TF docking (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

jay102 -> TF docking (2/14/2012 8:51:07 AM)

From the experiences of supplying the various small islands scattered in the pacific ocean, I found my cargo TFs didn't automatically dock itself to harbor before the unloading phase. The tonnage of TF and each single ship both are clearly within the tonnage limit of harbor. What am I missing? Do I need to manually dock a TF when it reaches destination?



LoBaron -> RE: TF docking (2/14/2012 9:00:48 AM)

From my experience the TF has to be at base for 1 phase until it docks,
while it already commences unloading if there are any action points left from
the movement phase.

Did you only check for the first turn when the TF arrived?

I assume you did check for other TF´s which could bring the total tonnage over
the required threshold, and for single ship tonnage as well (its possible that the
TF tonnage is within the limit of the port size, while a single ship in the TF is too large)?



jay102 -> RE: TF docking (2/14/2012 9:26:09 AM)

Here is an example from my ongoing turn. A cargo TF at Palmyra, consists of one single AKL(1700 ton) which is clearly within Palmyra's port limit.(Palmyra has a port of size 1, tonnage limit 6000/6000) .

Now, that tiny AKL has unloaded 64% of its cargo, with 36%(630) in waiting but its docking status is still UNDOCKED.



michaelm75au -> RE: TF docking (2/14/2012 11:54:08 AM)

Auto-dock does not happen if the dock is smaller than 3.

This does not stop you from manually docking if allowed.



LoBaron -> RE: TF docking (2/14/2012 12:02:52 PM)

Wow, thanks Michael.

Another thing learned...



michaelm75au -> RE: TF docking (2/14/2012 12:08:41 PM)

I guess that it is left up to the player to control the limited docking facilities at these smaller ports.
If the program kept docking a small TF and using up the port tonnage, while your trying to unload more important stuff there, it would get pretty frustrating.

It may not make sense with just a single ship TF, but in the long run, it is probably better.

PS. It will be in the 'newer' manual.[:D] When it gets done.[:@]



LoBaron -> RE: TF docking (2/14/2012 12:13:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
PS. It will be in the 'newer' manual.[:D] When it gets done.[:@]


No worries, take your time. In fact trial in error somehow reflects WWII pretty accurately.
As long as I don´t try to glide bomb with my TBs I am fine... [:D]



jay102 -> RE: TF docking (2/14/2012 1:24:49 PM)

Thanks for the reply from Michaelm, another thing learned. But IMHO this feature perhaps makes supply those unimportant small atolls more difficult because you need to check twice to manually dock them, otherwise the unloading can be awfully slow at a small port.



michaelm75au -> RE: TF docking (2/15/2012 10:18:46 AM)

If using small ship in TF to supply the small out of the way places, it should take that long to unload would it?



dr.hal -> RE: TF docking (2/15/2012 1:01:16 PM)

Interesting discourse. Thanks Michaeim for the information. For small ports, I don't know if it would be so hard to have automatic docking of ships unless otherwise occupied. A small AKL should not replace an existing docked ship so I don't see how automatic docking would be a problem even in small ports. A ship should dock in order of arrival until the player intervenes. I would suspect that it would be way to complex to program in priority docking... But I see the other players point in that it is sad to loose time unloading simply because the program doesn't dock ships when space is clearly available.



BigDuke66 -> RE: TF docking (2/15/2012 11:05:18 PM)

Finally an explanation why I have to go thru the TF list EVERY turn and do this manually.

IMHO this just extents the time to do a turn without any benefits.
If a port is empty a TF should dock(if it fits) no matter how big that port is.
If a port is not empty a TF should dock(if it fits) no matter how big that port is.
If a port is overfilled the player has to do the TF management manually anyway to get escorts out of the TFs so only real transports dock & unload/load to get the maximum out of the port.
So why not just let it dock when it can???

