Cost/effectiveness of submarines (Full Version)

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



Message

Pharnakes -> Cost/effectiveness of submarines (5/22/2020 11:35:37 AM)

After doing some play testing for the latest BTS as Japan, I got to thinking about how outrageously expensive it is to build submarines as Japan.

Now I'm no historian but I'm reasonably sure that submarines didn't cost 1/2 of a heavy cruiser to build, except perhaps the ridiculous SSCVLs. So how could this be addressed? I've though of a few options but none are perfect, does anyone know if anyone has tried any of this previously and if so how did it turn out for balance?

Option 1.

Reduce durability of all submarines by say 2/3rds. To match reduce effect and range of all DCs by 2/3rds.
This seems like the obvious option, but the downside that I can see is that submarines will no longer be able to bottom out in shallow waters (since I believe endurance is directly related to the submarines dive depth), and thus you will no longer need to make a choice between risking your subs in shallow waters in the DEI or staying safe in deep water but maybe getting less juicy prey. This will also fix the ridiculous scenarios where submarines are forced to surface by DCs then soak up 15+ 5" hits whilst merrily torpedoing the convoy ships before they finally sink.

Option 2.

Reduce durability of submarines by 2/3rds, reduce effect of DCs by 2/3rds but leave range alone.
I think this will result in allied subs no longer being able to hide deeper than Japanese DCs can reach, but will maybe preserve the risk/reward of hunting in shallow waters, except subs might not be able to bottom out even in shallow water making the distinction meaningless anyway.

Option 3.

Reduce durability of Japanese SSs only, reduce stats of Allied DCs only.
This seems to me probably the best compromise, Allied SS can still hide deep, which is never really an option for the Japanese in the first place. Downside is Allied SSs will still be brick ****houses on the surface. More significantly Allied ASW air patrols will presumably be substantially more deadly. Unfortunately I don't think there's anything to be done about that since ASW missions drop GP bombs rather than DCs I think? Is there a way to set the ASW loadout of an airframe specifically? Probably not, I think they just use the ER loadout.

Option 4.
Crazy option, leave SS durability as is, instead triple durability of everything else, then triple Japanese economy to match, then triple oil output, triple tanker capacity, triple effect of every none ASW weapon in the game, uhhh no. Perhaps actually secretly the best way to do it but not practical to resolve all the knock on effects.


Even with a 2/3rds reduction I suspect submarines will probably be still 2-3 times more expensive than they should be compared to DDs, but the more you reduce the durability the harder it is going to be to compensate. Since I would guess a decent rule of thumb for a medium SS to cost around half as much as a modern DD, putting their durability to 3-5 would be impossible to compensate for I suspect, and would probably totally screw up their vulnerability to aerial attack,not to mention remove a lot of granularity to distinguish between classes.

Really I just wish they had coded in the depth of submarines separately, rather than trying to bundle it in with edurability.



Alfred -> RE: Cost/effectiveness of submarines (5/23/2020 8:57:56 AM)

Four ideas and not a single one which is compatible with the game design.  As presented implementation of each one would seriously unbalance many other game aspects.  All for why, the unsupported premise that Japanese submarine construction cost less and a complete misunderstanding of what durability represents in the game.  One can't help but draw the conclusion these are the musings of a Japanese fanbois who can't cope with historical limitations which make it difficult for him to show up how Tojo and Yamamoto would have won the war if only they had followed his plans.

These facts will be disregarded by the OP because they don't suit his narrative even though he couches it in terms of historical outcomes.

1.  The VPs balance will be seriously distorted.  That directly impacts on the hard coded game victory conditions.

2.  Most of the options will greatly assist in the Japanese economy.  Due to the need to abstract it for game playability purposes, this will just turbo boost Japanese capabilities with no compensation to the Allied side.

3.  The port loading and unloading rates are not compatible with the turbo boosted economy.

4.  No reason with all the surplus outputs from even an "unchanged" economy , that even more military hardware would not be produced, way beyond what Japan was historically capably of.

5.  There is no depth in AE.  All that is abstracted is either shallow or ocean hex.  There is therefore no basis for any concern about "diving".

6.  Nor is there any validity to complaining about Allied ships shooting their turreted guns at IJN subs.  Read the manual for the explanation and inform yourself about how much time did WWII subs spend on the surface compared to underwater.



Some free advice.  Don't assume the AE devs were stupid or lacked detailed knowledge of the subject, largely gained from their own day job.  There is a reason why everything has the relationship it has.

Alfred 



Pharnakes -> RE: Cost/effectiveness of submarines (5/25/2020 7:55:04 PM)

I'm sorry, is this the wrong place to discuss modding? Why does this forum exist if not to talk about how the game could be changed?

You seem weirdly personally offended by this, by leaving that aside.

Yamato to build at full rate take 233 points per day. The cheapest subs in the build order are the SSTs at 22 points a day. This would mean that one days effort of building 10.5 subs would be the same effort as could go into building Yamato. That really seems off to me.

Durability of submarines on the surface.

