Port capacity? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Buck Beach -> Port capacity? (6/7/2005 7:35:11 PM)

Can I get a couple of ideas from you people for self imposed house rule as to how many ships should be able to be loading per port capacity level?

I hope I haven't ask this question before.



eMonticello -> RE: Port capacity? (6/8/2005 2:00:04 AM)

Here's my swag.

[image]local://upfiles/5926/D4595525A9B047B3A4F13058DD066F0B.jpg[/image]



Griswel -> RE: Port capacity? (6/8/2005 4:48:04 AM)

How bad does this get trying to monitor the rules? Seems easy to overlook (since you'd have to time stuff manually for arrival dates etc).



bradfordkay -> RE: Port capacity? (6/8/2005 8:09:17 AM)

Gary, am I to assume that your chart section entitled "Invasion" limits the number of ships involved in an invasion of that port? In that case, I would recommend dropping that portion of the house rules entirely. Keep in mind that the Normandy invasion brought thousands of ships to a place with a port level 0 (okay, maybe 1). Invasions over beaches involved a lot of ships in order to get enough troops ashore to perform the job.

If I am assuming incorrectly, then it just proves the old adage to be true...



scout1 -> RE: Port capacity? (6/8/2005 1:34:30 PM)

interesting chart for suggested port limitations. Wha do you do with size 10. Using your formula limits these to way less than several start with (Osaka) which has several hundred ....



rtrapasso -> RE: Port capacity? (6/8/2005 3:53:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

interesting chart for suggested port limitations. Wha do you do with size 10. Using your formula limits these to way less than several start with (Osaka) which has several hundred ....



Just as an aside - there was a thread talking about Montgomery that touched on the cargo capacity of the port of Antwerp. The quote in it (from some book touching on the supply shortage of the Allies) said that Antwerp could handle ~1000 ships at a time of 19000 tons, iirc.

Someone claimed that port of SF could only handle a very limited cargo capacity, however, the infamous 60 mile hex would also include places like Oakland, etc. with ports. So your top port capacity may be unrealistically low.

There may be more than one way to measure port capacity, however - no. of ships that can be docked, and the amount of cargo that can be moved/day are probably two different things that are loosely related. The simplistic WITP model isn't going to handle the problem, i think, but you are at least headed in the right direction.



eMonticello -> RE: Port capacity? (6/8/2005 4:01:10 PM)

quote:

How bad does this get trying to monitor the rules? Seems easy to overlook (since you'd have to time stuff manually for arrival dates etc).

Griswel,
I set all supply and resource convoys to "do not unload" and check the ports once a week for any convoys that require unloading. Troop convoys are an exception. Once they arrive at their destination, they will disembark even if it requires that I stop the unloading of other ships. If I miss a few ships, it still can't be any worse than real life when ships were unable to unload due to the Australian longshoremen being on strike.

http://corregidor.org/heritage_battalion/poelau_laut/poelau_laut.html

quote:

Gary, am I to assume that your chart section entitled "Invasion" limits the number of ships involved in an invasion of that port?

Brad,
When I created the rules, I was focused on the early war years. Here is the amended rule: "The invasion force limits are only for AK or AP ships that are unloading troops or supplies in a hostile hex. This limitation does not apply for specialized invasion ships such as LSTs, LSIs, etc."

quote:

Interesting chart for suggested port limitations. What do you do with size 10. Using your formula limits these to way less than several start with (Osaka) which has several hundred ....

Scout,
Size 10 could be viewed as unlimited or, to stay within the rule, a huge convoy would need to be created for the excess ships (of course, they shouldn't be doing anything). Alternatively, the ships could sail to other ports that are rarely visited during a stock game.

Personally, I don't believe there should be any size 10 ports in the Pacific at the beginning of the game for the human player. Against the AI, I reduced SF to size 8, Seattle to Size 6, etc. The only US port that would actually be considered a size 10 in 1941 would be New York. This is based on the available port facilities and monthly measured-tons cargo the ports handled during the war.



bradfordkay -> RE: Port capacity? (6/8/2005 6:58:18 PM)

" quote:

Gary, am I to assume that your chart section entitled "Invasion" limits the number of ships involved in an invasion of that port?


