Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

An Idea, Ship Ressurection!!!

 
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 II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> An Idea, Ship Ressurection!!! Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
An Idea, Ship Ressurection!!! - 11/5/2002 6:43:22 AM   
Possum

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/27/2000
From: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Status: offline 		Hello all.
An Idea, would it be possible to have the very common and easy to build ship classes rerssurect? (that would basicly be any ship with a displacement of less than 1000 tonnes.)
As has been pointed out in other threads, the loss of MSW's can be potenitally fatal, but MSW's are easy to build/convert. On the other hand, coding in lots of excess MSW's to cover a embarresing loss of the vital vessels is overkill, as they will simply unballance the game.
So what I propose is that for the cheap, easilly produced/converted vessels, that after a small time interval, say 180 days, they are ressurected.
Vessels that should ressurect would be CT's, MSW's, SC's, PC's, the smaller PG's (such as the Kiwi class), AG's, LCI's, LCVP, LCM's, ALAC's, HDML's, and MTB's/MGB's.
For example, Australia had the ability to mass produce Bathurst class MSW's, We produced hundreds of them in WW2. We could if pushed have produced quite a few more.
I'm sure the USA woud have had no problem in churning out an extra several hundred Auk class MSW's if required.
(Most MSW's where in fact based on commercial trawler designs, and when desperate for MSW's many Navies in WW2 simply requisitioned deep sea trawlers and fitted minesweeping gear.)
Another thought, what about refit options?
Many ships in the pacific, passed through several roles in their careers, the player should be given a choice when one of the multi-function ships is sent in for re-fit, as to what class it will re-emerge as.
For example tha RAN ship Manoora, She started life as an Ocean liner, was taken over by the RAN for conversion into an AMC.
As an AMC she served untill late 1942, when she was converted into an AP. Late in 1944 she was then converted into an LSI(L)
(what Americans would call an APA)
An American example of a Multi function ship would be the LST.
Any given LST was capable of being refitted into any of the bewildering array of LST variant's, many of which were in fact field modifications. For example, the LST(G), a gunboat variant for providing fire support and some anti-ship protection to other LST's; Or the LST(AA), a LST converted into a mobile flack platform.

_____________________________

"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
Post #: 1
- 11/5/2002 8:40:48 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		I think that the RAN built around 60 Bathurst Class Minesweepers, along with many other auxillary minesweepers.

The IJN had trouble enough creating a series of 900-1000t Escorts in 1944-45 without having to concentrate on rebuilding its auxilliary fleet.

Although this site is fairly limited, it shows Japanese plans and construction during the war.

http://www.star-games.com/exhibits/fleetplans/fleetplans.html

Very few auxilliaries were actually built/used, primarily due to shortages of equipment, and priorities elsewhere (priorities that will be common, like escorts). Should something like this be done, then some other classses should 'suffer'.

Allied production was more drawn to fill losses without suffering other major production problems and would fit more into your system. However, most production of smaller ships were actually very low in the first year of the war. The United States had to use some Canadian built escorts to fill their need in the Atlantic before the hundreds of DE's arrived. Even still, I think that giving extra ships without a sort of penalty will just have the allies throwing their MS, ML and other auxilliaries into dangerous territory as the risk of losing the ship is much less then the possible gain by their risky missions. Unfortunately the human player never really holds the same distain for wasting their computer troops then a real commander did (however, some were pretty ruthless!).

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 2
- 11/6/2002 4:05:22 AM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline 		I think that there should be a penalty for losing ships of minor classes and then having to have replacements built. Like, say, delaying the construction of that cruiser a few weeks. Or if you lose a flotilla of MSW that must be replaced then that CVE gets pushed back a month or so. Something like that.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 3
- 11/6/2002 4:37:39 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		I think the issue's too complex for the sim. Ideally you'd have ships with essentially different hull sizes. In building more ML you'd be sacrificing DDs or DEs, not necessarily CAs, unless the shipyards that mfd CAs also used the same blockways for constructing smaller vessels. To find out you'd have to research all the shipyards of the various combatants, then discover how many ways they had, then itemize teh ships produced by each way, before you could then speculate in any well-informed way as to how cancelling that there CL affects the output of, say, DDs.

