Underway Replenishment Test

Underway Replenishment Test (Full Version)

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

Message

Bullwinkle58 -> Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 3:54:24 PM)
In response to another thread currently active concerning 1945 AE underway replenishment of naval ammunition I ran some tests. This feature of the game is not well-documented in the manual. For a long time I, and others, have believed and stated that only 5-inch and smaller ammunition would be replenished by Allied-only, AEs-only, from 1/1/45 onward. However, this old post from Don Bowen, naval coder on the dev team, refutes that: "Late in the war, AEs were equipped for transfer of ammunition to ships at sea. Prior to that, AEs could only transfer to ships when they were alongside in a port. The only difference between AE and AKE is this late war underway rearmament. AEs and AKEs come in all sizes, with only the larger ones having the capability of handling the shells for the really big guns. We wanted to allow small AE/AKE for rearmament of smaller warships without creating a "cheat" where an incredibly small ship could handle the largest ammo. This was implemented using the total cargo capacity. In this regard, total cargo capacity stands in for the magazine size and protection, cranes and elevators, hatch sizes, deck reinforcement, and all the other items involved in carrying and issuing ammunition. This check on total cargo capacity is in addition to the supply requirement for actual issue of ammunition. Basically, total cargo capacity indicates the ability to carry ammunition of a certain size and supply on board indicates if any ammunition is actually being carried. " Don Bowen http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3543680&mpage=1&key=AEs? (Font size embellishment mine.) But how, exactly, does onboard supply relate to replenishment capability? So I ran some tests. ----------------------------------------------------------- I used the Downfall scenario for all tests. It takes place in 1945 when AEs may unrep ammo. It uses the same EXE as a GC game. 1. First set of tests. Based from Guam. A. I used the editor to unload just USS New Jersey. All guns were unloaded to 2 rounds, except the 20mm, which I left alone. So this was main battery 16 in, 5 in, and the 40MMs. I formed NJ into a Surface TF, moved her one hex west of Guam, and Remained. I formed a Replenishment TF of just Mt. Baker, a 5400 point supply AE. Loaded her, moved her to New Jersey's hex with Remain. Ordered New Jersey to Replenish. Result: fuel transferred (minor quantity.) No ammunition of any caliber moved. NJ remained as before. Mt. Baker remained with 5400 supply onboard. B. Same as above, but added USS Shasta, a second 5400 supply AE. Combined to one Replenishment TF. Ordered NJ to Replenish. Result: no ammo of any caliber moved. C. Added USS Mazana. 5400 supply. Result: no ammo moved. D. Added USS Ranier. 5400 supply. Result: no ammo moved. E. Added USS Lassen. 5400 supply. Result: no ammo moved. F. Removed all AEs. Loaded and sent AE USS Firedrake, a 6400 supply capacity AE. Ordered New Jersey to Replenish just from this one, larger, AE. Result: no ammo moved. Conclusions from first set of tests: a. Surprise b. Wondering if use of editor somehow "broke" algorithm c. Wondering if there is a threshold demand level on taking vessel below which AEs cannot service without port help. 2. Second set of tests. Clean Downfall. Based from Guam. A. Did not use editor. Formed three Bombardment TFs. DD Ault, CA Boston, BB Iowa. Fully loaded with ammo and fuel at Guam. Each ordered to go to HaHa-Jima and bombard. B. Sent loaded AE Ranier to Remain just south of HaHa-Jima. C. DD Ault bombarded. Met AE Rainier, Replenished. Full ammo load resulted. D. Reloaded save to pre-bombardment point where AE was pristine. Sent CA Boston to bombard. She met AE Ranier. Replenished. Full ammo, including expended 8 inch, replenished. E. Reloaded to pre-bombardment point. Sent BB Iowa to bombard. She met AE Ranier. Ammo loads pre-replenish as follows: 7 (13) 16 inch 7(13) 16 inch 30(30) 5 inch 28(30) 5 inch 36(36) all remaining AA Post Replenish: All ammo reloaded. Condition of AE Ranier: Supply 5400 --> 4812 3. Third round of tests. A. Same general set-up as above. HaHa-Jima, etc. However, this time only BB Iowa used. Ordered to stay on station after bombardment. Total of three rounds of bombardment performed. Ammo loads after three rounds of bombardment: 2(13) 2(13) 28(30) 28(30) 36(36) all AA B. Ordered AE Ranier to Replenish. Result: no ammo loaded of any caliber. 310 ops points expended by BB Iowa taking fuel from Ranier's bunkers. Conclusions of Rounds 2 and 3: a. 5 inch and smaller belief in forum clearly untrue (see CA Boston) b. 16 inch will reload in some cases c. There seems to be a break-point somewhere between 7(13) and 2(13) 16 inch whereby the AE is "frozen out" and does no replenishing. 4. Fourth round of tests. A. Using above set-up as base, left BB Iowa at 2(13), etc. level, off Ha-Ha-Jima. To eliminate ops points from Ranier for refuel, loaded 12,950 AO Pautuxent at Guam and met new AE Mt. Baker, which had not tried any ammo ops in this test run. Merged to form 2-ship Replenishment TF. Moved BB Iowa into their hex. B. Ordered BB Iowa to Replenish. Result: no ammo loaded to Iowa of any caliber. Iowa refueled from AO. AO supply from 12950 ---> 12,799. AE supply 5400 ---> 5400 BB Iowa ops points 250 after refuel. Overall conclusions: a. In certain cases underway replenishment of large caliber ammo is possible. There is an unknown break-point between moderate need and severe need on 16 inch ammo whereby even a large collection of AE capacity will not service. b. If below this break point, even 5inch and small caliber AA ammo will not replenish, leaving the large caliber demand unfilled. No ammo moves at all, although fuel does, from both an AE or an AO in company.

