Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing...

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 >> Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing...

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 7:49:21 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

I finally managed to conduct my comprehensive ENG unit tests in WitP (I was hampered with but that in small scenarios you have to have large large number of LCUs in order WitP not to freeze after consecutive turn executions)!

Leo's WitP ENG unit testing

Testing finds

#1
According to WitP manual 1 ENG vehicle has value of 5 ENG squads.

#2
EXP and commander of ENG unit do not have any effect on construction speed.

#3
Fatigue itself didn't slow down construction speed (75% fatigued unit was as fast as 0% fatigued unit) but it produced disruption (because tired unit had to work) and disruption slowed construction!

For example if disruption was 25% then it, roughly, slowed construction time by 25% (i.e. unit was only 75% effective)!

#4
Presence or not presence of HQ (of any kind) does not have any effect on construction speed.

#5
ENG unit construction capabilities add up (in other words 2 same ENG units would build 2x faster and 4 same ENG units would build 4x faster).

#6
Construction cost in time of Airbase or Port object is same (i.e. it doesn't matter if you build one or another - if you build both your construction speed is 50%).

#7
When constructing Airbase and/or Port object (if their intended build values are below or equal to SPSs) the cost in time is as follows:

Size 0->1 = each ENG squad constructs 0.002500 (1/400) of object
Size 1->2 = each ENG squad constructs 0.001667 (1/600) of object
Size 2->3 = each ENG squad constructs 0.001250 (1/800) of object
Size 3->4 = each ENG squad constructs 0.001000 (1/1000) of object
Size 4->5 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000833 (1/1200) of object
Size 5->6 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000714 (1/1400) of object
Size 6->7 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000625 (1/1600) of object
Size 7->8 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000555 (1/1800) of object
Size 8->9 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000500 (1/2000) of object

NOTE: I am 100% sure in values above!

#7
When constructing Airbase and/or Port object (and if their intended build values are above SPSs) I can't calculate the cost in time.

It is because there appear to be "diminishing returns"!!!

In other words you can put as many ENG squads you wish but construction speed can't be accelerated further after some number of MAX ENG squads (this is 100% different that it was when you build below SPS limitations)!

For the time being I can't determine/calculate/estimate those modifiers but it appears that MAX ENG squads allowed number is determined by overall size of SPS value!

For example if you have beach (i.e. "dot") HEX with SPS (0 - 0) and attempt to construct base there all ENG squads above 200 don't count at all (i.e. equivalent of 200 ENG squads will build that place at same speed as equivalent of 1000 ENG squads)!!!

Perhaps developers can help here - I am kindly asking for their help in this matter!

Discussion

IMHO the construction speed appears to be too fast even if just single big ENG unit is building at one place.

Having several big ENG units at one place throws things out of whack 100%.

For example single US EAB unit has:

30 ENG squads
20 ENG Vehicles (20 x 5 = 100 ENG squads equivalents)

Or combined 130 ENG squads equivalents.

This means that such EAB ENG unit can construct imaginary HEX that starts with 0 - 0 (i.e. it is "dot") but which has SPS (9 - 9) to 9 Airbase and 9 Port in:

Size 0->1 : 1 / (1/400 x 130) x 2 = 6 days for 1 Airbase - 1 Port
Size 1->2 : 1 / (1/600x 130) x 2 = 9 days for 2 Airbase - 2 Port
Size 2->3 : 1 / (1/800x 130) x 2 = 12 days for 3 Airbase - 3 Port
Size 3->4 : 1 / (1/1000x 130) x 2 = 15 days for 4 Airbase - 4 Port
Size 4->5 : 1 / (1/1200x 130) x 2 = 18 days for 5 Airbase - 5 Port
Size 5->6 : 1 / (1/1400x 130) x 2 = 21 days for 6 Airbase - 6 Port
Size 6->7 : 1 / (1/1600x 130) x 2 = 24 days for 7 Airbase - 7 Port
Size 7->8 : 1 / (1/1800x 130) x 2 = 27 days for 8 Airbase - 8 Port
Size 8->9 : 1 / (1/2000x 130) x 2 = 30 days for 9 Airbase - 9 Port

Or combined 6 + 9 + 12 + 15 + 18 + 21 + 24 + 27 + 30 = 162 days (give or take few).

