Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Options.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Options.

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 >> Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Options.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Options. - 6/24/2013 9:55:58 PM

DHRedge

Posts: 191
Joined: 1/18/2010
Status: offline

Although I understand the game is a historical modeled game.

For those that would want to model various other possibilities, has anyone considered adding more choice to the Naval Production strategy.

The method would be to add 3 times more ships into the production, and with the assumption that the Japanese player would halt production of many of them.

Although this would not be an historical scenario, it could allow a strategy of more subs, or more carriers, or more escorts, or more front line battle ships and cruisers.

The implementation would be easy, simply add new ships with some indicator in the name that they are not historic, but an optional build, and make sure that the Japanese player knows to choose what ships to build and which ships to halt.

It would add ship building choices to a production menu, in the same way that non historic airframe upgrades adds choices to what airframes to build.

Post #: 1

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/24/2013 10:24:26 PM

Amoral

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline

I really like the idea of having some choice in what your navy looks like. The only problem I see is that building ships at regular speed is very cheap. Even if the queue was three times as large it would be doable to come up with those HI points.

Consider that many people accelerate 5-6 carriers. That's the same as building 18 carriers at normal speed.

< Message edited by Amoral -- 6/24/2013 10:26:01 PM >

(in reply to DHRedge)

Post #: 2

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/24/2013 11:01:48 PM

DHRedge

Posts: 191
Joined: 1/18/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

I really like the idea of having some choice in what your navy looks like. The only problem I see is that building ships at regular speed is very cheap. Even if the queue was three times as large it would be doable to come up with those HI points.

Consider that many people accelerate 5-6 carriers. That's the same as building 18 carriers at normal speed.

The current restraint is 'only ships listed can be built' HI factor is not used as a constraint.
If more ships were added, the constraint would move from 'listed ships' to 'ability to afford to build ships based on HI available'

If more ships were added, you might have to make a realistic comparison of the HI cost to manufacture a CV, versus the manufacturing of a few planes.
The ability to make a CV would probably be many 100s times more then the cost of a plane construction.

That would probably have to be addressed and would add a difficulty of rebalancing the entire HI system to creating such a scenario.

Then that would skew the system where instead of building ships, many hundreds of fighters or bombers could be built,
although pilot constraints would make that less effective.

I can see a problem there where, although based on production capabilities that are possible, it could create a much different situation where not building ships would add many planes to the system. Or as you note, many ships could be built to cheaply compared to actual industrial capabilities and cost.

Some limitation could exist based on home island port sizes, where only some amount of total tonnage could be constructed for every point of port size over size 4 for naval construction, and some other limit over port size 2 for merchant construction, as an example, but again that gets complicated again.
That could stop heavy ship production by using port sizes as the building constraint.

Then to build all those carriers, ports would have to also be expanded, or a choice of other ships not built that were historically built.

Note the lack of historical accuracy of more carrier builds, would be the intent, if the Japanese player was exploring outcomes of different decisions, and those decisions were accurately modeled on potential production that could occur, instead of production that did occur.

(in reply to Amoral)

Post #: 3

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/24/2013 11:13:51 PM

DHRedge

Posts: 191
Joined: 1/18/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

I really like the idea of having some choice in what your navy looks like. The only problem I see is that building ships at regular speed is very cheap. Even if the queue was three times as large it would be doable to come up with those HI points.

Consider that many people accelerate 5-6 carriers. That's the same as building 18 carriers at normal speed.

Some research into the labor needed, and material usage for construction of Armaments, Ships, and Planes would have to be researched to model 'What if' other production scenarios. Then those would have to be computed into an economic system that modeled capabilities including ideas such as more aircraft factories, and fewer ship yards, or more shipyards and fewer other types of factories.

It would add the choice of moving production between types of production outside of historical choices.

(in reply to Amoral)

Post #: 4

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/25/2013 1:06:57 AM

n01487477

Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DHRedge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

I really like the idea of having some choice in what your navy looks like. The only problem I see is that building ships at regular speed is very cheap. Even if the queue was three times as large it would be doable to come up with those HI points.

Consider that many people accelerate 5-6 carriers. That's the same as building 18 carriers at normal speed.

The current restraint is 'only ships listed can be built' HI factor is not used as a constraint.
If more ships were added, the constraint would move from 'listed ships' to 'ability to afford to build ships based on HI available'

If more ships were added, you might have to make a realistic comparison of the HI cost to manufacture a CV, versus the manufacturing of a few planes.
The ability to make a CV would probably be many 100s times more then the cost of a plane construction.

That would probably have to be addressed and would add a difficulty of rebalancing the entire HI system to creating such a scenario.

