Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 2:18:39 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Glen carrying subs
 
Anything to tone down their ability to launch and recover their floatplanes regardless of weather. They should have operational losses directly related to weather above having a high op loss as was historical.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 331
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 2:38:38 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
ny59giants-Have you read their trom's, Not shure about how they handel the weather aspect in AE, but they seamed to be able to launch and recover about the same way any other float plane equiped ship did.

One thing I always whised they could do was conduct night time recon mishions which they did a fair amount of.

Another was to do recon mishions and not always have the enemy see you doing it, that nice red line pointing to whear the sub was(or ship)...


TROM's:http://www.combinedfleet.com/sensuikan.htm

Scades of mishions flow by Glen's and very few op losses

< Message edited by Brady -- 12/10/2007 2:43:52 AM >


_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 332
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 3:56:52 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

There is a refueling bug or 'short-coming' in the current released code that you might want to look for in testing AE. It works like this.

Suppose you want to put together a fast TF to move some planes or LCU's a long distance. So, you pick a fast AK or AP, and pair it with a DD that has a long range. You load them up and send them on their way.

What then happens is that the DD refuels from the AK/AP each and every day. In other words, the DD 'tops up its tanks' daily, which has the effect of greatly reducing the TF's speed because refueling uses up so many ops points (as it should). This happens every day until the remaining range of the AK/AP has been greatly reduced. Setting the TF to 'Do Not Refuel' does not have any effect.

The AK/AP starts out having a much greater range than the DD. It seems like the refueling algorithm compares the range remaining in each ship and tries to equal them out if they are vastly different. BTW, I gave an example with two ships but the problem happens for any size group. I think the key is the great difference in range for the AK/AP and the DD.

Suggest that the escorts should not try to 'top up' unless they are below 75% to 80% of their own fuel capacity.

You can alleviate this somewhat through micromanagement of the DH and Home Port for these TFs. If the distance from the present hex to the DH to the Home Port is less, ships with short legs are willing to let their fuel levels go lower....

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 333
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 4:12:58 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

There is a refueling bug or 'short-coming' in the current released code that you might want to look for in testing AE. It works like this.

Suppose you want to put together a fast TF to move some planes or LCU's a long distance. So, you pick a fast AK or AP, and pair it with a DD that has a long range. You load them up and send them on their way.

What then happens is that the DD refuels from the AK/AP each and every day. In other words, the DD 'tops up its tanks' daily, which has the effect of greatly reducing the TF's speed because refueling uses up so many ops points (as it should). This happens every day until the remaining range of the AK/AP has been greatly reduced. Setting the TF to 'Do Not Refuel' does not have any effect.

The AK/AP starts out having a much greater range than the DD. It seems like the refueling algorithm compares the range remaining in each ship and tries to equal them out if they are vastly different. BTW, I gave an example with two ships but the problem happens for any size group. I think the key is the great difference in range for the AK/AP and the DD.

Suggest that the escorts should not try to 'top up' unless they are below 75% to 80% of their own fuel capacity.


I'll take a look at it.

The problem is this only one circumstance. If the TF includes an oiler, or is meeting a replenishment TF, or includes a big fat ship with lots of fuel, it is better to top off. Also, there is no way for the refueling routine to know what is going to happen next turn. That needed oiler might be just over the horizon, or maybe an enemy TF is there.

The old rule of keeping ones escorts well fueled is always worth remembering.

And, once the DD gets below 80%, it would tend to refuel frequently anyway. The ships with extra fuel will be reluctant to give it up. If they had lots, the DD would refuel more completely and therefore less often.

Anyway, I'll look.




(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 334
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 4:17:12 AM   
Splinterhead


Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline
So...

1. Do British aircraft carriers get increased capacity and larger/additional air groups as the war progresses?

2. Is Hermes' airgroup fixed (no fighters)?

3. Do US S-boats get withdrawn/retired?

4. Do the Sangamons get fuel/cargo capacity?

5. Is Langley I now an AVT with air transport ability?

6. Is Utah included and is there the ability to remilitarize it?

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 335
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 5:10:28 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
Terminus, thanks for answering my question about 1-hex CV reaction. Amazingly, I am, for the moment, question-less. :)

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 336
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 5:40:17 AM   
faraonej

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline
Term,

I was wondering whether there could be a running tab of sub commander's victories, similar to pilot kill scores.

