Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Commitment levels

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The War Room >> Commitment levels Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Commitment levels - 7/1/2003 5:54:42 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Be advised the Japanese commitment levels are not constant throughout a scenario. In the long ones they start low go high and then drop. So if your return of ships matches the point where total points allowed drop you will not see many new ships.
(Thats why it is important right from the start to not keep uneeded/damaged ships) If you can pin point the date the allowable lowers you would want to stop sending ships back right at the turn around time. (If it takes 20 days for new ship to move from Japan, you stop sending ships back 20 days prior to limit going lower. The Allies start low and jump up and stay high for much longer. The Japanese have to pay more attention.
If it's not too much trouble can you count the total on map for Japanese ships? Send ships back untill the level goes up one (from low to moderate) and count ships, and then send back to get to high? (I plan on doing this test one of these days but WITP is keeping me busy)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 31
- 7/1/2003 6:59:38 AM   
estaban

 

Posts: 235
Joined: 9/20/2002
Status: offline 		Sure, I can do that. The game is boring anyway. The AI keeps trying to do things like retake Lunga with one AO and an escort of subchasers :)

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 32
Ramifications of shipping losses. - 7/23/2003 10:58:15 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		While thinking about playability, historical accuracy and other improvements on the WITP development forum, I found myself wondering why ships are not treated much like other units, with morale, fatigue and crew combat rating (-) modifiers (ships crews were constantly stripped bare of veterans to man new construction so their combat day/night experience should go down with each refit) which affect their performance.

I also found myself trying to figure out how to limit players from using ships beyond their historical operational limits, and just throwing them around like unmanned robots. Anyone play a game where both sides don't have massive shipping losses? Anyone play a game where player fleets are simply too huge? Didn't think so.

Conclusions for UV and possible inclusion in future ammendment.

Commitment levels are possibly too high which results in totally ahistorical shipping losses. Reduce the amount available to players at any given time.

Have players suffer for losses accrued, not rewarded with an endless string of reinforcements by a very forgiving high command. Perhaps include a percentage (10%?) of the value of a sunk ship's VP value in the formula for commitment levels. This will possibly make players think twice about gamey or overly risky use of ships (decoy strategies, ramming large numbers of APs into CAP-less ports in the face of overwhelming enemy airpower in the hopes of "getting some supplies through" etc...please don't quote Operation Pedestal etc as these were heavily escorted convoys).

Greatly increase the VP value of ships. I'm sorry, but a Cimmaron class AO should be worth more than 7 VPs (seven A6M2s!!!), or a 10000 ton cruiser should be worth more than 40 VPs etc. Most ships were expensive and time consuming to build, and required a lot of manpower to operate. They should be given higher VP values as a result.

Any thoughts?

:p

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 33
- 7/23/2003 11:04:34 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Ron,
I like where you're going with that... I'm one of the guilty parties that uses the ships in an ahistorical manner. I'll send solo AKs on CS missions to Lunga or wherever a few days apart. After all, it's only one ship and I'll get more if she gets caught, right?

I worry about upping the VP totals, because then you risk having ships become more valuable than land bases, which I don't like. I don't know how hard it is to program in a percentage like you suggested, but maybe thats a better option.

I'm kind of rambling, but this is a good idea I think and we should all hash it out some more...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 34
Possibilities - 7/24/2003 12:25:28 AM   
Attack Condor

 

Posts: 425
Joined: 12/27/2002
From: Chicago
Status: offline 		So totally not a programmer, so if this is not possible, understand the source :)

I don't have a lot of experience playing UV, but I did read that Task Forces with more than 15 ships suffer penalties in defending from an air attack, etc.

What about going the other way and have ships that historically didn't travel alone not be able to?
1. Require convoys of APs and AKs to have a minimum number of escorts.
2. Have minimum ship limit levels for convoys with penalties akin to the "over 15" rule mentioned earlier.
3. Variable VPs. This I'm not sure about, but can the VPs be adjusted as to the [I]time[/I] the ship is sunk? For example, is sinking a IJN tanker late in the war going to have the same effect as sinking it later in the war when the IJN was typically on the defensive (I think of tankers as offensive support weapons)?

