Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

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

User avatar
RyanCrierie
Posts: 1321
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:15 am
Contact:

Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by RyanCrierie »

I seem to vaguely recall an idea a long time ago in this forum in which it was put forth to give the player more control over ships and what to do with them.

The idea was I believe to have ships arrive on map as hulks which in turn could be converted to fighting units.

E.g. you would get a CLEVELAND CLASS hulk, which could then be "built out" into a proper CL or converted into CVL.

I did some quick editing and this is what I have for a "shipyard hulk"

Image
Attachments
Shipyard_DD.gif
Shipyard_DD.gif (8.63 KiB) Viewed 145 times
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by wdolson »

You could make this work by making a class that can be converted into several different ship types, then have the ship delivered with a fair bit of damage that needs to be repaired. It will take x long to complete it as delivered, or you can convert it to another type of ship.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by John 3rd »

Michael (NY Giants) did some work on this idea. Will email him...
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by ny59giants »

PM Damian (co-founder of Tracker) since he was working on this with me years ago. He was doing most of the heavy lifting on this same idea.
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

I seem to vaguely recall an idea a long time ago in this forum in which it was put forth to give the player more control over ships and what to do with them.

The idea was I believe to have ships arrive on map as hulks which in turn could be converted to fighting units.

E.g. you would get a CLEVELAND CLASS hulk, which could then be "built out" into a proper CL or converted into CVL.

I did some quick editing and this is what I have for a "shipyard hulk"

Image

This concept is actually my favorite if I were ever to play a fantasy what-if scenario. I'd even want Iowa conversions (not that I'd do them), Baltimore conversions, etc. Or even the Independence-class CVLs to arrive and be able to convert "back" to CLs. Etc.

At some point, an upgrade would have to eliminate the conversion options. I'd do this by having the conversion not actually add any of the capability, and then having an upgrade with a short time that removed conversion possibility but added the capabilities of the ships. For example, in a fantasy scenario where there's the option to not convert all (or any) of the Independence-class CVLs from the Clevelands, you could convert them to CLs for whatever delay you wanted it to be. And then it would need to upgrade to have the Cleveland turrets, etc., and that upgrade could simply be a delay of 1 or whatever. Just to eliminate the ability to convert back and forth.
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4799
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

I use that concept for Shinano, it arrives as a hull without weapons and then can be "converted" to either BB or CV configuration. However, conversions do not cost shipyard points. So, in order to pay an appropriate amount of shipyard points to finish construction as either BB or CV, I have set the availability date of the hull into late 1944. To get the hull in late 1942 i.e. early enough to have time to finish the conversion, construction must be accelerated, thus burning shipyards points otherwise not used during the conversion period. The BB version will finish in early 1944, the CV version in late 1944.

@RyanCrierie - permission to use your "shipyard hulk" picture in my mod?
User avatar
RyanCrierie
Posts: 1321
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:15 am
Contact:

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by RyanCrierie »

What ships do you want "hulked"?

This was only a proof of concept thrown together in 30 minutes. I can pretty it up with more time spent on the crane.
User avatar
RyanCrierie
Posts: 1321
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:15 am
Contact:

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by RyanCrierie »

My current mental image:

The Hulks arrive "on map" when they are about 35% through their initial construction (keel laying to launch).

Via my website (LINK, Cleveland CLs took about 457 days from keel laying to launch; so 35% of that would be 160 days after keel laying.

The first CVL conversions were ordered starting 10 January 1942, when CL-59 Amsterdam was ordered converted to a carrier.

I am also thinking that making a lot of things start happening in January 1942 for both the Japanese and Americans is logical; because after 25 days of global war, a lot of paradigms have shifted without a clutch.

Thus, even though CL-59 Amsterdam was laid down on 1 May 1941, she's not eligible for CVLing until January 1942, despite the rough 35% rule, which would make her eligible on 8 October 1941.

Ships eligible for the hulk/conversions would be:

Iowa Class (BB-61 to BB-66): Because the majority of the Iowas reached the 35% rule pretty early before the game starts:

BB-61: 18 April 1941
BB-62: 8 July 1941
BB-63: 28 Oct 1941
BB-64: 16 Nov 1941

You would not be able to do as complete a conversion as you wished -- they'd be a little limited compared to a conversion initated before.