Thanks in advance for the answer and thanks to the team for keeping this great game alive & fresh.

Joe F

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 337
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 7:08:47 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
British withdrawal all Allied ships can have a withdrawal date set (and a date to return to the map).

What happens to a ship that's part of a TF when it's date of withdrawal arrives? I hope we are not going back to the old PacWar days where ships would just disapear from a TF in the middle of an operation!




(in reply to ctangus)
Post #: 338
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 9:15:18 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I'll take a look at it.

The problem is this only one circumstance. If the TF includes an oiler, or is meeting a replenishment TF, or includes a big fat ship with lots of fuel, it is better to top off. Also, there is no way for the refueling routine to know what is going to happen next turn. That needed oiler might be just over the horizon, or maybe an enemy TF is there.

The old rule of keeping ones escorts well fueled is always worth remembering.

And, once the DD gets below 80%, it would tend to refuel frequently anyway. The ships with extra fuel will be reluctant to give it up. If they had lots, the DD would refuel more completely and therefore less often.

Anyway, I'll look.


Don,

Thanks. I completely agree with and understand the operational need to top off, and I do want realism. It's just that in this kind of circumstance they do it daily, which I think is unrealistic. It seems like if a fast TF is trying to make some time they wouldn't top off when they still have 98% fuel on board. I tossed out the 75% to 80% area as a suggestion. I don't know what fuel level trigger the navy would use IRL. Maybe someone out there can jump in?

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 339
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 11:51:33 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: faraonej

Term,

I was wondering whether there could be a running tab of sub commander's victories, similar to pilot kill scores.

Thanks in advance for the answer and thanks to the team for keeping this great game alive & fresh.

Joe F


No, sorry... That fell by the wayside.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to faraonej)
Post #: 340
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 11:52:34 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

British withdrawal all Allied ships can have a withdrawal date set (and a date to return to the map).

What happens to a ship that's part of a TF when it's date of withdrawal arrives? I hope we are not going back to the old PacWar days where ships would just disapear from a TF in the middle of an operation!



No, we're not going back to that, believe me. I had a look at it, and it's not completely finalized yet, so I can't go into really deep details.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 341
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 12:19:45 PM   
Skyland


Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline
Will there be Thailand navy ?
German AMC or Vichy navy elements ?

Thanks

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 342
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 3:08:27 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
OOB is still being put together, but lots of stuff is possible.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 343
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 3:50:28 PM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline
Will commanders gain experience like pilots do?  I do not believe I have seen any individual commander in my PBEM games gain experience.  Crews have, but commanders have not.

Oh and this is an official placekeeper post!

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 344
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 4:07:44 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Not sure, Knavey... I'll look into it.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Knavey)
Post #: 345
Merchie OOB data - 12/10/2007 4:39:12 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
This was posted today in Al Nofi's column over at STrategypage.com. Nofi usually does a competent job of research. (article edited to remove an extraneous table from another article- hey, I said research not proofreading )

Japan’s Merchant Marine at War

A maritime nation, almost wholly dependant upon imports and exports for national survival, Japan entered World War II with a large merchant marine, but never managed to organize its shipping to produce the optimal possibly benefit for the war effort.

Japan began the war, on December 7, 1941, with over 6.38 million gross registered tons of merchant shipping. Despite captures, notably in the first six months or so of the war, and new construction, the Japanese merchant marine only barely maintained that capacity during 1942, and declined steadily thereafter, as can be seen in this table.

Japanese Merchant Shipping (millions of g.r.t)
Date Available Added Since Lost Since
Dec 41 6.38 0.00 0.00
Dec 42 6.37 0.40 0.52
Dec 43 5.94 0.66 1.10
Dec 44 4.94 1.02 2.07
Dec 45 2.56 1.74 4.12
Aug 45 1.47 0.47 1.56

On this table, the shipping on had at the start of the indicated month is shown, plus gains (mostly through construction, but some captures) and losses since the previous date (for Aug 45, the 15th is used). By the end of the war, Japan had added about 3.97 million g.r.t. to her merchant fleet, but had lost fully 8.89 million g.r.t.

