Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 2/11/2003 11:53:26 AM   
Zakhal


Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyväskylä, Finland
Status: offline 		If merchant vessel looses a morale check the player looses the control of the ship for a duration of time? Ship would stay where it is and if enemy forces come close it might surrender.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 61
- 2/13/2003 6:04:55 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]IRL, at any one time numerous merchant ships are "laid up" in every major port, for routine maintenance or necessary repairs. Ships spend a lot more time in ports, and a lot less time at sea, IRL compared to wargames. [/QUOTE]

Quite so. I read somewhere, quite recently, that owing to a variety of reasons, of Japan's surviving merchant capacity at the end of WW2, something like half was laid up awaiting delayed maintenance.

I'd say it's better to make it a simple system. Forget the morale check stuff since it's arbitrary and because it seems not to simulate anything real (unless you specifically mean mutinies).

IMO the best way to do it is to have a random number check if a ship is in port when the port is captured. The ship sails if random (100) < 100-(flot damage+system damage). Ship is otherwise scuttled in port and available for reflotation if not actually destroyed by the scuttling process.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 62
- 2/13/2003 6:09:40 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline 		Why not make a generic set of merchant ships that can be used by either side. If they are taken when the port falls (or whatever the triggering situation is) they switch flags. No need for classes, just call them generic and put in some value for guns. Both side would have a certain number of these vessels and that would change as they are captured.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 63
QQP South Pacific game - 2/14/2003 7:40:28 PM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline 		That game had a capture mechanism that worked pretty well. On the high seas too. If a combat tf ran into a transport tf without escorts the merchies would sometimes put up a fight, sometimes not. some merchies would get sunk, others damaged and captured. It seemed to be a good balance.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 64
- 2/14/2003 11:20:32 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Capture of any vessels by combat vessels on the high seas should be virtually impossible. To do so, a ship had to have boarding parties trained to do it and the means to board. The only kinds of ships that should be able to attempt it are US CVE ASW TFs and Axis auxiliary cruiser-raiders.

Generic container ships is a poor idea. PW pretty much got the model right, AFAIC.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 65
- 3/8/2003 4:02:26 AM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		Three thoughts

1. During the final Japanese assault on Corregidor, the first two Type 95 tanks got stuck on the beach and the IJA platoon leader used a captured M3 Stuart to haul them up the hill to the Golf Course.

2. The IJN tried to raise the radars from the PoWs and Repulse for technology upgrades, especially for gunnery radar.

3. The Japanese took the Browning .50 cal design and produced a series of A/C guns up to 30mm. They also tried (and failed) to create a version of the Garand and the Bofors 40mm.

The Japanese went to war on a string, without the excess industrial capacity to adjust to technology changes and faced the same industrial obsolesence that the Soviets came to after the Brezhnev build up of the '70s left them with the excess to respond to American technology challenges.

By any measure, the only possibility of a Japanese victory, even in a straight up Orange Plan, would be enormous luck, coupled to a complete failure of AMerican morale, USN and USAAF stark incompetence and a diversion of some form of at least 75% of the US's industrial capacity.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 66
It is true about the 4 piper... - 3/9/2003 12:38:22 AM   
elcid

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline 		A US destroyer, thought effectively "scuttled" at Soerabaja, was rebuilt as something like a DE or gunboat, and deployed with the IJN. It is the only US warship in WWII to serve under both US and Japanese flags. There were more than one or two Duch examples of this sort, depending on what counts- including a couple of destroyers. The Thai gunboats were both built and refitted in Japan, but only served in the Thai navy. But TWO Chinese light cruisers had sunk in shallow water (they were really giant river gunboats, intended for shallow operations), and both were raised and served in the IJN - although not as CLs - but as gigantic DEs!!!! The Chinese names were Ning Hai and Ping Hai. The Japanese names were Ioshima and Yasoshima (both of which could be translated "many islands" - they refer to Japanese island groups). But these CLs COULD have been refitted as CLs, as they had been designed in Japan, one was actually built there, and their guns and engines were naturally Japanese. The problem with refitting captured ships is fixing NON Japanese systems - thus hornet would be valuable mainly as a source of scrap steel - or for an auxiliary purpose (transport of vehicles, storage for teak, as the German navy used its carrier, etc.).