Montana Class (BB-67 to BB-71) Into a sort of weird MIDWAY hybrid.

Alaska Class (CB-1 to CB-6)

Baltimore Class and clone repeats (Oregon City)

Cleveland Class and clone repeats (Fargo)

Up to maybe 5-10% of appropriate merchant hulls, specifically Tankers and large enough cargo ships convertible into carriers.

Up to maybe 35-40% of Destroyer Escorts Basically, you can build them as historical into DEs, or decide to build something more useful for the tonnage; like take 100 more days to get a fleet destroyer, or build another cargo ship with the tonnage, to represent the player being able to bring some sanity back into FDR's insane ocean escort program.

LINK to my site again

I mean, when the US Navy cancels 200+ DEs in September 1943, followed by 100 more in October 1943 and 60 more in March 1944....there's a big problem when about 360~ warships are basically cancelled and it effects the war not one bit.
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by Big B »

Yes exactly.
It's spelled out in the WITPAE Editor Manual...in the root folder, go to the Manuals folder.
You have to bind it to a class.
It's kinda confusing, so read it carefully a couple times.

But I did that for several ship classes.
ORIGINAL: wdolson

You could make this work by making a class that can be converted into several different ship types, then have the ship delivered with a fair bit of damage that needs to be repaired. It will take x long to complete it as delivered, or you can convert it to another type of ship.

Bill
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by wdolson »

The downside of having ships arrive incomplete is that it takes up shipyard space to complete them. You might want to expand the shipyards on the East Coast of the US and possibly in the UK to represent new ship building.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The downside of having ships arrive incomplete is that it takes up shipyard space to complete them. You might want to expand the shipyards on the East Coast of the US and possibly in the UK to represent new ship building.

Bill

Even if you don't require a shipyard for the conversion? Also, once started, couldn't they simply be changed to Pier Side?
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by DOCUP »

Sorry for the thread HI Jack. Ryan on your website, you have an art section US Navy at the bottom you have subs. They look like the V class but have are labeled SSO, SSM and so on. What does the abbreviations mean?

Thanks
User avatar
RyanCrierie
Posts: 1321
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:15 am
Contact:

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by RyanCrierie »

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Sorry for the thread HI Jack. Ryan on your website, you have an art section US Navy at the bottom you have subs. They look like the V class but have are labeled SSO, SSM and so on. What does the abbreviations mean?

SSA: Assault Transport Submarine
SSP: Assault Cargo Submarine
SSM: Minelayer Submarine
SSO: Oiler Submarine

From Norman Friedman's US Submarines Post 1945:

In March 1946, CNO Admiral Nimitz, a former submariner, approved a program to produce a cargo carrier (initially designated SSK, later SSA to distinguish her from ASW submarines) and a troop carrier (SSP). Submarine oiler (SSO) and ammunition carrier (SSE) categories were also established, but conversions were not authorized.

...

The marines wanted a squadron of 12 SSPs, sufficient to carry the 60 officers and 1,380 enlisted men (5 officers and 155 men per SSP) of an assault battalion, with four 75-mm pack howitzers, six 57-mm recoilless rifles, five fire units per weapon (220 tons of ammunition), 158 tons of supplies (for 10 days), and engineer equipment. The marines would land in rubber boats, but they needed 12 amphibian tractors (LVTs) to carry their weapons and other equipment ashore.4 To carry the LVT (with a jeep towing a 75-mm howitzer inside), rafts, and outboard motors, each SSP would have a pressure-proof hangar. The hangar could accommodate a small helicopter instead of an LVT. (A secondary SSP mission—reconnaissance or establishment of a covert post such as a weather station—was proposed in late 1948.) The marines wanted a 4-in deck gun or a 105-mm howitzer for shore bombardment; the SSPs retained their forward 5-in/25 (the after mount made way for the LVT hangar) plus the forward 40-mm gun.

Troops required extra bunks, more showers and heads, and more air conditioning. They also needed so much more air that the SSP might have had to snorkel every 7 hr. To avoid that, she was provided with a C02 scrubber (developed by Mare Island Navy Yard and based on work at the University of Pennsylvania) and 50,000 cu ft of oxygen in high-pressure tanks (3,000 psi in place of the usual 2,000 psi). All torpedo tubes and two main engines were eliminated. The other two engines were fitted with a snorkel.

