Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

What an amazing amount of work. My hat is off to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

A few comments.

1. Ship building time is vastly different between peacetime building and wartime building. Be careful
with your averages.

2. Whether a ship would use a building slip would be very dependent on what was being upgrades. Anti torpedo bulges
should require one. An upgrade to AA armament should not. As far as if they would use production slips or maybe
repair dry docks I really do not know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
One thing I need to know is what sorts of upgrades require slip time and what sorts don't. Anti-torpedo bulges is an obvious one for slip time as is hull lengthening. Upgrading AA can be done without slip time. What about reboilering? If new propulsion components are being put in the ship to increase speed would that require slip time or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
One thing I need to know is what sorts of upgrades require slip time and what sorts don't. Anti-torpedo bulges is an obvious one for slip time as is hull lengthening. Upgrading AA can be done without slip time. What about reboilering? If new propulsion components are being put in the ship to increase speed would that require slip time or not?

Basically anything that needs underwater work will require slip time. This include bulges, armour changes (Hiei being stripped and rearmoured), propulsion changes IF they include changes to screws and/or rudders, and of course hull changes.

In this regard, reboilering on its own should not require a slip, unless it was a case of severe internal arrangement changes. On the other hand, I would hazard a guess that since it is a rather involved operation (generally requiring the disassembly of the funnels and parts of the upper deck), doing it on a slip is likely to be much faster. As space for fitting out of ships isnt infinite either, it might be more efficient to do it on a slip to have it done as fast as possible. Obviously, this depends on ship size too - a cruiser or battleship is much harder to 'crack open' to get at the engines (due to armour), than a destroyer is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

Actually, why would you care? I mean this is a what-if thing, so what-if Japan had what it needed to do what you want? If you want to play reality, then you are stuck with what was there and all your new warships go begging and there's nothing you can do about it. If you want new warships, then just add them. Historically Japan couldn't, but you can do what you want. Why try to fake it to make it somehow plausable? It's not plausable, so why even try. Just say this is how it is and stick them in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

There's also a certain amount of fun (at least for me) in planning construction schedules within reasonable constraints. Treaties are one constraint, but details on yards and realistic build times add another. Sadly this isnt as much fun with the US as it is with Japan as with the former you can just assume if the political will is there it will get built.

This is probably evidenced by the fact I've gone through planning the AltWNT Japanese build schedule like 3 or 4 times, even though the results are inevitably rather similar...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

Actually, why would you care? I mean this is a what-if thing, so what-if Japan had what it needed to do what you want? If you want to play reality, then you are stuck with what was there and all your new warships go begging and there's nothing you can do about it. If you want new warships, then just add them. Historically Japan couldn't, but you can do what you want. Why try to fake it to make it somehow plausable? It's not plausable, so why even try. Just say this is how it is and stick them in.

Hi US87891,

I think there are different styles of "what-if" and there's a certain art to it. There's what if Japan had 50 Battleships to start WW2 and there's what if Japan's shipbuilding industry were more efficient, how many ships could they have produced? Presumably I could put 50 BBs in the game and then tweak the rules of the game so that PT boats converted into BBs with a delay of only 2 days. I think most of us would agree that is ridiculously absurd and wouldn't play it. I may as well include zombies and space lizards in the game for all it's worth.

Why do you care if WITP is "realistic" or not? If the game may not necessarily pan out historically then what do you care if anything in WITP is "realistic"? It's basically the same question you're asking me. The minute the attack on PH comes out differently than was historical you've transgressed the boundary between "realism" and "what-if". So why even try to be "realistic" at all? Just switch to "God" mode and make BBs invulnerable to damage and have fun with it.

It's like a painting. You can just scribble some random paint on a canvas and no one is really going to give it a second look. But if you put some meaning and effort into what you put on the canvas then it becomes art. I think something similar applies to "what-if" scenarios.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

Actually, why would you care? I mean this is a what-if thing, so what-if Japan had what it needed to do what you want? If you want to play reality, then you are stuck with what was there and all your new warships go begging and there's nothing you can do about it. If you want new warships, then just add them. Historically Japan couldn't, but you can do what you want. Why try to fake it to make it somehow plausable? It's not plausable, so why even try. Just say this is how it is and stick them in.

