Matrix Games Forums

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!Command Ops gets a Massive Update!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RHS ship production

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RHS ship production Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 2:03:16 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4714
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		I've made a test run:
On turn 1, you have 719 merchant points and even after stopping a lot of ships, there was still a much higher need than what the yards could fit.

So I made a test to find out, how much merchant points Japan would need per turn - and do you know what comes out? Japan needs 10.680 merchent points per turn!

Sorry Sid, but this is total madness!
Yes, I know you even calculate that insects at the windows of planes cause air drag and so make them slower... and so have several reasons for everything in the game - but it can't be like this! You claim RHS to be very historical, but without stopping more than 90% of the merchant ships, there will be none built. Is that historical?
Do you claim it's historical correct, that it took 5 times more workers, navals yards, ressources, etc. for a AO to be built compared with a CL? What is a AO? Isn't it a TK with perhaps more compartments, some extra pumps, some extra room for more crew which needs some more training?
In RHS, a new Yamato-class is cheaper than two simple AOs! This can never be true!
But if it is, would you mind creating an extra version for me with 25 new CVs and BBs for the AOs?

It can't be intended, that the need for merchant points is 14 to 15 times higher than what Japan builts!

Similar with the naval points! Even after halting the two Oita CV training Groups, the need is around two times higher than what Japan builds. You say RHS is historical, so why are German subs more expensive than Cruisers? And why has Japan to pay for them? Couldn't you make them cheaper by changing the load weight of their weapons or other details which define the built costs?
ATM, even after stopping the two Oitas (which makes sense as they are just because of the code), one has to stop many big ships to get others produced. Even after stopping all cruisers, the Shinano and all subs, you still don't have enough naval points to produce the rest.
But is this historical? Was the Shinano built IRL? Were new Cruisers and subs put into service in the war or weren't they?

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
Post #: 1
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 2:16:32 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4714
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		As if I've been blind - I hadn't seen yet, that the big TKs need 131 points to be built.
Alright... A big tanker needs 72% of the ressources, manpower... of a Yamato-class...


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 2
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 2:19:37 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 12400
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I think it's because he boosted the durability of tankers - large ones are like battleships.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 3
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 2:24:11 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4714
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		Yes I#ve ssen that - but is that correct?
And if it is, then it must be concerend. So Japan must start with 9000 or more naval yards instead of 719 - and must have that more industry, ressources and oil, too.

One can't just boost the costs of the ships because of some calculations without concerning the impact of this changes on the whole production!


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 4
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 2:36:57 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 12400
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		The biggest thing to realize when doing something like this is that it's not about dictionary definitions or ship-building technical definitions - it's about how the WITP code uses the data fields. The field called 'durability' seems to be used in ways that differ from those calculations you mention.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 5
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 2:53:18 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4714
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		I think I understand what you mean - but in game, the result is as I am talking about. When we consider RHS to be a "Real Historic Scenario", then we can come to the conclusion, that German Subs are twice as expensive and difficult to built as Japanese CLs and that building a TK is nearly as difficult and expensive as a Yamato class...
This is what the game tells us and how it handles the code.

I don't expect anyone will really disagree, that this is stupid and ahistoric - that it's good and ok that Japans need to built its civil ships should be 14 to 15 times higher than what Japan can produce.

So there are three solutions:
1. The durability gets reduced in big numbers - on both sides, of course as the allied TKs shouldn't stay at their high durability now.
2. There is an immense amount of new industry added to feed the approx. 500-600 naval points (at least) and the 10.000 merchant points. Moreover, after doing this there will be the need for several thousand more HI with more ressources and oil. But if someone stops the ship production, he might produce sveral thousand planes more per month - so this solution is even more stupid than it is now.
3. One calculates the total amount of naval points needed for all the German, Thai and Vichy ships and subs that are needed until the date of their entering of service. Together with the 360 points for the two Oitas, these points are added in the pool from the beginning. As German units were "for free", this is just fair. One might announce the HR that they mustn't be stopped or accelerated to avoid any misuse of the points. The same with the merchant points. When 92% of the ships in the merchant list were built IRL, there must be enought merchant points together with produced while playing, to produce this 92% in time.