This would bring the manual docking down to those ports that are already in the focus of the player because of high traffic there and that traffic will in most cases be troop transport with multiple APs & AKs.


I'm not sure but I think this "no docking" behavior(or maybe even undocking) also occurs when there are enemy planes over that port, also a feature I would like to get rid of at least for transports of any kind because I think it takes much longer for those ships to load/unload when not docked compared to when docked.
I didn't calculate this but what is more dangerous, loading/unloading docked for 2-3 days or loading/unloading un-docked for 6-7 days?
I would always prefer to save time instead of evading a possible port bombardment by planes simply by setting them out the risk of a naval attack by planes, and consider that you can set an AG to naval attack with a secondary to port attack so no matter where the TFs are they face the risk of being attacked and so it's top priority to minimize them time these TFs are exposed to an attack by letting them dock, correct me when I'm wrong but docked TFs get at least flak protection un-docked don't or?

Also think of a surface TF that has its float planes over a port making the TFs there un-dock or not dock just to run into the port hex to sink those TFs in a naval engagement.
And that citing the manual:
"Ships docked or at anchor at a port with a current size of at least 3 are immune to enemy submarine attacks." so now those TFs also take the risk of sub attacks.



Don Bowen -> RE: TF docking (2/16/2012 1:31:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Finally an explanation why I have to go thru the TF list EVERY turn and do this manually.



But one that you have not understood.


quote:


IMHO this just extents the time to do a turn without any benefits.
If a port is empty a TF should dock(if it fits) no matter how big that port is.
If a port is not empty a TF should dock(if it fits) no matter how big that port is.
If a port is overfilled the player has to do the TF management manually anyway to get escorts out of the TFs so only real transports dock & unload/load to get the maximum out of the port.
So why not just let it dock when it can???


TFs will not auto dock when it is better not to. Amphib type TFs at small ports (<4) get better load/unload rates "over the beach" than over small docks. TFs will not auto dock in this circumstance.

quote:


This would bring the manual docking down to those ports that are already in the focus of the player because of high traffic there and that traffic will in most cases be troop transport with multiple APs & AKs.


I'm not sure but I think this "no docking" behavior(or maybe even undocking) also occurs when there are enemy planes over that port, also a feature I would like to get rid of at least for transports of any kind because I think it takes much longer for those ships to load/unload when not docked compared to when docked.


Nope, aircraft have nothing to do with auto docking.


quote:


I didn't calculate this but what is more dangerous, loading/unloading docked for 2-3 days or loading/unloading un-docked for 6-7 days?
I would always prefer to save time instead of evading a possible port bombardment by planes simply by setting them out the risk of a naval attack by planes, and consider that you can set an AG to naval attack with a secondary to port attack so no matter where the TFs are they face the risk of being attacked and so it's top priority to minimize them time these TFs are exposed to an attack by letting them dock, correct me when I'm wrong but docked TFs get at least flak protection un-docked don't or?

Also think of a surface TF that has its float planes over a port making the TFs there un-dock or not dock just to run into the port hex to sink those TFs in a naval engagement.
And that citing the manual:
"Ships docked or at anchor at a port with a current size of at least 3 are immune to enemy submarine attacks." so now those TFs also take the risk of sub attacks.


Nothing here to answer. If you overfill a small port the TFs will wait their turn to dock. Just like what really happened.



dr.hal -> RE: TF docking (2/16/2012 2:22:15 AM)

Imagine that! The game emulates real life! Thanks Don... Hal



BigDuke66 -> RE: TF docking (2/16/2012 3:45:11 AM)

I guess I'm using the wrong values because that calculation may work for port 1 but all above seem to have better load/unload over the dock instead the beach.

Citing the manual:
"Undocked TFs. TFs that are not docked can still perform load and
unload operations (using lighters from the port and/or landing craft
from ships in the TF). Loading/Unloading rates are significantly
reduced and a separate “undocked cargo handling” limit is imposed
to limit load/unload in each turn. If at all possible, it is best to
ensure TFs can be docked for load and unload operations."