Right from the start of the war, Japan had a shipping shortage. The situation never got better. The shipping crisis was worsened by the policies of the Army and Navy. At the beginning of the war each service appropriated large amounts of shipping (1.8 million tons for the Navy, 2.1 million for the Army) to support offensive operations. This left the civilian economy about a million tons short of their minimum needs. Since the arms factories depended on imports for most of their raw materials, production took a beating from the start. To make matters worse, the Army and Navy would not cooperate with each other or industry in the use of shipping. So Army controlled ships might deliver arms to isolated garrisons and then return back empty because moving raw materials were not an Army responsibility. This was rectified in 1944, but by then it was too late.

On top of that, Japan never developed an effective convoy system or anti-submarine techniques. This resulted in unnecessary loses to Allied submarines.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 346
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 5:12:56 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
And your question?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 347
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 5:40:16 PM   
Weidi72


Posts: 61
Joined: 6/10/2006
Status: offline
Will it be possible to change the airgroups of carriers without problems with their size and can we use more groups on the ships?

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 348
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 5:57:58 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
pompack- that info is no enirely corect, and to an extent somewhat misleading, give me some time and I will dig up some data that will counter that, at a glance that looks to be drawn largely from a after war goverment report, which were not always corect in their assesments.

_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Weidi72)
Post #: 349
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 6:31:54 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Weidi72

Will it be possible to change the airgroups of carriers without problems with their size and can we use more groups on the ships?


Being worked on.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Weidi72)
Post #: 350
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 6:52:12 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
From The Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2:

"adaquate maritime transport existed for all these roles. At the time of pearl harbor, the merchant fleet amounted to 6.4 million tons. There were in adation, approximatly 1.2 million tons of wodden vessels as well"


The Japanese merchant fleat was a very modern and fast one, espichaly compared to the merchant fleats of other nations, the reasion for this was a very large goverment compansation programe for scraping the old and building the new, during the 30's, bigger dividends and ensentatives were given for faster ships, and larger ones. A US observer in Japan at the time commented:

" The newest Japaese Merchant men are without peer"*

"Ships of 18 Knots received a 20% larger subsidy than 13.5 Knot vessels"

"the 1936 scrap and build programe stipulated that funds only go to ships of at least 6,000 tons and 19 Knots"

"New tankers were mandated to include the reday exceptance of Guns of large caliber, specilised pumping equipment for transfer of fuel at sea, and other specilised equipment"

"By 1939 60% of japans cargo caries were under 20 years old, the average age of US freighters for the same perioud was 21. 40% of Japanese freighters and fully 70% of Japaese tankers were 12Knots or faster, as compared to 25% and 20% for those two groups, respectively, in the US merchant fleat. Japan already had fifty large fast vessels all under 5 years old plying the silk routs to the east coast of North America by 1935. Sereral of them were 9,000 ton vessels capable of crosing the Pacific in just 11 days, about half the time ushualy neaded."

"Japan had by then over 100 ways, a third of them longer than 500ft, with a yearly construction capaciy of 900,000 tons. These facilitys acounted for 10 % of ship construction worldwide in 1937, twice that of the United States."

"Japans merchant marine easly toped 6 million tons by the time of Pearl Harbor. Since merchantmen of excelent quility comprised most of this new 50% gain in shipbuilding, the tonnage figures alone do not adequatly convey the dramatic strides of Japans seaboarn transport in the 1930s. Of the over 700 freighters in the merchant marine in 1940, nearly 300 were capable of at least 12 Knots, and 236 were products of the preceding decade. 37% of the passenger-cargo liners could make 15 knots or more...By 1940, then Japan possessed a merchant fleet ranked third in the would by size, and perhaps second to none in efficiency...The British had to start subsidy programs to compeat with Japanese liners."