Hi US87891,

I think there are different styles of "what-if" and there's a certain art to it. There's what if Japan had 50 Battleships to start WW2 and there's what if Japan's shipbuilding industry were more efficient, how many ships could they have produced? Presumably I could put 50 BBs in the game and then tweak the rules of the game so that PT boats converted into BBs with a delay of only 2 days. I think most of us would agree that is ridiculously absurd and wouldn't play it. I may as well include zombies and space lizards in the game for all it's worth.

Why do you care if WITP is "realistic" or not? If the game may not necessarily pan out historically then what do you care if anything in WITP is "realistic"? It's basically the same question you're asking me. The minute the attack on PH comes out differently than was historical you've transgressed the boundary between "realism" and "what-if". So why even try to be "realistic" at all? Just switch to "God" mode and make BBs invulnerable to damage and have fun with it.

It's like a painting. You can just scribble some random paint on a canvas and no one is really going to give it a second look. But if you put some meaning and effort into what you put on the canvas then it becomes art. I think something similar applies to "what-if" scenarios.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

What I would do for an alternative shipbuilding program is take the average build time for a class and use it to estimate how long a similar ship might take to build and use a chart like the one I posted for Japanese naval shipyards to come up with an alternate production time line. One thing I want to find out is how long a typical refit took and whether they used existing slips for the refits or drydocks or what? For instance I figure a ship built in 1920 would probably get one or two refits before the start of the war. Would that use up some of my production slips or would separate facilities be used for refits?

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

Actually, why would you care? I mean this is a what-if thing, so what-if Japan had what it needed to do what you want? If you want to play reality, then you are stuck with what was there and all your new warships go begging and there's nothing you can do about it. If you want new warships, then just add them. Historically Japan couldn't, but you can do what you want. Why try to fake it to make it somehow plausable? It's not plausable, so why even try. Just say this is how it is and stick them in.

Hi US87891,

I think there are different styles of "what-if" and there's a certain art to it. There's what if Japan had 50 Battleships to start WW2 and there's what if Japan's shipbuilding industry were more efficient, how many ships could they have produced? Presumably I could put 50 BBs in the game and then tweak the rules of the game so that PT boats converted into BBs with a delay of only 2 days. I think most of us would agree that is ridiculously absurd and wouldn't play it. I may as well include zombies and space lizards in the game for all it's worth.

Why do you care if WITP is "realistic" or not? If the game may not necessarily pan out historically then what do you care if anything in WITP is "realistic"? It's basically the same question you're asking me. The minute the attack on PH comes out differently than was historical you've transgressed the boundary between "realism" and "what-if". So why even try to be "realistic" at all? Just switch to "God" mode and make BBs invulnerable to damage and have fun with it.

It's like a painting. You can just scribble some random paint on a canvas and no one is really going to give it a second look. But if you put some meaning and effort into what you put on the canvas then it becomes art. I think something similar applies to "what-if" scenarios.

You are right of course. I have just seen some scenarios that attempt to be plausibly 'historical' pile up on the rocks and shoals of 'reality'. Going to extremes has its own problems but I have done a few scenarios with Akagi/Kaga, 4 'Kakus, 4 Soryus, facing Lex/Sara, 4 Yourtowns and 2 Wasps and with equal BBs and CAs and DDs. They are only 1 to 2 years long and surely not historical, but they are well balanced and a whole lot of fun.

In fact, I would love to see a kind of TACTICS-2 scenario. Both sides equal, as best they can be equal, with the ships being 'real or possible', no whacko stuff. No PTs converting to BBs (that was gratutious and not worthy). I think the best way to add all those Japanese ships is to just add them. Have all you want and give the US the best equivalents you can.

Yes, I am bored with the eventual Allied steamroller so why follow that paradigm? This is a game, so the universe can tilt left if you want. So tilt it left. Make Japan an eceonomic power. Make things equal. And lets see what a bunch of SoDaks can do against some Tosas.I like your additions, but they only make sense in the context of a TACTICS-2 level playing field.

So go rent a grader.