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 67
Capture of merchents is OK - 3/12/2003 12:41:13 AM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline 		It was an usual feature during the war to capture merchant vessels either at sea or in port, the latter having been most of the times (but not everytime) scuttled.

And some operations by IJN were designed to capture shipping at sea during Singapore or Java evacuations or later by sending raiders (including cruisers in March 1944) in the Indian Ocean.

In UV, when a surface force meets a merchant ship it is sunk on the spot. In dozens of cases, it was captured instead.

So my rules would be :
_ capture at sea is possible when a merchant vessel only TF meets a surface combat fleet that is set on 'Patrol/Do not retire mode'. So no quick raids to capture a ship, you have to make it stop, board it, replace the crew, etc...
_ in this case, you have a chance of capture for each ship.
_ ships with troops aboard will be less likely to surrender.

The main source for captured tonnage was the ships scuttled in Singapore, Surabaya, Manilla and so on. Here I would say that any merchant ship sunk in a port has a change to be raised and reused... even by its own side.
For example, if for one reason or another, a port is taken with 10 merchant ships inside, all are scuttled but could be raised. And ships sunk in port by prior attacks could also be raised.
But if the Allied retook the port one month after, they could raise the boats also. Or they could raise the boats before the port is taken.

Mogami said that in any game, a human player will get all the ships out of IJN range quickly. But he would not let
Singapore and Java without supplies or they will fall quickly. Not to speak of Manilla.
Then some, if not most, of the merchants available in the Far East should be small and low (1500 tons) and start the campain with damage showing their bad state. And some should have no fuel or few fuel. So the fuel in Manilla will be used to refuel the warships or the merchants here.
I definetly like the idea of a morale roll for a merchant ship to leave a port under blockade by an enemy fleet.

The above should apply to Allied ships for sure but I don't think Japanese should be concerned by capture at sea or morale check. Allied merchant crews were often from several nationalities, with a good part of their crew Indian or Chinese with few motivation to risk their lives for some bucks. I don't think USN transports (AK and AP) coming in 1942 should be concerned.

A distinction should be done in my mind between what I would call military transports (Japanese and Allied transports with military crew) and civilians ones (with civilian crew unprepared for war, most of the ships present on the Allied side at the start of the war). The first should be very difficult to capture and will follow most if not all orders, as warships.

Regarding victory points, you should be given points for units lost by the enemy and the same points as bonus if you captured the ship.

Examples :
AP John Wayne is value 12 points and is in Shangai at the start of the war.

1) the crew fails the morale check and the ship is captured on day 1 of the war.
IJN gains 12 points because the ship was lost by the Allied
and 12 more points because it can now use it.
When the USN will sink this ship, USN will score 12 points. Overall a 12 points difference.

2) the crew pass the morale check and went to sea on day one, being sunk shortly later in open sea.
IJN gains 12 points

In case 1, the double points awarded is important because you can scuttle the ship you just captured (case of a cruiser raid in Indian Ocean for example) and still have the same points difference as if you sink it in battle.

As other have said here, capture of military equipment is almost useless because of lack of spare parts, manual and training. But supplies and fuel should be captured in part (the most engineers the defenser had, the most fuel/supplies would be destroyed before the surrender/defeat... maybe it could be an order for engineers like build fortif/port/airfield... just destroy everything before surrender/retreat).

The only country to use in great numbers captured material during WWII was Germany. And they could do that because they captured also the factories (in France, Italy or Czechoslovakia) that build those materials.
Germany was also the greatest user of captured warships. Most of them were captured before being launched and were finished by the Kriegsmarine. Others were surrendered for political reasons (like the French ships in Bizerte in November 1942) and the others were scuttled in ports during "alliance changes" (France and Italy).
Both sides in North Africa use captured trucks and during the war the Red Army used tens of captured Panzer in some units (cases known to me in 43 and 44) but in both cases, they were using only part of the captured park and using the rest as spare part source and all this materiel was rapidly falling apart. In Pacific theater, there are not enough vehicles to make a difference.

Maybe the engineer vehicles could be captured, it seems to me that the Japanese stemroller captured on Guadalcanal was really useful to prepare Henderson Field.

But USN should not use Zero before holding Japan and IJN not use B-17 before hodling Seattle...