Any argument of "Japan had to think about what ship and when, too" are irrelevant, as the dates in the DB now should already include the historical correct times of reduced production because of lacking materials. If a ship was produced with lower speed for some month, the historic date of entering service is in the DB now, no? If yes, we have to assure all historic units are entering service at their correct histic date without any changes in production or naval yards.

I would prefer solution 3, but ATM the game seems unplayable IMO as historical correct ships will never come or not come before 44 or 45...


< Message edited by Historiker -- 1/16/2008 2:57:21 PM >

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 6
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 3:30:58 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 12400
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Yup. My point was only that Sid wants to use the field one way, but the game does use it another way. Guess who wins?

The choices Japan has to make should be within the realm of what was realistically possible. If those settings make that impossible, that's just another reason they should change. BTW try to repair an allied large tanker - they take longer than the battleships!

______

PS: Beautiful baby! Congratulations!

(Bad English speaking Kraut!

Our baby:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa7Ao)

< Message edited by witpqs -- 1/16/2008 3:32:55 PM >

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 7
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 8:14:51 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14609
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I run hundreds of test games until things get messed up late in 1944 (human play is then required for Japan or you have no air force).

I see some confusion in the above postings insofar as there are continuous deliveries of ships.

Now it is true that RHS INTENDS you to turn ships off - IRL Japan planned many vessels never completed - and you have most of those - so you can choose which to complete and which to turn off.

As for things like the cost of submarines, this is indeed a code thing: durability is DEPTH - and a German sub goes deep - so it "costs more" -
this is NOT my fault. You reduce durability these subs are going to be much more easily sunk. Also - German manchines ARE more expensive - and German subs really doubly so. The entire boat was built around a wierd periscope - literally hooked to it in a technical sense - and it is why Japan could not build Type IX even after they were given to Japan by Hitler. It was a complete, complex and expensive way to build a submarine - and using real depth data also makes them harder to sink - helping simulate their better tactics and chances of survival IRL.

My big worry was the impact on combat - and I report that tankers burn out as they should do. I will look at constuction - but note that RHS has many more shipyards - and you get shipbuilding points every day (but don't expend them that way - the old divide by 30 thing). So far I am not seeing a big problem except in respect to late war - and then because of lack of ship points due to ecoomic issues. You must make the HI points you need to get them. As with aircraft capacity - running theoretical numbers is not valid - WITP does NOT let you build the number of planes it says it does in fact.

ALL delayed ships are "paid for" in the game. I delay some tankers (so the replenshment TF does not start mid ocean after refueling carriers with full tanks) - and Japan must "buy" tankers it already owns! This is not my fault - it is better than stock or CHS - which either give you too much fuel mid ocean or never let you have the tanker (depending on the vessel name). It IS wrong - and ONLY code can fix it. Unless you want German subs which don't enter theater until 1944 to appear in 1941, before even they are built - you must pay for them. Fact of life. Well - fact of WITP. It represents lots of missing costs in the system if you prefer to rationalize. But there is not much we can do about it. EVERY ship the ALLIES get delayed would be paid for too if we made the Allies pay for ships at all. Simple system.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/16/2008 8:47:08 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 8
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 8:52:33 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4714
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		Well as I said:
I'm pretty sure that you have your reasons for this data - but still it stays mad!
To get only 5 TKs one is forced not to produce any other merchant ship for a year or more. To get the - historically absolutely correct and so "ungamey" KM units - one must stop half of the CVs, all CA/CLs...

The KM, Vichy and Thai units MUST be for free as long as you demand the game to be a "Real Historic Scenario" - and this nothing to debate. OK, if you show me the data where in Japan German ships were built, I will agree with your plan.

ATM, it's impossible to get all the historic units without expanding the naval yards in a way that permits any aircraft production. - And I don't want to talk about merchant units. A Demand of over 10.000 points per day can not - at least for me - be explained as a "scenario feature". The same with the point from witps that a TK takes longer to repair than a BB...