Lokasenna -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 4:22:44 PM)
Perhaps it is looking at the total load cost of the missing ammo and "breaking"? When Iowa replenished that ammo, it was 588 points' worth. Can't check right now, but does 588 points match the supplies that would be expended to replenish her at a port for that amount of ammo? I remember that check on maximum ammo size able to be reloaded from an AE/AKE based on the size of the tender's hold - I wonder if maybe it is checking against the total reload cost for the ship instead of just the biggest gun? Just a wild guess.

Yaab -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 4:24:08 PM)
Clearly the devs had mercy on Japs in 1945.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 4:45:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna Perhaps it is looking at the total load cost of the missing ammo and "breaking"? When Iowa replenished that ammo, it was 588 points' worth. Can't check right now, but does 588 points match the supplies that would be expended to replenish her at a port for that amount of ammo? I remember that check on maximum ammo size able to be reloaded from an AE/AKE based on the size of the tender's hold - I wonder if maybe it is checking against the total reload cost for the ship instead of just the biggest gun? Just a wild guess. Something like that, yeah. I don't know the supply point "weight" of one "cycle" (1 of 13) of 16inch ammo. I don't even know, or really need to care, how much pound weight or number of shells one "cycle" of 16inch totals to. It's in abstraction-land, and so far as hits and damage inflicted is also in the same abstraction-land all is apples-to-apples. Two things really surprised me here. 1. When the New Jersey was flat out of ammo, even a gaggle of 5400 AEs didn't help. 2. Even if they couldn't load 16inch, they also refused to fill the 40MM magazines. It looks like a top-down check, not a bottom-up. Given that ammo unreps' main use in the game is to hold the line on kamis in the late game near the HI, this is distressing.

Yaab -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 5:58:25 PM)
What about the OP points in each BB in those tests? I guess the AE ships start the replenishment process with full allowance of OP points. BBs may start the process with reduced amount of OP points. Also, maybe the ships with lower ID get replenished first, leaving the BBs lacking time to replenish. Also, BBs may have used more ammo --- bigger guns, greater range, more rounds fired in the game?