Brad,
When I created the rules, I was focused on the early war years. Here is the amended rule: "The invasion force limits are only for AK or AP ships that are unloading troops or supplies in a hostile hex. This limitation does not apply for specialized invasion ships such as LSTs, LSIs, etc."


I have to disagree with this idea. An amphibious invasion will not use port facilities )in the initial stages at least) as it will be landing over the beach. Thus the size of the port should have no bearing on how many vessels are used in the invasion. What will control the size of the invasion fleet will be the number of troops needed to make an invasion work.



eMonticello -> RE: Port capacity? (6/9/2005 3:18:07 AM)

Brad,

The Port Size is a proxy for the difficulty that the combatants faced when unloading invasion troops and supplies. I'd buy the idea of allowing more transports to unload as the war progressed, but I don't buy the idea of allowing an infinite number of transports to unload in a few days. Besides, using this rule prevents large scale gamey invasions.

If one excludes the landing ships from the limit, then an average of 1.5 AK transports were expected to unload a day at Guadalcanal. At Okinawa, the average was 6 AKA transports unloading a day.

From the Army Green Books...

The Guadalcanal invasion force consisted of 13 AP and 6 AK ships for 1 reinforced combat division. They expected that it would take 4 days to completely unload the supplies on the AKs.

The landings on Kerama Islands, which was planned to be an anchorage for the Okinawa invasion fleet, was carried out by 22 LSTs, 14 LSMs, and 40 LCIs in one convoy and 20 transports (15 APA and 5 AKA) in another convoy. The 77th Division was the combat division used for this invasion.

For the main invasion of Okinawa on 1 April, four combat divisions and two reserve divisions were available for the assault phase. Nearly 374 assault transports and landing ships (96 APA, 41 AKA, 162 LST, 75 LSM) were to depart from 11 different ports. Assault shipping was completely unloaded by 16 April (total 577,040 tons or 36,065 tons per day). Other supplies were scheduled to arrive in 21 shipments at 10-day intervals, with each shipment waiting at the regulating station at Ulitha or Eniwetok until needed. An average of 22,200 tons a day was unloaded between 1 April and 30 June at the main invasion beach (this suggests that AKs take longer to unload).



bradfordkay -> RE: Port capacity? (6/9/2005 7:48:47 AM)

Since Invasions use the "over the beach" unloading rates, there is no need to limit them by proxy. Invasion forces are already limited in how fast they can unload, unless you are expecting that they will capture the port immediately. In that case, you can limit your forces by turning most of your ships to "Do not unload" until port space is opened up.

It's your game, and you can limit yourself how you wish, but I still feel that limiting invasion fleet size by target port size is off the mark. My invasion fleets will be based upon what is necessary to carry the forces I deem needed to make the invasion work. No sense in invading if you aren't bringing enough troops to capture the target - unless you like sacrificing your troops.



tsimmonds -> RE: Port capacity? (6/9/2005 2:19:07 PM)

quote:

What will control the size of the invasion fleet will be the number of troops needed to make an invasion work.

That, plus how fast you want them to unload.



Hortlund -> RE: Port capacity? (6/9/2005 4:10:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Since Invasions use the "over the beach" unloading rates, there is no need to limit them by proxy. Invasion forces are already limited in how fast they can unload, unless you are expecting that they will capture the port immediately. In that case, you can limit your forces by turning most of your ships to "Do not unload" until port space is opened up.

It's your game, and you can limit yourself how you wish, but I still feel that limiting invasion fleet size by target port size is off the mark. My invasion fleets will be based upon what is necessary to carry the forces I deem needed to make the invasion work. No sense in invading if you aren't bringing enough troops to capture the target - unless you like sacrificing your troops.


Not really since it is quite possible in game to create a 1000 ship taskforce, lift an entire 200 000 men army from port A and dump them in swamp-hex b and have all 200 000 men on land the first day.