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 68
- 3/12/2003 1:08:51 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]1) the crew fails the morale check and the ship is captured on day 1 of the war. IJN gains 12 points because the ship was lost by the Allied and 12 more points because it can now use it. When the USN will sink this ship, USN will score 12 points. Overall a 12 points difference.[/QUOTE]

I completely disagree. There should be no "morale check." Any fueled ship that is capable of making way without foundering should be presumed uncapturable.

There should be no additional VP awarded for ships captured as opposed to merely sunk or scuttled. Indeed, the whole notion of "casualty VP" should be thrown out. The only VP should be for turns holding objectives.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 69
- 3/12/2003 1:18:41 AM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline 		Mdiehl, morale check should be done by civilian crews because they are historical. Most ships captured intact during the first months of 1942 had not respected the order of fleeing or scuttling given by the Allied command.

And if points are given for ships sunk (as in UV), more points should be given for ships captured, especially in short scenarios.

If you play the full campain, who will count the points, you win or lose the war. As it will take years, you will just play it without bothering for long if you are losing or winning.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 70
- 3/12/2003 10:56:36 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]I completely disagree. There should be no "morale check." Any fueled ship that is capable of making way without foundering should be presumed uncapturable.
[/B][/QUOTE]


Uncapturable??? I guess you dont want a historically accurate game then.

Some Examples of very capturable ships:

Ben Nevis (5,264 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 9th, 1941 - Captured by IJN off Hong Kong, renamed Gyokuyo Maru

Federlock (6,607 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 8th, 1941 - Captured by the IJN in the China Sea, renamed Fukuzan Maru

Kaiping (2,563 tons) - Freighter UK
Jan 2, 1942 - Captured by IJN in port of Manila, renamed
Kaiho Maru

Kalgan (2,655 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 12, 1941 - Captured by IJN in port of Bangkok, renamed
Nishi Maru

Kiangsu (2,661 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 8th, 1941 - Captured by IJN off Amoy, renamed
Kimnon Maru

Munlock (5,240 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 8th, 1941 - Captured by IJN in the China Sea renamed
Rizan Maru

Pleiodon (5,878 tons) - Tanker UK
Feb 15, 1942 - Captured by the IJN in port of Singapore, renamed
Nansie Maru

St. Quentin (3,528 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 8th, 1941 - Captured by IJN in China Sea, renamed
Shinai Maru

Spirilla (5,695 tons) - Tanker UK
Feb 15, 1942 - Captured by IJN in port of Singapore, renamed
? Maru

Vitorlock (5,030 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 8th, 1942 - Captured by IJN in China Sea, renamed
Wazan Maru

Tjisaroea 97,089 tons) - Steamship NEI
Mar 4th, 1942 - Captured by IJN DD Arashi, renamed
Chihaya Maru

Duymaer Van Twist (1,030 tons) - Cargo Ship NEI
Mar 4th, 1942 - Captured by IJN CA Atago, renamed
Dai Maru

Majang (536 tons) - Cargo Ship NEI
Feb 15th, 1942 - Captured by IJN in Stait Banka, renamed
Niko Maru

Sigli (1,579 tons) - Freighter NEI
Mar 2, 1942 - Captured in Ind Ocean by IJN DD Hayashio,
Shigure Maru

Tobelo (983 tons) - Cargo Ship NEI
Feb 21, 1942 - Captured by IJN near Kupang Timore, renamed
Tobi Maru

Mindanao (5,236 tons) - Tanker USA
Feb 10th, 1942 - Captured by IJN east of the Philipines, renamed
Palembang Maru

Morazan (2,984 tons) - Freighter USA
Dec 8th, 1941 - Captured by the IJN in port of Shanghai, renamed
Ekkai Maru

Paz (4,260 tons) - Freighter USA
Jan 2, 1942 - Bombed and Captured by IJN off Manila, renamed
Hatsu Maru

President Harrison (10,509 tons) - Passenger Ship
Dec 8, 1941 - Captured by IJN off Shanghai , renamed
Kachidoki Maru

Dukar (1,350 tons) - Freighter NOR
Dec 8, 1941 - Captured by IJN off Hong Kong, renamed
Amoy Maru

