Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: RHS ship production Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 7:55:06 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Yes - was - No - Now it is 3x. However - as size increases - the durability increases at a decreasing rate.

As we decrease the durability value, it has a square effect (in terms of the number of required points removed) - the difference in durability (per day) times the difference in durability (number of days). This will have a dramatic impact.

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 31
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 8:25:55 PM   
okami


Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yes - was - No - Now it is 3x. However - as size increases - the durability increases at a decreasing rate.

As we decrease the durability value, it has a square effect (in terms of the number of required points removed) - the difference in durability (per day) times the difference in durability (number of days). This will have a dramatic impact.

Will this be in 7.7895?

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 32
RE: RHS ship production - 1/17/2008 10:01:42 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
If I understand your method right you wanted TK to be 4 times (or 3 in more recent version) as durable as AK of the same size - i.e. you calculated a durability value for a given tonnage using your highly sophisticated algorithm and then multiplied the result by 4 (or 3 as the case may be) to get a value then entered into the database for TK. What I say is by doing this you increased building cost 16 times (or 9 ) not 4 times as intended at the beginning. So to make a given TK 4 times as expensive as an AK of the same size (which is reasonable) you have to multiply your base durability value by a square root of the factor, i.e. 2.
Hope what I wrote has any sense ;) And I reduced the example to TK and AK of the same size only.

(in reply to okami)
Post #: 33
Mitigating RTN ship costs - 1/18/2008 10:00:48 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
All delayed ships are considered to be "in production" - and cost the economy. Thailand is not permitted to have ships under player control until the day AFTER Thailand formally began to cooperate with Japan - 22 December 1941. So the entire RTN and its tiny merchant fleet cost to produce. To mitigate that we:

1) Permit the Royal Thai Dockyards to build merchant ships and even small warships. They could - but rarely did. This small capacity goes on throughout the game - compensating in part for the loss of points to Japan before the navy "appears".

2) Downrated the RTN subs durability to 20.

3) Damaged ships ALSO appear on 12/22/41 - but with damage. They then cease to cost warship points - and cost repair points instead. These include Sry Aythuia and Trad.

4) Players may delay RTN ship appearence - and then nothing is spent unless/until the players permit it.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 34
RE: RHS ship production - 1/18/2008 10:01:55 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yes - was - No - Now it is 3x. However - as size increases - the durability increases at a decreasing rate.

As we decrease the durability value, it has a square effect (in terms of the number of required points removed) - the difference in durability (per day) times the difference in durability (number of days). This will have a dramatic impact.

Will this be in 7.7895?


Yes - and it is already done for Japan - but I am working on shipyards - and I must do the Allies. In a matter of hours probably.

(in reply to okami)
Post #: 35
RE: RHS ship production - 1/18/2008 10:05:26 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

If I understand your method right you wanted TK to be 4 times (or 3 in more recent version) as durable as AK of the same size - i.e. you calculated a durability value for a given tonnage using your highly sophisticated algorithm and then multiplied the result by 4 (or 3 as the case may be) to get a value then entered into the database for TK. What I say is by doing this you increased building cost 16 times (or 9 ) not 4 times as intended at the beginning. So to make a given TK 4 times as expensive as an AK of the same size (which is reasonable) you have to multiply your base durability value by a square root of the factor, i.e. 2.
Hope what I wrote has any sense ;) And I reduced the example to TK and AK of the same size only.



Well - we will see. I am running a test just now. Remember - my object was to increase the ability to take damage - not to increase cost. Cost can be greater than the ratio of ability to take damage increase - and that is not necessairily a problem. A bigger problem is the time factor - as usual the oversimplified WITP system has some ships right - some too fast - some too slow - in terms of build time. [I think they have learned too - in future such things will be soft coded]
My methods are conservative - and I try to adjust in steps toward the goal.

IF we went over to using 2x for AOs- ALL the auxiliaries (which use 2x now) need to convert to 1.5x - or something like that. That is man weeks of work - and I hope to avoid it.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/18/2008 1:56:29 PM >

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 36
RE: RHS ship production - 1/18/2008 11:09:06 AM   
Mistmatz

 

Posts: 1399
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: okami


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yes - was - No - Now it is 3x. However - as size increases - the durability increases at a decreasing rate.