Then that would skew the system where instead of building ships, many hundreds of fighters or bombers could be built,
although pilot constraints would make that less effective.

I can see a problem there where, although based on production capabilities that are possible, it could create a much different situation where not building ships would add many planes to the system. Or as you note, many ships could be built to cheaply compared to actual industrial capabilities and cost.

Some limitation could exist based on home island port sizes, where only some amount of total tonnage could be constructed for every point of port size over size 4 for naval construction, and some other limit over port size 2 for merchant construction, as an example, but again that gets complicated again.
That could stop heavy ship production by using port sizes as the building constraint.

Then to build all those carriers, ports would have to also be expanded, or a choice of other ships not built that were historically built.

Note the lack of historical accuracy of more carrier builds, would be the intent, if the Japanese player was exploring outcomes of different decisions, and those decisions were accurately modeled on potential production that could occur, instead of production that did occur.

HI is already the constraint. The durability of the ship effects the build time and cost. Each ship yard produces points which have a multiplier of 6 HI.

I don't think you understand the mechanics here. Read my doc below.

Also there are a number of mods that do this as well as my empty hull idea.

Edit: sorry dont mean to come off badly but it needs more thought.

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 6/25/2013 1:09:46 AM >

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to DHRedge)

Post #: 5

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/25/2013 1:52:48 AM

topeverest

Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline

We have played around with this concept, including adding more booty in certain versions. It works for us, but we have been modifying the scenario to suit our needs for years. I doubt our mod would have general appeal.

I can say that if empire naval building choice is a desire, you can build that functionality and allow more options for the empire. It also is straightforward to modify industry and booty. It is a material amount of work to design and test to be sure. Let me know if you want to know more, as there are a number of tricks which would make it easier for you.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 6

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/25/2013 2:05:52 AM

DHRedge

Posts: 191
Joined: 1/18/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: DHRedge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

I really like the idea of having some choice in what your navy looks like. The only problem I see is that building ships at regular speed is very cheap. Even if the queue was three times as large it would be doable to come up with those HI points.

Consider that many people accelerate 5-6 carriers. That's the same as building 18 carriers at normal speed.

The current restraint is 'only ships listed can be built' HI factor is not used as a constraint.
If more ships were added, the constraint would move from 'listed ships' to 'ability to afford to build ships based on HI available'

If more ships were added, you might have to make a realistic comparison of the HI cost to manufacture a CV, versus the manufacturing of a few planes.
The ability to make a CV would probably be many 100s times more then the cost of a plane construction.

That would probably have to be addressed and would add a difficulty of rebalancing the entire HI system to creating such a scenario.

Then that would skew the system where instead of building ships, many hundreds of fighters or bombers could be built,
although pilot constraints would make that less effective.

I can see a problem there where, although based on production capabilities that are possible, it could create a much different situation where not building ships would add many planes to the system. Or as you note, many ships could be built to cheaply compared to actual industrial capabilities and cost.

Some limitation could exist based on home island port sizes, where only some amount of total tonnage could be constructed for every point of port size over size 4 for naval construction, and some other limit over port size 2 for merchant construction, as an example, but again that gets complicated again.
That could stop heavy ship production by using port sizes as the building constraint.

Then to build all those carriers, ports would have to also be expanded, or a choice of other ships not built that were historically built.

Note the lack of historical accuracy of more carrier builds, would be the intent, if the Japanese player was exploring outcomes of different decisions, and those decisions were accurately modeled on potential production that could occur, instead of production that did occur.

HI is already the constraint. The durability of the ship effects the build time and cost. Each ship yard produces points which have a multiplier of 6 HI.

I don't think you understand the mechanics here. Read my doc below.

Also there are a number of mods that do this as well as my empty hull idea.

Edit: sorry dont mean to come off badly but it needs more thought.

you mention that if there were 18 carriers on the list, people would be able to find the HI to build 18 carriers.
Currently regardless of how many HI points or Naval points those HI's build, a person can not build 18 carriers.

That means the constraint on building carriers is not HI, it is what is on the list. Right now, the constraint is not about finding the HI to build the ships, the constraint is you can only build what is on the list.

Then you comment, but it would be to cheap to build many carriers.

So if many carriers were added to the list, the 'list as a constraint' would be removed.(people could build lots of carriers if they wanted to)
That could create the problem you mentioned, to easy to build carriers.