In just 5 months the biggest possible base that can be build (9 - 9) is constructed.

Is this OK?

IMHO no.

It is accelerated several times.

Now imagine 5 EAB units working together. Since they all add up their ENG squads they would have equivalent of 650 ENG squads (650 = 5 x 130) and this would mean that from 0 - 0 the "dot" can be build to 9 - 9 (in our example) in just 30+ days (or just single month)!!!

Conclusion

IMHO the developers (Matrix/2By3) should consider two things:

#1
Slow down the construction speed overall.

#2
Find a way to introduce "diminishing returns" when massing ENG units in one HEX (when building below SPS - apparently something already exists in code when building above SPS).

IMHO the base construction was one of the mayor obstacles in historic War in the Pacific and the whole war was, in fact, waged around bases that had to be constructed slowly because nothing could have been build "overnight"!

Therefore those two measures I suggested above would slow down base construction to acceptable and historic values!

BTW, I myself and several other (most prominent of them is, of course, "Nikademus") brought this up before but this time I added empirical data (from testing) into equation...

What do you think gentleman?

Matrix/2By3?

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

Post #: 1

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 7:57:07 PM

Herrbear

Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

Thank you for all your work in doing this. I found this very interesting. You have brought up some valid points for discussion.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 2

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 8:24:45 PM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

Devil's Advocate points:

1) What is the largest SPS of an undeveloped (dot) base?

2) How often do people actually have that many engineers (5 EAB or equivalents) all working in one base?

Otherwise, good info to know. Thank you.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 3

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 8:26:11 PM

Montbrun

Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

Very nice data. The one restricting factor that I don't see, though, is supply levels.

Brad

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 4

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 9:03:24 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Very nice data. The one restricting factor that I don't see, though, is supply levels.

Brad

Supply is, unfortunately, almost irrelevant...

In one of my tests (using WitP editor and my Template empty scenario) I created the following setup:

There was "dot" HEX with SPS 6 - 6.

I placed 50000 supplies there and one single EAB.

Both Airbase and Ports were to be constructed.

In just short 15 days the both Airbase and Port was 2 - 2 and spoilage was eliminated from equation.

From original 50000 supply there was left 35000 but it was more than enough to build that test HEX to MAX possible value because from that point onwards the supply demand was very small (to my huge surprise)...

BTW, after months of work the lone EAB was still 100% effective (1 squad here and there was disabling and enabling during that time but at the end all squads were 100%). Also fatigue was only 5% after months of hard work (and no rest).

Leo "Apollo11!

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to Montbrun)

Post #: 5

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 9:07:29 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Devil's Advocate points:

1) What is the largest SPS of an undeveloped (dot) base?

2) How often do people actually have that many engineers (5 EAB or equivalents) all working in one base?

Otherwise, good info to know. Thank you.

I am not worried at all about such extreme cases I described in my test (it was hypothetical HEX after all) - what I am worried are the possible B-29 bases that can be build almost "overnight".

Those HEXes are "middle" developed by Japanese but once in US hands the B-29 base can be established using ENG massing (or "hording" if you wish) in just few short days.

As for ENG massing - I am 100% sure it is tactics that many players use and will most certainly use (US player for their B-29 base for example).

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 6

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 9:09:02 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Thank you for all your work in doing this. I found this very interesting. You have brought up some valid points for discussion.

Thanks!

BTW, this is my "pet project" for long long time (I first brought this up almost 18 monts ago but those threads were lost when hacker attacked Matrix forum)...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 7

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 9:20:26 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Thanks Leo you clearly have spent a lot of time working all this out.

The important data that I gather is 200 engineer sqd (or equal in vichecles is all a player needs to send to a base over SPS.

It does not really matter about base over SPS because a 0-0 can only be built to a size 3-3 and that is a very minor base. As long as making a major base over SPS takes more time. (turning a 6 into a 9) (and no impact from more then 200 engineer Sqd)

As far as fatigue if the unit is in a non malaria hex and has that great surplus of supply it will not get tired. You can't tell a unit to work overtime. The engineers do not work around the clock max efforts are when you place many engineer units in same hex and now we know more then 200 is a waste once a base reaches its normal max size)

It is disruption not fatigue that impacts combat. The effect of high fatigue is a unit will suffer increased disruption if exposed to attack or takes part in combat. Extra supply use will descrease fatigue and that will help lower the disruption. (parts become disabled from disruption not fatigue. )

What numbers would you expect to see compared to what you found in your testing?