Gran (4,140 tons) - Freighter NOR
Dec 9, 1941 - Captureg by IJN in port of Bangkok, renamed
Hoshi Maru

Halldor (1,515 tons) - Freighter NOR
Dec 25,1941 - Captured by IJN in port of Hong kong, renamed
Haruta Maru

Hellios (1,922 tons) - Freighter NOR
Dec 8, 1941 - Captured by IJN off Saigon, renamed
Setsuzan Maru

Herleik (1,891 tons) - Freighter NOR
Dec 8, 1941 - Captured by IJN in port of Bangkok, renamed
Yalin Maru

These are examples of ships that were captured *intact* either at sea or in port. It is not a complete list and does not include the many ships that were scuttled but ultimately reflotted and used by Japan during the war. Some Mechanism for captured shipping is a MUST. Unless you are going to give the Japan an artifically higher number of indigenous shipping to compensate.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 71
- 3/12/2003 9:44:03 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		If WitP uses the merchant marine and transport OOB from PW or UV then the Jpn already has far more capacity than it should have. The talk of the need for a means to capture merchants is at this point a bit like talking about chroming a horse.

Yeah, some of those ships were captured afloat. I wonder how many of them were laid up for repairs or for lack of fuel, or were operating at manifestly sub-par speed because they made a hasty exit from port? Almost all of them I'd wager. "Morale checks" had nothing to do with it.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 72
- 3/12/2003 11:54:27 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]If WitP uses the merchant marine and transport OOB from PW or UV then the Jpn already has far more capacity than it should have. The talk of the need for a means to capture merchants is at this point a bit like talking about chroming a horse.

Yeah, some of those ships were captured afloat. I wonder how many of them were laid up for repairs or for lack of fuel, or were operating at manifestly sub-par speed because they made a hasty exit from port? Almost all of them I'd wager. "Morale checks" had nothing to do with it. [/B][/QUOTE]

mdiehl

First thats just an unsubstantiated opinion on your part, but if that was the case then why didnt the ones in port scuttle themselves? As far as capturing merhants at sea I dont think speed is a critical issue.

Regarding the oob. AS far as I can tell UVs merhant OOB is historical. While its true that because the game just models one theater more ships may be available than was probably realistically possible, given other commitments, this will not be a problem in WitP because it models the whole war. The problem is, if WitP's starting oob is historical than there MUST be some sort of mechanism to model captured shiping, because it was a SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL reality. I can name at least 80+ merhants that were either captured or reflotted and put into service by Japan. I dont want to give Japan anything. I want them to have to work to get this critical extra shipping. How can you argue against that?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 73
- 3/13/2003 4:27:02 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		I'm not saying they didn't capture ships. I'm saying that most of the ships the captured were lost because of reasons having nothing to do with a "morale check" WTF that means. In most cases you'll find it's ships laid up, ships with mechanical problems, or ships that fled too late.

Thing is, it is supposed to be a game that allows deviations from history. Why should the Allied player be forced to keep his ships in harms way if it is obvious that it is better to get them out or scuttle them?

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 74
equipment should be usable - 3/18/2003 3:22:28 PM   
elcid

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline 		two japanese regiments used captured US light tanks

a fair number of B-17s were restored to service by Japan and used for training purposes - and might have done other jobs

a number of ships were used by Japan - including on US destroyer and one dutch destroyer


capture should be a possibility - unescorted merchants at sea should be liable to capture, complete with cargo


IMHO

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 75
ships boarding party and prize crew - 3/19/2003 12:26:50 AM   
elcid

