Rework renown into a scoring rubric

[Incubus]

In SHIII, the renwon system is a little lackluster. You get rewarded based on tonnage sunk, with medals awarded, and renown used for upgrading your sub. The only penalties are sinking neutral/friendly ships, and coming back with damage.

Instead of this, I'd like to see a 'rubric' of sorts, which scores you based on different aspects of your patrol.

Agression- Rated based on how many contact reports you follow up on and attack.

Initiative- Rated based on how many contacts you find yourself and attack.

Efficiency- A combination of damage sustained and hit % on weapons (duds wouldn't count against you though). Higher hit %, and less damage taken on patrol, better efficiency.

Strategic- Unconventional things, like rescuing downed airmen, transporting commandoes, etc.

If anything, it would be a fun way to see what kind of skipper you were. Are you the type of commander that goes all-out, trading fire in every engagement? Or are you more conservative, picking your battles so you always have the upper hand regardless of whether your torpedoes hit their target?

[AVGWarhawk]

Neat idea but the goodies should be free. :up: Instead of that, if you are not aggressive and do not produce you are demoted to potato peeling. You start a new career at this point. :yep:

[Incubus]

Yay, potato peeling ftw! Just wait until I save up enough renown for the legendary Mark IVX peeler, I hear you can peel four tons of russets in a patrol! :arrgh!:

[AVGWarhawk]

Yay, potato peeling ftw! Just wait until I save up enough renown for the legendary Mark IVX peeler, I hear you can peel four tons of russets in a patrol! :arrgh!:

LMAO :rotfl:Well, the army moves by it's stomach and I guess the Navy does also therefore you will be the champion potatoe peeler of the entire armed forces. In fact, there will be plenty for the enemy as well:lol:

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Here was my thoughts on the renown system:

Why not have a dual record system? One for total tonnage and one for renown.

The total tonnage one is pretty straightforwards. It simply records accumulative tonnage sunk.

Renown would be a dual system itself. Total accumulated over your career (for promotion purposes) and 'spendable' renown.

Tonnage would increase your renown. So could other things: successfully reaching patrol area, returning to base under your own power, reporting new contacts, etc.

Some things could decrease your renown: battle damage, requiring a tow back, death of crewmen, etc.

'Spendable' renown would function much like it does in SHIII, but it wouldn't be subtracted from the cumulative total that promotion is based upon.

A suggestion on how to handle the 'spendable' aspect of the renown is not make it exactly spendable, per se. For instance, just because you request a transfer doesn't mean that'll be granted. So why not make upgrades more of a request than a for-certain sure bet?

You'd like a radar upgrade? Request one. That'll be 'X' amount of your spendable renown, and maybe HQ will grant it. Really want one? Up the ante to '2X' of the renown 'price'. (Awwww, C'mon Commodore . . . I really really could use that new radar we've just got into Supply . . . )

The chance of having your upgrade request would be a percentage based upon your patrol history (don't ask me the full details, I'm just tossing this out a-la-brainstorming for the nonce). And, yes, you could 'spend' a chunk of renown and have HQ reply, 'Request denied; try again another time'.

[Albrecht Von Hesse]

Boy, can I kill a thread, or what? :(

[elanaiba]

Negative. It's an interesting thread, FWIV I've read it ;)