A size 1 airfield is a length of field that has been smoothed out and objects removed
A size 2 airfield is the same only longer
A size 3 is the same only now support buildings exist
A size 4 has been given a hard surface
(also every increase includes adding additional strips)
A size 5 has long hard strips and many support buildings and aircraft parking/arming/hangers

At size 5 the number of aircraft reaches 250. 250 aviation points is the most ever required becasue the airfields larger then size 5 (6,7,8,9,10) have machine/repair shops that increase the effectivness of the aviation support troops. (There appear to be something along those lines with engineer troops maxing out effect at 200.) having 1000 aviation support points also provides no more effect then having 250 other then making it hard for the enemy to reduce the number of support troops below where they are at max effect)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/12/2004 2:25:03 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 8

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 9:36:49 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

You also might want to toss in the duration to take a size 3 (4) to a size 7 (4) airbase considering that *is* your complaint afterall since the B-29's will be flying out of Saipan, Tinian and Guam.

As you well know, the build time of a 0 to 9 base is not relevant to any discussions as there *are* no size 9 bases that start as a size 0. Don't exaggerate reality to improve your case, just report the facts. Let everyone draw their own conclusions based on those facts. It's far more helpful.

Your baseline numbers are great but the overbuild numbers are far more important as those are the ones that take till the cows come home.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 9

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 9:40:23 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Japanese players don't worry about how long it takes for the Allies to build Saipan, Tinian and Guam (at least they shouldn't) because part of the defense of this area is Japan's having already built them to max size and stocking them with max airgroups and aviation troops. If the Allies capture the airfields they will already be built (but hopefully with massive damage when Allies get them)

If Saipan, Tinain, and Guam were captured at size 0(4) 0(4) it would not be important how fast Allied engineers could build them to size 7 unless at the date of capture the Allies had all their B-29 groups built and ready to move there. If the Allies capture these bases before they have B-29 groups then build time is not important. If they capture them with B-29 unbuilt then it is a short delay. If they capture them built to max with B-29 then so what (are you seeing the important issue is not how long it take Allies to build these bases but if they capture them at all)

I don't think we can compute to the day how long it should take X number engineers to build any facility.
Leo did you notice any effect on speed based on the terrian in the hex? I would think it faster to build from 0 to 3 in clear compared to building from 0 to 3 in mountain hex.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/12/2004 2:46:57 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 10

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 9:50:29 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Thanks Leo you clearly have spent a lot of time working all this out.

The important data that I gather is 200 engineer sqd (or equal in vichecles is all a player needs to send to a base over SPS.

It does not really matter about base over SPS because a 0-0 can only be built to a size 3-3 and that is a very minor base. As long as making a major base over SPS takes more time. (turning a 6 into a 9) (and no impact from more then 200 engineer Sqd)

As far as fatigue if the unit is in a non malaria hex and has that great surplus of supply it will not get tired. You can't tell a unit to work overtime. The engineers do not work around the clock max efforts are when you place many engineer units in same hex and now we know more then 200 is a waste once a base reaches its normal max size)

It is disruption not fatigue that impacts combat. The effect of high fatigue is a unit will suffer increased disruption if exposed to attack or takes part in combat. Extra supply use will descrease fatigue and that will help lower the disruption. (parts become disabled from disruption not fatigue. )

What numbers would you expect to see compared to what you found in your testing?

A size 1 airfield is a length of field that has been smoothed out and objects removed
A size 2 airfield is the same only longer
A size 3 is the same only now support buildings exist
A size 4 has been given a hard surface
(also every increase includes adding additional strips)
A size 5 has long hard strips and many support buildings and aircraft parking/arming/hangers

At size 5 the number of aircraft reaches 250. 250 aviation points is the most ever required becasue the airfields larger then size 5 (6,7,8,9,10) have machine/repair shops that increase the effectivness of the aviation support troops. (There appear to be something along those lines with engineer troops maxing out effect at 200.) having 1000 aviation support points also provides no more effect then having 250 other then making it hard for the enemy to reduce the number of support troops below where they are at max effect)

Thanks Russell!

What I will now test is Tinian scenario.

Tinian is SPS 1 (Port) - 4 (Airbase) and has Japanese buildup 1 - 3.