It should also be noted that the special wartime emergancy freighter and tanker designes were quiet fast as well:

"The standard designs included five freighter types (A,B,C,D, and e) ranging from 530 to 6,400 tons, three tankers (TS,TM,and TL) of from 1,000 to 10,000 tons, and a 5,400 ton ore carrier (Type K). All nine varities crused at 10 knots or more (the TL clould steam effciently at over 16 Knots) and had maximum spead about 3 knots higher"

Something else to consider:

Civilian Comerace shiping neads are often grosely over exagerated in terms of nead, for starters in WiTP only about half the gross tonage for Japan is modeled and far less than half of the Hulls are modeled for Japans Merchant fleat, their are also a lot of Navy and Army ship classes absent from the OOB, so if anyhting Japan is operating with far fewer ships than they had historicaly available to them. A very small percentage of the total tonnage of the Merchant fleat was neaded to sustain Japanes Civilain ecenomy, most of those ships thusly employed were given over to the shipment of food from places like China and Korea, short hops, Japanese Industry ran almost entirely on Coal(Not Oil), of which their were large Natrual depostis in Japan, the rest was brought in from places like China and Koprea agin a short hop. WiTP places to much nead on Oil for the Ecenomy, but this all very abstracted, and when we talk about we nead to bear that in mind, Oil in Game represents realy a Nead to muve stuff to Japan, that stuff in reality was Coal, but it is not modeled in the game as such, but losely repesented by resorces and Oil....

Coal Came from Japan it's self and China/Manchuko.

while it is true that for prety much all the war, that Half the Shiping was under Civilain controel, and Half was under Military controle, the Civilian half looked somthing like this:

" Coal transportation would occupy 1.8 million tons, while the movement of Aragrcutural products and suplies (450,000)and steal making materials(300,000) would absord the rest."

So as you can see the Civialan controeld shiping acounted for the movement of the suplys that fueled the empires war machine, the Military ships were largerly and soly ocupied with the movement and sustaining of troops in the field.

Tankers almost soly suplied the Militarys neads, and thusly should be almost interly considered as Military:

"Every year of the war the nation would use from 4 to 4.5 million tons and the Military would account for the bulk of this total"


But as you say the Ecenomy of Japan in WiTP and the Neads of the Empire have been artificaly created based losely on Historical fact, to better facilitate good game play. So much of this is then mute. Howeaver this still playes directly into the Allied sides hands, in that WiTP has Cut the Empires playable felat by 50% (the Steal Hulled fleat), while the Number of Allied Subs Is I belave still at 100%, and still at 100% or near to it I suspect are all those things that would also hunt them like Planes, Mines ect. Further compounding this problem is the larger than average number of Big ships present to acheave the ttoal tonage figures, which is also aidding the Allied cause. If you want to creat Historical proportions then you nead to adjust the number of predators, and better represent their prey.

p.33 "Coal imports exceaded 2 million tons per month at the time of Pearl harbor"

"40 million tons of coal were produced anualy" Withen Japan proper.

"Manchuria and China suplied the bulk of the heavy Indistrual coal"

............................

p.34

"Japanese farmers grew about 80% of what it took to fead the home islands"

"Japan imported about 3 million tons of Husked grains,other food stuff's, fertilizers,and livestock."

"The(Japanese) Cabnet planing board calculated that the civilian ecenomy neaded around 3 million tons of shiping to continue to function. Coal would occupy around 1.8 million tons" and Aragurtural and steal making the rest.

"Prewar estimates put the nations wartime neads at 5.9 million tons, the civilian ecenomy as noted above would require 3 million tons. The army would require 2.3 million tons for the first 6 months but only 1.1 million tons thearafter, the navy woudl nead 1.8 million tons throught the war."

At the begining of the war Japan had about 6.4 million tons fo shipping and around 1.2 million tons of wodden hulled vessels.