If you want the durability as it is, something must be changed.
When we have 1500 turns, Japan must start with 1500 x 10.000 = 15.000.000 merchant points and around 1.500.000 Naval points. Acceleration doesn't need to be permitted, as the pool will shrink much fast when much is accelerated and later ships won't be produced, then.
If the game isn't changed this way, Japan will not have it's historical units - in a "most historical scenario"...

I don't know whether you want to keep this as a "feature" but as I consider it as a bug in DB, I will not start any RHS game without the changes I talked about above...


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 9
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 8:56:16 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14609
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Another source of confusion is daily build costs are NOT proportional to total build costs. You must multiply the construction period times the daily build rate to know that. A tanker is not really as expensive as it seems - as it builds in a lot less time than a battleship does. And a submarine builds even faster - at least many of them do. This is not something we control either - the game assumes certain things about construction period - and it is hard coded. What reports seem to show is not under my control - so I don't pay much attention to them.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 10
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 9:02:40 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14609
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Well as I said:
I'm pretty sure that you have your reasons for this data - but still it stays mad!
To get only 5 TKs one is forced not to produce any other merchant ship for a year or more. To get the - historically absolutely correct and so "ungamey" KM units - one must stop half of the CVs, all CA/CLs...

INCORRECT - you are assuming this - misunderstanding this - and it is not so

The KM, Vichy and Thai units MUST be for free as long as you demand the game to be a "Real Historic Scenario" - and this nothing to debate. OK, if you show me the data where in Japan German ships were built, I will agree with your plan.

REPLY: Don't play WITP. It will NEVER be fixed for WITP I - or for AE either. This is not my fault and I can not fix it. Unless you want RTN and KM ships before they should appear - you mus pay for them. Fact of (game) life.

ATM, it's impossible to get all the historic units without expanding the naval yards in a way that permits any aircraft production. - And I don't want to talk about merchant units. A Demand of over 10.000 points per day can not - at least for me - be explained as a "scenario feature". The same with the point from witps that a TK takes longer to repair than a BB...

AGAIN - untrue. Not sure why you think this - but it is not the way it works. IF it WERE I CAN fix it too.

If you want the durability as it is, something must be changed.
When we have 1500 turns, Japan must start with 1500 x 10.000 = 15.000.000 merchant points and around 1.500.000 Naval points. Acceleration doesn't need to be permitted, as the pool will shrink much fast when much is accelerated and later ships won't be produced, then.
If the game isn't changed this way, Japan will not have it's historical units - in a "most historical scenario"...

I don't know whether you want to keep this as a "feature" but as I consider it as a bug in DB, I will not start any RHS game without the changes I talked about above...






I don't know what you are talking about - yet? What changes?

What happens is that the game produces all the ships it can - then the rest "hang." Waiting for a future turn. BUT IF a ship is not yet "building" it continues to advance on the track (date wise).

Note that MOST ships are NOT in production in 1941 - it varies with class - but only SOME ships are being "paid for" when the game begins. Each day - some ships complete - others come into the period where they must be paid for to advance in the production line. Totalling all the ships is more or less nonsense - it is not what happens or needs to happen.

IF we need more points - we can get em too. Japan had something like 1200 shipyards (and since I build junks, landing craft, sea trucks, etc, we need many of them) - and we represent a major fraction of the merchant fleet. [Actually Japan had 1200 small shipyards alone - it had 4 gigantic Navy yards - 2 gigantic merchant yards able to build all warships - and about 3 dozen more modest navy and merchant yards able to build complex merchants and some warships with various limitations). But there was concern I added too many - and we need to run test games to find out how it balances out (theory and code are not always quite the same).

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/16/2008 9:08:50 PM >

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 11
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 9:03:16 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4714
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		AFAIK, a ship starts using points when it reaches a number of days left for being built. Before that, it doesn't cost anything - so you can't stop ships far away.
But this date is determined by the built costs! So when a Tanker from 1944 costs 130 points, it will consume them per day from the beginning - or perhaps after just half a year...


