Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I have been privleged to visit teh Marianas and spend time boonie stomping Guam, Tinian and Saipan. Tinian is just one giant Airfield. There is not really anything else there. Saipan however had 5 differnt fields on it, and was home to the HQ for teh area. There is a small channel between Saipan and TInian. It is only about 1 mile wide. The Boat ride from Saipans main HArbor to TInian was under 45 mins. With Radio and I a sure they ran Telephone wires between teh two it shoudl have been easy to command both islands from Saipan.

Guam became the major base, due to it's superior Harbor. Also after teh War we didn't need to station bombers in teh Marinas to reach Japan since we had taken it over and had bases Much closer to Mainland Asia. They still have crews that maintain the runways on TInian as well as the facilities there. It was actually kinda boreing to stomp around Tinian, as there is not much other than teh runways. They do take up nearly the whole island.

UB

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I have been privleged to visit teh Marianas and spend time boonie stomping Guam, Tinian and Saipan. Tinian is just one giant Airfield. There is not really anything else there. Saipan however had 5 differnt fields on it, and was home to the HQ for teh area. There is a small channel between Saipan and TInian. It is only about 1 mile wide. The Boat ride from Saipans main HArbor to TInian was under 45 mins. With Radio and I a sure they ran Telephone wires between teh two it shoudl have been easy to command both islands from Saipan.

Guam became the major base, due to it's superior Harbor. Also after teh War we didn't need to station bombers in teh Marinas to reach Japan since we had taken it over and had bases Much closer to Mainland Asia. They still have crews that maintain the runways on TInian as well as the facilities there. It was actually kinda boreing to stomp around Tinian, as there is not much other than teh runways. They do take up nearly the whole island.

UB

The Vietnam Linebacker operations were based out of Guam, BTW, and to my knowldege, never used the runways at Tinian for that. Guam was a major B52 base for the Air Force during the Cold War, so we did, indeed, station long range bombers in the Marianas right to the end of the 20th Century. I also suppose Guam became the major airbase because it is more suitable to long-term, permanent housing.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ltfightr

Unclebuck said

quote:

The other roblem with WitP is that we do not tend to build Extra bases. We only build up bases we want to use for a specific purpose. In the war they had smaller bases for logistical supply, and as points to distribute from. These smaller bases also acted as pickets for Radio interception and emergency way stations. We have no real back waters in WitP. There is no point in having behind the line training areas, or political reasons to take islands. We only take what wee must and want to so we can continue the fight. Why did we have bases on all of the Solomon islands? In WitP and even UV , once you have Lunga why bother with Munda or the Russell Islands? Then jump straight to Buna, and let the others wither on the vine. Same goes with Japan. WHy take all of those undefended bases in the DEI? Just take the known producers and let the others sit, till you want the easy points by using one SNLF bouncing around to all the un-occupied spots taking them all. In the WAR Japan did it because if they didn't they were a threat. The Same reason all of those littel islands were taken in 1943/44 by the allies.

The perfection of 20/20 hindsight. And the acceptance of higher loss rate tolorable to players vs real life. I think the acctual build rate is fine it is the none need to build up this secondary infastructor that was built in real live verses what we do in witp.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

I have no idea why they used the amount of Seabees that they did but they did a lot more than just build some airstrips. What they did was bigger than anything else in the world. Considering the scale, it was done pretty darn fast. However, had they chosen to put more engineers there, I don't see any reason why they couldn't have.

You quoted the similar WWW site and similar same text as I did on page 1 of this thread (it is still there - you can se it)...


BTW, my point is still the same - they used what they could have used (i.e. it was the _TOP_ priority project after all) and that size of building area must be fixed (in our WitP terms - determined by SPS values for every HEX) and that number of units possible to be used on that fixed area is thus also fixed...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

If you don`t like the way Eng. units are used in the Game here`s a idea for you and your supporters.

Don`t use them that way in your AI Game OR set up a House Rule in your PBEM`s not to use them that way.

Doesn`t that solve the large problem you see....????.... OR are you just trying to screw the US Player ?????

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

If we're going to limit the engineers in order to prevent gamey tactics, then are the Japanese going to be forbidden to stay in the PH area on turn 2, form ASW TFs until 1943 or 44, or provide adequate escorts to cargo convoys before late in the war?

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

Prove that you couldn't fit more than two brigades of engineers on an island the size of Manhatten.

IMO this is one of those things best fixed with house rules, much as I use about the Japanese not being able to carry out a second day of port attacks at Pearl since they historically had only a limited amount of 800kg and modified torpedoes as I understand it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

If we're going to limit the engineers in order to prevent gamey tactics, then are the Japanese going to be forbidden to stay in the PH area on turn 2, form ASW TFs until 1943 or 44, or provide adequate escorts to cargo convoys before late in the war?