Historically there were two USN engineer brigades (equaling 8 to 12 Seabee battalions).

They build the Tinian up to MAX in 1 year (12 months: Aug 1944 - Aug 1945).

Since MAX in our WitP game terms means that the Tinian was 4 - 7 I will now test how long it takes to do that.

I will use 10 Seabee battalions for this test.

BTW, 1 Seabee in WitP is 30 ENG squads + 30 ENG vehicles equaling 180 ENG squads altogether.

10 Battalions thus are 1800 ENG squads.

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 11

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 9:52:45 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Japan's having already built them to max size and stocking them with max airgroups and aviation troops.

Thats your way ... I'm a scorched earth type ... give nothing of value

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 12

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 10:02:07 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi Leo thats a good test to conduct however you do understand the actual building of Tinian by the USA used 15,000 Engineer troops. Did not use the existing Japanese airfields and had B-29's operating less then 4 months after Tinian was captured. (Not bomb groups but there were B-29 flying missions from Tinian before the airfields even had hard surfaces! The 6th Bomb Group moved there for bombing operations in Jan 1945.
So you might say the Seebees did in fact build a size 7 airfield from scratch. They had a size 4 in less then 4 months (B-29 in WITP can fly from a size 4 airfield but only use extended loads and only fly normal ranges)

The airfields the Japanese had built and had used were smaller then those the USA had open in under 4 months. The USA did not use any of the Japanese runways but did use a number of existing buildings.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/12/2004 3:04:25 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 13

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 10:08:49 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

You also might want to toss in the duration to take a size 3 (4) to a size 7 (4) airbase considering that *is* your complaint afterall since the B-29's will be flying out of Saipan, Tinian and Guam.

Raymond this is exactly what I am doing right now (please look at my answer to Russell)!

quote:

As you well know, the build time of a 0 to 9 base is not relevant to any discussions as there *are* no size 9 bases that start as a size 0. Don't exaggerate reality to improve your case, just report the facts. Let everyone draw their own conclusions based on those facts. It's far more helpful.

True.... but those values are also nice to know (i.e. how long it takes to build 0 - 0 "dot" with SPS 9 - 9 into 9 - 9) wouldn't you say...

quote:

Your baseline numbers are great but the overbuild numbers are far more important as those are the ones that take till the cows come home.

I was unable to determine the "diminishing returns" (if they are that at all) formulas so far.

When base with SPS 0 - 0 was a "dot" (0 - 0) and I expanded it using equivalent of 100 ENG squads I got same time when using 1000. The limiting ENG number was, apparently 200 ENG squads equivalents.

Also the build times were very long and I am (as yet) still unable to calculate building speed.

My best guess so far is that each ENG squad equivalent builds 1/8000 in this case.

But when that same HEX is already at 1 - 1 things start to complicate and now upgrading that to 2 - 2 proved to be very strange because now 100 ENG squad equivalents seemed to be limit (i.e. 100 ENG squad equivalents at build were same as 1000 ENG squad equivalents).

Must test this some more...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 14

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 10:14:28 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi Leo thats a good test to conduct however you do understand the actual building of Tinian by the USA used 15,000 Engineer troops. Did not use the existing Japanese airfields and had B-29's operating less then 4 months after Tinian was captured. (Not bomb groups but there were B-29 flying missions from Tinian before the airfields even had hard surfaces! The 6th Bomb Group moved there for bombing operations in Jan 1945.
So you might say the Seebees did in fact build a size 7 airfield from scratch. They had a size 4 in less then 4 months (B-29 in WITP can fly from a size 4 airfield but only use extended loads and only fly normal ranges)

The airfields the Japanese had built and had used were smaller then those the USA had open in under 4 months. The USA did not use any of the Japanese runways but did use a number of existing buildings.

Russell RGR that!

As I initially wrote I will post all landmark times and I think 10 SeaBee WitP units would suffice

Since each WitP SeaBee is 30 ENG squads + 30 ENG vehicles so this equals 180 ENG squad equivalents x10 = 1800 ENG squad equivalents I think we can agree that this is 15000 people you mention in your message.

Tinian is SPS 1 (Port) - 4 (Airbase) and has Japanese buildup 1 - 3.

I will build it from there to 4 - 7 (i.e. MAX that it can reach).