UV now allows subs to surface (with much greater torpedo accuracy - in my albeit limited experience) attack unescorted convoys, but that too has the possibility of damaging the sub.

Finally, a note about wargaming in general that may help. A game that begins with a historical platform such as WWII, etc. has its appeal in the possibility that, given relatively the same conditions (or maybe the "what if"of scenario 19), the player can receive some gratification of doing better than history. And that's pretty neat (do they still say neat anymore?) :)

_____________________________

"Shouldn't we be leading the shark into shore...instead him leading us out to sea?"

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 35
- 7/24/2003 12:38:37 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Some ships were as or more important than land bases and should be treated as such. This is especially true if one adopts some form of stacking limit to bases. No base should have unlimited stacking rights as this was impossible realistically.

Ports should have limits on ship capacity, both in size of ships and total tonnage. Rabaul, for example, at its peak had a capacity for 300,000 tons of shipping. This is acceptable for a size 9 port. Port capacity could therefore be deduced by port size and be a % of the 300,000 ton max, maybe 10%/port size. (ie size 1 = 30,000 tons; size 2 = 60,000 tons; size 3 = 90,000 tons etc.) Perhaps capital ships cannot be docked at bases smaller than size 3, the size which allows disbandment of TFs.

Airbases stacking should be governed by size as well. Perhaps giving a stacking value to a base equal to its airfield size. Therefore 9 squadrons can base on a size 9 airfield. This of course seems light, so the type of air unit should have a value as well, with 4E and 2E bombers having a value of one and single engine aircraft having a value of 1/2. Therefore, a size nine base has capacity for 9 2E or 4E bomber squadrons or 18 1E bomber or pursuit squadrons, or any mix in between. This would not rule out operating limitations based on size of AF and aircraft type, it is just a "capacity" guideline.

Rabaul at it's peak crammed in 100,000 men with all equipment and supplies. I'm not sure if an LCU stacking limit is an historically viable aim, but in game terms I think it may be desireable.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 36
- 7/24/2003 2:29:56 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline 		[B]I also found myself trying to figure out how to limit players from using ships beyond their historical operational limits, and just throwing them around like unmanned robots. Anyone play a game where both sides don't have massive shipping losses? Anyone play a game where player fleets are simply too huge? Didn't think so.[/B]

I think there has to be more negative repercussions before players will take tanker/transport losses more seriously. Raise the VP values of ships is a good idea. The ships weren't abused in reality like they are in the game, because it's a game and lives aren't on the line. As someone posted above, we have the luxury of saying 'It's only one ship, if it gets caught, we'll replace it.' Which is the kind of attitude that would have gotten a naval officer sacked in a heart beat.



[B]3. Variable VPs. This I'm not sure about, but can the VPs be adjusted as to the time the ship is sunk? For example, is sinking a IJN tanker late in the war going to have the same effect as sinking it later in the war when the IJN was typically on the defensive (I think of tankers as offensive support weapons)?[/B]

I've brought up the idea of VPs values increasing as time goes on for kills against Allied units, because it becomes more difficult for the Japanese to achieve even minor successes. Tankers remain critically important for the Japanese throughout the game because they need them to transport fuel back to the home islands from the NEI.



[B]Airbases stacking should be governed by size as well. Perhaps giving a stacking value to a base equal to its airfield size. Therefore 9 squadrons can base on a size 9 airfield.[/B]

I think air units have it too easy with 50 planes per level of airfield, I think that it should be 25 or 30 planes per level for levels 1-5, and then 50 per level for 6-10 as the bases become more elaborate.

As far as limiting ships in a port, I have a little problem with that. It seems that all the ships located at a base wouldn't be docked the whole time, they would just be anchored...unless they were being repaired or something that requires them being docked or drydocked. You aren't really going to run out of room for anchorages, are you? How many ships can be anchored within reach of the coastal defenses, sub nets, etc which are set up to form the naval base? Maybe the answer is just revisiting the maximum base sizes on the map and making sure only the harbors which really had the capacity can be built up to level 9.