Lokasenna -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 6:26:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab What about the OP points in each BB in those tests? I guess the AE ships start the replenishment process with full allowance of OP points. BBs may start the process with reduced amount of OP points. Also, maybe the ships with lower ID get replenished first, leaving the BBs lacking time to replenish. Also, BBs may have used more ammo --- bigger guns, greater range, more rounds fired in the game? I think he conducted the test with single-ship TFs, which would eliminate other ships getting in the way. 250 Ops points burned for replenishing is a standard minimum. Up to a certain point, it doesn't matter how much fuel and such is transferred between ships - it'll burn 250 Ops. Did you sail for a single day then decide to refuel? 250 ops. Sail for a few days and it's still under the threshold for it to use more than 250 Ops? It still costs 250. quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna Perhaps it is looking at the total load cost of the missing ammo and "breaking"? When Iowa replenished that ammo, it was 588 points' worth. Can't check right now, but does 588 points match the supplies that would be expended to replenish her at a port for that amount of ammo? I remember that check on maximum ammo size able to be reloaded from an AE/AKE based on the size of the tender's hold - I wonder if maybe it is checking against the total reload cost for the ship instead of just the biggest gun? Just a wild guess. Something like that, yeah. I don't know the supply point "weight" of one "cycle" (1 of 13) of 16inch ammo. I don't even know, or really need to care, how much pound weight or number of shells one "cycle" of 16inch totals to. It's in abstraction-land, and so far as hits and damage inflicted is also in the same abstraction-land all is apples-to-apples. Two things really surprised me here. 1. When the New Jersey was flat out of ammo, even a gaggle of 5400 AEs didn't help. 2. Even if they couldn't load 16inch, they also refused to fill the 40MM magazines. It looks like a top-down check, not a bottom-up. Given that ammo unreps' main use in the game is to hold the line on kamis in the late game near the HI, this is distressing. It sounds like a bug. Sometimes ships will replenish, other times they won't.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 6:45:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab What about the OP points in each BB in those tests? I guess the AE ships start the replenishment process with full allowance of OP points. BBs may start the process with reduced amount of OP points. Also, maybe the ships with lower ID get replenished first, leaving the BBs lacking time to replenish. Also, BBs may have used more ammo --- bigger guns, greater range, more rounds fired in the game? If you closely read my post you'll see answers to these questions.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 6:49:19 PM)
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: 2. Even if they couldn't load 16inch, they also refused to fill the 40MM magazines. It looks like a top-down check, not a bottom-up. Given that ammo unreps' main use in the game is to hold the line on kamis in the late game near the HI, this is distressing. quote: It sounds like a bug. Sometimes ships will replenish, other times they won't. In the trial where the DD, CA, and BB each did a one-off bombardment of HaHa-Jima they each only expended about 30-50%% of their loads, and each replenished. But when the BB went deep into the magazines, down to 2(13) on main, nothing. Even with a 6400 AE, with 16inch reload from the table at 5400 minimum, nothing. Something happens between 7(13) and 2(13.)

dave sindel -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 6:49:38 PM)
Thanks for doing this testing Moose. And for posting the results and analysis. Had to have been time-consuming. Is it something MichaelM should look at do you think?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 6:50:25 PM)
An oops

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 6:53:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dave sindel Thanks for doing this testing Moose. And for posting the results and analysis. Had to have been time-consuming. Is it something MichaelM should look at do you think? I don't think it's necessarily broken, but I also don't think there's any good place to go to understand the mechanism. I searched a number of ways on the topic and got lots of hits, but other than the Don Bowen posts I pasted nothing from a dev. Not saying there aren't any more, but I didn't find them. Alfred's new manual ought to cover this I would think. So many Allied players have never seen 1945 that it's not a top subject here in the forum. But I know from AI games that it's a really important mechanism in the late game if you do get there.

ny59giants -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 7:19:56 PM)
I wonder if super-sizing the AE would help eliminate that factor? Say from 6400 to 9400. Have the replenish TF ordered to meet, follow and re-fuel, and do a two day cycle to see if there is something else going on.

Lokasenna -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 7:23:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: 2. Even if they couldn't load 16inch, they also refused to fill the 40MM magazines. It looks like a top-down check, not a bottom-up. Given that ammo unreps' main use in the game is to hold the line on kamis in the late game near the HI, this is distressing. quote: It sounds like a bug. Sometimes ships will replenish, other times they won't. In the trial where the DD, CA, and BB each did a one-off bombardment of HaHa-Jima they each only expended about 30-50%% of their loads, and each replenished. But when the BB went deep into the magazines, down to 2(13) on main, nothing. Even with a 6400 AE, with 16inch reload from the table at 5400 minimum, nothing. Something happens between 7(13) and 2(13.) My guess is that it's the total load cost for it, either in terms of being too much for the AE (unlikely) or too much for the ship to do in one turn. So it could perhaps be an Ops limitation - since the ship can't fully reload in 1000 Ops, it just isn't reloading at all. This could be "WAD" in the sense that it could be meant to protect you from burning all of your Ops on just reloading ammo. After thinking of that, I'd bet it's an Ops thing. Since it can't be fully rearmed in 1000 Ops or less, it is just doing nothing.