"In 1936 the Navy General Staff set 10million tons, or two years supply, as the stockpilling goal, and the goverment provided 5 million yen in assistance. By the time the war with the United States broke out, the Japanese had put aside nearly 8 Million tons of petroleum products. Of this total, the navy had collected 16,800 tons of lubricants, 490,000 tons of avation gasoline, 3,624,000 tons of heavy fuel oil, and 1,435,000 of crude petroleum, for a grand total approaching 5.5 million tons. By late 1941, Japan's reffining capacity was actually seventeen(17) times grater than the production capacity of the home islands, an indacation of the nations commitment to building reserves of crude oil."

"this masive stockpilling effort...represented only two years suply"

"It was not a failure in production but rather a failure in transporation that caused Japans wartime oil nightmare."

"The anual carrying capacity of Japans tankers reached 4 million tons per year by 1940. "

...................

Example of a Woden Hulled Merchant, most forward basses were supleid by these types of ships, and The Empire it's self relied onm the heavely during the war to move all kinds of goods on all kinds of routs, they were also largely imune to influance mines.:








< Message edited by Brady -- 12/10/2007 7:19:04 PM >


_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 351
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 7:20:31 PM   
HMS Resolution


Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline
Will we be able to select an admiral's flagship in instead of having it automatically selected? IE, Spruace can tool about in the Indianapolis instead of a CV, or the Eastern Fleet C-in-C can fly his in...oh...say...HMS Resolution?

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 352
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 7:23:09 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

Will we be able to select an admiral's flagship in instead of having it automatically selected? IE, Spruace can tool about in the Indianapolis instead of a CV, or the Eastern Fleet C-in-C can fly his in...oh...say...HMS Resolution?


Try this: create a TF of one ship. That'll be the flagship. Then add additional ships. Not sure if it'll work and it takes a bit more time, but it's worth a try.

(in reply to HMS Resolution)
Post #: 353
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/10/2007 7:50:12 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


From The Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2:

"adaquate maritime transport existed for all these roles. At the time of pearl harbor, the merchant fleet amounted to 6.4 million tons. There were in adation, approximatly 1.2 million tons of wodden vessels as well" Does Wodd float?

"Japan had by then over 100 ways, a third of them longer than 500ft, with a yearly construction capaciy of 900,000 tons. These facilitys acounted for 10 % of ship construction worldwide in 1937, twice that of the United States." But a) the USA is a continental nation with limited need to import, and b) it was in the middle of the Great Depression. For a valid comparison, you should use Great Britian.

"Japans merchant marine easly toped 6 million tons by the time of Pearl Harbor. Since merchantmen of excelent quility comprised most of this new 50% gain in shipbuilding, the tonnage figures alone do not adequatly convey the dramatic strides of Japans seaboarn transport in the 1930s. Of the over 700 freighters in the merchant marine in 1940, nearly 300 were capable of at least 12 Knots, and 236 were products of the preceding decade. 37% of the passenger-cargo liners could make 15 knots or more...By 1940, then Japan possessed a merchant fleet ranked third in the would by size, All of which is nice, but begs the question..., If Japan's merchant marine was so awesome, why was 40% of her trade being carried by rented foriegn shipping in 1941? What she had may have been fairly good..., but what she didn't have was anything like enough.

Civilian Comerace shiping neads are often grosely over exagerated in terms of need, If this is so, then why did Japan find it necessary to enact severe civilian rationing of foodstuffs 6 months before the war even started? China, Manchuria, and Korea had plenty of food to steal..., so the problem must lie in getting it to Japan

But as you say the Ecenomy of Japan in WiTP and the Neads of the Empire have been artificaly created based losely on Historical fact, to better facilitate good game play. So much of this is then mute. Howeaver this still playes directly into the Allied sides hands, in that WiTP has Cut the Empires playable felat by 50% (the Steal Hulled fleat), while the Number of Allied Subs Is I belave still at 100%, and still at 100% or near to it I suspect are all those things that would also hunt them like Planes, Mines ect. Further compounding this problem is the larger than average number of Big ships present to acheave the ttoal tonage figures, which is also aidding the Allied cause. If you want to creat Historical proportions then you nead to adjust the number of predators, and better represent their prey. ALL national economies of the time depended primarily on coal as an energy source. Japan produced and imported 53,000,000 tons in 1938; Britian 230,000,000 tons, and the US 355,000,000 tons (all internal production)
p.34

"Japanese farmers grew about 80% of what it took to fead the home islands" As long as no one wanted more than 1000 calories a day.

