More randomness

More randomness (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support

Message

Luskan -> More randomness (8/23/2002 7:34:47 PM)
I think repair formulas for system damage need to be more volatile and more random. After Coral Sea, Yorktown put in (to Pearl I think - could be wrong) for what her Captain estimated should be a 90 day refit to repair damage from the battle as well as wear and tear etc. Work and repairs were finished in something like 45 hours and she sailed off to Midway. Couldn't we have a freak-but-brilliant repair job every now and then? Or maybe you put your BB in with 25 system damage and in two weeks she is back to 5 and you think "Great! Awesome! Well done shipyard workers/shiprights!!" and sail her out onto the ocean were shoddy repair work comes apart under real conditions and she goes straight back to 25 system damage (the original damage amount - wouldn't think that a ship would sink due to dodgy rush job repairs). Just day dreaming . . . :cool:

Ron Saueracker -> Yorktown (8/23/2002 8:52:21 PM)
I think this freaky repair job is already simulated. Yorktown was not actually fully repaired, she was just made operational. Kinda like sending her out with 25% sys damage in UV. By having the option, the situation is represented.

denisonh -> (8/23/2002 8:54:41 PM)
Or more like 15, since you don't have full flight ops with greater than 20 system damage.

EricLarsen -> Ship damage (8/23/2002 9:39:33 PM)
[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] denisonh, It's only logical that the harder you run machinery the more often it will need maintenance, but I still think the game overstates that normal wear and tear. I don't recall the Japs having maintenance problems with their Tokyo Express runs except when ships got damaged in battle. Considering that ships can travel from Pearl and Japan without any systems damage to or from I would think that they should be able to sail around in the game without gaining so much systems damage. My favorite tale of systems damage at sea was on October 14, 1942 when the South Dakota and the Washington went into battle around Gaudalcanal with the Kirishima. Just as they raced into the channel between Savo Island and Cape Esperance an electrical fault tripped the South Dakota's generators and her powerless main gun turrets fell silent. It doesn't say how long it took to repair that electrical problem but it wasn't long (probably less than half an hour) because the SD was able to regain electrical power and take part in the fight. I sure don't see that modeled in the game as crews repair systems damage at sea. I also don't see the practice of rushing repair jobs on major ships like BB's and CV's being well modeled in the game either. Another big problem is when ships with major damage, and therefore very slow speeds, are moving at one hex per turn but since they're traveling at near full speed they acquire systems damage very quickly and there's a chance they'll sink before reaching port. Now the game doesn't handle towing so these highly-damaged ships should not be accruing more systems damage at a high rate. They sure don't once you send them to Pearl or Japan. Your neighbor enjoying the cool summer fog in not-so-sunny Salinas! Eric Larsen

EricLarsen -> Flotation Damage (8/23/2002 9:46:46 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Lansford [B]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. [/B] John, I reread the manual about damage and flotation damage is really flooding and not hull damage. Since that is the case then the way the game repairs flotation damage so quickly is correct. I take it that hull damage is just more systems damage. Since systems damage has so many components it's no wonder that ships gain it so quickly and then there's no difference between hull damage or engine damage or whatever when it comes to repairs. Eric Larsen

juliet7bravo -> (8/24/2002 2:10:26 AM)
What the game doesn't do is figure in crew maintenance and repairs at sea. A ship under heavy use will rack up a lot of minor (or not so minor) damage, this is indisputable. But, in UV, none of it gets repaired by the crew, it just keeps piling up and up and up. And yes, I've been saying it since the game came out...there needs to be a structural damage rating from combat, that will include permanent systems and flotation damage as is pertinent.

Supervisor -> (8/24/2002 2:27:35 AM)
I have seen ships repair structural damage while at sea. Not real common, but I've seen it happen. These are generally only on moderately to severely damaged ships (because those I tend to monitor them on a turn-by-turn, but not those that only have a few points).

John Lansford -> (8/24/2002 4:48:46 AM)
Well, if the floatation rating is based only on flooding, a severely damaged ship, especially from torpedoes, would still not be able to completely fix the floatation rating. Chicago lost her entire bow; that's both a flotation and a system damage loss. Similarly, Pensacola had her back broken by a Long Lance torpedo. The main deck was all that held the two sections of the ship together, yet the ship made it back to harbor after welding some patches over the hole.

Spooky -> (8/24/2002 5:17:44 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]Or more like 15, since you don't have full flight ops with greater than 20 system damage. [/B][/QUOTE] Are you sure ??????

