Commerce Raider ML capability

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Commerce Raider ML capability

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> Commerce Raider ML capability

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Commerce Raider ML capability - 5/1/2006 8:37:05 PM

Mike Carroll

Posts: 649
Joined: 10/21/2002
Status: offline

Rysyonok brought up the potential problems with both sides being able to have massive numbers of long-range minelayers.

I have not gotten far enough in any of my games to see a problem develop. I am of two minds about this.

Historically the many German surface raiders laid minefields and were quite successful in sinking ships with them including the King Edward VII (and one other Pre-Dreadnaught). The limited number of Size 9 ports will limit the number of minefields that can be laid. Basically the ship will go out and lay one minefield. But I could see where it could get out of hand especially if used to lay minefields at friendly ports.

I am thinking about modifying my "Great War in the Pacific" scenario as follows. I would like to get comments on whether people think this is going to be an issue and if my modifications make sense.

1. I am going to add 3 minelaying auxillary cruisers to the reinforcement schedule for each side (basically going to change the class on 3 cargo ships from each side).

2. I am going to change the Auxillary cruiser that is initially converted to having no minelaying capacity, but give it an upgrade to a minelayer cruiser with perhaps 30% fewer mines. This way if the player chooses to go with the minelayer version it will take longer to put it in service.

3. I have already added 15 MSW to the reinforcement schedule on both sides, perhaps add a couple more in the late game.

4. We could have a "honor" rule that would restrict the Auxillary CLs from laying mines at friendly bases. Not sure how to even really enforce that one.

Or instead of the above, I could just add say 5 or 6 Auxillary Cruisers with minelaying capability to the reinforcement schedule and make the "converted" auxillary cruisers have no minelaying capability.

What do you think?

Post #: 1

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 5/2/2006 1:56:33 AM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

Well, problem one is that CD guns knock out MSW in a split second. The only real way to fight that is to forbid minelaying in base hexes.

Problem two is the sheer quantity. In current stock version I can have 125 120-mine equipped CLs show up at Pearl Harbor on Christmas Eve of 1922 and mine it so densely even MSWs will start blowing up. Game won for IJN.

(in reply to Mike Carroll)

Post #: 2

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 5/2/2006 3:27:57 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Well, that is always the trade off. No matter what kind of ship you have, players can do gamey things. Aux Cruisers, ADs, AEs, ASs, AVs, what have you.

However, as the majority of players of this kind of game don't tend to do that, and the AI doesn't do it, it really isn't a problem. I mean after all, if that is your strategy for winning, then PBEM wise you aren't going to find lots of players to play against you.

Moreover, if you sail 120 Aux Cruisers to PH by Christmas of '22, if the Allied player is at the top of his game he will get lots of easy VPs, not really making it a worthy tactic anyway. Or if you as the Japanese player send your fleet in, and a "Jutland ensues", then either the IJN will be so badly destroyed that the 120 Aux Cruiser gambit was a stupid move, or the USN fleet will be so crippled that Pearl Harbor would be untennable anyway, forcing the US fleet back to home port at San Diego.

While I agree if you look at it just from the single context it could be an issue, in the desire to add this feature I came to the conclusion that other factors will either make it an ineffective (and potentially stupid) tactic, or render it a non issue. My basic stance is this: If you want to rush 120 minelayers to Pearl on Christmas Eve, then by Thanksgiving we'll have every US ship and every gun over 3" in caliber trained on the harbor.

Because, let us assume that you succeed in mining the harbor and defeat the USN. You have used a huge portion of your transport fleet, and will be unable to follow up with a decisive invasion of Pearl, or anywhere else. You will have to confine yourself, thus giving the Allied player breathing time, both in clearing Pearl and in not having to worry about large follow on invasions. If you fail, then not only do you give the Allied player easy VPs (what, like 7-10 per cruiser?) but you have so hampered your transport capability that you put yourself on the defensive for the whole game.