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline 		Someone above said that capture should "only" be allowed to US CVE groups and Axis merchant cruisers, as there is a need for a special party. Well, new flash: VIRTUALLY ALL WARSHIPS HAVE A LANDING PARTY/BOARDING PARTY/PRIZE CREW. It is the same party, in most cases, or substantially the same party, augmented for the mission in others (e.g., a prize crew usually adds a couple of specialists if they are not naturally part of the boarding party). It does not take very many people to man a merchant ship - typically a watch must have two or three men once the ship is underway - one to steer and one to change engine speed if required. It is nice to have an officer in charge, and a radioman, and a navigator, and a signalman, and of course a couple of deck hands for lots of reasons. But warships have all of those things, and the Watch Quarter and Station Bill provides for a cross section to be assigned to the Landing Party/Boarding Party/Prize Crew. In the USN these people go to a USMC 'Landing Party School' and (in period) they all qualify on four weapons: an LMG, a rifle, a shotgun, and an SMG. Every petty officer already qualifies on a pistol as a Basic Military Requirement. The British system is similar, and the Japanese system is a copy of the British. Germans used a different method: in which a large ship had several "prize crews" instead of the normal one of most navies. German (and some other Axis) large ships also were a bit like APDs, in that there is is provision to carry troops, berthing them in the passageways on fold down bunks. These ships should be rated as better fast transports than USN and UK ships are, with much higher capacities. They also theoretically could embark actual merchant crews, if that was the mission.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 76
In a different vein - 3/19/2003 9:29:05 PM   
LTCMTS

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 1/6/2003
From: Newnan, GA
Status: offline 		Is there a provision for the capture and use of supplies? As an example, the capture of British supply dumps and transport was a major enabler for the success of Yamashita's offensive down the Malay Peninsula in 1942, just as the failure to capture such dumps was a major factor in the failure of the Japanese offensive in 1944 at Kohima/Imphal, especially since the Japanese had planned on supporting their offensive with captured enemy supplies.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 77
- 3/19/2003 10:40:50 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]VIRTUALLY ALL WARSHIPS HAVE A LANDING PARTY/BOARDING PARTY/PRIZE CREW. [/QUOTE]

News Flash Special Report: Very very very very few of them ever captured a ship on the seas. Sinking merchants or capturing them in port was far more common.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 78
- 3/20/2003 4:05:19 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		"I'm not saying they didn't capture ships. I'm saying that most of the ships the captured were lost because of reasons having nothing to do with a "morale check" WTF that means. In most cases you'll find it's ships laid up, ships with mechanical problems, or ships that fled too late."


Mdiehl, the "morale check" is a game designer's method of abstracting all the possible problems that could prevent a ship from leaving port. Sure, many ships could be given enough system damage at the start of the game to prevent them from leaving port, but this still won't model the cases where the native crews (the black gangs and deck hands on many of the western ships in the area were not westerners) melted into the background rather than risk being sunk at sea by the Japanese. There were multiple reasons for ships not leaving port, and we are just offering ideas as to how that could be modeled in the game. Noone is saying that actual morale is the only reason the ships were captured.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 79
- 3/20/2003 11:14:32 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Mdiehl, the "morale check" is a game designer's method of abstracting all the possible problems that could prevent a ship from leaving port. Sure, many ships could be given enough system damage at the start of the game to prevent them from leaving port, but this still won't model the cases where the native crews (the black gangs and deck hands on many of the western ships in the area were not westerners) melted into the background rather than risk being sunk at sea by the Japanese. There were multiple reasons for ships not leaving port, and we are just offering ideas as to how that could be modeled in the game. Noone is saying that actual morale is the only reason the ships were captured.[/QUOTE]

I figured it was an abstraction. Problem is that if one calls it a morale check or a reaction check or whatever, the usual propaganda is going to kick in: "It's a morale check. Everybody knows that Allied morale was terrible, where I come from, so the tendency should be for Allied flagged ships to fail said checks. Everyone knows that Japanese morale never failed, where I come from, so the tendency should be for Japanese flagged ships to pass said checks."

I offer an alternative solution. Any time a civilian container ship with more than 10% sys damage passes through the same hex as a warship or any hex adjacent to a warship, the container ship is automatically captured. Any civilian container ship with more than 25% sys damage may not leave the port in which it currently resides.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 80
- 3/21/2003 12:28:50 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Can we include the crew as part of system damage (they are after all one of the most important systems aboard ship!)? I do recall that some ships were trapped due to the desertion of their malay crews (probably fell for that "Co-prosperity" propaganda...).

I understand your reluctance to call it a morale check. I used the term out of laziness. I like your idea if it does include the crew (does sys damage include crew? I'm beginning to think so, though I hadn't thought about it before).

