4 replies to this topic

[Aman]

my GQ3 group has some savvy technical types, as well as wargaming veterans. They expressed their dissatisfaction that on ships that are pretty badly damaged, lots of hits - 50% - resulted in no additional damage. So once you've knocked out half the gear on the table, additional hits are further "halved" in effectiveness as their spread results in about half hitting things that are already destroyed like turrets, TT mounts, etc.

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?

[pyruse]

The current system is realistic - the chances of hitting again something already destroyed (like a main turret) are quite high.
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.

[Cpt M]

Pyruse pretty much hit it on the button. The loss of various systems doesn't mean they're gone. As an example or this is the last battle of Bismarck. Thanks to a very complete AAR by Rodney, we're able to get a good description of this very effect. Towards the end of the action (when Bismarck's main battery was completely out of action due to damage) many additional hits were noted on the main turrets (hits that essentially did nothing more than "bounce the rubble").

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.

[Aman]

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.  

[Cpt M]

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.