Two prototype SSPs, Perch and Sealion, were included in the FY 48 program. Despite some fears, the hangar did not interfere with diving. The LVT and rubber boats, however, were unsatisfactory in anything but the lightest surf. The marines abandoned the battalion idea in favor of commando operations.5 One SSP, soon redesignated ASSP (then APSS and ultimately LPSS) was assigned to each coast. Perch in the Pacific and Sealion in the Atlantic. Perch fought in both Korea and in Vietnam; among other assignments, she landed a British commando unit in Korea in 1950. Sealion participated in the 1962 Cuban blockade; presumably, she was intended to land a beach reconnaissance party in preparation for a full-scale amphibious assault.


...

The SSA, intended mainly to support the raiders, was a much simpler proposition. The forward engines, after torpedo tubes, and all reload torpedoes were removed; complement was cut to 55. As in the SSP, a snorkel was added for covert transits. In October 1946, the design was ordered modified to add gasoline-carrying fittings in half the fuel tanks and a larger (36-in, rather than 25-inch standard) hatch into her main cargo space.

Barbero was converted under the FY 48 program, but the cargo-carrier role was soon dropped and she was laid up until a later conversion to a missile submarine.

The marines also wanted an SSO to supply their battalion over the beach; Guavina was converted, under the FY 49 program, as SCB 39. She had to carry both diesel oil and gasoline for vehicles and aircraft and be able to discharge her cargo while submerged. As completed, Guavina had a snorkel and retained three torpedo tubes (one forward to discharge dry cargo, two aft for self-defense). Special saddle tanks could carry 150,000 gallons of jet fuel, diesel fuel, or gasoline. Her motors were replaced with the quieter direct-drive type. The formal characteristics noted that, in future, she might have to carry other fuels, such as missile fuel (in portable containers).

By October 1951, tests had shown that Guavina could fuel another submarine submerged, if both first hooked up on the surface. SubLant considered it doubtful that she would ever have to do that in practice or to fuel a beachhead. She took too long to empty her tanks (10 hr), and the external gasoline tanks would easily breach if she was bombed. She might, however, fuel a small carrier, seaplane tender, or group of seaplanes.

The SSO became important because she could support the new P6M Seamaster attack seaplane.8 As a tender, the SSO would be no more vulnerable to a first strike than the stretch of sea from which the Seamaster would fly. The first Seamaster contract was let in 1953. Guavina was refitted at Philadelphia in 1955 with a flat plane-handling "flight deck" aft. Tests of the new mobile support concept began in January 1956, and characteristics for another seaplane support conversion (SCB 170) were approved in September 1957. The SSO would be able to fuel her seaplanes when submerged to 100 ft (at 400 gal/min), via a floating buoy. She would also carry out minor repairs and act as a navigation and weather reference.


...

One abortive conversion, the minelayer (SSM) proposed for the FY 49 program (SCB 66), deserves brief mention. Existing submarines could not lay mines fast enough to produce a dense field, and, except for the Mk 27 self-propelled mine, they could not carry enough mines for a large field. Design work was protracted, and the conversion was dropped from the tight FY 49-51 budgets. It reappeared in FY 52; Picuda was chosen. A 35-ft mine stowage section would have been inserted between the forward battery and the forward torpedo room. Dry stowage would have amounted to 108 Mk 49 mines in the forward torpedo room, a special mine space, and the aft torpedo room. Another 60 mines would have been stowed in the main ballast tanks. Picuda would have been streamlined and fitted with a snorkel.

They were from a 1950ies scenario I played with, and the idea I had was to have them available to the player, you'd start with a generic fleet submarine, and you'd be able to convert them to GUPPY I, IA, etc or the specialist submarines; a concept a little bit similar to the one espoused in this thread; except that the conversions would take one day; being intended to support quick scenario customization -- want to build a underwater invasion force? Go right ahead!
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by DOCUP »

Thanks
User avatar
RyanCrierie
Posts: 1321
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:15 am
Contact:

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by RyanCrierie »

Here's some PTO III derived shipyard background images.

ZIP file attached to this.
Attachments
PTO3_Deriv..rds_v05.zip
(58.14 KiB) Downloaded 13 times
User avatar
RyanCrierie
Posts: 1321
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:15 am
Contact:

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by RyanCrierie »

Here's the original source images from Teitoku no Ketsudan III (提督の決断III), or as we might know it in the West...Pacific Theater of Operations III (PTO III).