I am sorry but this is comparing apples and oranges... "gamey" tactics is hording ENG units to build "overnight" while putting ASW for convoys is something completely different...

There _COULD_ have be good ASW at the beginning of WWII for both sides if they had taken WWI experience (German subs in WWI) into their strategic/tactical though but playing hordes of engineers on small places is something that _ONLY_ can exist in our WitP game and has _NOTHING_ to do with history whatsoever...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

this is the same idea as "not" using subs to land small forces to probe landing spots

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat


I See Now !! **your Ideas,** which seriously impact the US player who is **working against the clock** and needs to build bases fast, which they did BTW, are " historicaly accurate".

BUT any idea which makes the Japanese player play in a historically accurate way ( as Splinterheads above ) is not comparable.....Yes I see now.

Good try Leo in Screwing the US Player ....but why not just use House Rules eh ?? You never answered that one

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Its more than just fitting them. It's placing them all there, housing them and their equipment and then getting them all to work at maximum, coordinated efficiency. There are only so many men and so much equipment that work on a single runway/airfield at one time. You quickly reach a point of serious dimishing return for each added squad. It is NOT linear after a couble of brigades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Its more than just fitting them. It's placing them all there, housing them and their equipment and then getting them all to work at maximum, coordinated efficiency. There are only so many men and so much equipment that work on a single runway/airfield at one time. You quickly reach a point of serious dimishing return for each added squad. It is NOT linear after a couble of brigades.

I believe we all understand the concept (& reality) of "diminishing returns". What's yet to be demonstrated is that the amount of Seabees employed at Tinian were the maximum amount that could work efficiently. All we have so far are assumptions. Including your assumption that it's not linear "after a couple of brigades". How do we know it's not linear after a couple of squads or six brigades?

Specifically, since at Tinian we had 4 airstrips to work with initially, why two brigades & not four for max efficiency? Did they work 24 hours a day 7 days a week? If not, you could likely triple the amount of workers without them stepping on each other's toes. My main problem with making any changes so far is that it's all based on assumption. Another problem I have with a change is that if someone wants to put "all their eggs in one basket" there are already drawbacks for such behavior.

The game has several arbitrary rules that need to be overcome; such as needing an "8" port for torps or a "9" for mines. Had there been a need to get large quantities of mines deployed in the South Pacific in early '42, the US Navy would have made sure it happened. Allied players have to crash build a high level port (probably @ Noumea) in order to do that. The Japanese can expand much faster & farther in the game than they did historically, yet the Allied player is constrained by game design decisions base on the historical timeline. I see this desire to cap the engineer units as just another attempt to handcuff Allied players so they are forced to sit quietly and take it like a good little masochist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Sure, ALL the values in the game are nothing more than arbitrarily derived numbers use to abstract a more complex real-world reality. Picking "8" for torps, "9" for mines, 200 (or whatever) for the max number carrier a/x in one hex/TF before a diminishing rate of return calc is implimented. A/C limits on bases is another. This is simply yet, another one of those. At SOME point you hit the point where that concept starts to apply if the game is model the real-world. The game should have the SAME kind of calc for troop numbers on an atoll. I have no idea what that number is, but there is a VALID NUMBER out there somewhere. And it will be somewhat ARBITRARY. That's the nature of the beast. If you want to discard all arbitrary values then just elimiate all the limits already enforce. This is really yet another consistancy of design issue. And in this case, the fix is easy. It's a formula tweek, nothing more. Probably one line of code.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Sure, ALL the values in the game are nothing more than arbitrarily derived numbers use to abstract a more complex real-world reality. Picking "8" for torps, "9" for mines, 200 (or whatever) for the max number carrier a/x in one hex/TF before a diminishing rate of return calc is implimented. A/C limits on bases is another. This is simply yet, another one of those. At SOME point you hit the point where that concept starts to apply if the game is model the real-world. The game should have the SAME kind of calc for troop numbers on an atoll. I have no idea what that number is, but there is a VALID NUMBER out there somewhere. And it will be somewhat ARBITRARY. That's the nature of the beast. If you want to discard all arbitrary values then just elimiate all the limits already enforce. This is really yet another consistancy of design issue. And in this case, the fix is easy. It's a formula tweek, nothing more. Probably one line of code.

I agree that we would need a valid number. That's my main point. The Tinian example doesn't doing anything to help me determine what that is. It does give us a good idea what a given number of Seabees can do. B-29s were flying in about 9 weeks. What I don't know though is:

1) Could they have flown sooner?

2) What level was the airfield at when captured (in game terms)?

3) What level was it at by the end of October when the B-29s started flying?

