CW needs to check sub damage after a mission before assigning another mission
 

By some miracle, I finished a mission against an invasion convoy with 63% hull damage, a busted tube, and flooding in the back 2 rear compartments.

Diving below 150 feet of water would quickly fill up the 2nd to last compartment up to the ceiling, even with damage control assigned to the pumps.
Technically I could put around with 20% positive ballast just to stay level, but obviously the condition the sub is in wasn't fit for combat.

After finishing the mission and getting the "great job" screen.....my next mission is to attack another convoy.

What?

No. I need to RTB and repair. The next mission should have been RTB and repair. The game should have checked the condition of my sub (because realistically I would have radioed back to HQ to tell them the condition of the USS Chicago) and they would have had me come back for a refit and repairs instead of sending me back out again with a hole in the side of the sub.

I RTBd and repaired/rearmed, which took about 72 hours since a busted tube takes 48 hours to repair.

I failed the next mission, obviously. This isn't very logical.

Let's put the war on hold while your boat is being patched, allright? :)

It is perfectly logical. You are being penalised by the game system for being so heavily damaged in the prior mission. If you had managed your objectives without damaging the sub, then you would have no issue. And indeed, as the poster above says, in the real world theatre you would also "fail the mission" as you would have to RTB and the Russians aren't exactly going to sit around twiddling their thumbs while you enjoy shore leave and hot tubbing at Holy Loch.

So I think its quite logical. Whether or not it makes for satisfying gameplay is another question. In my mind, I accept that if I stuff up a mission and nearly sink the boat, the war effort will probably suffer as a result. And so I think the developer's logic is the right one.

Once in successful convoy mission I suffered heavy damage (hull integrity was very low) and almost no weapons left. After i ordered to RTB to rearm and repairs...

Of course a fish without teeth cannot bite. So it's normal to RTB if you run out of ammo.

So I guess if your hull is damaged, offload all your weapons into the sea and you will get an RTB order ;)

It's not logical, and the developer disagrees with you.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/541210...0994964745887/

And I disagree with the developer.

It is superlogical.
You let yourself be damaged, you decide whether you continue on a mission or fail it to repair. It's a nice dilemma, I have faced it many times.

More Importan is, that after RTB, first reload and repairs, THEN new mission assign.
The current way sucks

Yes, the war goes on without you, but at the same time it makes no sense for COMSUBLANT to assign a new mission to a boat they know to be combat ineffective.

It seems it would be the Commander's call on whether the sub is mission capable.

But, in the same sense, the Commander recognizes his responsibility to stay mission capable for follow-on taskings in a war.

National budgets being national budgets, taking command of anything calls for responsibility to accomplish the duties of command, knowing the importance of staying mission-capable during said command.

There should be some "career" set-back for losing mission capability.

Well, but you get to refuse it in this game just by running towards port nevertheless. Ain't THAT nice enough already?

Explain how it's logical that command would order me to attack a full strength invasion convoy with a 67% hull integrity, a hull breach, a broken tube, and flooding in two compartments?

I didn't "continue" on a mission in this state. I ended a mission in this state. Logic says I would contact command and tell them, "hey, there's a hole in my boat, I'm RTB" instead of recklessly steaming towards a certain death and endangering my crew.

Having the game assign me another mission after the game knows I have damage to my sub (and it knows this because it says so in the debrief screen) is absurd and not logical.
No logic in it. Developer has the right idea to change it and allow a damaged sub to trigger an RTB mission type.

You miss the point.

There IS an invasion fleet.
You want to RTB.

Your choice, should always be your choice. It is illogical and absurd that command will say, ah let the invasion happen because this poor little sub has a hole in it.

Be a hero and save the day, or fail the mission. It will teach you to sustain less damage next time. I will ask the developer directly not to change it, or at least think it over.

The Skipper takes ultimate responsibility for everything concerning the boat.

What would the Squadron CDR say when the sub captain brings in an overly damaged boat? I suspect he would investigate and while that is occurring, the boat would be assigned to a different commander who sees to repairs and takes it to sea.

As far as CW, it should reduce the players score and the enemy (Soviet military) gets a Bennie because a sub was not on station conducting a needed mission during wartime.

The CW campaign scenario also values judicious use of torpedoes. It is war, after all. We just can't keep going back to base.

And what about the mission after that? And the one after that?
At what point is it "ok" to RTB to get repairs?

According to you, the only acceptable scenario where you get to RTB without a penalty is if you run out of ammo....or do you plan on ramming the next convoy?
I mean...what's another hole, right?

Absurd.

There's some value on both sides here, however I'm inclined to be in favor of the way things are now. War waits for no man (or submarine in this case) and I think its a good feature of the dynamic campaign to penalize you for taking damage.

At the same time, a sub with a cracked pressure-hull is not going to be sent out once more unto the breach unless the Captain has a death wish. The survival of his crew, and boat have to be more important than what little could be accomplished going into battle crippled.

I don't mean to talk smack here but, when compared to Soviet boats (when you look at reserve buoyancy, number of water-tight compartments and double-hull construction) US boats were not really designed to take battle-damage, they were designed to not get damaged in the first-place (by not "spending" that displacement on a double-hull they bought the ability to add rafting and isolation mounts ect.) and I wish the damage was "felt" a bit more, not exactly realistic to go tooling around in a boat where the reactor an engineering spaces are flooded out, at that point you're trying to surface and abandon ship, or even worse take to the escape chamber.

In conclusion, what I think would be a cool feature is that, if you feel compelled to forego/abandon a mission, maybe there's like a 35% chance that they can bring somebody else in to cover for you and its not a failure, otherwise it is because for whatever reason (good or bad) you aren't where you're supposed to be and there are consequences.

Maybe you should never get an RTB mission.

I sometimes have like 4-5 torps left. I get a mission, and I decide to rearm quickly. Sometimes I make it and still attack the target, and sometimes I am too late.

And sometimes you decide to go in with just those 5 torps and hope it's enough.

But that's war.

Perhaps that's the solution here: forget about the RTB mission. Or better yet: request an RTB, and a diceroll decides whether HQ allows it.

I'd say let the game check for damage too and then give you a campaign point penalty if you have to RTB damaged but not by letting command look like a bunch of nitwits assaigning you a mission when damaged and your sub , USS RAMBO, seem to be the only one in the fleet (more then you already are)

I agree with the OP, but it should be only critical damage that sends you back to port.

I was on an insertion mission that was successful, but went wrong on my way out. I took a small hit that flooded only a single chamber. It was manageable, and I was able to escape and continue to my next mission, which was an enemy infiltration mission. I battled it out with a few subs, but I took another bad hit that flooded 2 more chambers and took out my towed array.

Of course, I got another mission, but I could barely keep myself afloat. At that point, the game should have me RTB. Any more than 1 flooded chamber is critical to operation, regardless of enemy movements.

You guys are all missing the point. Yes, we all know it's not realistic. Guess what else is not realistic in the campaign? The player sinking half the Soviet Northern Fleet all my himself.

If you want realistic, that means you'll be lucky to get into 3-4 engagements in the span of the war. Look at the Chicago in RSR. 1st patrol they came up empty, 2nd patrol they got an assist on the Kirov and the 3rd was the Tomahawk strike and that's it.

The inability to perform a mission due to damage/ammo is there for DRAMATIC effect. It's just like any other mission failure (engaging the wrong group while your target slip by). It's just there so the player will get some setback from time to time instead of having a cakewalk. Live with it.