"The(Japanese) Cabnet planing board calculated that the civilian ecenomy neaded around 3 million tons of shiping to continue to function. Coal would occupy around 1.8 million tons" and Aragurtural and steal making the rest.

"Prewar estimates put the nations wartime neads at 5.9 million tons, the civilian ecenomy as noted above would require 3 million tons. The army would require 2.3 million tons for the first 6 months but only 1.1 million tons thearafter, the navy woudl nead 1.8 million tons throught the war."

"In 1936 the Navy General Staff set 10million tons, or two years supply, as the stockpilling goal, and the goverment provided 5 million yen in assistance. By the time the war with the United States broke out, the Japanese had put aside nearly 8 Million tons of petroleum products. Of this total, the navy had collected 16,800 tons of lubricants, 490,000 tons of avation gasoline, 3,624,000 tons of heavy fuel oil, and 1,435,000 of crude petroleum, for a grand total approaching 5.5 million tons. By late 1941, Japan's reffining capacity was actually seventeen(17) times grater than the production capacity of the home islands, an indacation of the nations commitment to building reserves of crude oil."

And hindsight has shown that ALL of Japan's pre-war "estimates" were extremely optimistic, and based on the hope for a short, victorious war...., which it didn't get. Face it, Brady. Japan, with a labor force of 34,100,000 produced 03.5% of the world's manufacturing in 1940..., Britian, with a labor force of 22,900,000 produced 09.2%..., and the USA, with a labor force of 52,800,000 produced 32.2%. The Japanese economy was not "in the running" either in size or efficiency


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 354
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/11/2007 12:00:17 AM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Hello Brady,

The Japanese merchant marine has been modeled in terms of what she had (on opening day) and what she built. Size, speed, capacity, have all been taken into account.

I’m interested in your assertion that there were over 100 ways, a third of them longer than 500ft, with a yearly construction capacity of 900,000 tons. This does not comport with the shipyard records themselves. If you have some info otherwise, I would like to see it (book, chapter & verse, if you please).

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 355
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/11/2007 1:35:18 AM   
Snowman999

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 4/11/2007
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Brady

quote:

But as you say the Ecenomy of Japan in WiTP and the Neads of the Empire have been artificaly created based losely on Historical fact, to better facilitate good game play. So much of this is then mute. Howeaver this still playes directly into the Allied sides hands, in that WiTP has Cut the Empires playable felat by 50% (the Steal Hulled fleat), while the Number of Allied Subs Is I belave still at 100%, and still at 100% or near to it I suspect are all those things that would also hunt them like Planes, Mines ect. Further compounding this problem is the larger than average number of Big ships present to acheave the ttoal tonage figures, which is also aidding the Allied cause. If you want to creat Historical proportions then you nead to adjust the number of predators, and better represent their prey.


It's not this simple. Yes, the allies have a lot of subs. (I haven't counted totals and compared to reality; seems as if they have too many by 1945, but whatever.) The S-boats remain in service and there's no advantage to tying them up, as there are no sub crew pools. In RL it would have been stupid to man S-boats with experienced crews while new construction was at best composed of 1/3 men with a war patrol under their belts.

In the game there are too many subs on station due to one-day cycle times and a lack of fatigue variables. Sub commander ratings severely understate the effect of a great skipper over an average one. This was unique to subs as a vessel type as they operated at long-range independently, with months-long station-keeping, their captains personnaly fought the ship, and they could rove and hunt without needing to stay in a tf or ask permission. The difference between an O'Kane or a Ramage and the average skipper was 1000%. Maybe 2000%. No other ship class has these features combined with the striking power of a heavy cruiser. In the game subs are long-range PT boats. They're treated as an afterthought, not as the core fleet units they were. With 3% of the USN the subs sank about 4/5 of Japanese merchant shipping.