[B]Rabaul at it's peak crammed in 100,000 men with all equipment and supplies. I'm not sure if an LCU stacking limit is an historically viable aim, but in game terms I think it may be desireable.[/B]

I think the way to limit ground units is the way it works now, how many troops you can supply. Rabaul was just a volcanic rock with nothing there as far as facilities, food supplies, etc when the Japanese arrived and they managed to base 120,000 troops there. The only problem that arose was getting food to them, not if they had a comfortable place to sleep and enough elbow room in their barracks.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 37
Airbase capacity - 7/24/2003 3:38:55 AM   
Attack Condor

 

Posts: 425
Joined: 12/27/2002
From: Chicago
Status: offline 		IIRC the base at PM actually had three airbases in it's 30 mile "hex" - wouldn't that increase the capacity of the "base" in the thirty mile hex? I'd be curious just where all of the Allies air reinforcements would go to if Noumea, or Brisbane, both level 9 airfields were "full".

Just a thought... :)

_____________________________

"Shouldn't we be leading the shark into shore...instead him leading us out to sea?"

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 38
Vp's - 7/24/2003 5:41:14 AM   
ltfightr


Posts: 537
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Little Rock AR
Status: offline 		Greatly increase the VP value of ships. I'm sorry, but a Cimmaron class AO should be worth more than 7 VPs (seven A6M2s!!!), or a 10000 ton cruiser should be worth more than 40 VPs etc. Most ships were expensive and time consuming to build, and required a lot of manpower to operate. They should be given higher VP values as a result.


I agree. 7 fighters for 1 AO is something most WW2 Admirals would trade for. The capital investment in the ship is far more than 7 fighters. I think that the VP's need to be ajusted either planes should be less or ships should be worth more.

_____________________________

Support the Boy Scouts buy Popcorn!
http://www.trails-end.com/estore/scouts/email_referral.jsp?id=3133025

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 39
- 7/24/2003 6:40:31 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]I also found myself trying to figure out how to limit players from using ships beyond their historical operational limits, and just throwing them around like unmanned robots.[/QUOTE]

Very simple fix to this really. Increase SYS damage and increase repair rates in size 6/7/8/9 ports. Ships would burn out quicker, but a high proportion with always be in for repairs, forcing you to plan for those major operations by holding back ship use to keep them in shape for the big attacks.

Personally, there just always seems to be way too many transports available to me. Other ships are right, but transports are overboard. It might be historical, but it certainly doesn't play right.

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 40
Re: Airbase capacity - 7/24/2003 6:43:03 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Attack Condor
[B]IIRC the base at PM actually had three airbases in it's 30 mile "hex" - wouldn't that increase the capacity of the "base" in the thirty mile hex? I'd be curious just where all of the Allies air reinforcements would go to if Noumea, or Brisbane, both level 9 airfields were "full".

Just a thought... :) [/B][/QUOTE]

I think it would be quite impossible to run out of tarmac if Allied. There are six possible level 9 field complexes alone on New Caledonia. Six more on Oz. By the time the huge reinforcements arrive, any Allied player worth his salt should have PM, GG, Espiritu Sato, Efate, Lunga...

The IJN on the other hand would experience problems late in the game. But this is only in game terms. One would assume that any extra would remain off map on other bases until damaged squadrons were withdrawn. Simply withdraw the squadrons as was really done to make room for fresh ones. I don't see much of a reason to withdraw squadrons otherwise.

The only reason I'm discussing stacking limits anyway is to attempt to get more realistic sortie levels for air missions. Level 9 airfields with over 250 support points can become veritable stationary deathstars, near sisters to the monster CV TFs which cruise around due to the premise (no Midway) of the game and impregnable CAP (ie uncoordinated air strikes vs allways fully coordinated CAP)

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 41
- 7/24/2003 6:50:07 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Very simple fix to this really. Increase SYS damage and increase repair rates in size 6/7/8/9 ports. Ships would burn out quicker, but a high proportion with always be in for repairs, forcing you to plan for those major operations by holding back ship use to keep them in shape for the big attacks.

Personally, there just always seems to be way too many transports available to me. Other ships are right, but transports are overboard. It might be historical, but it certainly doesn't play right. [/B][/QUOTE]

Many of the transports listed were in theatre but were committed to supplying Truk, Noumea etc. As these bases get free supply and fuel, these ships are released for other duty.