As we decrease the durability value, it has a square effect (in terms of the number of required points removed) - the difference in durability (per day) times the difference in durability (number of days). This will have a dramatic impact.

Will this be in 7.7895?


Yes - and it is already done for Japan - but I am working on shipyards - and I must do the Allies. In a matter of hours probably.

quote:

Yes - and it is already done for Japan - but I am working on shipyards - and I must do the Allies. In a matter of hours probably.



Are you saying allies will have to manage ship building from the next revision on? I believe there was some discussion the last two weeks that this could be done but I maybe missed that this is going to be implemented. Or am I misinterpreting here?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 37
RE: RHS ship production - 1/18/2008 12:09:39 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
I think he meant durability values for some Allied vessels will be reduced to make it on par with Japanese changes.
Sid, could you post a list of changes for 7.7895?

(in reply to Mistmatz)
Post #: 38
RE: RHS ship production - 1/18/2008 1:47:16 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: okami


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yes - was - No - Now it is 3x. However - as size increases - the durability increases at a decreasing rate.

As we decrease the durability value, it has a square effect (in terms of the number of required points removed) - the difference in durability (per day) times the difference in durability (number of days). This will have a dramatic impact.

Will this be in 7.7895?


Yes - and it is already done for Japan - but I am working on shipyards - and I must do the Allies. In a matter of hours probably.

quote:

Yes - and it is already done for Japan - but I am working on shipyards - and I must do the Allies. In a matter of hours probably.



Are you saying allies will have to manage ship building from the next revision on? I believe there was some discussion the last two weeks that this could be done but I maybe missed that this is going to be implemented. Or am I misinterpreting here?



No - you misunderstand my reasoning.

The Allies cannot manage ship building - except at the start - by scenario selection. [RHS gives you the chance to say "I want 3 more CLs as CVLs" - or 6 even - lots of choices - but the Allies must make them by scenario selection. We have a scenario with focus on medium subs, on DEs with more speed at the price of fewer units, lots of things]

The reason the Allies must be redone is victory points - and also damage must be to the same standard. A 10,000 ton tanker should be similar for both sides - so to keep things consistent I had to rerate all those Allied ships too.

Another problem is shipyards need to be done - particularly where they might be captured. This gives locations more (economic and strategic) meaning. Vizapatam (in India) isn't even in WITP except for RHS - but it is a major shipbuilding center - was a fairly significant one even then - and we need to insure it is an asset the Allies feel a need to defend. A certain amount of industrial review occurs every time we look at locations. Previously I was working under guidance indicating fears of adding too much industry. But we are not consuming oil or resources fast enough - and we are not producing all of it either (half the resources are absent because of problems in the consumption model - as well as the AKs to lift them). So modest changes are indicated. It will help feed the shipyards HI points (for Japan only) - but even "Allied" cities matter to Japan - if captured. It is part of the whole concept of autarky (local economic independence).

(in reply to Mistmatz)
Post #: 39
RE: RHS ship production - 1/18/2008 1:48:07 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

I think he meant durability values for some Allied vessels will be reduced to make it on par with Japanese changes.
Sid, could you post a list of changes for 7.7895?


There is an entire thread dedicated to it.

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 40
Victory Points - 1/18/2008 2:51:10 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
A modder must compromise. One big reason for increasing durability for auxiliaries and tankers is that players need to value them like admirals do. I set out not only to make them harder to sink, but to cost more, and be worth more VPs.
I am loth to give up all this - somehow we need to preserve the relative differences - even if we must rework everything.

I am not happy with the low durability values of cruisers. Anybody else notice this?

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 41
RE: Victory Points - 1/18/2008 3:03:44 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
Victory points are irrelevant in RHS IMHO. You have changed so many things that the balance is far gone and the whole thing meaningless.
Auxilaries and tankers should be worth more (and more costly) than simple AK, I like it that way. But 16 times as much as it is in 7.7893 is a bloody lot to much. 2-4 times seems ok to me. And I haven't noticed them to be hard to sink, they eat torpedoes as always, so this aspect is not worrying me much.
As for cruisers, I have noticed that, but you are going to open another Pandora's box with a change. Could you comment on an apparent low legs of allied cruisers in RHS as reported by many players?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 42
Test results - 1/19/2008 12:23:14 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
This is working. Although it was not yet quite finished (capacity wise) - Japanese ship production of all kinds (warships, merchants, repairs) is running four figure daily balances - provided you halt appropriate numbers of ships. [Battleship construction was halted the day after PH on Shinano for example - only resumed after Midway. There are many ships in the data set you should not want right away. Phasing production works fine: when Yamato arrives turn Musashi on again - that sort of thing).