Lokasenna -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 7:23:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants I wonder if super-sizing the AE would help eliminate that factor? Say from 6400 to 9400. Have the replenish TF ordered to meet, follow and re-fuel, and do a two day cycle to see if there is something else going on. Doing this would eliminate it as a potential cause. Change it from 5400 to 20000, just to see.

BBfanboy -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 8:49:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: 2. Even if they couldn't load 16inch, they also refused to fill the 40MM magazines. It looks like a top-down check, not a bottom-up. Given that ammo unreps' main use in the game is to hold the line on kamis in the late game near the HI, this is distressing. quote: It sounds like a bug. Sometimes ships will replenish, other times they won't. In the trial where the DD, CA, and BB each did a one-off bombardment of HaHa-Jima they each only expended about 30-50%% of their loads, and each replenished. But when the BB went deep into the magazines, down to 2(13) on main, nothing. Even with a 6400 AE, with 16inch reload from the table at 5400 minimum, nothing. Something happens between 7(13) and 2(13.) My guess is that it's the total load cost for it, either in terms of being too much for the AE (unlikely) or too much for the ship to do in one turn. So it could perhaps be an Ops limitation - since the ship can't fully reload in 1000 Ops, it just isn't reloading at all. This could be "WAD" in the sense that it could be meant to protect you from burning all of your Ops on just reloading ammo. After thinking of that, I'd bet it's an Ops thing. Since it can't be fully rearmed in 1000 Ops or less, it is just doing nothing. That's what I was thinking - the 1000 ops points is necessary for the AE - not the BB. If the AE moved one hex from Guam to meet the BB, it used some of its ops point and would have to wait a day to try replenish. I could see the developers setting that kind of restriction to keep the AE from reloading a number of BBs in a single day.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 9:05:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna My guess is that it's the total load cost for it, either in terms of being too much for the AE (unlikely) or too much for the ship to do in one turn. So it could perhaps be an Ops limitation - since the ship can't fully reload in 1000 Ops, it just isn't reloading at all. This could be "WAD" in the sense that it could be meant to protect you from burning all of your Ops on just reloading ammo. After thinking of that, I'd bet it's an Ops thing. Since it can't be fully rearmed in 1000 Ops or less, it is just doing nothing. You're probably right, but it would be nice if it would go bottom-up and give me some AA. Up to half ops or something. Else the AEs are really not that useful in 1945. The one trial where I got the 16inch to replenish gives a "per cycle" read on AE supply usage. I didn't look at ops points on that one though.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 9:07:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants I wonder if super-sizing the AE would help eliminate that factor? Say from 6400 to 9400. Have the replenish TF ordered to meet, follow and re-fuel, and do a two day cycle to see if there is something else going on. Doing this would eliminate it as a potential cause. Change it from 5400 to 20000, just to see. The 6400 didn't push any shells either. I'd bet it's the pulling ship at fault here.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 9:08:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy That's what I was thinking - the 1000 ops points is necessary for the AE - not the BB. If the AE moved one hex from Guam to meet the BB, it used some of its ops point and would have to wait a day to try replenish. I could see the developers setting that kind of restriction to keep the AE from reloading a number of BBs in a single day. In the tests the AE always did wait a day. I moved the TFs together, set Remain on both, ran a day forward , and then hand-ordered the BB to take. One reason the BB always wanted to take fuel too. You can't separate the two operations.

Lokasenna -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 9:17:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy That's what I was thinking - the 1000 ops points is necessary for the AE - not the BB. If the AE moved one hex from Guam to meet the BB, it used some of its ops point and would have to wait a day to try replenish. I could see the developers setting that kind of restriction to keep the AE from reloading a number of BBs in a single day. In the tests the AE always did wait a day. I moved the TFs together, set Remain on both, ran a day forward , and then hand-ordered the BB to take. One reason the BB always wanted to take fuel too. You can't separate the two operations. Yes, I actually meant the Ops points on the day of replenishing not on the day they sailed to the same hex. If they started in the same hex, they'd have used 0 Ops each before the replenish attempt. It would be nice if there were a "rearm TF" button, similar to how there is now replenish/rearm in the port screen, but where would you put it?

