Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
I have long thought it a significant failure of WitP's design that it fails to afford the same degree of control over naval crew training/experience gain as the player enjoys over aircrew training. Going further than that, I would have liked to see the game include mechanisms for rewarding players who train groups of ships to work cooperatively, as I regard this as a significant factor in determining the effectiveness of a naval force. Unfortunately the game is what it is, so we're not going to see that. Rant over.

Actually, my friend, there is. For both of your concerns. I'll send you a pm explaining how it's done. It's pretty neat and I think you will appreciate the subtlety.

Ciao. J

quote:

As war loomed, priority was given to accelerating military construction. On 16 December—months ahead of schedule—the battleship was formally commissioned at Kure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

M'kay, what was the deal with Yamato guns? I have found nothing about problems.
Was ship in yard all the time then, or was she in active duty?

Actually Wikipedia writes:

quote:

As war loomed, priority was given to accelerating military construction. On 16 December—months ahead of schedule—the battleship was formally commissioned at Kure.

which would suggest that ship was accelerated,
and if it was accelerated, she should be also accelerated in-game, so current date is date with acceleration, and real commission time would be 26 December.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Now, as for special Shinano mission:
It was supposed to have space for 139 planes, for rearming, and repair them. In-game planes can not take ordnance to another CV, so that could mean 139 torpedoes in pool for Shinano, however that would defeat the purpose of it, as with that number of torpedoes, it will be main assault ship, not auxiliary.

And greatest problem, for Shinano, is conversion of its Air Groups. Seeing, how it is done for CSs, it seems, the only option is to have separate Float Plane unit, for every future CV unit , which Shinano should have. That also indicates, that pre-conversion HULL should NOT be CV, as its airgroups would overflow with pilots, if downgraded to few Float Planes, after conversion to BB.

I would like to point you to my earlier experiment on this topic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

M'kay, what was the deal with Yamato guns? I have found nothing about problems.
Was ship in yard all the time then, or was she in active duty?

Actually Wikipedia writes:

quote:

As war loomed, priority was given to accelerating military construction. On 16 December—months ahead of schedule—the battleship was formally commissioned at Kure.

which would suggest that ship was accelerated,
and if it was accelerated, she should be also accelerated in-game, so current date is date with acceleration, and real commission time would be 26 December.

Some information about Yamato's initial gunnery problems can be found in her TROM on the Combined Fleet site. This also refers to 'final fitting out' in the period between 21 Dec 1941 and 10 Feb 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Now, as for special Shinano mission:
It was supposed to have space for 139 planes, for rearming, and repair them. In-game planes can not take ordnance to another CV, so that could mean 139 torpedoes in pool for Shinano, however that would defeat the purpose of it, as with that number of torpedoes, it will be main assault ship, not auxiliary.

And greatest problem, for Shinano, is conversion of its Air Groups. Seeing, how it is done for CSs, it seems, the only option is to have separate Float Plane unit, for every future CV unit , which Shinano should have. That also indicates, that pre-conversion HULL should NOT be CV, as its airgroups would overflow with pilots, if downgraded to few Float Planes, after conversion to BB.

I would like to point you to my earlier experiment on this topic.

I have a table of IJN Carrier ordnance loads which indicates that Shinano's torpedo loadout was only 36, but I can't speak as to the provenance of this data. I have reservations about its accuracy because the chart suggests an inventory of bombs to be carried by the ship that is somewhat at odds with its projected role as a re-arming platform operating within range of enemy CV's, through which more vulnerable Japanese carriers stage their airgroups and thus attempt to remain beyond the range of enemy retaliation.

It seems to me an enormous waste of Japanese resources to regard Shinano as nothing more than a carrier of replenishment aircraft, but I suppose one might include it as a conversion option. Since the 'fortress carrier' concept I've described is not reproducible in the game, I see no alternative to treating Shinano as a weak strike carrier. If you can find a way to reproduce her intended employment, go for it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
I have long thought it a significant failure of WitP's design that it fails to afford the same degree of control over naval crew training/experience gain as the player enjoys over aircrew training. Going further than that, I would have liked to see the game include mechanisms for rewarding players who train groups of ships to work cooperatively, as I regard this as a significant factor in determining the effectiveness of a naval force. Unfortunately the game is what it is, so we're not going to see that. Rant over.