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 43
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 12:27:31 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

Victory points are irrelevant in RHS IMHO. You have changed so many things that the balance is far gone and the whole thing meaningless.
Auxilaries and tankers should be worth more (and more costly) than simple AK, I like it that way. But 16 times as much as it is in 7.7893 is a bloody lot to much. 2-4 times seems ok to me. And I haven't noticed them to be hard to sink, they eat torpedoes as always, so this aspect is not worrying me much.
As for cruisers, I have noticed that, but you are going to open another Pandora's box with a change. Could you comment on an apparent low legs of allied cruisers in RHS as reported by many players?



VPs are irrelevant to me too - but many players like them. And they are useful in a way - more so if tankers are like real Admirals regard them. Same for auxiliaries - these ships get four stripers for a reason (while a destroyer gets a three striper and a sub 2.5 or 2 stripes).

They do not cost 16 times as much in terms of VPs - as far as I know - and it is certainly less now.

Allied Cruisers do NOT have low legs. If you think so - look at Japanese cruisers!!! They have historically accurate legs and I am sorry if you don't find them enough: it is another reason tankers matter.

Cruisers go fast - going fast horribly eats fuel. A warship can go six weeks between major maintenance - but only a couple of days without fuel - if it is maneuvering fast. We had to replenish ammo every several days too. A carrier captain is always worried about fuel - two kinds - ship fuel and avgas. Facts of (naval) life.

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 44
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 3:26:54 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 25910
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Suggestion on ships range - use Cruise Speed setting when transiting large stretches of ocean. It really saves on fuel (and on sys damage).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 45
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 6:50:24 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
On a test with NO ships disabled, warships produce and there is always a surplus of points - although not all warships advance every day. Merchant ships run the surplus down to zero - and should - but we will add a few more points. You should not be able to build every ship - unless you capture more capacity in the SRA or elsewhere. But you can build the vast majority - and this seems to be close to right. Repair is OK in 1942 - and will be inadequate in 1943/44. But you can both capture and expand repair shipyards, and collect repair points too.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 46
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 6:51:21 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Suggestion on ships range - use Cruise Speed setting when transiting large stretches of ocean. It really saves on fuel (and on sys damage).



Absolutely correct - as it should be - and under your control. It makes a LOT of difference - and I like this feature of WITP.

Another solution - tie fast ships to slow ones - and system damage is less - and range is greater.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 47
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 12:07:01 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
quote:

They do not cost 16 times as much in terms of VPs - as far as I know - and it is certainly less now.

I was talking about a shipyard points cost. VPs are irrelevant . Increased durability affects both cost per day and build time, so if you multiply it by a factor of 4 the total cost increases 16 times.

quote:

Allied Cruisers do NOT have low legs. If you think so - look at Japanese cruisers!!! They have historically accurate legs and I am sorry if you don't find them enough: it is another reason tankers matter.

I don't have an oppinion on this matter yet, just read some complaints on the forum that cruisers have shorter legs than destroyers (some of them). Might be it's ok.

quote:

You should not be able to build every ship - unless you capture more capacity in the SRA or elsewhere.

You can't capture naval or merchant shipyards. They turn to repair after capture.

quote:

n a test with NO ships disabled, warships produce and there is always a surplus of points - although not all warships advance every day.

Now you contradict yourself in one sentence. If ships do not advance every day they do not eat shipyard points so they do not produce. In game it means you do not have enough shipyard capacity for all of them. The whole problem lies in how much you are below the balance line.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 48
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 1:33:20 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
Sid...
Don't forget that the game uses the data you give to it in it's own way...

You want historical correct durability? That's fine, I really like it! But when this means, that one needs 15 times more points to built the ships, then "genius turns to madness" (refering to one of my favourite musicals...)
Yes, there will still be ships arriving, but far to less and far to late!