It seems to me that Tinian can tell us if the build rates of the game are in line with that particular anectdotal example. It doesn't speak to levels of efficiency or maximum capacity though IMO.

If it's shown that build rates are too fast then it seems to make more sense to me that they be adjusted rather than try to affect it in a roundabout way with stacking limits.

Stacking limits affect Allied players much more than Japanese, since the Japanese tend to have smaller (and fewer) engineer units. A stacking limit doesn't so much slow down building as it slows down Allied building.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Bottom line, if you haven't got enough raw data to draw a number from, throw a damned dart! Because we know this is a REALITY, we just don't know THE reality. But the reality exists. ANY number is better than NO number at all. And that number is very easy to change, or better yet, made SOFT (novel idea there....SOFT parameters) so you can set it as a game param....

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Bottom line, if you haven't got enough raw data to draw a number from, throw a damned dart! Because we know this is a REALITY, we just don't know THE reality. But the reality exists. ANY number is better than NO number at all. And that number is very easy to change, or better yet, made SOFT (novel idea there....SOFT parameters) so you can set it as a game param....

That might make sense if we all had a problem with it as it stands. I don't abuse the current system and I play the AI. The "player" most likely to be hurt by stacking limits is the AI, since I doubt it will be able to adjust its thinking accordingly.

quote:

In this case Tinian represents the historical high water mark in WWII civil engineering in the Pacific. Barring any other overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that becomse the "top-end" of what ANY concentration of engineers should be able to achieve from a design point, and you work backwards from there. Basically about 7 weeks is the QUICKEST one SHOULD be able to go from a 3(4) base to a 7(4) base, based on historical data. Anything shorter than that is based on conjecture, nothing more. The a/c limits on carrier TF's was derived from the same kind of emperical historic evidence. i imagine they arrived at the settings for base size for mines and torpedoes on some sort of hard historical evidence as well. There are a lot of combat writings concerning the maximum number of troops the US thought was reasonable for invasions of the various sizes of Pacific targets, as well. For me, its all about consistency in design. If you, as a designer, are going to impose "congestion" limits in one area, you should impose them EVERYWHERE they could happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

quote:

In this case Tinian represents the historical high water mark in WWII civil engineering in the Pacific. Barring any other overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that becomse the "top-end" of what ANY concentration of engineers should be able to achieve from a design point, and you work backwards from there. Basically about 7 weeks is the QUICKEST one SHOULD be able to go from a 3(4) base to a 7(4) base, based on historical data. Anything shorter than that is based on conjecture, nothing more. The a/c limits on carrier TF's was derived from the same kind of emperical historic evidence. i imagine they arrived at the settings for base size for mines and torpedoes on some sort of hard historical evidence as well. There are a lot of combat writings concerning the maximum number of troops the US thought was reasonable for invasions of the various sizes of Pacific targets, as well. For me, its all about consistency in design. If you, as a designer, are going to impose "congestion" limits in one area, you should impose them EVERYWHERE they could happen.

If you're talking about 7 weeks with only 2 brigades of engineers (I think I read that somewhere on this thread), I'd agree with you. Then again I don't think the system is gamey and/or broken. A design decision was made to treat a hex as a hex, a port as a port and an airfield as an airfield. Unless someone wants to come up w/ stacking limits that apply to all LCUs based on some sort of historical square acreage available for use per hex, this thread is useless. If someone does want to come up w/ the above please seek help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

Remember "an airbase" isn't one airstrip. It is all the air facilities in a 3600 square mile area. (Yes, I know, it is a hexagon, not a square, so call it ~3500 square miles)

The "San Francsico Hes" for example includes (at present) 3 different international airports Oakland, SFO and SJO), a large military airbases (Travis -there used to be one at Hamilton Field and another at Alameda), a large NASA Air Facility and many dozens of "fighter strips (Municipal Airports)


The "airbase" in a hex can be that fighter strip as well as the huge bomber complex on the other side of the estuary. And each of those separate airfields could easily have a complete different construction crew working on it, not getting in each other's way or anything.

quote:

And unlike the aircraft upgrade thread this thing is fixed by a single line of code. The formula that calculates how much gets built at a base each day. Apply a dimishing rate of return after a fixed manpower/equipment number, to the formula.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

And unlike the aircraft upgrade thread this thing is fixed by a single line of code. The formula that calculates how much gets built at a base each day. Apply a dimishing rate of return after a fixed manpower/equipment number, to the formula.

Not valid. Different types of units would need different limits. Different types of terrains would also need different limits. Differing climate areas would also have different limits. It's not a simple single formula. To be worth putting in, it needs to be realistic.

SeaBee units for example should have a higher limit that normal units as they were designed from the ground up for the express purpose of power building bases. Taking that away from the USA is just plain silly!