RevRick -> But, then.... (8/24/2002 7:24:17 AM)
Should not the converse also be true - and it would take 36 Ktons longer to accumulate damage then a 20 Kton ship? If so, how come Sara has greater damage than either Wasp or Enterprise with the same action?

denisonh -> SYstem Damage 20+ Reduced Air Ops (8/24/2002 8:58:46 AM)
Spooky, that is what I have seen. I had a single carrier TF with the Hornet. Traded strikes with LBA, and recieved 20+ sys damage. Reduced operations would explain why even though my losses were minimal, I lost a large number of aircraft. It's reduced ops (much like an airfield with 20+ runway hits I imagine) wouldn't permit the a/c to land so they ditched. Somebody may know for sure, but I have never seen a carrier with 20+ damage land all it's a/c from strikes and/or CAP.

RevRick -> Re: SYstem Damage 20+ Reduced Air Ops (8/24/2002 7:25:41 PM)
[QUOTE]It's only logical that the harder you run machinery the more often it will need maintenance, but I still think the game overstates that normal wear and tear. [QUOTE] I agree. USN ships are not as fragile as the game makes it under operating conditions. Tin Cans, Carriers, BB's etc are designed for continuous ops for a goodly amount of time at everything from crusing speed to high speed runs during the course of the day, as when the carrier is conducting flight ops. Some break down faster and some slower, but even the old WWII cans I steamed with in the Med didn't break down as fast as these cans do, and they were 'OULDE' when I was in the Navy - late 60's. They had periods of upkeep, but good grief, we chased the Sara and the FDR all over the MED and didn't have the kind of repair times these ships are having. Granted, no one was shooting at us, but we were in continuous flight op condition most of the time UW chasing those two old ladies around. The only thing not in constant operations on board was the WEPS department - everything else was full bore - OPS, ASW, ENG. What we are missing is the repair ships, tenders, etc, that accompanied the fleet.

EricLarsen -> Flotation Damage (8/24/2002 9:19:29 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Lansford [B]Well, if the floatation rating is based only on flooding, a severely damaged ship, especially from torpedoes, would still not be able to completely fix the floatation rating. Chicago lost her entire bow; that's both a flotation and a system damage loss. Similarly, Pensacola had her back broken by a Long Lance torpedo. The main deck was all that held the two sections of the ship together, yet the ship made it back to harbor after welding some patches over the hole. [B] John, In the game only the systems damage would reflect the severe hull damage the Chicago took, the flotation damage would just mean there's water in the hull and when it's fixed the game is saying the water has left the hull. While there's separate damage columns for fire and water there's only the systems damage to account for structural and operational damage which might be a bit much. Throw in that overblown operational damage from sailing around and it's no wonder ships sink so fast. I say tone down the operational damage from sailing around or improve the crew reapir ability for repairing minor damage while at sea. I still think that minor damage ought to come off more quickly in port. Eric Larsen

EricLarsen -> Better Crew Repair (8/24/2002 9:26:29 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by juliet7bravo [B]What the game doesn't do is figure in crew maintenance and repairs at sea. A ship under heavy use will rack up a lot of minor (or not so minor) damage, this is indisputable. But, in UV, none of it gets repaired by the crew, it just keeps piling up and up and up. And yes, I've been saying it since the game came out...there needs to be a structural damage rating from combat, that will include permanent systems and flotation damage as is pertinent. [/B][/QUOTE] juliet7bravo, Weapons and radar systems can be individually damaged and require separate repair but there is no distinction between structural damage and operational damage since it's all lumped into systems damage. That makes systems damage a bit overstated I think and coupled with poor crew repair at sea and even worse or nonexistent crew repair in port (they seem to be on permanent R&R in port) this makes the systems damage too much of a limiting factor. The limiting factor should be fuel, especially for the IJN, and with unlimited fuel in the game this isn't happening the way it should be. Eric Larsen

JohnK -> Weather (8/26/2002 3:37:16 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Lansford [B]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. [/B][/QUOTE] There are NO Fronts in the Tropics; There's no steady march of easily-discerned, and measured, fronts from East to West. There's just the erratic wandering of the Intertropical Convergence Zone and associated Thunderstorms North and South, and erratically moving (especially erratic in this part of the world) Tropical Cyclones. There's not even the fairly well defined East-to-West movement of tropical waves that is in the Tropical Atlantic. And they didn't have any weather satellites either.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.953125