The third game in the PTO series was never localized to the US due to a big flap at the time by the duplicating plant in China that was making the games.

Image
Attachments
PTO_Example_For_Web.gif
PTO_Example_For_Web.gif (63.82 KiB) Viewed 134 times
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

Here's the original source images from Teitoku no Ketsudan III (提督の決断III), or as we might know it in the West...Pacific Theater of Operations III (PTO III).

The third game in the PTO series was never localized to the US due to a big flap at the time by the duplicating plant in China that was making the games.

Image

Oh, nice! This made me sad. I played PTO2 almost as much as I play WITP. I still play it on my tablet sometimes via SNES emulator.
User avatar
Revthought
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:42 pm
Location: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by Revthought »

This is a great idea. I mean, conceivably, you can totally alter the game this way to give players strategic control over warship design generally.

I mean, I'm not necessarily sure anyone wants to mod the game to make it more strategic and move it away from it's operational level focus, though I guess the Japanese players get this already to some extent with control over the Japanese economy AND it isn't the optimal way to do it; however, it works well within the engine as it currently exists.

All of that said, this is a great idea just to give the player a little more control over ship conversions.
Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.
User avatar
RyanCrierie
Posts: 1321
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:15 am
Contact:

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by RyanCrierie »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Oh, nice! This made me sad. I played PTO2 almost as much as I play WITP. I still play it on my tablet sometimes via SNES emulator.

I guess we're allowed a slight sidetrack.

I managed to get a copy of the Japanese PC-98 version of PTO III, plus it's "power-up" (aka Expansion); and from looking at the Japanese Wikipedia + Google Translate:

Original PTO III Scenarios:

US-Japan war [Campaign]
Pearl Harbor Surprise [Scenario]
Battle of Midway [Scenario]
Battle of Solomon [Scenario]
Battle of Marianas [Scenario]
Battle of Leyte [Scenario]
Yamato Special Action [Scenario]

If you beat the scenario, you can decide whether to end the game or transition into the campaign from there.

The Power Up (PK) Kit added (besides a very irritating "manual check" copy protection):

Campaign Scenario

White paper battle plan
All fleets are unorganized.

Highest technology achievement
Technical level is the highest, all weapons are available from the beginning .

Rommel corps group
The German army won the African front and occupied India .

Japan-UK alliance Again
The Japan - UK alliance is continuing after the First World War , and it will be the confrontation between Japan and the U.S versus the US and Germany.

1941 Soviet participation
At the same time as declaring war on the US against the United States, the Soviet Union declares war on Japan.

Sneak attack
As opposed to historical facts, Pearl Harbor attack failed, starting with the death of Admiral N. Yunumi lost four vessels among the six aircraft carriers that we entered, like the Battle of Midway.

Completion of Yamato No. 3 ship
The victory over the Midway battle, the plan of the shipbuilding progresses as planned before the war. Yamato type battleship No. 3 and No. 4 ship ( Shinano and No. 111 ship , which is one of the planned ship name "Kii" in the game) will be completed.

Short Scenarios
Battle of Surabaya
Battle of the Sea of ​​Okinawa
Battle of the Coral Sea
Second Battle of Solomon
Battle of the South Pacific
The third battle of Solomon
Battle of Bougainville Island

There are also a variety of "unusual" units in the PTO III+PK system besides the usual WW2 PTO units:

German Units
From surface ships to aircraft (Graf Zeppelin, Me262)

Japanese Units
The J8M, Kikka, and Shinden are in there; as is the Nakajima G10N Fugaku superbomber.

US Units
The US has F8F, F7F, FH Phantom, BTD Destroyer, BT2D Dauntless II (aka AD Skyraider), P-59, P-80, and B-36 Peacemaker.

"Future" units
B-36s, either Nimitz or Forrestal Supercarriers.

Image
Attachments
SuperCarrier.gif
SuperCarrier.gif (38.3 KiB) Viewed 134 times
User avatar
Admiral DadMan
Posts: 3365
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit

RE: Player Controlled Conversions of Ships through modding?

Post by Admiral DadMan »

Interesting thread. I've done some experimenting in conversion area, particularly Omaha, Iowa, and Alaska class to carriers. Let me know if you are still in need of assistance.
Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”