I kinda like your idea about faster repair rates for operational system damage, but one will run into problems regarding battle damage. There is no way to differentiate so this severe damage requiring major repair yard facilities will just be repaired too quickly at a forward base with no facilities. In the big picture, all the bases in UV are forward bases.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 42
- 7/24/2003 6:52:07 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Mr. Frag,
I respectfully disagree with the idea of increasing SYS damage. In my experience in UV if you have ships out for a week or so in thunderstorms, you get SYS in the range of 8-10 (roughly). Now extrapolate that to WiTP where the distances are much greater. You'll end up having crippled your fleet everytime you put to sea. Historically, ships did stay at sea for extended periods - TF38/58 stayed out for weeks at a time on occasion. Although there is always minor wear and tear, there's nothing like the equivalent of 10 SYS damage you find in the game. You won't even be able to send ships in convoy from Japan to the NEI/Singapore area without putting into port all along the way to keep SYS down. I personally think SYS needs to be toned down in WitP or else we'll have incorrect damage calculations.

Ron,
I agree in part about your statement that some ships are more valuable than bases. CVs of course, as they allow you to project power anywhere. But I don't like the idea of a Portland class CA becoming more valuable in the long run than, say, Lunga. In terms of power projection and ability to interdict enemy movement, a well-supplied forward base is tops in my book, at least until later in the war when more CVs are available. Thats what I meant about having problems with ships being more valuable than bases...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 43
- 7/24/2003 8:42:16 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Mad, I'm speaking specifically for UV ... WitP has implemented all sorts of changes with bigger ports, repair facilities and goodies of that nature to deal with this over abundance of ships.

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 44
Damaged weapons fields. - 8/1/2003 7:40:08 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Something I've noticed (dev team does too). If weapons fields are damaged (red), don't send back until fixed ( a few turns or so) or they will come back as damaged and will never repair.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 45
- 8/4/2003 5:42:21 PM   
Veer


Posts: 2231
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Excuse me
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by DJAndrews
[B] but given the fact that I only received 6 relatively useless ships in the entire game, isn't it worth keeping damaged, low-value combat vessels for such things as raiding, short-range FT, convoy protection, etc.? [/B][/QUOTE]

Given the fact that at the begining of August '42 you already have pretty much every capital ship availiable to you as IJN, what more can you expect?
The way it works, unless you send stuff back you won't get much since at the end of July you have 90% of Japans avail capital ships.
You also have to remember how reinforcements work:
APs, MLs, MSWs and subs are sent independently... usually in dripps and drabs dependent on number available in Japan and the number you have in theatre.
Navy ships are never sent alone, always as part of a group/fleet which has certain set compositions. CVs are usually escorted by DDs and CLs. BBs and CAs sail together, along with DD escorts.
So if you have no destroyers available - usually at least 6 are needed - don't expect to get any carriers or BBs even if those are available.
Never at any time expect to get all the capital ships available - the system will usually keep 1 or 2 back in reserve, and may release these if you send an equivalent ship back.

_____________________________

In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 46
- 8/5/2003 5:28:57 AM   
DJAndrews

 

Posts: 305
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Toronto, ON, CA
Status: offline 		quote:

Originally posted by Veer

Given the fact that at the begining of August '42 you already have pretty much every capital ship availiable to you as IJN, what more can you expect?


We must be playing a different game. I was referencing a Scen 17 game against the computer set on Hard, 120% commitment. The game ended on Jan 1/43 with an IJN autovictory. At the time the game ended IJN had (in theatre):

6 CVs
2 CVLs
2 CS
1 CVE
4 BBs
8 CAs
4 CLs
49 DDs
7 SSs

Aside from the initial reinforcement of IJN ships in June-July I only received one alotment of ships (comprised of 1CVE and 5 DDs) during the entire game. At games end, the following were either in Japan or slated to arrive in Japan (some had been sent back):

2 CV (sent back - summer 42)
3 CVL (Sent back - 2 in summer, 1 in Fall)
1 CVE
9 BB (1 sent back - Sept 42)
7 CAs (3 sent back - Summer 42)
17 CLs (5 sent back - scattered)
68 DDs (unknown number sent back -estimate about 10)
36 SSs

As I was saying in the previous post, I was not sending back any ships of CL or smaller size unless they dropped below a speed of 18 (what I had deemed necessary for surface raiders seeking unescorted transports or as convoy escorts). Capital ships were returned when SYS damage reached 30, but I never had a capital ship returned to the theatre.