My stance, and why I did it this way, is because it is like everything else in the game. Use it wisely, it is a historical asset. Be gamey and abuse it, and odds are it will come back to haunt you.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 3

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 5/2/2006 4:17:50 AM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

Well, it's not as much about abuse as it's about gambling. And daring to do something untried before =) Like me swarming all USN subs to Manila in one of my games and the resulting killfest... =)

In my modding I'm trying to force players in a situation where abusing rules is simply impossible.

They like milch cows? AKs and APs lost 3/4 of their fuel. Furthermore, most of them lost range.

They like commerce raiders? Sure, they can have... a dozen. The other large transports are reduced in capacity to 4975 tons ;)

P.S. Have I mentioned that I absolutely love this game? =)

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 4

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 5/2/2006 6:33:49 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

In my modding I'm trying to force players in a situation where abusing rules is simply impossible.

Good luck ! But how do we deal with "overstacking" divisions on the Atolls !? I don't see how to do this without changing the code !

That's the biggest problem I see with this scenario (Cautionaries) right now. Now maybe the guys that have been playing it, aren't abusing it. But if others play it then it could be abused and probably ends the scenario.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 5

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 5/2/2006 7:25:58 AM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

Easy.

Once I retool IJA divisions to comply with their triangular scheme (http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/014_japan/41-12-08_army/ija_ground-units/_3-rgt_organization.html; 19,000-21,000 men) while downsizing IJN transport capability to its actual size (Conway's, ONI-223M) and prohibiting massive port construction throughout Pacific (by downsizing max port sizes and decreasing available engineers), transporting those large chunks of infantry is going to be very, very, very painful. And elimination of base forces as frontline-capable troops is only going to be icing on the cake ;) When all you really got is 7-8 divisions, even divisible by three, just how many atolls can you staff?

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 6

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 5/2/2006 9:10:12 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rysyonok
prohibiting massive port construction throughout Pacific (by downsizing max port sizes and decreasing available engineers),

Careful on that one, you make port sizes "too historic", and it may be just as bad (unable to load torpedoes at Pearl, no drydock at Singapore, Hong Kong useless, etc). Such was a consideration I had to face.

My outlook was not so much "historic size" but "historic capability". Its a trade off admittedly, but the lack of engineers until later in the game helps to neutralize it (plus the obvious lack of mechanized equipment). About the only things built up too quickly for my tastes is airfields, but once I can get Mike (or see if I can "borrow" Joe) to do some code work, I'd like to have construction take muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch longer. Something to the tune of needing 6 engineer units to finish one port size in 6 months. Airfields more to the tune of 6 engineer units for 1 month, then 6 for 6 after size 3 (these aren't F-16s we are talking about.... they need only dirt pavements and bivouacs to make an airfield.

Also, why the triangular IJA divisions? From what I could come up with (which admittedly was scant.... there is a black hole between 1905 and 1941), in the '20s they were based off standard Western Divisions, which were square (2 Bdes of 2 Rgts). Or are you just basing off WW2 standards and hoping it back dates? In the early stages of the WPO Mod (loong looong ago) I did the same thing, and found out that except for ships, everything post 1933 is useless. Just my observation, since your goal seems to be historical accuracy (or your take on 1920s accuracy... don't want anyone to think WPO isn't accurate to begin with

)

< Message edited by Tankerace -- 5/2/2006 9:13:32 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 7

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 5/2/2006 9:12:20 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

Once I retool IJA divisions to comply with their triangular scheme (http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/014_japan/41-12-08_army/ija_ground-units/_3-rgt_organization.html; 19,000-21,000 men)

Be careful on this one ... Japanese divisions were "square" until beginning in the late 30s they were triangularized ...

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 8

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 5/2/2006 9:25:36 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

Careful on that one

OMG ... Tanker-joe really isn't a single robot

But I did completely rework the IJA Divisional and Brigade OB for Cautionaries based on exactly what IJA had in 1922. And this wasn't easy because the regiments and brigades got swapped around quite a bit after 1905 (RJW). All divisions were square until 1938 when several were converted to triangular, the last sqaure division was officially triangularized in 1943.

