JEcon 101 setup pre-final Doc

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by LoBaron »

Thank you VERY much!

My time is too limited to get to Jap Economy by learning by doing. Highly apprechiated!
Image
modrow
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:02 am

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by modrow »

Damian,

thank you so much for drafting this. It may help to bring me to the dark side, so I'll finally be able to serve the emperor .

Hartwig
User avatar
Graymane
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Bellevue, NE

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by Graymane »

I liked your analysis of fuel usage. It took me awhile to work it out. Do you think it might be more useful to show fuel efficiency as "Miles Per Endurance" instead of the inverse?

On the exercise for putting together the shipping, I got kinda got lost starting on page 7. You talk about ports, then about engineers, then back to ships and I more or less got lost trying to figure out why some of the decisions were being made. I'm sure the experienced Jap players could follow along well, but not me [:)]

Overall, it is a great guide though! On the other hand, it reinforces why I'm still playing the allies [;)]
A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.
User avatar
5thGuardsTankArmy
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:36 pm

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by 5thGuardsTankArmy »

[:)]
fcharton
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:51 pm
Location: France

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by fcharton »

Hi Damian,

Very interesting stuff, thanks a lot.

About convoys, I think it is important to note that whereas fuel efficiency (cargo.miles / fuel use) plays an important role for long shipping lanes, speed is just as crucial. Faster convoys mean quicker turnaround, less ships in the lane, and less fuel burnt. This makes fast ships like the Kyushus even more efficient than CM/F ratios suggest (and slow boats like the Gozan even worse than they seem).

This said, speed and fuel usage only matter for long lanes (which one would try to minimize anyway). For short trips, transit time (and fuel use) is dominated by loading/unloading costs, which favour small ships over large ones (in general the smaller the ships, the faster they load).

And since a large fraction of resources move over very short lanes (Korea and Hokkaido), I believe the most important decisions at game start revolve around the allocation of the small xAK and large xAKL. Limiting factors, there, seem to be Honshu port handling limits (eg Ominato).

Francois
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Hi Damian,

Very interesting stuff, thanks a lot.

About convoys, I think it is important to note that whereas fuel efficiency (cargo.miles / fuel use) plays an important role for long shipping lanes, speed is just as crucial. Faster convoys mean quicker turnaround, less ships in the lane, and less fuel burnt. This makes fast ships like the Kyushus even more efficient than CM/F ratios suggest (and slow boats like the Gozan even worse than they seem).

This said, speed and fuel usage only matter for long lanes (which one would try to minimize anyway). For short trips, transit time (and fuel use) is dominated by loading/unloading costs, which favour small ships over large ones (in general the smaller the ships, the faster they load).

And since a large fraction of resources move over very short lanes (Korea and Hokkaido), I believe the most important decisions at game start revolve around the allocation of the small xAK and large xAKL. Limiting factors, there, seem to be Honshu port handling limits (eg Ominato).

Francois
Thanks Francois,
I had considered this (the same as you), just hadn't got around to putting pen to paper and fleshing it out more. I'll definitely include some type of speed/transit time info into the final doc.

Thanks again -
User avatar
Graymane
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Bellevue, NE

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by Graymane »

On other thing I'm just not grokking,
The table above shows you the pertinent efficiency info Fuel/Mile and
cargo(F/M). Higher numbers are better.

Why are higher numbers better for Fuel/Mile? Wouldn't lower numbers be better? What the heck am I missing?
A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: Graymane

On other thing I'm just not grokking,
The table above shows you the pertinent efficiency info Fuel/Mile and
cargo(F/M). Higher numbers are better.

Why are higher numbers better for Fuel/Mile? Wouldn't lower numbers be better? What the heck am I missing?
Yes - I made a mistake ... changed ...

The table above shows you the pertinent efficiency info Fuel/Mile and cargo(F/M). Higher numbers are better for Cargo(F/M) and lower is better for fuel/mile.

This is a draft doc, so thanks for the comments and suggestions before.
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 15874
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by Mike Solli »

Why fuel/mile and not fuel/hex. I think in terms of hexes. Maybe I'm just an oddball though....
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Why fuel/mile and not fuel/hex. I think in terms of hexes. Maybe I'm just an oddball though....
In Tracker I have both - just haven't updated this in the doc ...
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 15874
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by Mike Solli »

Thanks Damian. Just what goofballs like me need. [:D]
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
fcharton
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:51 pm
Location: France

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by fcharton »

ORIGINAL: n01487477
The table above shows you the pertinent efficiency info Fuel/Mile and cargo(F/M). Higher numbers are better for Cargo(F/M) and lower is better for fuel/mile.

