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

[The Bandit]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

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.

[Skyhigh]

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)

[Thomas_Jefferson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.