Armor Maintenance

[smsvu]

Why does the armor type affect ship maintenance cost (significantly)?

I've done some brief tests, to verify the effect and get an idea how big the diffenrece actually is: (just changing armor)

• Clean Hull:
  • Krupp III:   5.118.653 $/m
  • Modern II: 7.728.106 $/m
  •  Increase: ≈ 51,0 %
• Expensive Design (just for testing; not overweight for both types):
  • Krupp III:   37.768.240 $/m
  • Modern II: 49.138.930 $/m
  •  Increase: ≈ 31,0 %

[anonusername]

It is because armor cost is just a percentage modifier.

[smsvu]

7 hours ago, anonusername said:

It is because armor cost is just a percentage modifier.

That's clear. The question is why is it applied to maintenance cost? (In other words: Why does/would different armor need vastly different levels of maintenance?)

Edited January 26, 2023 by smsvu

[madham82]

Would actually be in reverse one would think. Stronger armor by weight should be more durable and need less maintenance, but I don't think IRL it mattered to begin with. Just another simplistic in game calculation. 

Edited January 26, 2023 by madham82

[TiagoStein]

3 hours ago, madham82 said:

Would actually be in reverse one would think. Stronger armor by weight should be more durable and need less maintenance, but I don't think IRL it mattered to begin with. Just another simplistic in game calculation. 

Not necessarily. It can be stronger against impact but more prone to corrosion for example.

[madham82]

1 hour ago, TiagoStein said:

Not necessarily. It can be stronger against impact but more prone to corrosion for example.

Good point and that would lead into a conversation about metallurgy which would probably see some armor types more prone than others. It wouldn't necessarily be tied to increasing armor tech like the game is doing. So keeping it simple might have been best here. 

[smsvu]

50 minutes ago, madham82 said:

Good point and that would lead into a conversation about metallurgy which would probably see some armor types more prone than others. It wouldn't necessarily be tied to increasing armor tech like the game is doing. So keeping it simple might have been best here. 

I agree there is an argument for some maintenace cost difference for corrosion mitigation (paint, anodes), but these are likely rather limited especially because these are necessary anyways.

That's why it seems strange to me that more than a third of the maintenace cost of a hull (with it's inner workings) would be for just armor.

And more than 23% of a "complete" (it's not a realistic build) battleship would just be armor maintenace.

[madham82]

Yea it certainly isn't "balanced" in terms of economy. Apparently they also increased maintenance costs in the latest fix too. 

[TiagoStein]

17 hours ago, smsvu said:

I agree there is an argument for some maintenace cost difference for corrosion mitigation (paint, anodes), but these are likely rather limited especially because these are necessary anyways.

That's why it seems strange to me that more than a third of the maintenace cost of a hull (with it's inner workings) would be for just armor.

And more than 23% of a "complete" (it's not a realistic build) battleship would just be armor maintenace.

I think that is not reflecting the cost of maintenance on  the armor, but the cost that the armor  creates for mantaining the ship.

To  make any change on something made of 30 cm steel plates is hard as hell.

[smsvu]

7 hours ago, TiagoStein said:

I think that is not reflecting the cost of maintenance on  the armor, but the cost that the armor  creates for mantaining the ship.

To  make any change on something made of 30 cm steel plates is hard as hell.

I'm not shure I can agree. I admit I've never served on a heavily armored vessel, but I doubt there is so much work needed that is directly impacted by different armor that would lead to a change in the maintainace cost in the millions.

[TiagoStein]

12 hours ago, smsvu said:

I'm not shure I can agree. I admit I've never served on a heavily armored vessel, but I doubt there is so much work needed that is directly impacted by different armor that would lead to a change in the maintainace cost in the millions.

I know to be an exagerated extrapolation.. but what you think is more demanding,  repair  a truck of an MBT?  The armor is not just the weight, it is that things tend to be built in a way that is the only way possible due to armor and that sometimes will not be the best way for maintenance. The classic example was the panther with a stupid sproket that could only be exchanged from the inside because the armor conneciton scheme made impossible to keep it accessible from outside.

[Norbert Sattler]

One thing's for sure: If the armour is more costly to produce, it will also cost more to get replacement segments for pieces beyond repair. Granted replacing entire segments is probably not going to happen often as mere maintanance without damage from battle, collissions or storms, so maybe that should only impact repair, rather than maintanance cost.

[Dave P.]

Given the pathfinding AI in combat, I just assume that my ships are constantly ramming into each other coming in and out of dock.