

Nikademus -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 5:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bobogoboom [didn't she take a torp to the propeller shaft what ripped her open over almost the entire length of that shaft? Closely yes. The torp hit near the outer prop (one source suggests a 2nd torp hit near simotaniously nearby as well). Either way, the explosion bent the shaft which was revolving at high RPM's which coupled with a slowed reaction by the Engine gange caused it to compromise the WT integrity of the shaft compartments all the way back to it's engine room. One probably could not have picked a worse place for her to be hit. One source estimated that the ship took on nearly 10,000 tons of water from this one hit. Her speed and maneuverability were severely reduced, her quarterdeck became nearly awash reducing stability for the remaining bouancy, and as if that wasn't enough, she lost power to most of her AA weaponry due to lack of backup power sources. The only good thing that came out of the experience was that it highlighted, as combat tends to do, needed improvements for the KGV class.....mainly in the form of increased aux power for the pumps, need for more pumps and improving the WT integrity of venting caps. The experience also highlighted needed improvements in damage control training. (a number of WT doors were left open during the battle by retreating crews). Weaknesses in the Anti-torpedo scheme could not be addressed but were incorporated into Vanguard's design.

JWE -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 7:51:24 PM)
Used to be, in stock, HQs, ARs, things like that, had the �effect� of bumping up a port level, which used to be the prime determinant of the system; you had to go looking for a port level = x, to do a deed. Nowadays, everything, and I do mean everything, is independent. �Naval Support� squads take the place of HQs. HQs don�t mean squat unless they have NavSup in the OOB. Conversely, a Naval Port unit may have a bunch of NavSup gobs, but no HQ function whatever. So you can actually put �Scrappy� Kessing and his boys into Tulagi, and turn it into a nice little Naval base and repair center. Nowadays, NavSup and ARs, and the like, are like a deck of cards; you only get so many. There�s only 4 aces in the deck, and there�s also 4 duces. You put an AR into SFO, it can only support one ship up to its capability. No more of this �bump the port doo-doo�, it is only one card � play it wisely. You put the same AR at Bafangoo, it can support the same ship up to its same capability. Again, it is only one card, so play it wisely. You will have �things� in your playbox. A largish port can do some neat stuff, but only to a limited tonnage of ships. NavSup is a multiplier, but only up to its # of squads. ARs are a multiplier of sorts � one AR fixes one boat � and so on, and so on. Concept is to make the whole idea of �base of operations� actually mean something. Repair/rearm/whatever is gonna mean concentration of capability and development of a fleet base (or bases) somewhere. Something that now must be cherished and defended. �I don�t know what that logistics crap is that Marshal keeps talking about; but I want some of it!� E.J.King.

JWE -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 8:12:37 PM)
Ship damage is almost an order of magnitude more grainy than stock. Stock had four damage data fields; SysDam, FlotDam, EngDam, and Fires. AE has the same four, but also allocates a certain portion of FlotDam and EngDam as �major� damage. Major Eng/FlotDam represents prop shafts bent or lost, turbine rooms trashed, bows/sterns blown off, ship girder strained, 20 foot holes in the hull next to Fire room #3, you know, little crap like that. Didn�t implement �major� for SysDam, because there already was a Weaps/Dam algorithm that required a bit more than 2 gobs with a blowtorch to fix, so � �Normal� damage can be repaired in a multitude of ways, some more, some less, quickly. �Major� damage requires �major� resources. You can pump out the water, but you can�t make a new bow.

dpstafford -> RE: Is it a waste of repair ships to have them in size 9 bases? (6/26/2009 11:42:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Ship damage is almost an order of magnitude more grainy than stock. Stock had four damage data fields; SysDam, FlotDam, EngDam, and Fires. AE has the same four, but also allocates a certain portion of FlotDam and EngDam as �major� damage. So this is the sort of thing that has taken so long? I seriously hope that you spent some of that time on things that aren't so cosmetic. That you spent some of that time working on stuff that actually needed fixed.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.890625