Ships repair too fast?

[borsook79]

I really feel that repair times should be separated for different units (i.e. to clarify, by "repair time" I mean the number of strength points you can regain in one turn) - although I feel it is rather too fast generally, it is really unrealistic with the naval aspect. I can quote plenty of situations when repairing a ship took months, even more than a year. Currently in CEAW it is done in lightning speed. This really changes naval combat making sinking too important while seriously damaging a ship should be a substantial gain.

[Maj_Battaglia]

I'm glad you brought this up. I thought about this a little in contemplating the naval model, but did not address it in my post in the "Axis Sub Warfare" thread. Not sure if you read that: viewtopic.php?t=4578. In my mod that I am using, build times for naval units is much longer: 15 turns for sub, 14 for destroyer, 40 for battleship, and 24 for carrier. These are based on a survey of actual build times plus sea trials before being commissioned and sent off to duty.

Looking at repair times (and I would add upgrade to that; overhauls took a good amount of time, too), I agree that it is too short.

I would pose the question "what do damage and repair represent?" This cuts to the heart of the naval model that, like ground and air units, assigns a strength of 10 to represent relative strength. While it is fine for ground and air units, it is problematic for naval units.

Is "damage" a loss of a ship or ships in a unit, or simply repairable damage to the abstracted ships in the unit? That would affect repair/replacement time.

With carriers, I feel there should be some differentiation between the naval air units and the physical ship itself. A carrier is weakened defensively because its aircraft have suffered from a long-range attack. Presumably the unit in-game represents escort ships as well that help protect it from surface/sub attack. While loss of aircraft put it at a disadvantage, certainly there should be a limit (theoretically a carrier could be "sunk" from attacking a ground unit). Perhaps once a carrier reaches a strength of 5 it loses its ability attack long range? And for repair, certainly repairing the hull would take longer than simply replenishing lost planes and pilots.

While in the end the current model is OK for the game (I'm not saying the current model is "bad"), naval models in future versions might consider the following for more realism (especially in a Pacific version):

Mixed "battlegroup" units: Given there is no stacking, it can be difficult to properly protect and escort capital ships (and convoys). Perhaps a different way to approach naval units in the future is to make them all more or less custom units. In this sort of model you "buy" (for a small sum (5 points?) to represent the admin costs of assembling command personnel) a battlegroup counter that is available immediately like a garrison. But when you deploy it, you have to populate it with available unassigned naval assets that are tracked in a "pool." Each asset brings with it certain abilities, and the more assets of each type that are assigned, the stronger those abilities. A cruiser ship type (and hopefully escort carrier) might be added as well. Convoys would be battlegroups as well (though no admin cost), and when the convoy reached its destination the escort assets would be made available in the pool. Battlegroups would move at the speed of its slowest asset.

The pool might have three windows: Available, under repair/overhaul (upgrade), and under construction. Clicking on a battlegroup counter would bring up a window (possibly replacing the unit window now used) showing its assets and strengths in each ability.

Combat would be similar to now, but results different. Clicking on the unit after combat would show current assets, damaged assets, and assets lost. Damaged assets would contribute less strength and possibly slow the battlegroup down.

The player would have the option at any time to dispatch some or all damaged assets to the nearest port for repair (otherwise, damaged assets are more likely to be sunk in later combat). These would then enter the repair/overhaul queue, with each getting some random PP cost and time for repair assigned, depending on class of ship (capital ships would usually take longer and more PPs). The player would authorize repairs so that expenditure can be managed, but ships not authorized for repair would stay in the pool without progress toward repair. Repaired ships would be added to the "available assets" pool and enjoy an automatic upgrade as part of the repair. A battlegroup would have to be in a port to have available assets assigned/reassigned to it.

Naval construction would be similar to what it is now, with a certain number of ships assumed depending on type. Maybe six for destroyers and subs, two for cruisers and CVEs (if adopted), and one for carriers and battleships.

[Happycat]

While the twenty day repair might seem short, repair costs are quite high, frequently prohibitively so. The delay becomes 40 days if the ship is reduced to less than 5 steps. In addition, unless the ship is damaged close to home, there is transit time to add to the mix. Of course you can always repair in a Mediterranean port, but supply will mitigate against a full one turn repair.

At almost any point in the game that we could consider, pp's are never enough to do everything. As Russia in 1941 and 1942, what are the chances that you can spare pp's to repair the Black Sea fleet? Same question for Germany in the early and late stages, Britain almost always, Italy at all times, and the USA in the early stages.

I think that in this instance, Slitherine made the concepts of sunk and damaged to be abstractions, and overall it works quite well imo.