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 15

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 10:15:59 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Raymond this is exactly what I am doing right now (please look at my answer to Russell)!

I was posting my reply while you & he replied. Phone rang and distracted me

An SPS 0 is a special location ... think it is a 10x normal speed.

sps 1 past should take 2x
sps 2 past should take 4x
sps 3 past should take 8x

Something like that ...

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 16

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 10:20:33 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, And to compare what the USA actually did run a second test after editing the airfield back to 0 (4)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 17

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 10:23:51 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

And while you are at it, test with a malaria location like PM and see what the burnout rate is on them poor shovel pushers

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 18

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 10:43:59 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

Like I promised here is Tinian test scenario.

Unfortunately I think I have bad news and it seems that base construction is extremely accelerated...

Tinian is SPS 1 (Port) - 4 (Airbase) and has Japanese buildup 1 - 3.

I build it from there to 4 - 7 (i.e. MAX that it can reach).

I used 10 SeaBee battalions.

Since 1 SeaBee in WitP is 30 ENG squads + 30 ENG vehicles equaling 180 ENG squads equivalents altogether it means that 10 Battalions thus are 1800 ENG squads equivalents.

I build both Port and Airbase in parallel.

Port size:

0 turns = Port 1
4 turns = Port 2
13 turns = Port 3
24 turns = Port 4 (MAX reached - expansion stopped)

Airbase size:

0 turns = Airbase 3
3 turns = Airbase 4
10 turns = Airbase 5
25 turns = Airbase 6
34 turns = Airbase 7 (MAX reached - expansion stopped)

As you can see it is _ENORMOUS_ acceleration...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 19

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 10:47:21 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

And while you are at it, test with a malaria location like PM and see what the burnout rate is on them poor shovel pushers

Raymond, with construction speeds like we currently have in WitP malaria is just too slow... if you stack enough ENG units you can do "overnight wonders"...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 20

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 10:52:04 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

I don't get you ...

You post first that it takes 1 day for 1800 engineers to go from a size 7 -> 8

You throw 1800 engineers at a size 6 -> 7 and it takes 9 days and you call that a massive acceleration?

Whats massive about it? According to your own numbers, it shouldn't have even taken a single day if it had not been over the SPS value.

I'm confused.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 21

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 11:04:27 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I don't get you ...

You post first that it takes 1 day for 1800 engineers to go from a size 7 -> 8

You throw 1800 engineers at a size 6 -> 7 and it takes 9 days and you call that a massive acceleration?

Whats massive about it? According to your own numbers, it shouldn't have even taken a single day if it had not been over the SPS value.

I'm confused.

You have to look at overall picture... it is _EXTREME_ acceleration unfortunately...

My test show that _MASSIVE_ base can be build (and with both Airbase and Port 3+ over SPS) in very very short time which not OK...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 22

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 11:08:26 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, And to compare what the USA actually did run a second test after editing the airfield back to 0 (4)

Your wish is my command Russelll...

Tinian is SPS 1 (Port) - 4 (Airbase) and was set to 0 - 0.

I build it from there to 4 - 7 (i.e. MAX that it can reach).

I used 10 SeaBee battalions.

Since 1 SeaBee in WitP is 30 ENG squads + 30 ENG vehicles equaling 180 ENG squads equivalents altogether it means that 10 Battalions thus are 1800 ENG squads equivalents.

I build both Port and Airbase in parallel.

Port size:

0 turns = Port 0
2 turns = Port 1
5 turns = Port 2
14 turns = Port 3
25 turns = Port 4 (MAX reached - expansion stopped)

Airbase size:

0 turns = Airbase 0
2 turns = Airbase 1
3 turns = Airbase 2
6 turns = Airbase 3
8 turns = Airbase 4
15 turns = Airbase 5
30 turns = Airbase 6
39 turns = Airbase 7 (MAX reached - expansion stopped)

Very very fast... way to fast...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 23

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 11:26:37 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

You have to look at overall picture... it is _EXTREME_ acceleration unfortunately...

Nope, don't go there. I don't have to look at the overall picture without including the build rates for overbuilding SPS. It is an incomplete picture without that part of the puzzle.

Extreme accelleration is a conclusion based on a infinite number of engineers being thrown at the task. Separate your conclusions as to there being a problem (building too fast) from the actual data. The data itself will lead to the conclusions without help.

