Gruntles over Damage table
#1
Posted 08 December 2013 - 12:11 AM
They suggested a progressive damage system where minor outlying gear that was destroyed resulted in hits being moved 'to the center' of the table so that they would 'damage something'.
I've no feelings either way. I guess if you further damage the depth charges and the turrets that are already destroyed, you get nothing else. But I do see their point.
Any thoughts?
#2
Posted 09 December 2013 - 09:21 AM
Ships are quite hard to sink; very often they were able to stay afloat even with almost every system knocked out.
Why do your savvy technical types think that the hull suddenly becomes easier to hit after you've knocked out all the turrets?
The destroyed systems are not vapourised; there are still lots of bits of metal there to stop incoming shells.
#3
Posted 09 December 2013 - 08:35 PM
The idea that once the minor systems are destroyed, that other systems should being more vulnerable runs counter to the historical experience. Many ships endured horrendous damage yet were still afloat (to go back to the Bismarck, she had to be finally sunk by Dorsetshire's and Norfolk's torpedoes (or her crew's scuttling charges; that is still debated to this day) even though she was essentially destroyed (or mission killed) by the massive amount of shelling she took). Also, adopting such a "progressive" damage system would severely skew the damage results with ships sinking much faster than the evidence can support.
#4
Posted 18 December 2013 - 07:55 PM
yeah, that's my overall opinion. it's not a "breaking into the bunker" sort of effect, but a multiple hit on destroyed systems mechanic. It also jibes with what I've read in historical accounts, it being difficult to sink a ship with gunfire [altho gunfire could render it mission useless] but easier with torpedoes - usually IJN ones, but once the USN figured out the magneto prob that also worked. Great description of the deductive reasoning on the torp problem in the account of the USS Maury, "South Pacific Destroyer" by Crenshaw.
I'll tell them to solve their dissatisfaction by rolling better on the table.
#5
Posted 18 December 2013 - 08:29 PM
A second on Crenshaw's book. An excellent account with some interesting (and very useful) observations regarding gunnery in the final chapter. Definitely a must read for any naval fanatic.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users