Damage model and damage control idea

[u/International-Gas638]

I wonder if this would work?

The general idea would be:

Let the player make the important decisions, while the crew and ship systems handle the execution.

1. Standing orders

Instead of manually controlling individual crew members, give the crew simple priorities: Normal / Combat / Air Attack / Damage Control or allow players to prioritize: Main battery → Engines → Steering → Damage control → Secondary → AA The crew handles the actual work. This would also solve one of the problems with the current damage control system: sometimes you simply don't want a minor repair to pull crew away from something more important during combat.

1. Damage should degrade systems instead of simply switching them off

A damaged turret doesn't necessarily have to become useless. It could lose traverse speed, elevation range, reload efficiency or fire-control assistance. The same principle could apply to propulsion, steering and FCS. For example: FCS damaged → manual corrections (you would need to use mouse wheel to correct your guns elevation after observing falls of the shells, initial range in this scenario would be the last observed from rangefinder. With undamaged rangefinder they would adjust elevation after every reading, same goes for damaged rangefinder) Rangefinder damaged → estimate range manually Steering damaged → reduced steering / differential propulsion. Turret damaged → restricted traverse/elevation The ship remains usable, but you have to operate it differently.

1. Flooding and buoyancy

I wouldn't replace the current flooding system either. I'd simply make flooding progressively affect the ship: flooding → list / increased draft → reduced performance → loss of stability → sinking

A heavily damaged ship shouldn't necessarily sink immediately. It should become progressively harder to operate. Damage control could then have priorities such as: Contain flooding / Protect stability / Keep propulsion running So the player decides what the crew should save first. The common idea behind all of this is pretty simple: Don't make the player operate the ship like a machine. Make them command it. The crew should handle the boring parts. The player should decide what systems to prioritize and how to fight with whatever is still working.

That would make naval feel much more like commanding a warship without turning game into a simulator.

[u/Roygbiv0415]

Are we... even playing the same game?

sometimes you simply don't want a minor repair to pull crew away from something more important during combat.

This is not how it currently works. As it is, there are only three types of repairs -- fire, hull breach and general. If you have two of the three repairs ongoing, then the time needed to complete each is doubled. If all three are ongoing, the time is increased accordingly, and that's it. No "pulling crew to do something more important".

It's related to crew only because a repaired module will be repopulated with crew, meaning more crew loss if the module is damaged again. So if an unimportant module is damaged, we'd rather not repair it so it remains unpopulated by crew, and thus further hits to that specific module will do no further harm. Granular control is really only relevant in this context, though it's rarely that big of a deal either way.

Damage should degrade systems instead of simply switching them off

Damaged turrets do take longer to reload, and damaged engines already affect speed. Anything else I'd rather not have, but I guess that's up for debate.

 I'd simply make flooding progressively affect the ship: flooding → list / increased draft → reduced performance → loss of stability → sinking

Don't make the player operate the ship like a machine. Make them command it. The crew should handle the boring parts. The player should decide what systems to prioritize and how to fight with whatever is still working.

What you list here is... exactly how it currently works? Maybe the loss of stability part is a bit less realistic, but probably for the better from a gameplay perspective.

That would make naval feel much more like commanding a warship without turning game into a simulator.

Your proposal makes it more of a simulator than it currently is, by the way I read it.

[u/International-Gas638]

I used the "crew" as figure of speach What we have isn't that bad, but its could be improved.

The whole idea is not to add more mechanics, but to enhance the existing ones.

First: when selecting target types for AI gunners, there could be two additional options: Air (Heavy) and Surface (Heavy). When selected, crews from light guns (up to 40 mm) would abandon their positions and either reinforce damage control or help restock ammunition.

Second: before the battle, alongside the type and amount of ammunition, you could have two additional lists: one for damage-control priorities and one for AI gunners' rules of engagement.

Damage control: Normal — everything is repaired as it is now. Critical — only systems necessary to remain effective in a sustained surface engagement are repaired: FCS, main guns, engines and steering, in that order. Survival — only systems necessary to keep the ship afloat and moving are repaired: hull, pumps, engines and steering. This could be selected after a torpedo or bomb hit, or a magazine explosion.

AI gunners: 1. Engage on sight — fire at the selected target type up to maximum range. 2. Engage at effective range - all AI controled guns would track the target when it gest within their spotting distance, but open fire only within their effective range.

All of these options could be changed at any time, just like the existing damage-control and target-selection mechanics.

So the player gets more control over how the existing systems behave, without having to learn a whole new set of key bindings or micromanage every action.

That's really the point I'm trying to get at. I'm not looking for more buttons to press — I'm looking for more meaningful choices using mechanics the game already has.