BBfanboy -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 9:20:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy That's what I was thinking - the 1000 ops points is necessary for the AE - not the BB. If the AE moved one hex from Guam to meet the BB, it used some of its ops point and would have to wait a day to try replenish. I could see the developers setting that kind of restriction to keep the AE from reloading a number of BBs in a single day. In the tests the AE always did wait a day. I moved the TFs together, set Remain on both, ran a day forward , and then hand-ordered the BB to take. One reason the BB always wanted to take fuel too. You can't separate the two operations. The only idea I have left is what you said - the algorithm is not working as it should. It seems to be just the Iowa class BBs that cause the issue? That would imply that the data for that class is borked in the underway replenishment calculations. PS- new thought - is weather a factor in any of the results?

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 9:52:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy That's what I was thinking - the 1000 ops points is necessary for the AE - not the BB. If the AE moved one hex from Guam to meet the BB, it used some of its ops point and would have to wait a day to try replenish. I could see the developers setting that kind of restriction to keep the AE from reloading a number of BBs in a single day. In the tests the AE always did wait a day. I moved the TFs together, set Remain on both, ran a day forward , and then hand-ordered the BB to take. One reason the BB always wanted to take fuel too. You can't separate the two operations. The only idea I have left is what you said - the algorithm is not working as it should. It seems to be just the Iowa class BBs that cause the issue? That would imply that the data for that class is borked in the underway replenishment calculations. PS- new thought - is weather a factor in any of the results? Weather is not a factor. It should be for underway refueling from Turn 1 if in RL, but it isn't. Same for ammo. I used Iowas because I wanted pure 16inchers. No 14inchers from the old slow BBs. The debate in the other thread centered around the 5400 reload cost of 16in ammo, so I went there. I don't think the algo is broken; I think it's doing what Loka says. The pulling ship's ops points control. But the algo is maybe not as useful as it could be if it consumed ops points from smallest caliber to largest. First 20MM, then 40MM, then 5inch, then 16inch.