In Matrix shoes, I'd just deliver the vessels according to their historic ready-service dates. The only thing shipyards would "make" in PW would be patrol boats and repair points. Everything else would arrive according to a fixed (player-inaccessible) delivery schedule.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 4
Ship builds - 11/7/2002 5:01:39 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I really hope for the player deciding all ship builds once game begins beyond what was actually in production. This being said I would accept ships yards that only build one type of ship being in place at games start (and then these unchangable ships coming out at rate produced by ship yard) This would simplify matters both for the player and programmer leaving only major builds at major yards variable.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 5
- 11/8/2002 11:02:13 AM   
Bulldog61


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline 		Everything done is an expenditure of resources. The goal being to get the most from those you expend. Therefore we have resource points that can be expended to build small MSW's or SC's or LST's. Then we have production time and finally shipyard capacity. Let's not forget lead time! Just because an LST came off LA's #1 small slip and it was scheuled for another LST. That I can immediately change the next hull to an MSW with out signifcant delays while the proper materials are obtained.

I think production turns should occur every 7 days with some lead time in planning required or large penalties in wasted materials and lost time.

That being said allow the player to produce what they are capable of building.

Mike

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 6
- 11/8/2002 9:36:34 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Every 7 *days*? What production are you controlling, spam?

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 7
- 11/8/2002 9:50:32 PM   
Zakhal


Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyväskylä, Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]Every 7 *days*? What production are you controlling, spam? [/B][/QUOTE]

Thats just 200+ chances to adjust the product in one full campaign. Not that much and unlikely that youd do it every time.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 8
oh my - 11/8/2002 10:04:38 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zakhal
[B]

Thats just 200+ chances to adjust the product in one full campaign. Not that much and unlikely that youd do it every time. [/B][/QUOTE]


Greetings, I cannot fathom anyone missing a production cycle no matter what the frequency of their occurring. I would even want the program to remind me when I end a turn of any operation I might have missed

"Production input allowed, do you wish to end turn?"

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 9
- 11/8/2002 10:10:19 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		So, what I understand this request to be, is that you can only interfere with shipbuilding (or whatever) every 7 days.

So, if you are playing a game with 1 day turns, every 7 turns you can influence shipbuilding (with whatever consequences of cancelling projects).

If the game runs on 7 day turns, you get to influence shipbuilding every turn.

I think that if something like this was included, possibly monthly influences are more logical. If you have worked with the government, or almost any corporation you know that things do not happen immediately and just by request. Proper papers, budgets and proposals have to be filed before things take effect. Also, these organizations tend to work on schedule, with things happening every month or so. It is just easier to work on a time schedule, when you can expect certain requests to be released/filed on certain dates, which take X amount of time to process.

The 7 day influence will be ignoring the established process of how these corporations work, by accepting proposals at any time of the month. This would really have been a paperwork nightmare, with things falling through the cracks all the time.

The Japanese tended to have yearly plans (much like the Royal Navy). They set proposals of construction relying on shipyards and resources avalible. They basically ran on these proposals until 'modified' proposals were done by the Admiralty. Even in 1942, when a lot of upheval happened, the Shipbuilding plans were only modified around 3-4 times in the entire year. So maybe even using the 1 influence time a month might be too much. The United States used a similar way in determining Naval Construction, but I have not seen quite as many sources for them as the Japanese navy, so cannot say how centralized their system was.

I feel, if this was to be included, that it should only occurr every few months, for maybe up to 4-6 times a year. This would require your decisions to have a lot more thought in them, as you could not unrealistically fine tune all of your construction. I think you should be able to put ships on 'hold' (i.e., Shiano) whenever you want, (to conserve materials), or possibly 'restart' projects whenever, but changing what is produced should only be done once and a while, as it is a MAJOR wrench in not only the shipyards, but paperwork as well.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 10
Lead times - 11/8/2002 10:20:20 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I don't have a problem with the player interfacing with production every turn (even every day) but I do agree such interaction should have a wating period before the "orders" actually begin going into effect. This way as the player thinks of things to do he can enter it and on the first of every month the entire months orders "advance" one step. The production routine would begin alloting resources to projects and when resources were gone everything below that point on the list would wait till next months allotment. (players could during the month move items up or down and add new ones.) Items already in production would recieve the first resources (unless during the prior month the player had cancelled or placed on hold).

Depending on the item the entry into production would very. (such items as battleships might require up to a year before they actually began construction) Ships once under construction should become liable to damage if the shipyard is attacked (unlikely for anyone other then Japan late in war)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 11
- 11/8/2002 10:41:25 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		It is interesting, but not how military shipbuilding was done.

