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

Halcyon · 07-28-17, 06:14 PM

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.

Skyhigh · 07-29-17, 03:26 AM

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

midnight.mangler · 07-29-17, 06:50 AM

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.

Pytheas · 07-29-17, 11:54 AM

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...

Skyhigh · 07-29-17, 12:06 PM

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

Halcyon · 07-29-17, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by midnight.mangler

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.

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

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

Skyhigh · 07-29-17, 03:26 PM

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.

wastel · 07-29-17, 04:46 PM

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

Capt Jack Harkness · 07-29-17, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyhigh

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.

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.

Halcyon · 07-29-17, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyhigh

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.

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.

Thomas_Jefferson · 08-01-17, 01:13 PM

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.

Wiz33 · 08-01-17, 02:48 PM

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.

The Bandit · 08-01-17, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiz33

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.

If we're going to pile on about realism, the whole idea of "repair and refit" kind of goes out the window. I highly doubt anything "involved" could/would be done at Holy Loch for the main reason that I just don't see them as tying up the Los Almos (floating drydock) to do something like that when you probably have at least another 12+ submarines operating out of the base, coming back to refit and rearm. Severe damage would either get the boat parked (like USS Pharris in RSR) or patched up enough to maybe go to VSEL or Cammel Laird (if the British could accommodate) or possibly maybe even right back to Groton, Portsmouth or Newport News.

Wiz33 · 08-01-17, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bandit

If we're going to pile on about realism, the whole idea of "repair and refit" kind of goes out the window. I highly doubt anything "involved" could/would be done at Holy Loch for the main reason that I just don't see them as tying up the Los Almos (floating drydock) to do something like that when you probably have at least another 12+ submarines operating out of the base, coming back to refit and rearm. Severe damage would either get the boat parked (like USS Pharris in RSR) or patched up enough to maybe go to VSEL or Cammel Laird (if the British could accommodate) or possibly maybe even right back to Groton, Portsmouth or Newport News.

Yep. There are certain liberties that they took to enhance gameplay and to increase tension. Live with it.

Halcyon · 08-01-17, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiz33

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.

There isn't just one global "correct" point of view. So no one is missing anything. We all have our own points.

On one side people are arguing realism. Imo realism arguments only go so far before they cross over the fun/balance line.

From a fun and balance POV, I don't think getting sent out on missions when you have dual compartment flooding and a hole in the side of the sub is fun or balanced. The game is already challenging enough for me without having to fight with a sub full of water.

If you want to argue the realistic side of that argument, then I still don't think it's very realistic that a commander would take a sub in that condition into another fight, especially against multiple ASW ships and patrolling helos.

You have to draw the line between what's realistic and what's good for gameplay, because this game isn't real life and never will be. That said I shouldn't be forced by the game to endanger my sub or my imaginary crew based on "realism".
And I know I have the choice to ignore the mission. When I say forced, I mean the game is forcing me to choose between a likely death and taking a penalty.

07-28-17, 06:14 PM	#1
Halcyon Helmsman Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: West Coast, USA Posts: 106 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 3	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.

07-29-17, 03:26 AM	#2
Skyhigh A-ganger Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 74 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 1	Let's put the war on hold while your boat is being patched, allright?

07-29-17, 06:50 AM	#3
midnight.mangler Watch Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 16 Downloads: 26 Uploads: 0	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.

07-29-17, 11:54 AM	#4
Pytheas Swabbie Join Date: Jul 2017 Posts: 8 Downloads: 12 Uploads: 0	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...

07-29-17, 12:06 PM	#5
Skyhigh A-ganger Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 74 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 1	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

07-29-17, 03:26 PM	#7
Skyhigh A-ganger Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 74 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 1	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.

07-29-17, 04:46 PM	#8
wastel Watch Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 24 Downloads: 46 Uploads: 0	More Importan is, that after RTB, first reload and repairs, THEN new mission assign. The current way sucks

08-01-17, 01:13 PM	#11
Thomas_Jefferson Nub Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: The Desert Posts: 2 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	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.

08-01-17, 02:48 PM	#12
Wiz33 Planesman Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 184 Downloads: 23 Uploads: 0	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.