I believe Cargo (M/F) is the right measure, here.

re speed, I think the general idea is that if you double cruise speed, you divide by two the number of convoys at sea at any given time, and therefore fuel usage (convoys loading and unloading are docked, and use no fuel). So perhaps the correct "unit of efficiency" for shipping lane fuel usage (under constraint of port load rates) would be something like

Cargo size x Speed x Endurance / Bunker capacity

under constraints (one day loading/unloading time)
ship tonnage < min ship port rate
nr of ships in convoy < min dock size / ship tonnage
nr of ships in convoy < min total port rate / ship tonnage

(interestingly, the unit here is something like squared miles per hour which corresponds to viscosity in fluid mechanics, not sure how to interpret this...)

Francois
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: n01487477
The table above shows you the pertinent efficiency info Fuel/Mile and cargo(F/M). Higher numbers are better for Cargo(F/M) and lower is better for fuel/mile.

I believe Cargo (M/F) is the right measure, here.

re speed, I think the general idea is that if you double cruise speed, you divide by two the number of convoys at sea at any given time, and therefore fuel usage (convoys loading and unloading are docked, and use no fuel). So perhaps the correct "unit of efficiency" for shipping lane fuel usage (under constraint of port load rates) would be something like

Cargo size x Speed x Endurance / Bunker capacity

under constraints (one day loading/unloading time)
ship tonnage < min ship port rate
nr of ships in convoy < min dock size / ship tonnage
nr of ships in convoy < min total port rate / ship tonnage

(interestingly, the unit here is something like squared miles per hour which corresponds to viscosity in fluid mechanics, not sure how to interpret this...)

Francois
I want to put an approx fuel usage for ships in TF moving / day on the WitpTracker chart ... so these thoughts & any others are appreciated.
Thanks
medicff
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:53 pm
Location: WPB, Florida

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by medicff »

Thanks Damian,

I have starting learning the Japanese side and production and this helps a lot.

I have tried to change the research of planes to existing production models (for example the nicks at Kobe into the Ki431c) but the new beta doesn't give current production planes as a choice to convert to. How do you do this or has this changed in the betas?

Thanks

Pat
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: medicff

Thanks Damian,

I have starting learning the Japanese side and production and this helps a lot.

I have tried to change the research of planes to existing production models (for example the nicks at Kobe into the Ki431c) but the new beta doesn't give current production planes as a choice to convert to. How do you do this or has this changed in the betas?

Thanks

Pat
You need to change the R&D mode fromn realistic to Off. Under realistic R&D you have facilities just devoted to R&D and these can't be converted to production factories. With this option OFF you can do as you please.

IIRC Realistic R&D factories once they become production factories (the model they're researching becomes available) they can then be used as production, but can not convert back to another R&D model ... It's been a while since I played with this switch so I'd llike to double check this last point under the beta.
medicff
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:53 pm
Location: WPB, Florida

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by medicff »

ORIGINAL: n01487477
ORIGINAL: medicff

Thanks Damian,

I have starting learning the Japanese side and production and this helps a lot.

I have tried to change the research of planes to existing production models (for example the nicks at Kobe into the Ki431c) but the new beta doesn't give current production planes as a choice to convert to. How do you do this or has this changed in the betas?

Thanks

Pat
You need to change the R&D mode fromn realistic to Off. Under realistic R&D you have facilities just devoted to R&D and these can't be converted to production factories. With this option OFF you can do as you please.

IIRC Realistic R&D factories once they become production factories (the model they're researching becomes available) they can then be used as production, but can not convert back to another R&D model ... It's been a while since I played with this switch so I'd llike to double check this last point under the beta.

Oh that makes a lot more sense. I have never played with realistic research off before.

I think most players would not concede that point to allow non realistic research just as realistic allied torpedoes is a game changer.

Can you point to other options to do with your research that would lead to a benefit of changing current researching aircraft? For example other future designs that give the path that you desire?

From everything else I have read, most people don't bother with research as it doesn't give good returns.

Thanks
Pat
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: medicff
ORIGINAL: n01487477
ORIGINAL: medicff

Thanks Damian,

I have starting learning the Japanese side and production and this helps a lot.

I have tried to change the research of planes to existing production models (for example the nicks at Kobe into the Ki431c) but the new beta doesn't give current production planes as a choice to convert to. How do you do this or has this changed in the betas?

Thanks

Pat
You need to change the R&D mode fromn realistic to Off. Under realistic R&D you have facilities just devoted to R&D and these can't be converted to production factories. With this option OFF you can do as you please.

IIRC Realistic R&D factories once they become production factories (the model they're researching becomes available) they can then be used as production, but can not convert back to another R&D model ... It's been a while since I played with this switch so I'd llike to double check this last point under the beta.
Oh that makes a lot more sense. I have never played with realistic research off before.

I think most players would not concede that point to allow non realistic research just as realistic allied torpedoes is a game changer.

Can you point to other options to do with your research that would lead to a benefit of changing current researching aircraft? For example other future designs that give the path that you desire?