Nobody (not even the whole of the IJN combined) really had the ability to continually modify or request which military vessels would be built at any time. There were limitations to the ability of a nation to process requests, as especially for Japan, resources had to be conserved. Plans were compiled in whole through submissions from individual theatre commanders, not individually. The Commander of Soutwestern Area Fleet could not submit their proposal for more escorts to be immediately produced at any time of the year. They had to wait for whole fleet proposals to be compiled, modified, and possibly approved before they see any of their escorts appear.

Possibly making specific 'times of the year' may be too strict, but possibly allowing you X many turns that you can modify production (if production will be included at all!) per year would be better. You could be given 6 turns, to be used any time in one year, in which to modify ANY shipbuilding.

This is a lot more realistic (and probably even more gracious to the player then what historcally happened) in how to modify production.

Why could you not modify everything (or just small escorts) every turn, or even every month?

#1. Paperwork. There is UNBELIEVABLE amounts of paperwork to be filed for every change. Paperwork, red-tape, etc., is not modeled in WitP, so for every change you do, you only get direct losses in production (i.e., scrapping what you have to start something new). Realistically, should someone have chaged production (even for just small vessels) on a regular basis (say once a month) the ability for the Admiralty to track what resources are where, what port is building what vessel, what region needs a particular resource, etc.. will be impossible.

#2. It didn't happen this way. Fleet plans were done a few times a year. Rarely did ships meet these quotas, and sometimes they had to propose a further run of ship types for the next fleet plan when requirements for more vessels of one type arose.

Basically, you should be given January of 194X to submit your yearly fleet construction plans.

You have 5-6 times a year you can MODIFY this plan (i.e., lower the number of a specific type of ship built, increase or add another, change designation of a class [i.e., complete as battleship or carrier]).

Giving full control, whenever you wanted, for as many times as you want it, will give you too much control over production (if included). I understand the desire to replace certain lost vessels of a critcial class, but to give this replacement request 'immediately', whenever you want it, is stepping beyond the bounds of possibility.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 12
Production input - 11/8/2002 10:48:46 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Thats pretty much along what I tried to suggest. (I go on May 5th and request a battle ship, On June 1st the paper work enters the system. Battleships have a long lead time before they even start construction. So I ask for a ship on May 5th 1942. On June 1st 1943 it begins a 2-3 year period of construction. For me that is enough representing of the abstract production cycle. It does not matter how often the player places orders only how often such orders actually advance through the system.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 13
- 11/8/2002 11:01:29 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		Your system works well for the big ships, but what I am getting at here is for the hundreds of small ships.

It is fairly easy to keep track of where the big vessels are being built, but given constant micromanagement of small vessels would have destroyed the administrative ability for the US and Japanese. Modifying production a few times a year is more realistic in showing the restirction that the miltary production placed on projects.

Allowing for instant micromanagement for small vessels will make refining your fleet too easy. If you suddenly lost 12 Minesweepers, you should really have to 'think' about using one of your 6 fleet modification points in order to change some of your Escorts to minesweepers.

Allowing only 6 turns a year to modify ship production will show the limited ability to request changes. Basically these are numbers that coincide with the administrative ability to keep track of labour, resources, finances, free docks, etc... which is more critical for smaller vessels then the long building battleships.

Take the game Europa Universalis II. You are given X many Settlers, Missionaries, Merchants, Diplomants a year (dependent on tech and culture). You have to choose which missions your Diplomants go on carefully, in order to conserve one or two in the case of an emergency. It really adds to the game, as you have to be more calculated in your use of limited diplomatic resources because of lower numbers of times you can use them.

Adding limited manipulation will just make you more careful in what you choose to build, as you will tend to construct a more balanced fleet (instead of building just what you want, and only switching to things you need when you have to). Realistic production was a prediction. Some ships took a few months to build (i.e., minesweepers), but you could not just choose to build more on a whim, but had to go through the process and wait for the correct time to get this project approved (when they accept proposals for all construction).

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 14
- 11/8/2002 11:32:59 PM   
Bulldog61


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline 		The 7 day proposal was a compromise between the tinker daily crowd and the quarterly/longer.

You're correct Jeremy, the player should set up his annual construction program at least a quarter before it's beginning. Lets use January 1 as the beginning of the year. So October 1st the annual construction program must be built. If the computerr realizes that it's got to start a new destroyer after the previous one was built on that slip.

