Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

It seems the construction ratios from size to next size are all some sort of linear relationship. In your 6 + 9 + 12 + 15 + 18 + 21 + 24 + 27 + 30 statement it appears the difference in "size" (abstracted to mean the complexity of infrastructure as well as the mere length of the runway, etc...) between a 1 and a 2 is the same as between an 8 and a 9. While I don't think it is reasonable for this relationship to be exponential or logarithmic, I do believe it should have some sort of quadratic polynomial type relationship whereby a the difference between a size 8 and size 9 was DRAMATICALLY different than that between a size 1 and size 2.

For example, take the size of the port facilities today at the Long Beach docks in California or New Orleans (call that a size 10) and those at Charleston, SC (call that a size 8). It would take YEARS and hundreds of millions of dollars of investement to get Charleston up to the capacity of Long Beach. But take the port at Jacksonville and compare to Charleston (Jacksonville being a 6 or maybe a 7) and it would not take near that much to get Jacksonville up to the size of Charleston.

This is good example and nice thinking!

BTW, since we now know formulas (through what I discovered) how bases are build below SPS limits in current WitP what exact formulas you suggest and how would that practically translate in time of contraction?


Also my point exactly (as well) is that large bases took months (years in peacetime - Singapore and Pearl Harbor for example) to build and that it took a lot of ENG, a lot of supplies and lot of $$$...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, There are no bases that can can be built from nothing to Long Beach or even Jacksonville or Charleston size. The problem is perception in that the large bases remain too small. LB handles 65 million tons a year. Jacksonville over 7 million tons per year. (That in WITP terms is loading or unloading 19k per day) Jacksonville in WITP is a size 10 because size 10 is the largest size there is. Once a port gets to a certain size it is like every port of that size even though we know in reality LB is 9 times larger then Jacksonville. (Jacksonville is larger then any port that can be built from nothing in WITP. Jacksonville is larger then any port that cannot be built to a size 10 and no port can be built to a size 10 so Jacksonville remains larger then any port that any engineer in WITP will be asked to build)

There are no 0 to 9 hexes. There are 8 to 9 hexes. There are no 9 to 10 hexes.

The real question is how long to build from a 3 or 4 to a 7 not from a 0 to a 9. Measuring something that never occurs in the game provides interesting insight into how the system works but tells us nothing about what will actually take place in a game. Only the parts that can actually happen matter.
Tinian was captured in a completly useless condition. The USA built it from nothing in 4 months. How long does it take in WITP to do this? 30 days? Then the process is 4x too fast. Where the actual excess is remains the question.

In the 4 months of building Tinian when was it a 1 and then how long before it was a 2 and so on? All the talk about building a base from nothing to the size of Long Beach is waste of effort because there are no hexes where such a thing can be done. A size 5 port is so far from a size 10 that they cannot be compared. You can't build a size 10 anywhere on the map. So it is pointless to talk about how long it would take to do.


(I've been reading my posts correcting the typos and such and discovered that I have been watching too much Cartoon Network with my nephews. I'm starting to talk like "Mojo Jojo"
"I am Mojo Jojo, Mojo Jojo is me. If you ask my name I will tell you it is Mojo Jojo because that is my name. " ( My nephews like it when I talk like that)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

quote:

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)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Since my name is being thrown around here, i'll just throw in a simple (i.e. short commentary) Since UV days, i've felt a "diminishing returns" rule for ENG's was warrented as the logic works in the same way as with AA, i.e. simply piling more and more numbers should not simply create a stacking effect as it does not take into account other variables. Having played UV and now WitP extensively i've seen the "insta-base" effect enough times to recognize and know what i'm seeing.

I dont see the issue as having as much to do with turning a base from 0-9 (or 0-7) as it would turning a SPS 0 or 1 into a size 3 or 4 airbase in record time. I have not advocated any kind of "stacking limit" as this would be impossible to model in a game of this scale. Instead, meerly implement a system whereas the more ENG units you stack, it simply isn't a matter of adding up the #'s but produces less and less of the sum of it's total.
How to determine the threshold would be an issue. SPS size potential (which is supposed to be an abstracted form of geography) should be a major factor, along with nationality/time frame) Repair rates and types could benefit from such as well. small/med airfields are reletively easy to repair. Port facilities not so.

Anyway, i'm not going to stress too much about this because the above all speaks of a perfect world. The reality is that there are already a number of vital improvement issues on the board. While i'd like to see the above implemented it would admitedly be down the "list" of vital improvements were I given the ability to rank them. The developers can only do so much in the time alloted. Currently the above is not even a wish list item.

This doesn't mean that it cant be added but just serving as a reminder that the improvement wish list is already substantial.

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: Mogami

Hi, OK that makes sense as long as we do not lose track of facts like in real world Tinain went from 0 to 7 in 4 months.

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: Apollo11

And what do you think of my findings regarding construction speed even when just one single EAB is present?

Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

And what do you think of my findings regarding construction speed even when just one single EAB is present?

Leo "Apollo11"

They didn't suprise me. Construction has always struck me as rather rapid, exaserbated by the stacking of many ENG units. Port construction in particular. Its nice to have detailed test though.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

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