RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message


Mike Solli -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/25/2011 11:33:24 PM)

Thanks Damian. Just what goofballs like me need. [:D]




fcharton -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/25/2011 11:47:14 PM)


quote:

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




n01487477 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/26/2011 1:00:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton


quote:

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 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/26/2011 3:53:03 AM)

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




n01487477 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/26/2011 4:03:57 AM)

quote:

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 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/26/2011 4:10:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

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




n01487477 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/26/2011 4:25:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

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




n01487477 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 12:18:26 AM)

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

[image]local://upfiles/19798/397118686A464D3E983612F6D00D5F2B.jpg[/image]

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

Range(hex)
range_hex = (int)Math.floor(GetEndurance()/40);

and FYI Full Speed
range_hex = (int)Math.floor(GetEndurance()/(40*4));

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

Fuel/Day
float fuelUseDaily = (float)GetShipFuelPerHex() * (float)GetShipDailyHexMovement_Mission();

Cargo/(F/H) - need to rework this one maybe per suggestions by Francois
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?






PaxMondo -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 6:22:57 AM)

Sweet.  Thanks!!




Graymane -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 2:08:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton


quote:

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!
                    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

                    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.




USS America -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 2:19:07 PM)

Graymane, the railroad reference and your location cause my spider sense to tell me there is (or was) a very large yellow employer involved in your career.  [;)]




n01487477 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 2:19:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Graymane

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton


quote:

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!
                    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

                    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.


OK - I can put this in the document and Tracker pretty easily. I just want to clarify the last point. So the Endurance I'd be substituting is the Range from point A to B right ?

Thanks for the help BTW ...




USS America -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 2:31:41 PM)

Damian, I think if you are writing about the ships, you should use their max endurance, but if you are writing about planning a convoy between point A and point B, then that distance would be the endurance used.




n01487477 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 2:38:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Damian, I think if you are writing about the ships, you should use their max endurance, but if you are writing about planning a convoy between point A and point B, then that distance would be the endurance used.

I think your right, and I can do both with Tracker. But I am wondering if I should define speed as hexes_per_day or average(max + mission,0). And in which case also define Endurance as MaxHexes.

Thanks




n01487477 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 3:40:25 PM)

Using Graymane's formula ...
cargomiles = (((float)theMaxSpeed + (float)theCruiseSpeed)/2) * ((float)GetCargoCapacity()+(float)GetLiquidCapacity())
    				* (float)theEndurance / (float)theFuel;
    				


[image]local://upfiles/19798/80A9F5BD3A5D400CBD1C2A6B573C02FE.jpg[/image]




Graymane -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 5:20:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Graymane, the railroad reference and your location cause my spider sense to tell me there is (or was) a very large yellow employer involved in your career.  [;)]




Shh.... [:)]




nashvillen -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 5:45:01 PM)

+1, eagerly awaiting v1.9! [&o][&o]




Graymane -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 6:32:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Damian, I think if you are writing about the ships, you should use their max endurance, but if you are writing about planning a convoy between point A and point B, then that distance would be the endurance used.

I think your right, and I can do both with Tracker. But I am wondering if I should define speed as hexes_per_day or average(max + mission,0). And in which case also define Endurance as MaxHexes.

Thanks


Hmm..interesting. Do people run convoys at anything other than cruise speed?

Hexes probably makes more sense.

Also, I'm sure the manual says something about max speed using more endurance per turn and I don't see that you factor that in. I don't have access to it right now to verify.




n01487477 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 11:32:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graymane

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Damian, I think if you are writing about the ships, you should use their max endurance, but if you are writing about planning a convoy between point A and point B, then that distance would be the endurance used.

I think your right, and I can do both with Tracker. But I am wondering if I should define speed as hexes_per_day or average(max + mission,0). And in which case also define Endurance as MaxHexes.

Thanks


Hmm..interesting. Do people run convoys at anything other than cruise speed?

Hexes probably makes more sense.

Also, I'm sure the manual says something about max speed using more endurance per turn and I don't see that you factor that in. I don't have access to it right now to verify.

Yes - but my calculations are based on Mission speed for hex movement and endurance levels. I said earlier that range for max speed is range_hex = (int)Math.floor(GetEndurance()/(40*4));

But this doesn't equate to Mission Speed setting. So I'd rather just look at it this way.