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 47
- 8/5/2003 8:57:08 AM   
Veer


Posts: 2231
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Excuse me
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by DJAndrews
[B]
We must be playing a different game. I was referencing a Scen 17 game against the computer set on Hard, 120% commitment. The game ended on Jan 1/43 with an IJN autovictory. At the time the game ended IJN had (in theatre):

6 CVs
2 CVLs
2 CS
1 CVE
4 BBs
8 CAs
4 CLs
49 DDs
7 SSs

Aside from the initial reinforcement of IJN ships in June-July I only received one alotment of ships (comprised of 1CVE and 5 DDs) during the entire game. At games end, the following were either in Japan or slated to arrive in Japan (some had been sent back):

2 CV (sent back - summer 42)
3 CVL (Sent back - 2 in summer, 1 in Fall)
1 CVE
9 BB (1 sent back - Sept 42)
7 CAs (3 sent back - Summer 42)
17 CLs (5 sent back - scattered)
68 DDs (unknown number sent back -estimate about 10)
36 SSs

As I was saying in the previous post, I was not sending back any ships of CL or smaller size unless they dropped below a speed of 18 (what I had deemed necessary for surface raiders seeking unescorted transports or as convoy escorts). Capital ships were returned when SYS damage reached 30, but I never had a capital ship returned to the theatre. [/B][/QUOTE]

What was your ship commitment level at the end of the senario?

I'm guessing the reason you never got any ships back is because you had so many anyway. Getting the whole combined fleet to the South Pacific is impossible unless you edit your senario to up your commitment level.

If you're willing, try an experiment. Continue your game as solo, send all your capital ships and some DD's back. Once your commitment level goes back to high, those ships avail in Japan should start making their way to you.

_____________________________

In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 48
- 8/5/2003 2:04:07 PM   
DJAndrews

 

Posts: 305
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Toronto, ON, CA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Veer
[B]What was your ship commitment level at the end of the senario?

I'm guessing the reason you never got any ships back is because you had so many anyway. Getting the whole combined fleet to the South Pacific is impossible unless you edit your senario to up your commitment level.

If you're willing, try an experiment. Continue your game as solo, send all your capital ships and some DD's back. Once your commitment level goes back to high, those ships avail in Japan should start making their way to you. [/B][/QUOTE]

The ship commitment was LOW at games end and never went above MODERATE during the entire game.

Are you saying that of the 2-300 combat ships listed as being part of the game, I'm never going to see more than 120 ships? What is the maximum ship allotment for Japan?

If what you say is correct I can't imagine any reason to send ships back to Japan. If you keep track, damaged ships repair almost as quickly at a size 9 port as they do in Japan. Any ships that have come back to me in other games have not improved significantly in terms of weaponry. So what advantage is gained by simply rotating the names of the ships.

As far as the experiment is concerned I'm not sure what you mean by solo. The game was played against the computer in the first place. I could go back and restart the game as early as November 42 but the turns take a while to play, even if the IJN does nothing, because of the number of allied bombing attacks each turn.

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 49
- 8/5/2003 3:54:21 PM   
Veer


Posts: 2231
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Excuse me
Status: offline 		Originally posted by DJAndrews
[B]The ship commitment was LOW at games end and never went above MODERATE during the entire game.


There you go, that's why you never got any new ships.


Are you saying that of the 2-300 combat ships listed as being part of the game, I'm never going to see more than 120 ships? What is the maximum ship allotment for Japan?

As Mogami stated, ship commitment is dependent on a number of points. As Japan it starts out high in Scen 17, peaks at 12,000 or so in June-July and then falls to 8,000 or some in late '43 and falls even more in '44. (Opposite happens to the allies). There is no maximum number of ships.


If what you say is correct I can't imagine any reason to send ships back to Japan. If you keep track, damaged ships repair almost as quickly at a size 9 port as they do in Japan. Any ships that have come back to me in other games have not improved significantly in terms of weaponry. So what advantage is gained by simply rotating the names of the ships.