I wonder how much these rates are reduces and how high that limit is, all I find after this is:
"Merchant Ships. (xAP/xAK) in Amphibious TFs, unload
at a Rate of 250 points per ship per turn."

I assume this is also used for unloading undocked cargo/transport TFs, if not that this seems to be missing in the manual.

So looking at the "6.3.3.2.4 SHIP AND PORT LOAD ABILITY TABLE" my calculation looks like this:
The lowest rate is 100 points for cargo at a level 1 port in one phase, making it 200 point per turn. All other types(Troop, resource, fuel, oil) have so high rates that they already exceed those 250
A level 2 port already can make 200 per phase making it 400 what is surely better as the 250 per turn.
If that all is correct it's also an explanation why the manual says "If at all possible, it is best to ensure TFs can be docked for load and unload operations".



bradfordkay -> RE: TF docking (2/16/2012 4:23:12 AM)

"Merchant Ships. (xAP/xAK) in Amphibious TFs, unload
at a Rate of 250 points per ship per turn."

An amphibious TF has had its cargo loaded in a different manner than a transport or cargo TF - a manner which improves the ability to unload into lighters. Thus the unload rate for an undocked amphibious TF is better than that of an undocked transport or cargo TF.



BigDuke66 -> RE: TF docking (2/16/2012 5:25:05 AM)

Well in that case I still don't understand why TFs don't dock in small ports if there is only a benefit for Amphibious TFs and this also only for cargo load/unload in level 1 ports.

I don't think that such a rule should hamper 90% of the other traffic that is made up of normal transport/cargo TFs that are faster using the dock.



BigDuke66 -> RE: TF docking (2/17/2012 2:11:18 AM)

Well I had to test it myself to see what Don Bowen's "TFs will not auto dock when it is better not to. Amphib type TFs at small ports (<4) get better load/unload rates "over the beach" than over small docks. TFs will not auto dock in this circumstance." is worth.
I setup 2 Cargo TFs & 2 Amphibious TFs(all with the same class of xAK), loaded them with supplies and moved each of them to a hex with a base that has port level 1 & no naval support.
To make sure every TF had the same starting point when unloading I waited 1 turn then I docked 1 Cargo & 1 Amphibious TF and turned the unload on manually.

Results are:
Docked Cargo TF unloaded 200 supply
Undocked Cargo TF unloaded 160 supply

Docked Amphibious TF unloaded 400 supply
Undocked Amphibious TF unloaded 320 supply

So you see each time the docked TF had a better unload rate, not to speak of the fact that docked ships don't use fuel(undocked do) and they also don't suffer operational damage and will be able to repair damage faster.
Results are clear and I doubt that they will get better for the undocked category when port level gets higher.

So where is the benefit of keeping the game from docking TFs at small ports?

"TFs will not auto dock when it is better not to"
Wrong! They don't dock when it's better to dock.

"Amphib type TFs at small ports (<4) get better load/unload rates "over the beach" than over small docks."
Wrong!! Amphibious TFs get also better unload rates when dock instead of undocked.

"TFs will not auto dock in this circumstance."
Wrong!!! The game generally doesn't dock TFs at small ports and it doesn't look at any "circumstances"


The ONLY thing that can be pulled out is the fact that it would be better to use Amphibious TFs at small port instead of Cargo/Transport TFs but even then they would be better off docking the TF instead of keeping it undocked.



Don Bowen -> RE: TF docking (2/17/2012 2:42:33 AM)


You may have a point here, so I'll ignore my inclination and check the code.

OK, the simple fact that the TF has an amphib mission provides some undocked unload benefit. But the code was written assuming the TF contains amphib ships. Did yours?



BigDuke66 -> RE: TF docking (2/17/2012 2:49:46 AM)

No all are xAK Isthmian Cargo class.