From everything else I have read, most people don't bother with research as it doesn't give good returns.

Thanks
Pat
Well I don't particularly like either in its present form - but that's for another discussion ;-)

Actually R&D is very valuable and can yield very good results under either Realistic or Non. I'll see about writing a bit about either form in the document tomorrow.

Most of the info I think you desire can either be located in Tracker under the AirProduction with the upgrades ticked, going into the editor and finding the upgrade path of the aircraft - not the airgroups (they're different), or from some of the threads devoted to plane planning with charts ... can't seem to locate one off hand [&:]

Anyway - off to class, so I'll update that for you tomorrow... and now that you've mentioned

I think most players would not concede that point to allow non realistic research just as realistic allied torpedoes is a game changer.
I should really do a aircraft production work up based on realistic too ...;-)

Cheers
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by n01487477 »

OK - changed some of the equations and the parameters. This is approx and based on mission speed.

Image

Hex/day

Code: Select all

cruise = (int)Math.floor((theCruiseSpeed * 12));
       max= (int)Math.floor((theMaxSpeed * 12));
       dailyHex = (cruise + max)/40;
Range(hex)

Code: Select all

range_hex = (int)Math.floor(GetEndurance()/40);
and FYI Full Speed

Code: Select all

range_hex = (int)Math.floor(GetEndurance()/(40*4));
Fuel/Hex

Code: Select all

fuelhex = (float)GetFuel()/(float)GetShip[b]Range[/b]_MissionSpd();
       fuelhex = (float)Math.round(fuelhex * 100) / 100;
Fuel/Day

Code: Select all

float fuelUseDaily = (float)GetShipFuelPerHex() * (float)GetShipDailyHexMovement_Mission();
Cargo/(F/H) - need to rework this one maybe per suggestions by Francois

Code: Select all

cargoHex = ((float)GetCargoCapacity()+(float)GetLiquidCapacity())/(float)GetShipFuelPerHex();
Also done some testing on this and found small differences but not enough to cause a rewrite so far. Some info on the WITP-AE screens does seem wrong however. Take Yusen N Cargo - 7 hex/day according to game but in testing 90% of the time it travels 8.

Anyway, any things that you feel need adding or changing again before I re-write?


Attachments
CS_1.jpg
CS_1.jpg (386.78 KiB) Viewed 265 times
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9798
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by PaxMondo »

Sweet.&nbsp; Thanks!!
Pax
User avatar
Graymane
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Bellevue, NE

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

Post by Graymane »

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: n01487477
The table above shows you the pertinent efficiency info Fuel/Mile and cargo(F/M). Higher numbers are better for Cargo(F/M) and lower is better for fuel/mile.

I believe Cargo (M/F) is the right measure, here.

re speed, I think the general idea is that if you double cruise speed, you divide by two the number of convoys at sea at any given time, and therefore fuel usage (convoys loading and unloading are docked, and use no fuel). So perhaps the correct "unit of efficiency" for shipping lane fuel usage (under constraint of port load rates) would be something like

Cargo size x Speed x Endurance / Bunker capacity

under constraints (one day loading/unloading time)
ship tonnage < min ship port rate
nr of ships in convoy < min dock size / ship tonnage
nr of ships in convoy < min total port rate / ship tonnage

(interestingly, the unit here is something like squared miles per hour which corresponds to viscosity in fluid mechanics, not sure how to interpret this...)

Francois

Actually, this is very close to what the railroad industry uses to measure the efficiency of a train. I think it is also the right measure that we are after. Very good job Francois [:)] Let's make an example so it hits home for people like me!

Code: Select all

                     Speed     Fuel Cap     End        Cargo
 Ship 1             08          500          2000        100
 Ship 2             16          500          2000        100
 
So, whatever measure we use, Ship 2 should generally be twice as good as Ship 1.

Here are some questions we want to answer:
  • How much cargo can we move per day? Speed * Cargo
  • How far can we move this cargo without refueling? End * Speed * Cargo
  • How efficient is that movement? End * Speed * Cargo / Fuel

Code: Select all

                     Speed     Fuel Cap     End        Cargo      Daily Cargo      Cargo         Efficiency
                                                                  Distance        Distance
                                                                                 
 Ship 1             08          500          2000        100           800          1600000          3200
 Ship 2             16          500          2000        100          1600          3200000          6400
 
So in this case, the efficiency measure shows Ship 1 is twice as good as Ship 2. Doubling/Halving any of the other parameters should essentially show the same thing. i.e., if Ship 2 has End of 1000, it will have an eff of 3200, same as Ship 1. Double Ship 1's cargo will make up for the speed, etc.

It is important to note that this only makes sense under the constraints. In other words, if you don't move the full endurance, the effiency is not accurate, you'd have to substitute the actual Endurance of the trip if shorter.
A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”