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 12
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 9:07:42 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4714
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

Note that MOST ships are NOT in production in 1941 - it varies with class - but only SOME ships are being "paid for" when the game begins. Each day - some ships complete - others come into the period where they must be paid for to advance in the production line. Totalling all the ships is more or less nonsense - it is not what happens or needs to happen.


I know! and the 2000 naval and 10.000 merchant points are not a product of some calculations - they are what the game demands!
As I was to lazy to calculate all needs to know how much to stop, I changed the naval/merchant pool in an extra copy of Witp-RHS to find out, how much it takes from the pool - and it took 2000 naval points (961 + the daily production) and the over 10.000 (9.xxx + 719 daily production). So I don't take my numbers from nowhere...

< Message edited by Historiker -- 1/16/2008 9:08:18 PM >

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 13
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 9:18:22 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4714
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		Pool started with 100.000 points each.
the dates are from day one and below that day two...




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 14
RE: RHS ship production - 1/16/2008 11:06:49 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline 		Some food for thought.
Total cost to build (at normal speed):
TK Ominisan Maru (14500t)   171610
SS U-168                              24010
BB Musashi                         44585
CV Shinano                        127980
CV Unryu                           46240

So for the price of large TK you may have nearly 4 Unryu class carriers. That's what happens when you try to push simple code too far. Having said that I'm not yet sure what to do to solve this problem.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 15
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 1:18:08 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14609
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Tankers are very expensive - not really a function of hull displacement - and are actually more valued in naval operations than a carrier is. A carrier is useless without tankers after all - and it takes time to get a loaded tanker where you need to do operations - so you plan based on the tankers - and if they are not set up long ahead - the op is not even possible for a carrier.

I can - however - reduce the cost per tanker by 25% - make it 3x vice 4x - without damaging what we should be simulating here. We used a quick and dirty seat of the pants guess- and even if a tanker is twice as hard to sink as a naval auxiliary of the same size (or 4x a AK of the same size) - the flavor is preserved by 3x. It will take a day to do that.

I don't know what the deal is with the sub - a German sub builds in months - not years - but we don't get to set the construction time. Nor can we change the durability - it is depth - period - unless we hurt the sub.

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 16
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 1:37:40 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4714
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		But we can add additional naval points...


Otherwhise - can I change all my German subs by a rate of 2:1 to Unryo Carriers?


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 17
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 6:26:21 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14609
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I will add shipyards of all sorts -
there are hoplessly many missing from the game - so it is easy -

BUT

how do you know what German subs cost? I see a cost like "109" - how do you know how long you pay that price?

I can also create a "German meta base" with production" - so the German subs are "free" ( and Thai ships too ) - BUT

how much is needed? How do you know the production period of a ship?

The meta base can be anywhere - with NOTHING appearing there - or it could be German subs and raiders appear there - and no one else can go there - down in the SW area of the map. I prefer no one goes there at all - you could not really fix a German ship in the South Atlantic/Indian Ocean area. Just generate naval shipbuilding points there. And no way to get oil, resources, etc from that point onto the map.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/17/2008 6:27:56 AM >

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 18
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 9:53:07 AM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline 		The production time in game (in days) is the lower of (10*durability) or (time to arrival). That's how long you pay for a given ship assuming you don't accelerate.
So a sub with durability value 49 takes 490 paid days to complete, costing Japanese 24010 shipyard points in total.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 19
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 10:24:20 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4714
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		How much do you want to add, Sid?
When you add even only some hundred shipyards, you'll have to add HI, too. But that HI needs ressources - and where shall they come from? Even if you boost the Oilfields in Sumatra and Borneo, this stays wrong. Where should the TKs come from to sent the new needed Oil to Japan? What if this fields get damaged while being conquered? As the hard code is so "brilliant" that there is no way to improve the repairspeed of facilities, a longer batte at one oilfield may already break Japans neck...



_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 20
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 12:04:00 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14609
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

The production time in game (in days) is the lower of (10*durability) or (time to arrival). That's how long you pay for a given ship assuming you don't accelerate.
So a sub with durability value 49 takes 490 paid days to complete, costing Japanese 24010 shipyard points in total.