If building 18 carriers was unbalancing, by being beyond production possible, that would require a new element to be introduced to constrain what could be built, or a rebalancing of HI to Naval points, to spending on the list. (the rebalancing of HI cost would create the question does that allow for to many airframes)

Since you mentioned HI is not the constraining factor(even thou HI is spent) adding some 'max production factor' at any time based on some 'factor' besides HI to Naval points could add another constraint. If you could only be constructing 1 carrier or maybe later 2 at a time, in naval production, and production time was long enough. Then your comment about 18 carriers would not be an issue.

I understand that is not the current system, thinking about other ways to work on such things for something to think about.

I think I understand the system. Naval points are accumulated by the formula shown in the tracker graph, and those come from spending HI points. Those points are then spent to build ships. However no matter how many Naval points you have, or merchant ships points, you can only build what is on that list, hence the constraint is the list.

The issue you commented about is 'if more ships were added, would that allow for unrealistic builds 18 carriers'. to fix that issue, (it is possible that instead of using port size, naval shipyard size could be used) but you already mentioned it would be to easy to build 18 carriers if more ships were added.

So to avoid that problem, some constraint based on the 'physical size' of ship yards or port size the yard is at, not production put into them, if added, could add options, and have another constraint.

It is only an idea, and is not about 'how the system operates' but about thinking about different ways systems could be modeled, while I am waiting for a lap top to arrive where I will then be playing the game and posting less to occupy extra time.

And I don't think you came off badly, although a few posts sometimes are required to figure out what is being discussed. Your comment is fine to help try to better understand the conversation.

I hope my post is clear in what it is saying, I tried to repeat and say it as clearly as possible, if you were saying something else, you could explain what is different, however knowing how it works now is not the issue in understanding the conversation.

< Message edited by DHRedge -- 6/25/2013 2:09:26 AM >

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 7

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/25/2013 2:12:32 AM

DHRedge

Posts: 191
Joined: 1/18/2010
Status: offline

I am thinking about stuff to think about.

It would probably require assigning ship builds to individual ship yards, based on ship yard and port size,
then after assigning, new items would fill in as they came on line where space is available,
but it could be fun to monitor ship builds including limitations based on combinations of port sizes and shipyard sizes.

So Capital ships, you would only be able to have enough building at any time, that would fit into the big yards.
and smaller ships would fill in the extra space as they came on line.

And there could be a cool interface where ships are assigned to an actually ship yard, and allowing for 'damage' if manufacturing is bombed.

Just thinking about things that could be fun to do to add to parts of the game.

(in reply to DHRedge)

Post #: 8

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/25/2013 2:19:53 AM

DHRedge

Posts: 191
Joined: 1/18/2010
Status: offline

The reason I mention 'port size' is Shipyards that build Naval points from HI, actually abstract all the factories used in ship construction, not only dry-docks in the port. So using size of Shipyard is not that accurate.

However no matter how big your Shipyard Capability is, it has to be in a port somewhere, and that port can only physically work on so many hulls at any one time (like how repair works)

So to expand the options of ships, but still limit 'building to many capital ships' another restraint of 'port size' could be added.

So Shipyard would create the points to build the ships(gauges metal factors off yard, and the dry-docks), however the limit would also be based on the sizes of ports, and could even 'meld in' with the 'repair' functionality.

Basically I am trying to say, if more ships were added to the list, a code change could be done to limit total tonnage in dry dock, based on port size, and that would include production and repair, to avoid to many ships being created at once, and to really add a logistical hurdle of deciding if to use a dry dock for repair or production since only so many capital ships fit in dry docks.

And HI would still need to be spent, but there would also be 'another constraint' of physical size of the port area' added to that.

Although it is just an idea, something to think about.

< Message edited by DHRedge -- 6/25/2013 2:26:14 AM >

(in reply to DHRedge)

Post #: 9

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/25/2013 6:30:52 AM

n01487477

Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: DHRedge

quote:

I think I understand the system. Naval points are accumulated by the formula shown in the tracker graph, and those come from spending HI points. Those points are then spent to build ships. However no matter how many Naval points you have, or merchant ships points, you can only build what is on that list, hence the constraint is the list.

Yes, you have the fundamental idea of how it works. Funny you mention Tracker - cause I did the coding for all the economic areas. Anyway, you are right one constraint is the list but it is also HI points. Actually if you want to take it one step further, the limiting factor is the number of Oil/Res cntrs on the map. Because unless you add more (capturable bases or increase these raw material cntrs) there is only so much HI you can accumulate per turn or you unbalance the economy. This is a fixed, rather than a dynamic economy, just like roads that can't be built - neither can additional raw materials be found.

It is also a trade off, build more ships or build more planes/engines or have more ARM/Veh points. I know we are debating the angels on a pin-head here, but adding to the list will still constrain a player ultimately in the choices they have. This is not PTOII where you can build anything, there is an OOB and that is down to the initial design decision of GG.

quote:

So to expand the options of ships, but still limit 'building to many capital ships' another restraint of 'port size' could be added.