The biggest reason your point above doesn't work in game terms is that, yes, the Japanese merchant marine is too small by A LOT. But game mechanics, even with low cycle-times, hamstring sub attacks by preventing, ever, multiple ship attacks in convoys. Sometime, with op point surpluses, you might get two attacks on the same ship, but never a slaughter as sometimes happened. Read up on the tanker action "Red" Ramage executed in the course of winning the MOH. The USS Parche couldn't happen in WITP. Or Mush Morton. Or Sam Dealey.

If subs could act historically, the currrent merchant marine would be toast in 12 months. If you doubled its size to historical levels, but left the subs crippled, the allies would be severely hampered. As it is now there might be a rough balancing act, albiet with incorrect force totals and behaviors.

Somewhere I remember reading Joel Billings (?) explain that WITP represents the rock-paper-scissors of the war. Naval air covering land ops, land ops to provide bases for LBA, LBA covering naval air and merchant backfilling, and supporting land ops. Which is fine as far as it goes and leads to the hyper-modeling of the air aspects of the war at the expense of some others.

But submarines were critical to the USN's success. Far more than carrier air in the sum total of the war. Allied offense pushed at the outside of the balloon. The subs went into the balloon, starting on 12/8/41, not in 1943, and ate the guts out of the Japanese economy. Without the subs the war wouldn't have ended in 1945, probably not 1946, the USSR would own part of Japan now, etc.

And WITP treats them as an after-thought to be toggled into auto-control rather than "fiddle." I hope a patch, or WITP2, can contain changes to bring them up to their proper place in the big picture. Just adding fatigue, and a multi-attack dice roll to convoy actions would be huge.

Then you can worry about merchant marine historical correctness.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 356
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/11/2007 2:59:57 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
JWE, From The Japanese Merchant Marine in WW2 , by Parillo:




Notes:

44-Blumenthal,"The Japanese Ship Building Industry," 140

45-USSBS,Japanese Merchant Shipbuilding,44,5.

46-Attache ReportNo. 29-37,File No. 409-600,Febuary 15,1937,NA.

47-World Builds Ships,"40. Tuvia Blumenthal puts Japans share of the world shipbuilding market at a precise 21.2 %. What ever the corect figure Japans yards had defenitaly moved into second place behind Great Brition in worldwide production, See Blumenthal,"The Japanese Ship Building Industry," 141

48-Cabnet Planning Board ",Circumstances of the Execution of Production Capacity Expanshion Planes and Subsequent Countermeshurs,"October 1939 in Genkoshi Shiryu, 227.

49-Japanese Merchant shiping Posation,1939-1941," 54vv(10), Sec. 2,USSBS,NA.


< Message edited by Brady -- 12/11/2007 3:42:53 AM >


_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Snowman999)
Post #: 357
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/11/2007 4:45:40 AM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Hi Brady, thanks for the response: that's actually pretty good work.

Yeah, Mark and I are working on a joint book project on the subject, and we have been pounding each other over what constitutes an adequate infrastructure per linear meter. Dr. Parillo is quite right, there were about 30 - 35 slipways, of adequate length, hanging about.



(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 358
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/11/2007 5:09:34 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
Another Complementary work is SC Heal's:Ugly Ducklings,Japans WWII Liberty type Standard Ships.

_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 359
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/11/2007 5:14:27 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Snowman999


ORIGINAL: Brady

quote:

But as you say the Ecenomy of Japan in WiTP and the Neads of the Empire have been artificaly created based losely on Historical fact, to better facilitate good game play. So much of this is then mute. Howeaver this still playes directly into the Allied sides hands, in that WiTP has Cut the Empires playable felat by 50% (the Steal Hulled fleat), while the Number of Allied Subs Is I belave still at 100%, and still at 100% or near to it I suspect are all those things that would also hunt them like Planes, Mines ect. Further compounding this problem is the larger than average number of Big ships present to acheave the ttoal tonage figures, which is also aidding the Allied cause. If you want to creat Historical proportions then you nead to adjust the number of predators, and better represent their prey.