As for other production factories can be built/expanded. There is also a retooling and retraining penalty for switching production.

Let's not forget the manpower end of this. Manpower needs to be allocatted X amount to infastructure, Y amount to the Amry (Air Force included) z amount to the Navy(Marines included) These would need to be further broken down.

This is just a quick overview. What's the official Matrix plan?

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 15
Mountains....and molehills - 11/8/2002 11:43:31 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I do not think ship production will be a major issue. The Japanese pretty much have to do what they need to do with what they begin with. The Allies will have so much of everything that minor inputs will not be a big deal.

I think Jeremy's limited input of orders will reflect the problems and still not really limit play.
Aircraft is more a concern of tooling and size (since the factories will try to build as much of whatever they are assigned and retooling can be simply a halt in production.

Ground units will be based on manpower and equipment on hand and training length based on type of unit. (I think player could call up emergancy ground units of low value but in home areas rather quickly as opposed to building road construction engineers.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 16
Penalty - 11/11/2002 12:54:01 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by showboat1
[B]I think that there should be a penalty for losing ships of minor classes and then having to have replacements built. Like, say, delaying the construction of that cruiser a few weeks. Or if you lose a flotilla of MSW that must be replaced then that CVE gets pushed back a month or so. Something like that. [/B][/QUOTE]

Something should be done about players who exibit tendencies like Haig during the first world war and just throw men and units away. Perhaps a "theatre morale" value is needed or something along those lines.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 17
Production - 11/22/2002 8:47:12 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		I'm not big on this aspect of the game. It allows players to benefit from hindsight, something not available to the historical counterparts. Hindsight affects gaming too much as it is.

Resurrecting ships will just mean players will continue to be irresponsible with their use.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 18
production debate - 11/22/2002 10:33:59 PM   
marc420

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/23/2002
From: Terrapin Station
Status: offline 		In reading the debate between Mogami and Jeremy, it really does sound like they are saying the same thing.

Remember, you are playing the roles of the Theater and Operational commander. So I agree with Mogami in that at any turn in the game, you should be able to send out a message to your high command requesting different ship production /allocation.

That doesn't mean that the message is going to go straight to the shipyards and the ship is going to begin building the next day. Instead, you've just sent a message into the beauracracy making a request. I don't see why the game should say "Sorry, you cannot send this message today." I'm with Mogami in that the turn I'm reading my combat results that announce the air raid that took out the entirety of my MSW fleet, I should be able to send off a message requesting that high command get me some more MSWs.

However, sending the message should have no more affect than merely putting this issue before high command. Undoubtably there will eventually be a meeting in high command to discuss your request, meetings with the ship procurement group to discuss implementing your request, and eventually the production of a revised list of ship orders and priorities send to the shipyards.

So, even though the player can send the request on any day, the player is unlikely to see the change in the production lists for a couple of months.

And repeated requests into the beauracracy should just really foul the whole think up. Sending in mulitple requests in a short time should have the effect of the beauracracy saying "Ok, what do you really want." This would probably take several months worth of meetings to straighten out the mess the commander made by sending off daily messages requesting MSWs, then DEs, then DDs, etc.

One last slightly related note. In the USN, there would historically be an option of moving ships from other theaters. If the Pacific navy lost all of its MSWs, then probably some could be moved from the Atlantic. This should cost victory points, or maybe future production, because the commanders in the Atlantic will be howling about losing the MSWs. So you've hurt the overall war effort by losing all of your MSWs (thus the loss of VPs), and future production is probably going to go towards molifying the howling commanders in the Atlantic, who do have a higher priority according to FDR after all (thus the loss of future production).

But the USN could have shifted forces around relatively quickly in an emergency. So new ships could be available in a month or two, but only at great pain and expense. The War Department in DC would not be happy with a regional commander that caused such a problem by stupidly losing all of their MSWs.

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 19
- 12/15/2002 11:28:04 AM   
Lrfss


Posts: 349
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Spring, TX
Status: offline 		Hi Guys:

So does anyone have a clue as to how deep the production factors will even actually be addressed in WitP?

I would think that if WitP had an option to either micro manage production or leave it historical would please more or less all.

To not allow mangement of production and resources I would think would surely limit replay value and interest overall?

Later,

Lrfss

(in reply to Possum)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> An Idea, Ship Ressurection!!! Page: [1]
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

0.984