As to port sizes, these are abstractions, so the designer has latitude, but consider all game effects when changing.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 9

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 5/2/2006 9:56:09 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

We are the Borg.... Resistance is Futile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

Careful on that one

OMG ... Tanker-joe really isn't a single robot

But I did completely rework the IJA Divisional and Brigade OB for Cautionaries based on exactly what IJA had in 1922. And this wasn't easy because the regiments and brigades got swapped around quite a bit after 1905 (RJW). All divisions were square until 1938 when several were converted to triangular, the last sqaure division was officially triangularized in 1943.

As to port sizes, these are abstractions, so the designer has latitude, but consider all game effects when changing.

Hey, do you have any specific data? If my information is incorrect (to be quite honest, as it was scant, I pretty much based off of the British TOE) then I'd like to revise it for the next patch.

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 10

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 5/2/2006 4:52:48 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

Hey, do you have any specific data? If my information is incorrect (to be quite honest, as it was scant, I pretty much based off of the British TOE) then I'd like to revise it for the next patch.

I need to call you anyway (today after 3pm - right !? ) so we'll take this off line - but I do have data and am willing to share - in fact I have the "build process" IIRC, i.e. which regiments were in which brigades which were in which divisions on which dates between unit formation and May 1922. I think there was one hole .. but with one hole and one unpegged unit .. I went with my best guess !

can extend process past May 1922 but I didn't do that yet, since I didn't need to, but I do know that 4 divisions were disbanded in 1924-25. This freed up some manpower for the first tank and AAA units.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 11

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 10/24/2006 3:22:01 AM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

P.S. Now that I got the ton of CLs I promised myself, I am stunned.

Commerce Raiders can't lay mines. Period.

Am I doing something wrong?

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 12

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 10/24/2006 6:32:58 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rysyonok

P.S. Now that I got the ton of CLs I promised myself, I am stunned.

Commerce Raiders can't lay mines. Period.

Am I doing something wrong?

Have you put them in Minewarfare - mine laying Task forces? I did tests and they do (or did) lay mines.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 13

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 10/24/2006 9:40:01 PM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

Some points on this discussion:

North Sea Barrage: A number of small US coastal transports (typically ships in the 3000 to 3500 ton size) were converted to minelayers and used to help lay this minefield during WW1. They usually had a pair of 3 in guns for self-defense and depended on escorts for the balance of their protection. I had been toying with the idea of adding these ships as mid-game reinforcements in a ML configuration as a consequence of the historical US strategy for mining Japanese waters.  This brings to mind switching them to commerce cruisers as an alternative and giving the player the choice on how to use the asset that would show up as a small AP. The downside is that these vessels would end up a bit over-armed compared to their WW1 configurations. Canada has a lot of similar small AP's that were engaged in passenger traffic along the British Columbian coast and the Maritime Provinces that might join the game in a similar configuration.

Fast/Slow Commerce Cruisers: The UK made a lot of use of commerce cruisers in WW1 and WW2. Many were reconverted to troops ships after the initial flurry of German raiders were cleaned up.  The typical commerce cruiser was a large fast liner of 14,000 to 20,000 tons and a speed of 18 or 19 knots. A reasonable bit of chrome would be to have a couple varieties of commerce cruisers where large AP's would go to fast commerce cruisers (slightly more armament and higher top speed) while other ships went into slow commerce cruisers. Furthermore, given the historical record of ships converting back to AP role, there could be an upgrade from commerce cruiser back to AP so the loss of sea lift wouldn't be permanent.  That last bit might militate for small, medium, and large commerce cruisers so a player couldn't transmute APs into commerce cruisers and come back with a different sized AP.