If I use HexSpeed,
then should it be like this ?

cargoeff = hexes(day) * cargo * range(hex) / fuel(hexes(day))




rader -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/28/2011 11:37:21 PM)

This looks like a really informative summary, nice [:)]




Mike Solli -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/29/2011 12:02:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Graymane

Hmm..interesting. Do people run convoys at anything other than cruise speed?



Mission speed for me.




n01487477 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/29/2011 12:43:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: Graymane

Hmm..interesting. Do people run convoys at anything other than cruise speed?



Mission speed for me.

Isn't it the same ? Uses the same Endurance, fuel and you get the same movement ... I thought I had that right [&:]




Knyvet -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/29/2011 3:39:23 AM)

Damian,

I think mission speed reduces wear and tear (e.g. SYS damage).




n01487477 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/29/2011 6:07:37 AM)

Made some more changes and added some information. Found some errors in Tracker too - which is another good reason to be doing this ...

To finalize now;
-Airproduction
-Check list

So I guess in a few more days this will be ready for draft 2.
[edit] edited versions are avail from the links on post 1.




inqistor -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/29/2011 7:37:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

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.

That is because distance travelled is not int, leave it at float. If TF is making 7.9 hexes per day, we will see 8 travelled in most days.

Also, I think there should be TWO separate values for cargo efficiency:
1) liquid, because you can load fuel into cargo space, so sum of liquid, and modified cargo (how much reduction it is? 50%?). Maybe even add ships fuel load, because it can be pumped out to other ships.
2) pure cargo

I do not think possible distance is needed to anyone. What people are most interested is how much fuel the ship will use per ONE hex, with comparison with its full load. But speed can be added to calculation, so something like this:

cargoHex = (float)GetCargoCapacity()/(float)GetShipFuelPerHex()*theCruiseSpeed;




bigred -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/30/2011 4:01:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

This looks like a really informative summary, nice [:)]

+1




Mac Linehan -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (10/30/2011 9:02:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

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.


Damian -

Your remarks pertaining to the realistic / non realistic R&D settings has clarified my understanding of the concept.

Thank You, Sir!

Mac




n01487477 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (11/6/2011 12:27:29 PM)

Didn't get anything else done this week as my laptop died.

Will try to get something finalised in the coming week - now that I have mooched a computer of a mate. (Don't want to buy one in SthKorea for various reasons.)




paulk205 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (11/11/2011 8:25:54 PM)

I'll probably sound like a typical greedy newbie, but what the hell, I need to ask...

This is a wonderful document for someone like me who has been nibbling around the edges of this monster game and many thanks for your hard work in compiling it. So far I have only played as the Allies vs the AI but I'd love to give Japan a crack, mostly for the counterfactual fun (attack Manilla instead of PH etc). But the economy completely daunts me and I really haven't got the time for learning through trial and error. I've tried to use this document as a starting "recipe" but I'm still making too many mistakes. Experienced players like you here already have the sensitivities of the system in your blood, but for a newbie it's still a recipe - too many parameters are in play. Soooooo...

Would a Turn 1 save (Scenario 1, vs AI, non-historical first turn) with all the initial economic work done, but without any military moves performed, ever be made available by one of the kind souls in the forum? I can't think of a better way to learn than by comparing the initial set up with something like what is is described in this document.

OK, let me now wear my tin hat. Ready. Flame away... [:D]




n01487477 -> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc (11/11/2011 11:52:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulk205

I'll probably sound like a typical greedy newbie, but what the hell, I need to ask...

This is a wonderful document for someone like me who has been nibbling around the edges of this monster game and many thanks for your hard work in compiling it. So far I have only played as the Allies vs the AI but I'd love to give Japan a crack, mostly for the counterfactual fun (attack Manilla instead of PH etc). But the economy completely daunts me and I really haven't got the time for learning through trial and error. I've tried to use this document as a starting "recipe" but I'm still making too many mistakes. Experienced players like you here already have the sensitivities of the system in your blood, but for a newbie it's still a recipe - too many parameters are in play. Soooooo...

Would a Turn 1 save (Scenario 1, vs AI, non-historical first turn) with all the initial economic work done, but without any military moves performed, ever be made available by one of the kind souls in the forum? I can't think of a better way to learn than by comparing the initial set up with something like what is is described in this document.

OK, let me now wear my tin hat. Ready. Flame away... [:D]

No flame - it is my intention to do just that... I'm just putting the final touches on it and then I'll post it. The changes are just economic NOT tactical.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0390625