Did I ever say how much I hate hard code? What is so hard about letting US enter the correct data in a field? A German submarine takes about 9 months to build. A German sub also has a diving depth on the order of 650 feet = durability = 65 = 650 days to build. This is the source of the problem. We can decrease durability - but then pay the price in a sub too easy to sink. Since ALL subs are too easy to sink the way code works - I hate do do that.

Another problem may be the way devices are coded. Stock used 9999 for big guns - and I use the actual weight.
So even a gun that weighs huge amounts - hundreds of tons - is much less. It makes battleships relatively cheaper in RHS. On the other hand, 9999 is code for "immobile" - and I have MOBILE heavy guns. Also 9999 is used for people (in land units) - and it makes the reports seem out of whack. Immobile is meaningless for naval guns anyway. What a system.

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 21
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 12:05:48 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14609
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

How much do you want to add, Sid?
When you add even only some hundred shipyards, you'll have to add HI, too. But that HI needs ressources - and where shall they come from? Even if you boost the Oilfields in Sumatra and Borneo, this stays wrong. Where should the TKs come from to sent the new needed Oil to Japan? What if this fields get damaged while being conquered? As the hard code is so "brilliant" that there is no way to improve the repairspeed of facilities, a longer batte at one oilfield may already break Japans neck...




There is too much industry - according to Andrew - who reduced it (while RHS increased it) from former CHS levels. And there is vastly too much resources. Games are not pressing Japan for oil either - not as much as should happen. So we have some latitude here.

I use "Russian engineering." You try a value, then move in the right direction, until you get close enough. It is a crude system - so it cannot ever be perfect. Just functional.

Two effects of this (because I will put the proper shipyards in places like Korea and China now - after long being told it would not be a good thing) is that

1) Japan will have an incentive to capture HI and shipyards

2) Japan will have to manage how HI is used - it can build more tanks - airplanes - or ships (by turning things on and off) - but it cannot build unlimited amounts of them - and complaints "Japan built 60,000 planes last year" will fade.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/17/2008 12:08:59 PM >

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 22
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 12:31:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14609
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Good news - we can cut German sub durability ratings in half. In WITP terms we need to use 330 feet vice 660 feet. German subs were rated at 100/200 meters - and WITP wants the operating depth - not the crush depth.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 23
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 12:45:33 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
quote:

Did I ever say how much I hate hard code?

Many times

quote:

A German submarine takes about 9 months to build. A German sub also has a diving depth on the order of 650 feet = durability = 65 = 650 days to build. This is the source of the problem. We can decrease durability - but then pay the price in a sub too easy to sink. Since ALL subs are too easy to sink the way code works - I hate do do that.

It's a matter of choosing a lesser evil. In this case I would go with less durability - easier to sink subs, it's a no-brainer for me. Better to have weaker subs than to not have them at all due to lack of shipbuilding. The same goes for TK/AO, couldn't you just reduce them to AK/AP standard? You would have to accept the code doesn't work as you would like it to do but at least it would allow players to actually build those vessels.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 24
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 12:56:33 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4714
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Good news - we can cut German sub durability ratings in half. In WITP terms we need to use 330 feet vice 660 feet. German subs were rated at 100/200 meters - and WITP wants the operating depth - not the crush depth.

U VII C/42 had a regular diving deep of 200m while the shipyards guaranteed a deep of 400m (sic!) without damage
U IX had a diving deep of 150/200m

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 25
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 2:11:56 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14609
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have pretty difinitive data on U Boats - and I read German.

We use four sub classes of them - 3 of IX and 1 of VII -

specifically IXC, IXC40 and IXD2 as well as VIIF.

Curiously all have a depth rating of 150 meters = 492 feet. The way they are operationally rated (and not usually mentioned by buffs) is "75/150 meters" - which is 246 feet = 25 in WITP durability terms. That reduces the build time to 250 days for all (down from 490 days for the Type IX and 660 days for the Type VII).