Slowing Down Base Construction:  There's a game engine issue where the function of anchorages and bases is getting confused. The original appeal of the Mandate atolls for WPO planners was the large expanse of calm water to accomplish re-coaling. Formal port facilities were unnecessary to accomplish that goal. By the 1920s just about everything had converted to oil, but the anchorage function was still needed for minor repairs, a reliable sea-plane base, and easier refueling from tankers. Some portion of the merchant fleet train was also still coal powered, but progressively fewer as time moved on. Unimproved atolls give anchorage, but it's not too clear to me that this is clearly visible in game play (and I could well be just too inexperienced to pick this up).  I like the idea of making base construction slower. Furthermore, in line with my thread on Central Pacific Islands, this puts the historical frame on the problem for the Japanese. It's not the Pacific has a number of poor potential bases, but that the atolls in the Pacific present so many good potential anchorages which can be improved into major fleet bases that guarding them all is prohibitively difficult.  I wonder if Samuel Eliot Morison has a chapter on base construction in his history that would let us derive construction rates. The number of engineering vehicles (which would have been much higher in WW2 and in US units) also should be factored into the construction rates but I think that is already covered.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 14

RE: Construction Resources - 10/26/2006 3:43:57 AM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

Did some web diving on the historical record for base construction. Evidently, the ultimate source book from this is probably this one: Building the Navy's Bases in World War II; History of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Civil Engineer Corps, 1940-1946 (2 vols.) This is an official history and somewhere in there I would expect the schematic breakdown of building a major base out of an atoll. Some more digging found several of the key atolls posted on-line here: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Bases/

I haven't read them all, but a quick sample shows that the approximate durations for creating various airfields and support facilities can be developed from the text. It will probably be necessary to derate the effectiveness of WPO engineers with the relative lack of automation available, but 1920's aircraft don't need 6000 foot concrete runways, either. Some battalions were used strictly as stevedores for cargo handling and cargo ships were used as floating warehouses (such as at Ulithi). Tank farms were built for storing fuel, along with airstrips, and support facilities. There weren't a lot of dockyards or piers built since dry stores were left afloat on ships and only unloaded as necessary.

The NHC has a capsule history of the Seabees here: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq67-3.htm This doesn't get down to the nitty-gritty but highlights that Majuro (WPO Port Build 1) was turned into a major fleet base and Kwajelein (WPO Airfield Build 2) a major air base.

Probably the biggest insight from scanning these sources is using labor to replace capital. In large, established ports, there was more railways, trucks, cranes, etc. to move cargo in and out of the dockyards. For WW2, construction battalions provided cargo handling (engineer units can increase the port capability of an anchorage by just being there and not doing anything else?). And the other point is mass. Multiple battalions got more done and by Okinawa tens of thousands of construction troops were on hand.

(in reply to engineer)

Post #: 15

RE: Construction Resources - 10/26/2006 6:42:13 PM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

Chewing on this overnight, this highlights a design trade-off question. Historically, in the US WPO plans and the WW2 implementation, the USN used merchant ships to warehouse stores moving across the Pacific. The fleet train for the 1922 offensive was scoped at 300 merchantmen. The fleet train for the late 1920's plans was scoped at 800 merchantmen. The USN used literally thousands of merchantmen in WW2.

WPO lets you simulate this by selecting to not unload your merchants. Then you simply split off a few merchants as needed and unload those few ships through the primitive port facilities.

When I've played, however, I've stockpiled supplies ashore and only used the ships to move supplies. I suspect that by using my AK's for floating warehouses, I would either have to wait until about 18 months into the game to start a counter-offensive or I would risk running out of supplies in an attack.

Given the disparity between the number of merchants in the OOB and the historical plans, it seems the port question is involved with some level of abstraction so that piling up supplies on atolls is a price paid to save 400 AKs from being added to the OOB. That's a justifiable decision, but it gets back one of my original points about separating the anchorage function of the ports and the repair/supply function of the ports.

(in reply to engineer)

Post #: 16

RE: Construction Resources - 10/27/2006 4:48:04 AM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: engineer
Given the disparity between the number of merchants in the OOB and the historical plans

Disparity? Where? The plan called for 300 as you said... and there are about as many ships in USN OOB.