Actually, my friend, there is. For both of your concerns. I'll send you a pm explaining how it's done. It's pretty neat and I think you will appreciate the subtlety.

Ciao. J

There is? Even for groups of ships? That's brilliant - can't wait to learn more!

So far as practicable I pay quite a lot of attention to force composition and maintaining the unity of my cruiser sentai and destroyer divisions. If I am getting a combat bonus because my ships are used to working togther then that's great news.

It also raises interesting implications for the development of effective ASW teams, even if I can't set up a game equivalent of the Terror of Tobermory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

LY was concerned that potential opponents might think he had 'insider' information. He received no unauthorized disclosures; just detail descriptions that any good mathematician with an appropriate test bed could figure our for themselves, given the desire and the time. This is a synopsis.

Reaction to a sub and the number of ships having a chance at making contact is governed by the TF leader’s stats (skill, aggression, etc..). Each ship that gets a chance to contact will fail or succeed based on its own skipper’s stats. Aggression is modified a bit depending on the kind of TF and the kind of combat. ASW ships in an ASW TF contacting a sub, will get full reaction marks. A SurfCom TF in contact with a sub might get some reaction minuses, for example.

When a ship attacks, the better the crew experience, the better the attack profile used. This is the number of ASW weapon slots that shoot (sometimes, not all ASW weapon slots are used), the number of attacks the ship makes, and the % chance of maintaining contact after each attack. Much like the split tube thing, if all DC are concentrated in one device slot, the number of ASW weapons used will equal the Num value in the slot (i.e., maybe 6 or 8). If the DCs are split out into multiple Device slots (left, right, stern, front, etc..) each slot has a chance to shoot (or not), depending on crew experience. The chance to hit with “each” slot, for “each” pass, is also a function of crew experience. So, more passes (attacks) by more weapons (slots) by more ships ups the aggregate odds considerably.

There is a chance of losing contact after each pass by each ship. The sub gets a chance to evade. Again depends on crew experience and leader stats. If you have 3 superior ships and 1 dolt, the dolt could lose the contact, and the sub evades. However, if all the ships have similar (high) crew experience and similarly skilled skippers, the chance of an early termination is significantly reduced. One might think of exp as a “base” % chance to do something. Base chances are modified in different ways in each step, but a base is a base. A 70 exp crew might have a “base” 70% chance of making multiple attacks, using every weapon slot, hitting with a weapon slot, and maintaining contact. A 40 exp crew will experience the same modifications but start with a much lower base and likely lose it for everybody else. Good old successive probability mathematics.

There is no specific benefit for specific ships working together, but a task group that gains experience together receives a synergistic benefit by its uniformity. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Although the benefit does not apply to specific ships, it does make it important to find replacements for damaged TF members that have leader and experience values that are very similar to the others in order to maintain the synergy; good with good aggregates to superior, good with mediocre aggregates to mediocre, mediocre with mediocre aggregates to poor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

So this begs the questions: Is there any way other than actual combat experience to help 'train up' a ships crew? IE I've seen 'shakedown cruises' mentioned, but what effect do these actually have on improving a ships fighting capabilities?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

So this begs the questions: Is there any way other than actual combat experience to help 'train up' a ships crew? IE I've seen 'shakedown cruises' mentioned, but what effect do these actually have on improving a ships fighting capabilities?

Having ships in TF increases their experience up to a specific level (depends on ship type)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

So this begs the questions: Is there any way other than actual combat experience to help 'train up' a ships crew? IE I've seen 'shakedown cruises' mentioned, but what effect do these actually have on improving a ships fighting capabilities?