Alfred -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 10:53:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: dave sindel Thanks for doing this testing Moose. And for posting the results and analysis. Had to have been time-consuming. Is it something MichaelM should look at do you think? I don't think it's necessarily broken, but I also don't think there's any good place to go to understand the mechanism. I searched a number of ways on the topic and got lots of hits, but other than the Don Bowen posts I pasted nothing from a dev. Not saying there aren't any more, but I didn't find them. Alfred's new manual ought to cover this I would think. So many Allied players have never seen 1945 that it's not a top subject here in the forum. But I know from AI games that it's a really important mechanism in the late game if you do get there. There are more than 20 relevant posts from Don Bowen and JWE/Symon when I stopped counting plus 2 from michaelm. The best posts were made on: Don Bowen 4 Aug 2009 18 Aug 2009 3 April 2011 JWE 29 Mar 2009 12 Sept 2009 8 July 2010 Both in this and in particular the other thread there has been some very erroneous statements made. I was going to continue with my recent policy of not bothering to waste my time giving the correct answer but as Bullwinkle has gone to this effort I have partly relented. 1. On what I have seen disclosed, I am not convinced there is a bug with the at sea rearming code per se. It seems to be behaving in general accordance with how the devs have explained it in the past. There is some key data not presented which would make this clearer and which I touch upon below. 2. If the undisclosed data is not what I think it is, there is a possibility that a bug exists with bombardment task forces and that bug was introduced (or perhaps "awakened") with the change made in an early patch which introduced min distance/escorts not bombard etc aimed at conserving anti-aircraft ammo (which covers dedicated AA weapons and DP guns). 3. OP is a key factor in the process. Contrary to what some say, both the dispensing and receiving ships expend OP. The rate of expenditure is never completely visible to the player (one needs access to the code) and no dev has ever disclosed any OP expenditure rate for any action which consumes OP. 4. Contrary to what others have said in the other thread, small weapons have never been replenished first before the big guns. Look at the weapon system of any ship class and you will always find the "big" weapon system in weapon slot #1 and the descending weapon slots are occupied in order by decreasing "big" weapon systems. The rearming code first looks at slot #1 and proceeds downwards. (this is where the possibility arises of a bug associated with the bombardment change). 5. Much inaccuracy was also posted in the other thread re size of tenders required. There are two checks: threshold cost (a) Threshold check Does the tender have on board supply points greater than or equal to the Rearm Cost of the "biggest" weapon (IOW the first weapon slot which needs ammo). If threshold check is passed, then all weapons including the "biggest", are rearmed. If threshold check is failed, then proceed to next "biggest" (as per weapon slot). Note there is no backtracking involved and again the bombardment TF change comes into play. (b) Cost check A successful threshold check then proceeds to both consume on board tender supply points (see point 6 below) as weapons are rearmed and in turn makes passing the threshold check more difficult subsequently as the tender will now have less supply points on board. 6. The rearm cost is detailed in the manual. For naval guns it is 2x the effect value. Thus the 16in/50 Mkk7 of the Iowa class has a rearm cost of 5400. They therefore need an AE/AKE with a cargo capacity of 5400 and have on board 5400 supply points. Once the tender has rearmed any weapon on an Iowa class, it will have dipped below the threshold check (see point 7) and cannot rearm the rifles of any other Iowa. 7. The amount of supply points consumed in rearming (there is a 2013 post from me on this) is: [(Rearm Cost)(Number of Guns)(Ammo per Gun)]/2000 So if all 9 rifles on an Iowa expend 2 shells, and no other weapon system fires, the consumption is (5400)(9)(2)/2000 = 48.6 supply points. Rounded up to 49, the tender will dip from holding 5400 supply points down to 5351 supply points (and hence failing the threshold check subsequently) 8. Just as OP expenditure rates have never been disclosed, the order in which ships within a TF are checked for rearming has also never been disclosed. 9. Refueling always gets done before rearming. In fact a port with zero fuel points is intended to not allow rearming. The recoding effort to alter that was not considered to be warranted. Alfred

Lokasenna -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/9/2016 10:53:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy That's what I was thinking - the 1000 ops points is necessary for the AE - not the BB. If the AE moved one hex from Guam to meet the BB, it used some of its ops point and would have to wait a day to try replenish. I could see the developers setting that kind of restriction to keep the AE from reloading a number of BBs in a single day. In the tests the AE always did wait a day. I moved the TFs together, set Remain on both, ran a day forward , and then hand-ordered the BB to take. One reason the BB always wanted to take fuel too. You can't separate the two operations. The only idea I have left is what you said - the algorithm is not working as it should. It seems to be just the Iowa class BBs that cause the issue? That would imply that the data for that class is borked in the underway replenishment calculations. PS- new thought - is weather a factor in any of the results? Weather is not a factor. It should be for underway refueling from Turn 1 if in RL, but it isn't. Same for ammo. I used Iowas because I wanted pure 16inchers. No 14inchers from the old slow BBs. The debate in the other thread centered around the 5400 reload cost of 16in ammo, so I went there. I don't think the algo is broken; I think it's doing what Loka says. The pulling ship's ops points control. But the algo is maybe not as useful as it could be if it consumed ops points from smallest caliber to largest. First 20MM, then 40MM, then 5inch, then 16inch. Pay attention when rearming 16" guns in port. It often uses the full Ops of the ship, and doesn't even load completely in a single day. My guess is that it's trying to rearm from the AE, seeing that 11 rounds of 16" ammo for all the gun devices is more than 1000 Ops, and saying, "Nope."

sstevens06 -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/10/2016 12:12:08 AM)
Thank you Bullwinkle58 for the tests, and thank you Alfred for the detailed explanation.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/10/2016 1:16:15 AM)
Placeholder for Alfred response. Can't tonight, but I think there may be an issue now that Alfred has confirmed checks are made from Slot 1 south. In the first run, with an almost-empty New Jersey, not one shell of any kind was sent from a pristine, 5400 AE with 5400 supply on-board. IOW, no 40MM when the 40MM inventories on New Jersey were at 2(36.) My format may have not made that clear.