Your invasion fleets might look how ever you want, that doesnt make it particularily historical though. Nor even physically possible in the real world. But as usual, a houserule trying to limit the gameyness the game allows is met by critizism.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Port capacity? (6/9/2005 6:03:30 PM)

I've always been in favor of limiting the number of ships allowed to be docked and to (un)load simultaneously at a port or dot hex, in order to simulated space restrictions at wharfs and docks, lack of proper cargo handling facilities, dockhands etc. and the limits imposed by Mother Nature on the size of more or less protected anchorage / roadstead.
I distinguish between docked ships (un)loading cargo thus tying up space at wharfes or docks and the total number of ships being docked or disbanded in port. To keep it simple, I now use linear formulars - for (un)loading ops I use 'port size x 5', for the total number of docked or disbanded ships I use the formula 'port size x 10', but modify it at selected locations depending on my 'knowledge' of local geography - places known for small port facilities but huge anchorages can hold up to x100 the port size docked or disbanded (Ulithi lagoon for example), places known for lack of anchorages are restricted to the x5 formula for the total number (Wake, Midway for example). At size 10 anything goes.
So at a size 6 port a can have a total of 60 ships docked or disbanded, 30 of which are allowed to perform loading ops. I form convoys of 5 ships and use the 'unload/don't unload option' to facilitate keeping within the restrictions. This entire process might be artificial and the numbers might still be excessive, but I feel better with this system than with no restrictions at all.

Now, size 0 ports and invasions are more difficult to tackle. There are 'over the beach' unloading rates, okay, but just like with the wharfes and docks etc., WitP doesn't take into account how much suitable beach is available at the objetive for landing troops and supplies - it always assumes that unlimited landing beaches do exist and all ships can unload at the same time at the same rate. The 'beach congestion' that bedeviled most US amphib assaults is something unheard of in WitP. I have settled on a total number of 5 ships docked at friendly size 0, all are allowed to unload. Invasions are handled according to the old PacWar house rule - amphib assaults are limited to a maximum of one division or equivalent smaller units in 1942, two in 43, four in 44, unlimited in 45 unloading at the same time. Not perfect, but better than nothing. Oh, and I'm not a masochist [;)].



bradfordkay -> RE: Port capacity? (6/9/2005 6:23:39 PM)

"But as usual, a houserule trying to limit the gameyness the game allows is met by critizism."

Okay, guys, maybe I'm off here. House rules are those used only by people who agreewith them. This particular house rule will force the players into avoiding invasions against certain bases, since you will not be able to unload enough troops to capture heavily defended bases. Now, since the game allows unrealistic stacking of defensive troops well over an island's actual capacity, enforcing a house rule that limits the number of troops allowed in an invasion thus eliminates those bases from fear of invasion. If you combined that rule with one limiting the size of the occupying garrison of certain islands, I could be agreeable to the rule. But not the rule standing alone.

You will note that I started out questioning the rule, as opposed to criticizing it. When the response seemed to fail to take into account the needs of a successful invasion, I found that I couldn't agree with it. If you're concerned with "gameyness", you have to institute a whole series of house rules to cover all situations, not just a very few. When you insititute only a few rules that don't cover the whole situation, you end up with just as unrealistic a game as you started out with...



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Port capacity? (6/10/2005 2:22:15 PM)

Totally agree, just didn't have the time yesterday to post more elaboratedly. I should have mentioned that a stacking limit house rule should go with the unloading restrictions. In PacWar the usual house rule was maximum of one division or equivalent + engineers as garrison for atolls, on other terrain anything goes. In WitP the same should apply for atolls, but it must be modified to include base forces and supporting arms. Malaria and/or supply consumption already work as restricting factors for overstacking, but there is need for a ceiling factor. Actually I have not put much thought into it as I have played only against the AI, which of course does not adhere to house rules. But well, it needs all the help it can get.
If encountering overstacking, I recommend the 'hit them where they ain't' approach - the Japanese have not enough ground forces to defend everything in strength. The Japanese AI tends to heavily garrison Saipan for example but neglects Tinian and Guam - resulting in two easy conquests for the Allies and a lot of isolated Japanese troops withering on the vine, providing target practice for air groups, new carriers, and surface ships enjoying bombardment runs. If a human opponent elects an all-or-nothing defense of selected points, it's his own fault - given the ever-growing Allied forces, even the most overstacked Japanese base can be bombed and shelled into isolation and starvation.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.8125