Maybe call it a "preparations for departure" check? :) No. I'm fine with the sys damage idea, under my previously stated caveat.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 81
- 3/21/2003 6:22:32 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		I would certainly count crew as sys damage. I do not know whether UV does or WitP will.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 82
- 3/21/2003 12:11:15 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]I figured it was an abstraction. Problem is that if one calls it a morale check or a reaction check or whatever, the usual propaganda is going to kick in: "It's a morale check. Everybody knows that Allied morale was terrible, where I come from, so the tendency should be for Allied flagged ships to fail said checks. Everyone knows that Japanese morale never failed, where I come from, so the tendency should be for Japanese flagged ships to pass said checks."

I offer an alternative solution. Any time a civilian container ship with more than 10% sys damage passes through the same hex as a warship or any hex adjacent to a warship, the container ship is automatically captured. Any civilian container ship with more than 25% sys damage may not leave the port in which it currently resides. [/B][/QUOTE]

Mdiehl,

I certainly dont have a problem with sys damage being a factor, but I submit to you that morale is a more accurate determinen.
Its important to point out that we are talking about privately owned civilian vessels, which made up the vast majority of so called "Allied" shipping in the western Pacific at the start of the war. As others have pointed out most of these ships were crewed by so called "native" crews mostly impressed Chinese, Indians, Philipinos, and Indonesians. In many cases of indifference, surrender, abandonment and yes outright mutiny were the basis of capture.

I see no basis for your assertion that most ships captured were floating derilects. To the contrary of the examples I gave you. Over half were captured at sea and most of them were captured within the first few days of the war, while plying their normal shipping routes. For example the SS President Harrison a 10,000 ton passenger liner was captured off shanghia on Dec 8th was certainly not a derilect.

The problem with useing just sys damage is that how do you differentiate between military and civilian shipping? I personally dont think a USN or Army AP or AK would allow itself to be captured at sea no matter what the sys damage. Conversely I think there would be almost zero chance that a civilian merchant vessel would choose to scuttle herself in the open sea rather than safely surrender if given the chance.

Useing moral as the factor would make military shipping all but impervious to capture while allowing the possibility for the historic civilian shipping captures early in the war.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 83
- 3/21/2003 10:59:03 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]I certainly dont have a problem with sys damage being a factor, but I submit to you that morale is a more accurate determinen. Its important to point out that we are talking about privately owned civilian vessels, which made up the vast majority of so called "Allied" shipping in the western Pacific at the start of the war. As others have pointed out most of these ships were crewed by so called "native" crews mostly impressed Chinese, Indians, Philipinos, and Indonesians.[/QUOTE]

And how will you research the exact nationality of each of these vessels? Having done that, how will you decide whether or not the Chinese crew of one vessel is so ticked off about 1936 that they'd rather scuttle their ship, where the Chinese crew of another bugs out and runs. Under what circumstances will this "morale check" be required? Will you force the Allied player to keep civilian container ships in ports near to Japanese objectives so that the Japanase player will be able to instigate morale checks and capture the ships.

I think the research implications, the manifest opportunities for vague and badly research assumptions, make it clear that thuis path is best [I]wholly[/I] avoided.

[QUOTE]I see no basis for your assertion that most ships captured were floating derilects.[/QUOTE]

You see no basis for it because I did not say that. I said that a ships with substantial impairments comprised the proponderance of captures. All that is required is that because of the start of the war, important scheduled maintenance gets skipped in the effort to flee. Since SE Asian merchant ships aren't famous for the quality of their upkeep, there's a decent chance that there will be quite a few ships, in a game, that start the game with modest SYS damage.

Those shoul be relatively easy to sweep up. But if the Jpn player decides to start the game with a move, say, to New Zealand and the PI at the same time, the code should make it very easy for the Allied player to escape with [I]ALL[/I] of the civilian merchants in SE Asia (unless Jpn player manages to sink them with a/c).

[QUOTE]To the contrary of the examples ...[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant. I did not say that only derelicts were captured, and I do not believe that your "sample" adequately represents the totality of captured vessels.

[QUOTE]The problem with useing just sys damage is that how do you differentiate between military and civilian shipping?[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you asked. Military crews get a high probability of scuttling their vessels if they are unable to escape. The likelihood of success will be greater if teh ship already has extensive FLOT damage.