P.S. Why would you ever not unload your AKs while letting them sit at port? They can be doing so many useful things in the meantime...

_____________________________

(in reply to engineer)

Post #: 17

RE: Construction Resources - 10/27/2006 8:44:51 PM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

In the 1922 Scenario you're right, the OOB and historical war plans are pretty close. One of the things I've noticed is that it seems that the Forum is tilted toward discussion of the 1922 scenario, and, perversely, I elected to play my first campaigns in the 1926 scenario so my immediate experience is the 300 vs. 800 mismatch. The other point to consider under the WPO boundary conditions is that the US fleet is larger in both scenarios than it would have been historically. A bigger fleet leads to a bigger fleet train. That stretches the near match for 1922 and only makes the 1926 mismatch worse. A broader point concerns that the close fidelity of the WPO OOB with historical construction (except for capital ships and carriers). In the early scenario there is little opportunity for the collapse of the diplomacy to effect naval budgets and the consequent OOB, but in the later scenario there is time for divergence and a likelihood of divergence since the atmosphere in the Pacific would be more like the late 1930s than the 1920s "Return to Normalcy". But I digress.

From a game play viewpoint, you're also right about using merchants to move troops and supplies instead of using them as warehouses. However, in WPO, very primitive ports only allow a few hundred supply points to be moved per ship per day and large numbers of ships reduce that further. Primitive ports also have lower limits to trigger supply spoilage.   In real world simulation terms, where do the supplies go? Looking through the WW2 documentation there are some tank farms that are highlighted and warehouses would be part of an aviation depots and pier facilities, but the sort of thing that I see in WPO is working a main base to about a 4/4 Airfield/Port and stocking hundreds of thousands of points of fuel and supply there for extended combat operations. Making base improvements more difficult, as Tankerace has mentioned above, would more likely limit on-shore depots in the tens of thousands before spoilage kicks in (unless you spent 6 months with a brigade of engineers to improve the base). Then it might make sense to stockpile supplies on the ships instead of dumping them on the beach and spending a month to make a round trip back to Pearl or the West Coast.

The price of that bit of realism is that it slows down the strategic pace of the game. If you want to continue to use the supply ships in a "sail and dump" mode then the pace of the advance is limited by the rate at which you can build up the bases. If you want to move faster, then using primitive atolls as operating bases will end up exhausting local supply stockpiles for fleet operations since spoilage caps the practical level of supplies.  Supplies on ship don't spoil and you're led right into the historical practice.  The flip side is warehousing on ship tests the simulation in a different way since all those merchants have something to do and skimping on the merchant OOB puts a different kink in the offensive plans.

The final point is that USN plans called for the armada to start offensive operations at sixty days after the outbreak of war, so there is a timing issue where the initial US merchants in the eastern Pacific number 100-200 ships, and then you get 200 more after six months. There's a reasonable argument that the historical plan was too optimistic, but perhaps the reinforcements need to be incrementally introduced into the theater a little more aggressively in the reinforcement schedule.

Finally, I haven't explored barges in WPO at all. However, in WW2 the US also made use of those for warehousing supplies. For example, the USS Oregon was a floating museum. After Pearl Harbor, the city fathers asked the Navy to recommission her. The Navy Department elected instead to cut down the superstructure and empty out the hull and used her for a munitions barge instead.

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 18

RE: Commerce Raider ML capability - 10/29/2006 10:10:55 PM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

I finally got a group of CLs in port and got a chance to try... Raiders can be added to a newly created mine warfare TF. However, once they are in a TF, it can't be redesignated to mine warfare, a new TF has to be created. That's why I couldn't get them to lay mines - all of my original fleets were surface combat designated to draw the best AI-generated TF leaders... :)

So you were right all along. Now if we could only change Raider TF designations when they are en route to mine warfare?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
Have you put them in Minewarfare - mine laying Task forces? I did tests and they do (or did) lay mines.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 19

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> Commerce Raider ML capability

Page: [1]