John B. -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/10/2016 1:44:54 AM)
very interesting. It seems that underway replenishment mainly concentrated on ammunition for AA guns and aircraft. It does not appear that BBs rearmed at sea with large caliber ammunition so any limitations that the game places on using AEs to re-arm the Iowas seems pretty realistic. "From 22 March to 27 May [during the battle of Okinawa] the five ammunition ships of Service Squadron Six--Wrangell, Shasta, Lassen, Mauna Loa, and Vesuvius--in a total of 106 days servicing, delivered a daly average of 143 tons, making a total of 15,159 tons. . . The types of ammunition issued 22 March-27 May indicate the demands: 77,482 5-inch, 38-caliber projectiles; 34,773 5-inch rockets; 119 2,000-pound bombs, G.P.; 65 1,000-pound bombs, G.P.; 280 1,000-pound bombs, G.P.; 100 500-pound bombs, S.A.P.; 3,671 250-pound bombs, G.P.; 18,579 100-pound bombs, G.P.; 83 torpedoes A/C/; 810 depth charges; 289 arbors." http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/BBBO/BBBO-28.html (extensive article on US Navy logistics in WWII by Rear Admiral Carter) Shore bombardment ships (which I presume includes BBs) rearmed at the anchorage at Korama Retto. Id. Also note the average transfer rate per day of 143 tons. The Iowa class battleship held about 1,200 16" shells in storage. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php. Weighing in at slightly more than one ton per shell it would take the five AEs at the average rates listed more than a week to rearm one Iowa that had shot off most of her main battery shells. Even with surge rearming it would take several days to rearm just the main batteries. Since use of the 16" guns was fairly infrequent in WWII (as opposed to the game) compared to the daily use of AA ammo and aircraft bombs it makes all kinds of sense that the Navy would not have the AEs equipped to transfer 16" shells. Other Fun facts, the first underway replenishment in wartime took place in 1917 under the watchful eye of then Chief Engineer Chester Nimitz. the first at-sea transfer of ammunition was on February 23, 1945 to the CV Bennington. The Carrier TFs would spend 2 days attacking Japan and then meet up with underway replenishment group and line up for 40 miles each ship refueling, breaking away, rearming, breaking away, and then re victualing and breaking away to return to attack Japan. http://www.sname.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=f44b637e-c251-4e00-9460-f1cc2f9a1d1b

geofflambert -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/10/2016 2:02:19 AM)
By the way, Bullwinkle58, thank you for doing the playtests.

rustysi -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/10/2016 3:03:29 AM)
Thanks Bull, Alfred.

BBfanboy -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/10/2016 4:15:18 AM)
I am still confused about Alfred's contention that the first (biggest) weapon slot is replenished first. Consistently, when an AE/AKE does not have enough ops points to reload one of my bigger ships (BB, CA) the ship shows ALL the small ammo replenished but the main guns are the ones that have the shortfall. Further, if there are smaller ships in the TF that need replenishing, their ammo gets fully replenished first, ahead of the BB. Is it just that the smaller guns consume so few ops points that all of them can be replenished at less ops point cost than one point of BB main gun ammo? I should add that very often the secondary guns are almost out of ammo from bombardment followed by air attack on the way home. I will look for some examples in my current game to illustrate. I have a mixed BB/CA/DD TF that could be an interesting case study.

Lokasenna -> RE: Underway Replenishment Test (6/10/2016 5:16:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy I am still confused about Alfred's contention that the first (biggest) weapon slot is replenished first. Consistently, when an AE/AKE does not have enough ops points to reload one of my bigger ships (BB, CA) the ship shows ALL the small ammo replenished but the main guns are the ones that have the shortfall. Further, if there are smaller ships in the TF that need replenishing, their ammo gets fully replenished first, ahead of the BB. Is it just that the smaller guns consume so few ops points that all of them can be replenished at less ops point cost than one point of BB main gun ammo? I should add that very often the secondary guns are almost out of ammo from bombardment followed by air attack on the way home. I will look for some examples in my current game to illustrate. I have a mixed BB/CA/DD TF that could be an interesting case study. I think the port replenishment code is working as you would expect, but the at-sea is odd...

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

8.453125