Are you really saying you think it is reasonable for a submarine to be depth charged, forced to surface, then torpedo 3 transports in a convoy (reloading tubes to do so) whilst needing 20 or more 5" shells to finally sink? Find me a source where that or anything even vaguely approaching that happened and I will grovellingly apologise.



Andy Mac -> RE: Cost/effectiveness of submarines (5/25/2020 9:57:33 PM)

I think the point would be there are too many know on implications to the balance of the game to implement any of the solutions - it may be subs are ok and CA's are seriously under costed !!

At this point in the games development ie 10 years post release I don't think this is a solvable problem - if I agree its a problem and I am not sure I do - at this point the Japanese economy in marginal hands can over produce anything it wants so I am not sure this issue would be top of anyones improvement list - however if this is your burning bridge issue then do a mod and test it to see if the outcome comes out as you hope - my only counsel would be to watch for the unintended consequences.

I remember I made a simple change of some Fighter Bombers to Attack Bombers - Alfred warned me about messing about in areas that were not my own - and he was right - he knows more about the game than I do and I was one of the designers !!!



Nomad -> RE: Cost/effectiveness of submarines (5/26/2020 12:46:16 AM)

What happened when you made Fighter bombers Attack Bombers?



Andy Mac -> RE: Cost/effectiveness of submarines (5/26/2020 12:53:33 AM)

Became a wee bit too effective so I changed them back because air was not my area of expertise



paradigmblue -> RE: Cost/effectiveness of submarines (5/26/2020 3:27:02 AM)

Andy, do you know of any way of increasing the pilot cap from 70k to a higher value?



Alfred -> RE: Cost/effectiveness of submarines (5/26/2020 3:42:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

Andy, do you know of any way of increasing the pilot cap from 70k to a higher value?


Not possible at all. It is hard coded.

Alfred



paradigmblue -> RE: Cost/effectiveness of submarines (5/26/2020 3:48:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

Andy, do you know of any way of increasing the pilot cap from 70k to a higher value?


Not possible at all. It is hard coded.

Alfred


Thanks Alfred, that's what I was afraid of. I seem to remember that at some point in WitP's history the pilot cap was raised from 50k to 70k, so I was holding out hope that another change was possible.



Alfred -> RE: Cost/effectiveness of submarines (5/26/2020 4:48:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

Andy, do you know of any way of increasing the pilot cap from 70k to a higher value?


Not possible at all. It is hard coded.

Alfred


Thanks Alfred, that's what I was afraid of. I seem to remember that at some point in WitP's history the pilot cap was raised from 50k to 70k, so I was holding out hope that another change was possible.


That cap raising was not made without some trepidation. To raise it any further requires recoding which will not happen. There are other consequences, not of a good nature, which would ensue from any further increase above 70k. So whilst it was ultimately decided that the consequences of increasing from 50k to 70k were tolerable, above 70k is another matter.

If you want an inkling of one of the issues involved, search for Hans Bolter's problem a few months ago of not being able to replace airframes. That was with the 70k cap let alone a higher one.

Alfred



Alfred -> RE: Cost/effectiveness of submarines (5/26/2020 5:14:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pharnakes

I'm sorry, is this the wrong place to discuss modding? Why does this forum exist if not to talk about how the game could be changed?

You seem weirdly personally offended by this, by leaving that aside.

Yamato to build at full rate take 233 points per day. The cheapest subs in the build order are the SSTs at 22 points a day. This would mean that one days effort of building 10.5 subs would be the same effort as could go into building Yamato. That really seems off to me.

Durability of submarines on the surface.

Are you really saying you think it is reasonable for a submarine to be depth charged, forced to surface, then torpedo 3 transports in a convoy (reloading tubes to do so) whilst needing 20 or more 5" shells to finally sink? Find me a source where that or anything even vaguely approaching that happened and I will grovellingly apologise.


I had a long reply which was destroyed by the system, so here is the short with further explanation.

All the points I made regarding unbalancing the game are overlooked by you. Instead of acknowledging that other things would need to be tweaked, things which do not benefit Japan, you again come back to your myopic pet peev. Disregard what doesn't aid your narrative.

You really are ignorant of how the game plays, how the abstractions are necessary. Even the above reference of sinking transports is not correct, but heck why bother with how the game plays when you can invent your own "facts" which aid your myopic focus.

The AE development naval team leader is a qualified naval architect and that development took years of effort. What relevant qualifications do you hold? Yet you represent the naval team leader (and by association the rest of the naval team too) as an idiot who didn't know what he was doing. A wise modder instead stops and tries to understand why such a qualified individual was prepared to sign off the design as is.

Instead what we get is unwarranted criticism which tarnishes the game's reputation and consequently sales. One which will result in an appalling mod which after expending playing time, players will realise it is unplayable or at the very least, bears no resemblance to the actual capabilities and performance of the real combatants. It is one of the worst things for a PBEM player to spend a lot of time playing AE to only find his opponent just walks away when they conclude it is no longer playable, either because the fortunes of war are not going in their favour or the scenario itself is just unacceptably unbalanced.

Alfred



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875