quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Leo Tinian had to be considered a size 7 by Feb 1945 because the first bombing mission from there occured then.
"In January of 1945, the 313th Bombardment Wing (6th, 9th, 504th, and 505th Bombardment Groups) under the command of Brig Gen John H. Davies took over the newly-built North Field on Tinian. They took part in a high-altitude daylight raid on Kobe on February 4. "

So it required the Seebees From Aug to Jan to go from 0 to 7. (5 months)

Also damage the airfield 100 percent before you begin. I don't think you are able to expand damaged airfields.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Nice work Leo, thanks.

quote:


The thing is, if you slow down the US engineers you will also slow down the glacial Japanese engineers too ... So the game will still balance out the same, but will be even more "logistically frustrating" for Japan.

Like Mogami says, it's all about denying the B-29 bases not how fast they can be built. As a corollary to this, I actually think it's more important to stop the US getting fighter bases within range of the Home Islands. The B-29 is not a wonder weapon, it can be shot down and will take large op losses coming from the Marianas. Combine it with fighters though (and B-24s/B-17s) and it's kaput time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

quote:

......the Allies capture the airfields they will already be built (but hopefully with massive damage when Allies get them)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

While the construction speed may in fact be too fast, the idea of diminishing returns for stacking is wrong. If Tinian is the size of Manhatten as has been stated, you could fit an extremely large number of engineers there without diminishing returns if you have sufficient materials because the different units could build in seperate areas simultaneously. This is like having 20 ten man crews building 20 houses in the time 1 ten man crew could build 1 house, materials permitting.

By contrast, building over SPS has a relatively low point of diminishing returns because it involves terrain modification. Construction then becomes sequential. This is more akin to building a skyscraper in that multiple processes are taking place in the same space.

Therefore, I believe, the basic model is correct and it is only the speed of individual squads, etc that may be to fast.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

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"

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Nice work Leo, thanks.

The thing is, if you slow down the US engineers you will also slow down the glacial Japanese engineers too ... So the game will still balance out the same, but will be even more "logistically frustrating" for Japan.

Like Mogami says, it's all about denying the B-29 bases not how fast they can be built. As a corollary to this, I actually think it's more important to stop the US getting fighter bases within range of the Home Islands. The B-29 is not a wonder weapon, it can be shot down and will take large op losses coming from the Marianas. Combine it with fighters though (and B-24s/B-17s) and it's kaput time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi A size what (?) port was repaired in 4 days from 100 percent damage by how many engineers?


Is anyone playing Allies in Scenario 15 or 16 or Lemusr 26 getting Pearl Harbor repaired in just 4 days?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

I have read it and even commented in it. Then and now you seem to be unable to understand the difference between simultaneous and sequential construction. They are modelled in the game because they are valid concepts. If the engineers are building too fast it is NOT a stacking issue.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Well, there are some design decisions that might be deemed strange at first sight, as regards SPS levels, and bases (not so much Engineers), but work OK overall.

For instance, many history books state that Tinian airfield complex, when completed, was largest airfield complex in the world at the time. That would mean level 9 or 10 in the game (Mike mentioned 12, perhaps that's not so unrealistic after all), yet in game it's given SPS 4, and largest possible buildup of 7. When looking at extreme examples like these, they should be having SPS of 5-6, starting level 0, and possible buildup of up to 5 or 6 points above SPS, with completely new set of rules applied to them. Obviously, none of us wants any of the additional complexity associated with that (at least I hope so [:D]), so even extreme examples like Saipan/Tinian are shoehorned to work within same system that works for Lunga, or Batavia, or Palau, or any of the miniscule atolls with funny names. Seems like an OK decision to me.

Also, I noted that many base levels are significantly changed from their UV levels. I accept that as the way to abstract base values somewhat. In UV you had some fantastic locations for ports and airbases, as if the writing was on the wall: "Look, this is excellent location for an airbase!! Other locations are NOT nearly as good! Build ME!".

In WITP it's verymuch different (just look at the Lunga, Gili Gili or any other UV base in WITP and note how their values changed *very* significantly, though the airbase rules remained practically the same as in UV). Here, the writing on the wall is: "There are many potential locations for solid bases, but none of them is excellent (except those in Japan and US), and none of them is already built. YOU have to decide what you're going to build into a solid base, by sending whatever engineers you have."

Perhaps the decision to make building apparently fast is made so as to alleviate this issue? Like, in UV Rabaul was IIRC SPS 8/8 or 9/8, easily built to 9/9 even for tiny IJN ENG units. In WITP Rabaul is SPS 5/5 but once you decide THAT is the base you want to build, the building appears to be faster?

O.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

I have read it and even commented in it. Then and now you seem to be unable to understand the difference between simultaneous and sequential construction. They are modelled in the game because they are valid concepts. If the engineers are building too fast it is NOT a stacking issue.

I _DO_ understand the difference - please don't tell me what I do or don't understand (also that is not civilized thing to do in forums).

I am 100% behind what "Nikademus" wrote in that thread (his explanation is even better than mine).

BTW, if you want to put 100 ENG units on one place (exaggerated but possible in UV and WitP) and think it is OK thing to do then this discussion is not needed at all..


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

Of course you are 100% behind what Nikademus wrote since he was agreeing with you. If you can show me any case where any commander turned down an offer of more engineers then you would actually have a point.

Your reply to mjk428 when he (correctly[;)]) pointed out that your Tinian argument was illogical was to repeat the following quote " One woman can have a baby in nine months but nine can't have a baby in one." That indicated to me that you in fact did not understand the difference between sequential and simultaneous. The fact is that the componant parts of an airfield are not structurally interdependant and are in different physical places, therefore if sufficient manpower and materials exist to build all parts at the same time, then they can all be built at the same time. Tinian was a manpower limitation situation in my (and some others) opinion(s).

Slowing down the rate of construction is something that should be addressed, Iagree, but I believe that imposing limitations based on faulty logic is the wrong way to do it. You disagree. However, under the current conditions you can use a house rule to occomplish your goal;while, if you succeed in forcing the change you propose you will be limiting the options of others. It is not my intent to insult you but I strongly believe you are wrong in your reasoning. Anyway, that is my final word on the subject in all probability.