LoBaron -> RE: TF docking (2/17/2012 5:10:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

I guess we have an explanation now:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3038114

Please everybody check that thread out and give your input as this obvious "feature" seem to be no benefit but a burden.


Don´t get me wrong, you do have a point.

But when I ask myself which situation I like less, a small supply TF taking 48 hours longer
to unload, or my ASW group not replenishing from my support ships because theres not enough
room to dock, I´d rather leave it as it is.



BigDuke66 -> RE: TF docking (2/17/2012 6:29:11 AM)

Well if the port is overcrowded you have the manage it by yourself anyway and in your case you would simply undock those supply TFs to dock, replenish & undock your ASW group so you can then again dock those supply TFs.
But I speak of empty ports where TFs can dock and looking at the results also should dock but that simply don't dock.

Also how often would it be that you foster a whole ASW group(or any other more or less important TF) at a small port that is exactly then blocked when it needs to be replenished.
I can't imagine that this happens very often but thinking about all those small ports that are regular visited by small TFs to bring a bit supply and take some resources out especially early as Allied player who's taking as much as he can to saved in from Japan out of the DEI and later as Japan player who has to get out what he can from the DEI to keep his industry rolling.


To be honest I would love it when the feature could simply calculate the best TF type based on what I load and what ships I use so I can maximize my load/unload rates but it just doesn't do that, all it does is deny docking to TFs without looking at any circumstances except that it has to be a small port.



LoBaron -> RE: TF docking (2/17/2012 7:27:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66
Also how often would it be that you foster a whole ASW group(or any other more or less important TF) at a small port that is exactly then blocked when it needs to be replenished.


All those small, valuable outposts acting as ASW, Sub, PT hubs - kept in operation with aux ship.
I´d rate the importance of those working flawless higher than loading/unloading delays any day.

As I said, I agree on what you are critizising, but I´d never accept a solution that trades faster
cargo handling for potential drawbacks for the ops described above.



oldman45 -> RE: TF docking (2/17/2012 12:34:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66



Also how often would it be that you foster a whole ASW group(or any other more or less important TF) at a small port that is exactly then blocked when it needs to be replenished.



Murphy's Law says it will happen at the worst possible time. [;)]



Don Bowen -> RE: TF docking (2/17/2012 7:36:48 PM)


I'm gone through the related code and (as much as I can recall) the design goals behind it.

Original WITP and early pre-release AE did not include any special docking/unloading code for TFs. The TFs attempted to dock and, if they could not, they did not load/unload.

Play testing pointed this out as a potential problem, so code was put in to allow TFs to load/unload without docking - albeit at a lower rate.

Concurrently, additional limits were set up for ports. This was a complex one. Even if TFs could unload large amounts of cargo "over the beach", the port itself had only limited ability to move and store this cargo. At some point the cargo just built up on the beach (waiting for land transport to move it) and the beaches became congested. So we put in non-docked cargo handling limits. Like docked limits, these depended on port size. Both were available, with docked being preferred and undocked never exceeding the docked rates.

Finally, a special check was put in for amphibious TFs at small ports to force them to undocked unloading. There was considerable debate over the details of this during play testing and the final result was a compromise that was probably not fully agreeable for anyone.

In retrospect, I think the calculation of the load/unload rates is a little low and the limits on port processing of over the beach cargo a little too tight. But that is just my opinion and I am no longer active on the AE support team.

A bit long winded but the bottom line is: I recommend that no changes be made to the calculations. Too great a chance of any change unbalancing things even more. Besides both the effect and relative number of occurences are small.