Having ships in TF increases their experience up to a specific level (depends on ship type)

So simply put, having a DD in a TF will cause it to improve just by being in the TF...up to a certain EXP level. And the increase is permanent? That I can understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

So this begs the questions: Is there any way other than actual combat experience to help 'train up' a ships crew? IE I've seen 'shakedown cruises' mentioned, but what effect do these actually have on improving a ships fighting capabilities?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

So this begs the questions: Is there any way other than actual combat experience to help 'train up' a ships crew? IE I've seen 'shakedown cruises' mentioned, but what effect do these actually have on improving a ships fighting capabilities?

My take on this is that you must find a way to get those patrol boats and subchasers into combat, given their anaemic experience levels. Potentially one thing you have going for you is that ship experience is not broken down into skill sets, as is the case with pilots. A ship that increases its experience through gunnery combat is going to be better at ASW as a result and vice versa. That's the model we've got.

Getting combat experience with TBs and DDs is more straightforward than patrol craft if you can find opportunities for them to go raiding - particularly against targets that don't shoot back. It will be much more difficult - maybe impossible - to get patrol craft into such fights, so you may have no option but to train them against enemy submarines, and take you medicine when the submarine shoots back. Have some ideas on how I shall go about this, but they may well prove completely wrong.

Shinano

Going back to this, I have read an account (appearing to be well researched, but no sources cited)which says that the airgroup embarked in Shinano was the compromise outcome of a dispute between NGS and V Admirals Fukuda (chief Yamato designer) and Iwamura (head of Naval Tech Bureau). The admirals wanted the ship as a staging point for strikes - the Japanese preoccupation with 'outranging the enemy' - whilst NGS wanted her as a full blown strike carrier. The modest airgroup of 47 aircraft was organic but was intended to include a strike component rather than being purely defensive. The remainder of the hangar space was to be used for other carriers' aircraft staging through.

The fact that the intended basis of employment was a compromise strengthens my impression that the Imperial Navy really didn't have any clear grasp of what was to be done with the ship. Having eschewed her potential as a battleship, the Navy ended up with a vessel that was neither fish nor fowl as a carrier, and in consequence probably represented the greatest waste of resources it ever incurred. In my book, the nettle needed to be grasped when construction was first halted. Either the ship as designed was one they needed, in which case they should have got on with bringing her out as Battleship Number Three, or the job was to be scratched so that Yokosuka #1 slip could be returned to gainful employment at the earliest opportunity. That way you are looking at, say, a useful Unryu delivery in early 1944 rather than an expensive apology for a strike carrier the following November.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
With the PBs, I guess you could go do minor bombardments of the undefended Chinese bases along the coast, Pakhoi etc. I think the PGs and PBs can do that, but I'm honestly not sure, haven't tried it in a while.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
Certainly worth a try. In my mod I have reintroduced Iwate and Izumo (both China Fleet ships, from memory) as PGs, so they would come within this category. However, again from memory, I think I tried this in CHS and couldn't get them to bombard (great for soaking up CD fire in an invasion group though). No reason not to suck this and see again in AE, whether with these ships or other PGs/PBs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I've been thinking about this, I've considered reducing HI supply output to 1 and increasing LI supply output to 2. It more or less keeps the in/out balance, but reducing the HI output by half means you'd most likely be forced to run at least some of the Japanese LI instead of just turning it off completely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I've been thinking about this, I've considered reducing HI supply output to 1 and increasing LI supply output to 2. It more or less keeps the in/out balance, but reducing the HI output by half means you'd most likely be forced to run at least some of the Japanese LI instead of just turning it off completely.

The ability to turn off LI production is a design oversight, and should not be possible. LI largely represents the civilian economy, which could not be turned "on" or "off" at whim.

Andrew

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Blimey, this thread's just taken rather a discursive turn!

John, thanks for the tip about the ship types that can take part in a bombardment. Something I ought to gave known already, but the alphabet soup of some of the small types can throw me.

For ASW training, I have in mind multiple ASW groups following a lead group so that you effectively swamp the hex targeted. Ideally such exercises are conducted in shallow water and at short range from airfields basing friendly naval search/ASW patrols. That way, even if a target submarine manages to kill an ASW ship that is primarily there for training, you have optimised your chances of killing the submarine in return. Although low crew experience may make the efficacy of these measures marginal, I can't readily see a better way of managing the risks of training for ASW in this way.