You send ships back to Japan to get replacements for ships shot up during the course of the campaign. If your ship is still battleworthy not much point in sending it back. If not it's just free victory points to your enemy, and keeps your commitment level for new ships down.


As far as the experiment is concerned I'm not sure what you mean by solo. The game was played against the computer in the first place. I could go back and restart the game as early as November 42 but the turns take a while to play, even if the IJN does nothing, because of the number of allied bombing attacks each turn. [/B]

Play the game as head to head, stand everything down and just keep clicking. Or you can send all the ships back, set it to comp vs comp, let it run for 12 turns and get back in.

_____________________________

In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 50
- 8/6/2003 7:05:04 AM   
DJAndrews

 

Posts: 305
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Toronto, ON, CA
Status: offline 		Hi Veer. Thanks for the feedback. My interest in this thread started because I couldn't see the point of sending ships back when playing as the IJN, unless they were so damaged as to be useless. Reading through various threads I had gotten the impression that many players send undamaged, smaller ships back in the hopes of getting more powerful ships. I didn't see this happening and questioned whether it was actually a good idea.

I think I understand a little better now, what with your explanation and the results of the experiment you suggested I run. I was surprised to realize that we're only playing with about a third of the available ships at any given time. The results of the test, by the way, are as follows:

Start: Nov. 8/42 (IJN)

Commitment: Low

In theatre: 60 combat ships (6 CV, 2 CVL, 0 CVE, 0 AV, 2 CS, 3 BB, 9 CA, 5 CL, 33 DD)

Available In Japan: 72 combat ships (0 CV, 0 CVL, 1 CVE, 1 AV, 0 CS, 3 BB, 2 CA, 10 CL, 55 DD)

Unavailable: 37 combat ships (2 CV, 3 CVL, 1 CVE, 0 AV, 0 CS, 4 BB, 5 CA, 6 CL, 16 DD)

All in-theatre combat ships were sent back to Japan between Nov. 8 and 14. About half those sent back had between 15 and 30 Sys damage which resulted in them being unavailable for between 26 and 131 days (depending on ship type). The commitment level rose to moderate when the first 16 ships were sent back and rose to high when the next group was returned.

Replacements Received:

Nov 9: 15 ships (2 BB, 1 AV, 2 CA, 1 CL, 9 DD) Commitment remains high.

Nov 27: 18 ships (1 CVL, 1 CVE, 4 CL, 12 DD). Commitment remains high.

Dec. 2: 13 ships (2 BB, 1 CA, 1 CL, 9 DD). Commitment drops to moderate.

Jan. 1: 14 ships (1 CV, 1CVL, 2 CA, 2 CL, 8 DD). Commitment drops to low.

In the end, I received the same number of ships as I had sent back (perhaps a coincidence) but overall their value was lower. This was of course because there were no high value carriers available initially. This seems to be where the problem occurs for the Japanese player. The large commitment of CVs, BBs and CAs in June-July means that there are only a limited number of replacements that are immediately available.

When you send CVs back they become unavailable for 11 + 4 x Sys Damage days. For CAs its 11 + 2 x Sys days. Thus if there is even moderate damage to a CV (say 20) the carrier will be unavailable for 91 days (a CA for 51 days). As you pointed out, the Japanese committment drops rapidly after July and so about the time your damaged CVs and CAs are ready, the bottom drops out of your commitment and it gets to be very difficult to get them back, except as a 1:1 swap.

So from an IJN point of view I think it is better to use damaged ships until their speed drops too low or alternatively, to repair in-theatre at a size 9 base. It take between 1 and 6 days to repair a point of sys damage at Rabaul or Truk.

It may be different for the Allies because of the AAA upgrades, but the IJN don't seem to get any better ships the second time around. In fact, in the test that I ran, none of the DDs that came back were radar-equipped.

It would also seem that there is little point in conserving your forces when playing the IJN. If you keep ships alive you are penalized by having your replcaements held until after the allies have achieved their technical superiority. I guess its better to trade ships in combat rather than have them wait in Japan until its too late.

As a last question, does the comittment level pattern (eg. Low in May-high in June-July-low thereafter, for the IJN) change with the variability parameter or is it the same pattern with just varible levels of committment?

(in reply to estaban)
Post #: 51
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The War Room >> Commitment levels Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.953