Make turrets more fragile

[Stormnet]

As you may know, right now in UAD there isnt really any reason to not switch to tripple and quad turrets as soon you can get them. Cannon by cannon they're cheaper, lighter, and occupy less deck space (less barbettes, further saving weight) than double and single ones (thought single turrets are always bad, forget them, they have no purpose). 

However, as @SonicB pointed out below...

...while in the game turrets are very rarely destroyed (and most times its either because they are hit by massive shells or by flash fires), historically turrets being incapacitated was a real concern. Turrets could often be simply jammed in place by a, even if small calliber, hit and pen in the turret ring or the hydraulics that turn it, temporarily (or permanently until drydock repair) disabling them. This made it so certain designs came with a 4x double configuration instead of a 3x tripple one: If a turret was incapacitated, the ship would only lose 25% of its firepower instead of 33%. 

So, I thought about some extra fail systems for turrets that isnt just condition/flash fire based.

Turret Damaged (1; 2; 3; etc...) - Like the Engine Damaged debuff slows down the ship, the Turret Damaged debuff would marginally slow down the turning rate for a certain turret until repaired, and it might be caused by a hit and pen to the turret ring/barbette.

Turret Jammed - Turret Jammed debuff this one is similar to "Turret Damaged" debuff, but its caused by a worse hit to the turret, jamming it in place until repaired.

Turret Broken - This is Turret Jammed, but permanent until drydock repairs.

 

These are just my suggestions. I apreciate constructive criticism or other suggestions.

Thanks for reading this.

 

 

Edited May 1, 2021 by Stormnet

[VarangianGarde]

I gotta agree here. In reality damage sustained on patrol was rarely fully repairable until a ship reached port.

As an example here's the damage report for USS South Dakota after the second battle of Guadalcanal. This is a late period battleship with just about everything you could want in a ~1940ish design, and it was still almost completely incapacitated by small caliber fire.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-south-dakota-bb57-war-damage-report-no57.html

[madham82]

6 hours ago, VarangianGarde said:

I gotta agree here. In reality damage sustained on patrol was rarely fully repairable until a ship reached port.

As an example here's the damage report for USS South Dakota after the second battle of Guadalcanal. This is a late period battleship with just about everything you could want in a ~1940ish design, and it was still almost completely incapacitated by small caliber fire.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-south-dakota-bb57-war-damage-report-no57.html

If you are referring to the hit on turret III, it was from a 14" shell and according to the report, "Some difficulty was experienced in training the turret after the hit but it was believed that the turret was still able to fire". So not really a good example, but I agree it doesn't take a major hit to incapacitate either. 

Probably a better example would be the final engagement of Bismarck which I believe 2 turrets were knocked out fairly quickly. 

Suffice to say, turret pops should be way less frequent than turrets being damage/knocked out. Which currently the game seems to have the other way around. Could be just the AI using minimal armor now. I haven't had a recent engagement last long enough to tell (ammo dets frequently against the AI).

[VarangianGarde]

Yeah, and certainly credit to the architect that designed the South Dakota. That being said, there were a number of hits that either destroyed or damaged rangefinders or fire control, which effectively made the South Dakota blind and unable to effectively fire. On the other side, Kirishima had 3 of her four turrets knocked out before she even went down, though admittedly those were mostly 16" hits from Washington. Kirishima actually did fairly well containing and avoiding a magazine explosion too (while she was afloat).

http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf

Outside of this particular engagement, there are plenty of examples of turrets being jammed/ knocked off alignment by 8" and smaller shells. Anyhow, I agree that catastrophic detonations should be rarer than damage or disabling. Although if a turret takes a hit and turns yellow in the ship HUD, does that mean that the turret would train slower, lose a barrel, or reload slower? I don't think it does, but maybe it should.

Edited May 1, 2021 by VarangianGarde

[SonicB]

On 5/2/2021 at 12:45 AM, VarangianGarde said:

Outside of this particular engagement, there are plenty of examples of turrets being jammed/ knocked off alignment by 8" and smaller shells. Anyhow, I agree that catastrophic detonations should be rarer than damage or disabling. Although if a turret takes a hit and turns yellow in the ship HUD, does that mean that the turret would train slower, lose a barrel, or reload slower? I don't think it does, but maybe it should.

I don't think so - the only modelling of damage effects on gunnery appears to be a temporary accuracy nerf.