If any changes were to be made, they would have to be to both load/unload rates AND over-the-beach cargo handling limits. Changes to one or the other would be lost due to restriction of the unchanged item. But, if over-the-beach cargo limits were changed, we would throw the entire load/unload calculation out of balance (i.e. docking limits become superfluous). The only way to retain any sanity would be to limit ALL undocked loading/unloading to amphib TFs and give a specific (and tightly controlled) increase to over-the-beach cargo handling limits for naval support. This would be the right thing to do, in my opinion, but would completely remove the ability of non-amphibious TFs to load/unload when not docked. I have memories of the howling when this was attempted during development (especially since loaded TFs can not arbitrarily switch to amphib at the destination). All of this would come back to more tuning and (again, in my opinion) not solve the problem - just alter it so it was wrong in a different way.

All I got...



BigDuke66 -> RE: TF docking (2/17/2012 9:51:30 PM)

Thanks for looking at it but changes in calculations are the last thing I would like to see at the moment.
Out of the 4 results I can only follow one of it(200 supply for docked cargo, exactly as written in the manual), all others don't seem to fit what's written in the manual or info is completely missing.
So no one can advise a change to the calculations unless we get a complete & clear picture of what each ship type does under the various circumstances(TF type, port level, docked vs. undocked, type of load, etc.)I really hope the chapter in the manual regarding this gets a complete overhaul.


All I would like to see is that the undocking feature is used only for those TF types that come into a port with the purpose to unload/load undocked and this type is the Amphibious TF.

All TFs that the player can make are their for a purpose and using cargo/transport/tanker TFs is for shuttling supply, resources, fuel, oil and troops between bases with the purpose of docking to load & unload.
Because if I don't want to let it dock especially at a small base that can't handle much cargo I make an Amphibious TF.


Another to solve this once and for all is to add a new feature similar to the Auto-Disband feature but this time for docking, this gives the player to turn of autodocking in case he wants the base free all the time.



geofflambert -> RE: TF docking (2/18/2012 6:20:41 PM)

Less sophisticated questions here:
I haven't noticed one way or the other since I started playing the beta, but oiler TFs used to keep docking when I didn't want them to (they were fully loaded, ordered not to retire and just biding their time in the port til they got other orders. This is really annoying, what is the reason for this?
Also what are the differences between Transport TFs and Cargo TFs, and between Cargo TFs and Amphibious TFs? I have a pretty good feel for Transport vs Amphibious, but I've never used the Cargo TF type.
Also is there any reason not to dock an Amphibious TF when possible? I haven't noticed any.



geofflambert -> RE: TF docking (2/18/2012 6:25:05 PM)

Oh, and one more, sometimes I've had trouble unloading heavy equipment on non-base beach hexes, and other times not. Is there any rule of thumb on this?



geofflambert -> RE: TF docking (2/18/2012 6:26:52 PM)

Sorry, I meant when using APA/AKA types.



BigDuke66 -> RE: TF docking (2/20/2012 1:41:13 AM)

Don mentioned that aircraft have nothing to do with autodocking but they seem to have impact docking/undocking TFs.

I have a single ship cargo TF at Rangoon unloading, last turn it was docked, this turn it is undocked, all that happen was:
xAK Karoa detected by Japanese Dive Bomber at 54,53 near Rangoon
xAK Karoa snooped by Japanese Medium Bomber at 54,53 near Rangoon

opposite to this is a single ship cargo TF also in Rangoon but loading that didn't undock:
TF 681 snooped by Japanese Recon at 54,53 near Rangoon
xAK Hosang sights Japanese Dive Bomber at 54,53 near Rangoon

An air attack on Rangoon didn't happen in that turn.
The Hosang/TF681 wasn't docked last turn and I guess I docked it manually as I always go thru the TF list before processing a turn, maybe this is the reason why it didn't undock.
And the Karoa may have undocked because it was autodocked in Rangoon(with port level 4 is enough for autodocking).

But it also can be coming from the Detection level, Karoa DL is now 6/10 and was 10/10 last turn, that of the Hosang is 5/6 and was 2/5 last turn.
I really hope this comes from the DL as I think it makes a lot sense to undock a TF that has clearly drawn the attention of the enemy on it.
Can you say something to that Don?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.484375