So Shipyard would create the points to build the ships(gauges metal factors off yard, and the dry-docks), however the limit would also be based on the sizes of ports, and could even 'meld in' with the 'repair' functionality.

Basically I am trying to say, if more ships were added to the list, a code change could be done to limit total tonnage in dry dock, based on port size, and that would include production and repair, to avoid to many ships being created at once, and to really add a logistical hurdle of deciding if to use a dry dock for repair or production since only so many capital ships fit in dry docks.

And HI would still need to be spent, but there would also be 'another constraint' of physical size of the port area' added to that.

Although it is just an idea, something to think about.

Implementing this list to port size build capability iirc was worked on in one of the mods; but I think it still comes back to the system limitations we have. It is a fine idea, just not something that will appear in this version as Michael will never do a change this far reaching to the code.

WITPII - join the petition... still you haven;'t played this one yet

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to DHRedge)

Post #: 10

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/25/2013 7:11:07 AM

DHRedge

Posts: 191
Joined: 1/18/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Yes, you have the fundamental idea of how it works. Funny you mention Tracker - cause I did the coding for all the economic areas. Anyway, you are right one constraint is the list but it is also HI points. Actually if you want to take it one step further, the limiting factor is the number of Oil/Res cntrs on the map. Because unless you add more (capturable bases or increase these raw material cntrs) there is only so much HI you can accumulate per turn or you unbalance the economy. This is a fixed, rather than a dynamic economy, just like roads that can't be built - neither can additional raw materials be found.

I understand the static nature of many of the factors you mentioned, and even understand the balance all the work has created with those decisions.

Thanks for the tracker work, it is helpful, I have always considered parallel systems for input output a good way to add information without having to modify game code. And the economic system from tracker is where I learned the economic system for this game, the visual representation really helps.

Well the constraint is the OOB where the list is created, but that can be changed in an editor before a game. If you can build every ship with the HI you have, then HI does not limit the amount or type of ships you build. (it does effect speed they are finished, with more expensive rushed production.) It can be used as a trade off if you chose to spend it else where, but it does not limit ship building, only the 'choice to spend HI elsewhere' would constrain ship production with HI.

I think the definition of constrain might be the problem in the disagreement. I am using 'Constrain' as 'set a max amount of ships that can be built' you are using 'constrain' as apply some effect of more expense to build a ship.

quote:

Implementing this list to port size build capability iirc was worked on in one of the mods; but I think it still comes back to the system limitations we have. It is a fine idea, just not something that will appear in this version as Michael will never do a change this far reaching to the code.

WITPII - join the petition... still you haven;'t played this one yet

Is there going to be a WITP II?

And would they be doing a recoding of various sections?
GUI, AI, Naval or Air attack screens?
Rewriting GUI, and melding tracker as spreadsheets into game would be a good add.
As would be adding visual and AI depth to parts of the game like they did when adding hex sides to ground combat, and pursuit retreat items.

There is much that could be done to the GUI. Although the improvements they have made have been pretty good, I would guess they haven't wanted to rewrite entire sections of the game. Although I heard they did that adding scripting to AI, and that is an important part to do first.

< Message edited by DHRedge -- 6/25/2013 7:21:30 AM >

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 11

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/25/2013 7:24:52 AM

DHRedge

Posts: 191
Joined: 1/18/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477
WITPII - join the petition... still you haven;'t played this one yet

I have a key registered under my handle for this game,
but have bought another version, so I can have CD and Manual,
the last key was given to me by someone.

And I played for awhile, but things come up, and there were some other issues with computer.

I have a new laptop being built and shipped, when it arrives I will be loading the game I recently bought.

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 12

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/25/2013 8:22:30 AM

czert2

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline

where to find that petition ?

(in reply to DHRedge)

Post #: 13

RE: Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Opt... - 6/25/2013 2:40:41 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

I have debated doing this for my own personal use, where I could reasonably limit the amount of NavSY I build. I would especially like the ability to finish additional CAs and such, and truly have a choice of what to build rather than what was in the pipeline.

I'd probably add another generation of CAs (or even just more Tones), about 6-8 in total, as well as a hypothetical BB (would have to research that one...), and perhaps some more DDs. It's too bad sub construction is so expensive, or I'd add more of them as well.

The option is already there to diverge so far from historical production that shipbuilding really stands out as the one place that remains mostly historical.

(in reply to czert2)

Post #: 14

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario idea. Increasing Japanese Naval Build Options.

Page: [1]