[QUOTE]Useing moral as the factor would ...[/QUOTE]

...invite the same suite of unsubstantiated, indeed incorrect assumptions that led GG to set the initial EXP values of Kido Butai in the 90s and the initial EXP values of USN pilots in the 70s in a simplistic combat model in which EXP is treated as a proxy for training and tactics in PW.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 84
Capturing ships on the high seas - 3/24/2003 10:04:29 AM   
Wallymanowar


Posts: 651
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Vernon, B.C., Canada
Status: offline 		Capturing ships on the high seas was not as unusual as you might think. While the prospects of capturing a fully armed and manned warship on the high seas is practically impossible, the capture of merchant ships was quite common - relatively speaking. In fact, the Germans developed their Raider ships with precisely that in mind. These ships would use their disguises as merchant ships to approach enemy merchant ships and do some quick shooting to disable the other ship's radio and guns (if they were armed). This usually resulted in the surrender of the merchant ship. A prize crew would then be sent over and the ship was then taken back to Germany or scuttled (usually scuttled).

You have to remember that the top speed of a fast merchant ship was around 12 knots - excluding cruise liners - so it's not hard to catch up to with a warship doing 20+ knots. Once you are faced with a warship which has multiple guns which outrange the puny gun you might have surrender is the best option.

_____________________________

I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?
Yogi Berra

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 85
- 3/25/2003 6:13:08 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		-------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
And how will you research the exact nationality of each of these vessels? Having done that, how will you decide whether or not the Chinese crew of one vessel is so ticked off about 1936 that they'd rather scuttle their ship, where the Chinese crew of another bugs out and runs. Under what circumstances will this "morale check" be required? Will you force the Allied player to keep civilian container ships in ports near to Japanese objectives so that the Japanase player will be able to instigate morale checks and capture the ships."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no need to get into the details of exact nationalities. Its very simple. Each *civilian*mechant ship's moral level is randomly generated at the start of each game. Some ships will have high moral; some with low moral and the majority with average moral. (A ship's initial sys damage could also be randomly selected in this manner). A ship would need some miminal morale level to pass a morale check. The lower the moral the less chance of passing the check. Additional morale "hits" based on system damage and shock effects would also lower moral. Unlike a sys damage only system, this at least allows you the possibility of your; highly motivated "Ticked Off" Chinese crew, because a ship with high enough morale has a possibility to pass the morale check despite system damage. As per your example.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
(QUOTE)
"You see no basis for it because I did not say that. I said that a ships with substantial impairments comprised the proponderance of captures."
------------------------------------------------------------------------


To what authority do you base this statement? I see no evidence that this was the case.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
(QUOTE)
I'm glad you asked. Military crews get a high probability of scuttling their vessels if they are unable to escape. The likelihood of success will be greater if teh ship already has extensive FLOT damage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, exactly they get "high probability" because they get MUCH HIGHER MORALE, than merchant vessels. I would also make them less vulnerable to morale "Hits", so as to make them even less likely not to pass a "morale check" Personally I would make the chance pretty close to zero for a military ship not to pass the morale check.


Look Mdhiel, this is how I see the system working. Say, you as the allied player have 20 merchant vessels with various morale and sys damage levels at Hong Kong at the start of the war. Being an astute player you dutifully order them all to safety in Australia. Out of the 20; 12 pass the morale check and set sail. Now, not wanting the remaining 8 to fall into enemy hands. You order them to be scuttled. Scuttleing would have a lower threshold, so 6 of the remaining 8 pass the morale check and are scuttled. The reamining 2 would be left to be captured or sunk.

As for the ships a sea. If any of the 12 are intercepted by combat vessels "unescorted" then they would receive additional morale hits and be required to pass morale check to see if they are captured or fight to the death. Again sys damage would play a major role in determining this.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 86
- 3/27/2003 9:50:38 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]There is no need to get into the details of exact nationalities. Its very simple. Each *civilian*mechant ship's moral level is randomly generated at the start of each game.[/QUOTE]

That suggestion alone is enough for me to conclude that the entire morale check concept is a poor excuse for an attempted simulation.

Military vessels are likely to be scuttled because that's what military crews are trained to do if their ship is in peril of being captured. "Morale" as such has nothing to do with it.

