For God’s sake man, stop the rage bait trolling. You want actual dreadnoughts? Show me a single source that shows that the Konig or Beyern class DREADNOUGHTS had centralized damage control, multi-layer torpedo bulges, smoke ventillation, foam blanketing systems or portable C02 firefighting equpment, literally nothign REMOTELY close to the technology of a WWII battleship.
You cannot seriously pretend a 1916 dreadnought with steam-driven pumps and coal-dust bulkheads has the same damage control effectiveness as a 1944 Iowa. So unless you think a few flash doors make up for the 30 years of technological advancements that I’ve highlighted to you several times now, you might want to rethink that comparison.
No, all you have said is shouldn’t be able to repair under fire, which in naval you rarely are not under fire, that makes that idea worse than the one being proposed
I was responding to comments about the AA battery repair spam which should not be done under fire. Do you think that an engineering crew is going to go out and reweld a 20mm Oerlikon mount while under barrages of 16in shell fire?
Sir, you literally DO NOT read comments, get out of here.
I do read them, if i didn’t i wouldn’t reply, in your original reply for example you stated that a player deciding to control what crew does when the player is technically the command staff in the instance of gameplay isnt a good idea, neither is automating repairs, it may shock you to know i actually do know exactly what im talking about and that i know my history of specific ships, its literally the reason i play the mode, the mode becoming more and more like another games system is the exact opposite of what should be happening yet it is happening, furthermore, i, as someone who does control their damage control, am rather offended by it now being called an exploit, so no i will not,“get out of here” as you so graciously put it
I will however apologise for any misunderstanding i caused since it was my error
Thank you. Listen, all I am saying is Gaijin’s decision to add multipliers on repair speeds based on the ship’s age is realistic. This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see even more realism with exact numbers of repair parties per ship in the future. I also think that their decision to automate fire and flooding DC is also realistic. Fires and floods are direct threats to living crew members on board, they may be prioritized by severity, but they are NEVER, ever ignored by anyone. Intentionally allowing a ship to flood to raise the waterline and kill souls on board is also unrealistic. Again, I’m not saying this can’t be improved in the future, but another step in the right direction in terms of realism.
Lastly, I did acknowledge that automated repair of AA guns and secondary batteries above deck is unrealistic, as no one would do this under fire.
I once again apologise for my conduct i am very passionate about naval since its why i started playing in the first place as an amateur naval historian and someone with a family connection to navy
Chapters 3 and 4 focus on three areas: the limited survivability of U.S. warships in World War I, …
Check this document - apparently USN damage control procedures are still based on those learned from German and British experiences in WW1 - more especially the German ones.
Battleship Cove has a video tour of Mamie’s Damage Control Center, featuring lots of standard equipment for the time also found on the Iowa and North Carolina class… as well as modern cruisers. USS Salem has a somewhat similar, but scaled suite as well.
The video really doesn’t do it justice, as walking around the USS Massachusetts damage control lockers, hose hookups, C02 storage, and portable water pumps can be found basically all over the place. Best to go to a museum and see for yourself, staff are usually volunteers and veterans happy to give you tours, offer explanations and even give supervised access to enclosed areas… at least this is true with the Massachusetts, but I’m sure other museums are just as hospitable.
Damage control doesn’t magically change with the years. Sure, with firefighting we have better systems to deal with them but it all still broadly relies on people getting your firefighting kit onto the incident as soon as possible. The only major change there is the prevalence of handheld fighting systems, which are only really useful against small-ish fires (which aren’t what you’ll face after someone takes a face full of high calibre shot)
Flooding is even more like it was many years ago. We still use wooden chocks (think doorstops/wedges) for primary DC, and for secondary shoring it is whatever available to you)
As for repairing ships, if we’re going for repairs in action and realism, you wouldn’t repair jack unless it was a steering gear breakdown or a machinery breakdown (and even then you might well leave that be if you still have some propulsion available) or your DCO said so - and anyway, when you’re closed up at Yankee/Zulu conditions, you’d probably have someone on the tiller flat able to steer directly anyway. The only possible way in that instance you’d lose steerage is if your gear physically jammed or got shot away (exceptionally unlikely)
So if we want to go full tilt realism, remove repairing all together except for emergency patching for propulsion and steerage. Model the effects of smoke on damage control (i.e. the longer you leave a fire burn, the longer it takes to put it out).
I’ll qualify my above however with while yes you’re correct, WW1 damage control is likely to be less effective (for instance, Pre-Wet didn’t exist, and ammunition stowages didn’t have CO2/Flooding systems built in like they do now) I’d objectively disagree with the matter of efficiency in terms of methodology of dealing with damage control. The only distinct difference is there’s probably key differences in how CBRNDC parties worked in WW1 to how they did on WW2 ships and now (for one, they did not account for being nuked/gassed/irradiated/other’d) and had a lot less access to portable systems, very definitely in the firefighting realm and most likely in the flood control/containment. But otherwise CBRNDC working practices are not dissimilar.
I’m convinced that Gaijin doesn’t know what is keeping players from sticking with Naval or even giving it a try in the first place, and are just throwing darts at a board and hoping something will stick.
This will have no meaningful change to them.
If anything, HE spam will make my Ikoma more resilient cause getting penned by advanced guns is the biggest issue I have with it.
I implore you to find out for yourself why APHE rounds will still remain king against everything with armor.
I personally doubt Gaijin will nerf crew amounts on open turret positions.
The Damage Control Officer would explode in a Emergency Stations situation if you did that.
Nevermind the entirety of the Bridge/Warfare team would do so in State 3 running.