AGEOD Forums

Hi
I have noticed that ships now take much longer to replace losses, even when in a harbour within a depot region, and in rest posture, so I wonder if I am doing something wrong. Do ships take replacements from the line troops pool, or do they need replacements from other type of troops?

From what I understand, they just take some cash and war supply... maybe some conscripts as well, although I'm not sure about that.
Basically, put them in port and ensure that you leave a little money and war supply at the end of the turn.

Note also that if their beat up just from cohesion that you don't really need anything other than time (AFAIK). If you allow a naval unit to get really low on cohesion then their actual power starts to deteriorate. That just comes back after a turn or two in port.
I think that you're talking about actual damage though, where the element icon starts turning read. Correct? That's what you need resources for in order to do actual repairs.

Hi

Pocus stated somewhere than ship repairs cost some money and wars supplies. Maybe you have no $ or WS?
In any case, for ship repairs is the port level (the higher the faster) and the presence of naval engineers what counts.
Don’t think the depot helps.
Regards

I have plenty of money and war supplies, I guess I will have to try with naval engineers

aryaman wrote:I have plenty of money and war supplies, I guess I will have to try with naval engineers

That, and the level of harbor I believe determines the repair rate.

aryaman wrote:I have plenty of money and war supplies, I guess I will have to try with naval engineers

Don't think that I'll let your naval engineers get through to there Aryamen.

arsan wrote:Hi

Pocus stated somewhere than ship repairs cost some money and wars supplies. Maybe you have no $ or WS?
In any case, for ship repairs is the port level (the higher the faster) and the presence of naval engineers what counts.
Don’t think the depot helps.
Regards

Ooh right.

Here's an interesting question then. What is the order for WS gain and usage.

For example:

I have WS shortages as the CSA. I have some beaten up ships which I take out of the Blockade boxes and back to port. I also have a few divisions being constructed (consolidated I suppose) and I have a few Raiders ripping up railroads in (flips a coin) Mississippi for some spare War Supplies.

Will my Commanders pay the Division costs first and then the Ship replacements or will the Ships 'top-up' first thus negating sucessful Division construction.

And when will my Raiders add the railroad scrap-metal to the War Supply pool, before its used or after?

Ayeshteni

Good questions indeed!
I have no idea but Pocus should know...

Scrap rails, pay for replacements, pay for divisions

Pocus wrote:Scrap rails, pay for replacements, pay for divisions

Ante the cost for fixing rails and repairing naval units? where does it goes?

So do we need to leave some leftover war supply after building to reapair ships?

If so how much?

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Depends on the amount of damage done to the ship... It's not a fixed amount. It's proportional to the total damage that ship has sustained. Basically, if the ship has 10 hit points and 9 of them are gone (in the red), it will cost 90% of the full (original) build cost in $ and WS to bring the ship back up to full strength.

Gray,

So in laymans terms if a ship has 90% damage you need to leave aside 90% of what the cost would be to biuld that unit anew?

I imagine the cost will be spaced out over several turns, since the ship won't be fully repaired at once.

deleted

yes, the cost will be spread over the turns the ship is repaired. no discount here, in contrary of land units (where a replacement cost half what a brand new element would cost when recruited).

I ask & beware...

If no no discount on repair ships, a tricky way of playing could be avoiding repair?

Pocus: To verify: Is the "spread out" cost reflected in the "Planned Balance" numbers?

deleted

Pocus wrote:yes, the cost will be spread over the turns the ship is repaired. no discount here, in contrary of land units (where a replacement cost half what a brand new element would cost when recruited).

Pocus,
Can you elaborate please?
Replacements cost close enough to actual purchase cost of that unit. When a replacement element is received you are losing that replacement chit so the costs of replacements vs a new purchased unit is similar in that scenario.
Are you saying that when replacements are used to replenish depleted elements the cost factor is not about 100% vs purchasing but closer to 50%??

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:What are you getting at? If you don't repair the ships they will become very brittle if drawn into a combat situation. (Meaning easily destroyed).

Pocus: To verify: Is the "spread out" cost reflected in the "Planned Balance" numbers?

An important part of the fleet (transports & brigs) is not needed for battle "uses"... just for production/supply concerns.

I ask... what seems best, pay directly to have 2 Brigs not at full power (until killed themslelves to attrition) bringing resources in the blockade box, or:

have ONLY 1 brig bringing resources , and pay resources (the same as a new one) while stopped repairing for 10-15% of the time and paying for its own repair (even risk being captured while at port)...

The replacement system in generally understood and accepted by all,(ableit with some arguement about the odd detail. Point is everyone seems comfortable with it and dare I say even liked .

The naval replacement system seems to be hidden and beyond players control unless they wish to become a games accountant.

Look I use to love GDW's Fire in the EAST series (mind you one had to rent a hall just to lay out the map) Great game, but the paperwork was a pain in the bum. We all love computer games because they do that administration for us. We even sacrifice the granduer of looking at a huge map in a single glance just so our numbers get crunched.
I don't want to be a bean counter (that's what you techo boffins are for otherwise I would have been in supplies and not the infanry when I was in Army.

What I am advocating (unless there is some logical or technical reason) is that naval units be brought in line with the rest of the replacement system. Eg a pigeon hole for, say transports, ironclads, ships.
Anyway you get the idea.
I don't think players need the bean counting mechanics but they 'DO' want to be able to order repairs to a particular ship or theatre or whatever.

Comment?

Captain wrote:What I am advocating (unless there is some logical or technical reason) is that naval units be brought in line with the rest of the replacement system. Eg a pigeon hole for, say transports, ironclads, ships.
Anyway you get the idea.
I don't think players need the bean counting mechanics but they 'DO' want to be able to order repairs to a particular ship or theatre or whatever.

Comment?

I agree. I don't really understand why it was decided that naval units would use separate replacement rules to begin with.

deleted

Hi
I like the actual ship repair system. It works an its streamlined. Two good things to me.
Don't think changing it to add replacements for them would add anything to the game, really, except more micromanaging and bean counting. And IMHO, ACW has more than enough of these already.
I suppose the difference system between land units and ships units its because ships are repaired and land units are filled up with men (replacements) which are what is represented by replacements chits.
Yeah, i know ships also have "men", but you get the general idea
In any case, and as Gray says, i don't think that at this late stage of the game development would make sense changing game concepts that actually work
Besides, i could think of half a dozen things i would prefer Pocus to spend his limited AACW programming time better than this
Regards

Ships are not using replacement chits because it was deemed non realistic, to prepay for some kind of ersatz ship filling a hole into a ship squadron.

The repair costs of ships are not factored in the balance account though... This is a lack I admit.

Pocus wrote:Ships are not using replacement chits because it was deemed non realistic, to prepay for some kind of ersatz ship filling a hole into a ship squadron.

The repair costs of ships are not factored in the balance account though... This is a lack I admit.

Put like that I can see the logic
The account balance re ships is an issue however.

Same here.

I'm very aware of the fact that asking for essentially a redesign is stretching the bounds of possibilities at this point, but it never hurts to ask.

The main thing really is to somehow have the repair costs show up in the balance. I can imagine the problems involved in adding that, but I think that it's important.

Captain wrote:Put like that I can see the logic
The account balance re ships is an issue however.

Indeed.

It would be preferable to at the least have somewhere mentioned the costs necessary to repair ships.

It is hard enough trying to mentally tally in Division building costs to your balance without trying to do it with ship repairs; especially when there is no mention anywhere of what those would happen to be.

And as ship repairs will be 'paid' for before your Division building costs that can have repercussions.

An interesting topic mind, I hope my post doesn't come out sounding critical.

Ayeshteni