Not trying to be difficult, but calculating where to place a cap requires the complete picture being applied against all factors. I don't advocate a change unless the change is the *right* change. Right now, I have incomplete data to base the change on. Fill in the blanks so I can turn around and then advocate the *right* cap which is your end goal.

The task at hand is calculating the speed of engineers to overbuild by 1, by 2, by 3. You have already covered the non-overbuild values.

If you come back and say overbuilding requires:

Size 4->5 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000833 (1/1200) of object *and* x2, x3, x4 if over SPS (etc) then it is a simple matter to say we need a cap of 750 eng units or 500 end units etc.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 24

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 11:38:14 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Nope, don't go there. I don't have to look at the overall picture without including the build rates for overbuilding SPS. It is an incomplete picture without that part of the puzzle.

Extreme accelleration is a conclusion based on a infinite number of engineers being thrown at the task. Separate your conclusions as to there being a problem (building too fast) from the actual data. The data itself will lead to the conclusions without help.

Not trying to be difficult, but calculating where to place a cap requires the complete picture being applied against all factors. I don't advocate a change unless the change is the *right* change. Right now, I have incomplete data to base the change on. Fill in the blanks so I can turn around and then advocate the *right* cap which is your end goal.

The task at hand is calculating the speed of engineers to overbuild by 1, by 2, by 3. You have already covered the non-overbuild values.

If you come back and say overbuilding requires:

Size 4->5 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000833 (1/1200) of object *and* x2, x3, x4 if over SPS (etc) then it is a simple matter to say we need a cap of 750 eng units or 500 end units etc.

I think it will be extremely hard for me to calculate the formula for building when over SPS because it is not "linear" (i.e. it depends on SPS value and how much over SPS value you build - thus, for example, building port to 4 when SPS is 2 is not the same as building port to 6 when SPS is 4).

The below SPS was rather easy to discover and calculate though...

Do you think you can possibly ask developers some day about formula (I am 100% sure my below SPS formula is 100% accurate)?

Nonetheless you simply can't deny the facts I discovered:

Tinian was historically build in 1 year (Aug 1944 - Aug 1945) and I, using same number of ENG units, accomplished the same task in 1 month in WitP game.

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that WitP (and UV) construction speeds are at least 10x over accelerated...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 25

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 11:43:14 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Nonetheless you simply can't deny the facts I discovered:

I'm not denying the facts at all, just want all the facts before I go propose a cap so I know all the implications.

I would hate to go propose something that *shafts* the Allies who invented the very concept of *insta* basing with their SeaBee units.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 26

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 11:47:32 PM

Tankerace

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Tinian was historically build in 1 year (Aug 1944 - Aug 1945) and I, using same number of ENG units, accomplished the same task in 1 month in WitP game.

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that WitP (and UV) construction speeds are at least 10x over accelerated...

Leo "Apollo11"

Actually, 1 month versus 1 year means 12x, not 10x.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 27

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/12/2004 11:52:02 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Tinian was historically build in 1 year (Aug 1944 - Aug 1945)

Thats a little bit of a lost leader ... Yes, construction of the base went on for that time, but the actual time spent to go from nothing to B-29's flying was 5 months, not a year.

If the base was not B-29 ready, Japan would not have been subject to B-29 raids until Sep 45. We know that is obviously not the case.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 28

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/13/2004 1:16:42 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, The Base had 4x runways operational (hard surface) for B-By Jan 1945. I have to find out the order Bomb Groups deployed to Tinian but the 6th begane flying from there in Jan 1945. There is a photo on the internet of B-29 on runway (unpaved) when only 3 runways had as yet been laid out. (Tinians north field had 4 runways when complete.)
Actually I think Tinian has been made too small. (max size 7) But it was never something I worried about becasue having the Japanese build it larger was more silly then making it to small for USA. In fact I think all bases should be minus 2 in max size for Japanese or +2 in max size for USA.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/12/2004 6:17:37 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 29

RE: Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing... - 9/13/2004 1:21:34 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

In fact I think all bases should be minus 2 in max size for Japanese or +2 in max size for USA.

Hmm, interesting thought ...

Perhaps *only* Seabee units can overbuild beyond the 3x sps? That would bring in the Allied advantage yet confine it to the specialty boys.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing...

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>