It's not this simple. Yes, the allies have a lot of subs. (I haven't counted totals and compared to reality; seems as if they have too many by 1945, but whatever.) The S-boats remain in service and there's no advantage to tying them up, as there are no sub crew pools. In RL it would have been stupid to man S-boats with experienced crews while new construction was at best composed of 1/3 men with a war patrol under their belts.

In the game there are too many subs on station due to one-day cycle times and a lack of fatigue variables. Sub commander ratings severely understate the effect of a great skipper over an average one. This was unique to subs as a vessel type as they operated at long-range independently, with months-long station-keeping, their captains personnaly fought the ship, and they could rove and hunt without needing to stay in a tf or ask permission. The difference between an O'Kane or a Ramage and the average skipper was 1000%. Maybe 2000%. No other ship class has these features combined with the striking power of a heavy cruiser. In the game subs are long-range PT boats. They're treated as an afterthought, not as the core fleet units they were. With 3% of the USN the subs sank about 4/5 of Japanese merchant shipping.

The biggest reason your point above doesn't work in game terms is that, yes, the Japanese merchant marine is too small by A LOT. But game mechanics, even with low cycle-times, hamstring sub attacks by preventing, ever, multiple ship attacks in convoys. Sometime, with op point surpluses, you might get two attacks on the same ship, but never a slaughter as sometimes happened. Read up on the tanker action "Red" Ramage executed in the course of winning the MOH. The USS Parche couldn't happen in WITP. Or Mush Morton. Or Sam Dealey.

If subs could act historically, the currrent merchant marine would be toast in 12 months. If you doubled its size to historical levels, but left the subs crippled, the allies would be severely hampered. As it is now there might be a rough balancing act, albiet with incorrect force totals and behaviors.

Somewhere I remember reading Joel Billings (?) explain that WITP represents the rock-paper-scissors of the war. Naval air covering land ops, land ops to provide bases for LBA, LBA covering naval air and merchant backfilling, and supporting land ops. Which is fine as far as it goes and leads to the hyper-modeling of the air aspects of the war at the expense of some others.

But submarines were critical to the USN's success. Far more than carrier air in the sum total of the war. Allied offense pushed at the outside of the balloon. The subs went into the balloon, starting on 12/8/41, not in 1943, and ate the guts out of the Japanese economy. Without the subs the war wouldn't have ended in 1945, probably not 1946, the USSR would own part of Japan now, etc.

And WITP treats them as an after-thought to be toggled into auto-control rather than "fiddle." I hope a patch, or WITP2, can contain changes to bring them up to their proper place in the big picture. Just adding fatigue, and a multi-attack dice roll to convoy actions would be huge.

Then you can worry about merchant marine historical correctness.


I must pretty much second what Snowman says above. However, I have some supplimental points:

a) Unless the absolute quantity of resources required by game industry is increased - the need for Japanese merchant ships to move resources is not adequately modeled. Since they took OUT the manpower center requirement for resources - it is not likely the amount of resources is high enough. [2/3 of it by weight is coal. If they DID put all the coal in - there would be little need to go South - Japan would just ship it in from Manchuria and China.] So the "missing" ships have a job - hauling the stuff in the "civilian economy" not visible in the game - which models the "military economy" - crudely to be sure.

b) IF submarines were treated as we dream of - Japanese players would not use five DIFFERENT operational methods during a war 3.5 years long - and they could do to the Allies what the Allies did to them IRL. The cost to escort vast distances is a great multiple of the cost of the submarines that make it necessary to escort: it would be valid simulation but not historical play. What player is going to be a unwise as the IJN? [The IJN put only a junior sub officer on a staff - except only the sub 6th fleet there was NO senior sub officer - and the sub officers job was to relay orders to the sub- not advise the admirals on how to use them. IJN would not listen to an LT as much as a USN admiral would listen to a petty officer specialist. So IJN was structurally doomed to use subs unwisely most of the time. Neither the area commanders nor the Combined Fleet staffs had proper expertise inside them.] Japan fielded the very best torpedoes - and had they been aggressively handled - they could have had disproportionate effects - sinking perhaps 5 to 10 times as many ships as other forces did.

(in reply to Snowman999)
Post #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.610