The concept of morale applied to merchant ships is, by the very way it has been proposed, guaranteed to produce a lousy model. You have absolutely no idea of how the numbers (even randomly generated ones) might reflect real world phenom, so you have no coherent set of logical suppositions and empirical research upon which to base such a model. In short, it'd be a completely fabricated "system" that simulates nothing tangible.

It's not the way that I am used to seeing simulations of things "real" designed. Even the most simple agent-based biota simulations begin with a set of empirical data deemed highly relevant to the simulated behavior.

It is my hope at least that Matrix will not incorporate yet another ambiguous and unresearched quantitative approximation of NOTHING.

That's my POV. 'nuff said.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 87
- 3/28/2003 12:17:38 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]

Military vessels are likely to be scuttled because that's what military crews are trained to do if their ship is in peril of being captured. "Morale" as such has nothing to do with it.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Mdiehl

MORALE IS A FUNCTION OF TRAINING. Havent you ever heard of "Esprit de Corps", "Elan", "Gung Ho", "Elite" "110%", "Phsyched" ect.... Instilling and maintaining morale is part and parcel of good training.

Morale has always been "abstracted" in war games. Saying its not quantifiable in your opinion and thus cannot be modeled is like saying "fatique", "readiness" and "epirence" does not model anything real. For that matter. How do you quantify 10% sys damage. That could mean anything from a ships boilers being sub par to the bilge pumps and the head malfunctioning. how does that model anything real in regards to capture? It certainly doesnt model your "ticked off" Chinese crew.

That being said. Since I believe that the chance of a military ship either combat or non combat of being captured is probably zero. I have no problem with them being immune from morale checks. However *CIVILIAN* ships are an entirely different matter. Of the 69 ships that I can indentify as being *scuttle* between Dec 7, 1941 to March 9th 1942 the vast majority were done so because either the authorities or their crews did not deem it prudent to risk life, limb and possible capture attempting to run the gauntlet of aircraft and warships they were sure awaited them. Of 40 ships captured intact 24 allowed themselves to be taken while at sea, 16 allowed themselves to be taken "UNSCUTTLED" in port. Only two ships chose to scuttled themselves while at sea to prevent capture. The 3110 ton Tanker Augustina scuttled herself in the Java sea when approached by the IJN DD Harukaze and the 537 ton Cargo ship Makassar scuttled herself in the Banka straight when approached by the IJN CL Yura and DD Asagira. Call it what you want; morale, fear, overideing self preservation or prudence. It figured significantly in the capture and scuttleing of many ships.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 88
- 3/29/2003 5:01:23 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Call it what you want; morale, fear, overideing self preservation or prudence. It figured significantly in the capture and scuttleing of many ships.[/QUOTE]

The fact that you can't figure out what to call that which you want to simulate pretty much makes the case that you don't know what you want to simulate. Call it morale? Thanks, no.

Better merely to hard code the capture of your 60 ships than to trot out another hail mary abstraction.

[QUOTE]MORALE IS A FUNCTION OF TRAINING.[/QUOTE]

Morale = .01Training x (Y) where Y is some factor(s) as yet undocumented? It's not saying much to say "morale is a function of" unless you know what the function is. Certainlly, training is a very very small slice of the composition of whatever "morale" is.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 89
- 3/29/2003 5:48:42 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]The fact that you can't figure out what to call that which you want to simulate pretty much makes the case that you don't know what you want to simulate. Call it morale? Thanks, no.

Better merely to hard code the capture of your 60 ships than to trot out another hail mary abstraction.
. [/B][/QUOTE]


Morale [I](mo ral')[/I] [I]n.[/I] the courage, self control, enthusiasm, and confidence that help to keep a person's or group's spirits when competeing and or faceing hardship or danger. ( Websters New World Dictionary)

I know what morale is. I only offered you alternatives because you seem to have an adversion to the word.

What is your point anyway? Are you saying abstractions such as expirence, fatique, readiness and morale should not be modeled in the game? If yes, then I guess your are out of luck because they are in UV and undoubtedly will be in WitP. As it stands in UV air units that fall below a certain level of morale are less likely to fly. Don't see why merchants should not be treated the same.

Quite frankly I find it hard to believe you feel that a simulation that hard codes the capture of 60 ships is better than one that offers variable captures and forces the Japanese player to work for them.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.814