German submarines were overbuilt - which is fairly typical of German engineering and in particular of German submarines - but they did have inconsistencies (essentially not every part could sustain the pressures of operation at great depth). So for long life and minimal equipment casualties - vital in a long distance ocean operation - it was SOP (literally doctrinal) to operate at half the crush depth. In English we call that the "safe operating depth" and the concept that it is about half the rated crush depth is still the usual one. Although in the present age US engineering is using values as low as 5-10% extra (in power capacity for an electronic device for example), it is still standard in all forms of vehicle engineering to test at 100% (double) the rating you intend to give the thing (in terms of weight or strength requirements).
For example, at Chevrolet Engineering, we carry 3 tons of sand as the load for a 1.5 ton truck. Not that this is a good idea - but to insure that it won't break if used anywhere near its rated load.

The vast majority of U boats actually fighting in the war were Type VII and Type XI. ALL type IX had the SAME depth rating of 150 meters. Type VII varied from 150 meters to 300 meters (this latter for the never built VIC42) - but most were in the 150 - 180 meter range. Again - the safe sustained operating depth is half the rating. Because we believed the Germans had the "best" submarine technology (they did not) we tested their boats extensively after the end of WWII - and we simply sank the Japanese guppy's. Turned out that the much vaunted late war German submarines were not safe to operate at speed, had a bad hull form preventing good control, and the exotic Walther engine technology was dangerous and never perfected (in spite of expensive and extensive effort in the UK, US and USSR). And the sonar which we adopted for post war submarines - while German - was not a submarine sonar - but that of CA Prinz Eugen!
For details in English of all this, see US Submarines Since 1945. See also Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy for the assessment that Japanese guppy's were "based on superior hydrodynamic research."

Correcting this data goes a long way to solving the relative problem of German submarine costs - although at the price of making them more vulnerable.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/17/2008 2:19:47 PM >

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 26
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 2:22:59 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14609
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

quote:

Did I ever say how much I hate hard code?

Many times

quote:

A German submarine takes about 9 months to build. A German sub also has a diving depth on the order of 650 feet = durability = 65 = 650 days to build. This is the source of the problem. We can decrease durability - but then pay the price in a sub too easy to sink. Since ALL subs are too easy to sink the way code works - I hate do do that.

It's a matter of choosing a lesser evil. In this case I would go with less durability - easier to sink subs, it's a no-brainer for me. Better to have weaker subs than to not have them at all due to lack of shipbuilding. The same goes for TK/AO, couldn't you just reduce them to AK/AP standard? You would have to accept the code doesn't work as you would like it to do but at least it would allow players to actually build those vessels.


It is an RHS reform that AOs are NOT rated the same as AK type ships in terms of durability. As an engineer, a sailor and a student of marine damage control, I am offended this is not universally demanded - or so universally understood a game ever was devised without building it in. However, we can mitigate the problem a bit. Note that tankers ARE more expensive and take longer to build - not just harder to sink - although the cost is probably greater than the ratio adopted - we can reasonably approximate the relative values using a somewhat reduced multiple (3 vice 4). A more extreme solution would be to make Auxiliaries 150% (vice 200%) of AK value - and tankers 200% (vice 400% - or now 300%).

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 27
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 2:44:03 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline 		You should use a square root of your value as a multiplier as increase in durability affects both the cost per day and the number of paid construction days needed. Thus it should be ok for TK to have durability 1.5-2.0 times higher than AK of the same displacement. AOs could cost more, say 125% of the same hull built as TK.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 28
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 2:52:03 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14609
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Well - you can have your cake and eat it too - because something like that is already in the RHS durability values.
We don't give you a linear relationship between size and durability - as size increases - durability goes up - but at an ever decreasing rate. This was calculated (took a man week) and is in all the values now - so I am talking about reducing the values by 25% (or if need be by 50%) - but these are already compressed values. Thus Yamatama Maru (which isn't a tanker - but probably was the largest AK in the world - at 42,000 tons) does NOT have a durability rating calculated on a linear basis. Same for the "jumbo" tankers.

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 29
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 2:55:51 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline 		But if you have a hypothetical AK and TK of the same size, TK would have 4 times the durability of the AK, right?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RHS ship production Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
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

2.549