As far as degraded performance goes, I'd welcome examples to the contrary, but iirc either a turret's rotation worked or it didn't (except early/light weapons which could be trained hydraulically or manually.) Individual guns could certainly be knocked out, and conditions in the turret, magazines or ammunition hoist could also definitely impede the rate of fire.

A potential list of temporary or permanent turret malfunctions:

• One or two guns knocked out
• Decreased accuracy/range due to rangefinder damage (turret under local control)
• Jammed or restricted rotation
• Reduced ROF due to crew incapacitation or loading mechanism damage

I would expect a significant chance of one of these after a penetrating hit, yellow-red change in structure or a fire below the turret, and there should be a permanent malfunction applied after any ammo detonation.

Edited May 5, 2021 by SonicB

[Stormnet]

59 minutes ago, SonicB said:

I don't think so - the only modelling of damage effects on gunnery appears to be a temporary accuracy nerf.

As far as degraded performance goes, I'd welcome examples to the contrary, but iirc either a turret's rotation worked or it didn't (except early/light weapons which could be trained hydraulically or manually.) Individual guns could certainly be knocked out, and conditions in the turret, magazines or ammunition hoist could also definitely impede the rate of fire.

A potential list of temporary or permanent turret malfunctions:

• One or two guns knocked out
• Decreased accuracy/range due to rangefinder damage (turret under local control)
• Jammed or restricted rotation
• Reduced ROF due to crew incapacitation or loading mechanism damage

I would expect a significant chance of one of these after a penetrating hit, yellow-red change in structure or a fire below the turret, and there should be a permanent malfunction applied after any ammo detonation.

Yeah, something like that to incentivise installing more turrets.

[VarangianGarde]

4 hours ago, SonicB said:

I don't think so - the only modelling of damage effects on gunnery appears to be a temporary accuracy nerf.

As far as degraded performance goes, I'd welcome examples to the contrary, but iirc either a turret's rotation worked or it didn't (except early/light weapons which could be trained hydraulically or manually.) Individual guns could certainly be knocked out, and conditions in the turret, magazines or ammunition hoist could also definitely impede the rate of fire.

A potential list of temporary or permanent turret malfunctions:

• One or two guns knocked out
• Decreased accuracy/range due to rangefinder damage (turret under local control)
• Jammed or restricted rotation
• Reduced ROF due to crew incapacitation or loading mechanism damage

I would expect a significant chance of one of these after a penetrating hit, yellow-red change in structure or a fire below the turret, and there should be a permanent malfunction applied after any ammo detonation.

I like these suggestions. Beyond the turrets themselves, there are so many interlocking systems that enable or improve turret operations, as you mentioned with magazines and ammo hoists.

[ThatZenoGuy]

A turret getting hit by large caliber shells (the size of the turret themselves give or take an inch) should have a chance to become 'jammed', even from non-penetrations. Turning mechanisms on BB turrets were infamously fragile at times, and it'd give turret hits more oomth.

Jammed turrets should be knocked out of action but over time repair (they smack all the gears back in line, etc, its a game) the turret back to normal function, excluding penetration damage.

[madham82]

2 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

A turret getting hit by large caliber shells (the size of the turret themselves give or take an inch) should have a chance to become 'jammed', even from non-penetrations. Turning mechanisms on BB turrets were infamously fragile at times, and it'd give turret hits more oomth.

Jammed turrets should be knocked out of action but over time repair (they smack all the gears back in line, etc, its a game) the turret back to normal function, excluding penetration damage.

If the shell is the size of the turret, there probably isn't going to be a turret or a ship left! I agree with the point you are trying to make though. 

[ThatZenoGuy]

23 minutes ago, madham82 said:

If the shell is the size of the turret, there probably isn't going to be a turret or a ship left! I agree with the point you are trying to make though. 

The same size as the shells used by said turret. ;P

But yeah, obviously a much smaller gun should not damage a turret, and already a much larger gun should pierce and destroy the turret.

The issue at the moment is when your gun can either 'just barely' damage a turret (aka, NOTHING), or just below the thickness of armor, also dealing nothing.

[Stormnet]

Found this quite informative tweet about this. 

https://twitter.com/thegeneralboard/status/1390096049558237194

[Tankaxe]

On 5/9/2021 at 3:16 PM, Stormnet said:

Found this quite informative tweet about this. 

https://twitter.com/thegeneralboard/status/1390096049558237194

Curious maybe the designer should have a mechanic on the more turrets the more weight spent on a ships citadels as you have more to protect. Though that would require a armor overhaul.