Your test runs must be like the one I did, with a huge amount of building points to see, how much the building list needs - not without any points!
When the civil ships in RHS are historical correct and there historical date of arrival is set in the DB, than you have to assure that they will enter the game at exactly the historical date wihtout any changes made by the player. I guess even you can't discuss this, no?
When you add 5% more than the historical correct ships to let planned ships also enter the game and to allow the player to decide what to build: fine, I like that! But then you also have to assure that the 95% historical ships still enter the game at exactly their historic date after stopping the new 5%.

As this means atm, that the need for shipyards is several times higher than what Japan has, you must change something. Reduce the costs of the ships so significantly that the actual industry is enough to assure their historic enter of the game or assure this dates by adding more shippoints. Whether this is done by enlarging the pool or by new industry doesn't matter, but please don't call your game "historic scenario", when Japan nearly builts no merchant ships as it is today...



As the house I live in has burned yesterday night, I'm living at a friend now who hasn't internet in his flat. So I can only participate in this discussion when I'm at my flat to open the windows and close them in the evening to get the toxic fume out and to pic up some things...


_____________________________

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 #: 49
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 3:49:23 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

quote:

They do not cost 16 times as much in terms of VPs - as far as I know - and it is certainly less now.

I was talking about a shipyard points cost. VPs are irrelevant . Increased durability affects both cost per day and build time, so if you multiply it by a factor of 4 the total cost increases 16 times.



Lets be clear about this: we only have to multiply durability because it was not right to begin with. We are not really "multiplying" it relative to what it ought to be. For reasons of a culture gap difficult for me to grasp - I joined the navy as a youth, was forced to study damage control in my 20s, and later studied engineering - the idea that "durability" is "identical" for similar sized vessels is an alien one from my point of view. Nevertheless, it seems to be one people find natural and acceptable - never mind how things really work. The only reason to compromise on this at all is that we don't want to have excessive game effects - and there is no basis for the idea it is somehow wrong - or even slightly unreasonable - to get durability right. The problem is the game does not permit us to put in the actual build time and daily cost - which would be much more accurate - but which would generate a lot of time entering data (something not in the commercial interests of a software house). So we get (as usual in WITP) a mixed bag - and sometimes the cost is too high - sometimes too low - and sometimes just right IF we use the 4x multiple. Going to a different multiple gives us exactly the same result - sometimes too low, sometimes too high, sometimes dead on - although for different classes. The problem is to figure out the best compromise in game terms. But the relative cost of a ship IRL is indeed a function of a lot more than its sheer volume: if you include everything - even crew costs including training - you will find that the most expensive of all ships is probably an AR. I have only attempted a minimal amount of movement in the direction of causing players to know the relative cost of ships - and that as a side effect of getting durability more correct in general.
More durability does not save you (usually) from torpedo attack - and should not either: but it does help re other kinds of damage - again as it should.

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 50
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 3:54:38 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan


quote:

Allied Cruisers do NOT have low legs. If you think so - look at Japanese cruisers!!! They have historically accurate legs and I am sorry if you don't find them enough: it is another reason tankers matter.

I don't have an oppinion on this matter yet, just read some complaints on the forum that cruisers have shorter legs than destroyers (some of them). Might be it's ok.

quote:



It depends. For one thing, "legs" is really measured at cruising speed - not full speed. But which cruising speed? A US crioser was supposed to have 10,000 miles at 10 knots (often it was not quite that high) - and that does not sound low on the face of it. But as speed increases, range decreases. Even so, US boilers were much more efficient than Japanese ones - so a typical Japanese ship carries more fuel (in tons) - but has less range - at an equal speed. WITP stock - and CHS - had horribly inconsistent data when we looked at this - but CHS also defined the solution: use real data. We have just implemented that. With such a large database, there must be errors (according to information theory) - and there is always the issue of different sources differ - but we tried to get it right - and it is close to right. But for "legs" you must compare range to the stated cruising speed - not some other value.

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 51
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 4:01:54 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan


quote:

You should not be able to build every ship - unless you capture more capacity in the SRA or elsewhere.

You can't capture naval or merchant shipyards. They turn to repair after capture.





I hope this isn't the case. If it is, it should change. Warships and merchant ships were built in Allied yards - and a more efficient management would have done a lot more of both. RHS has these ships appearing at Hong Kong, Soerabaja, etc - and it only makes sense to have the yards consuming resources there. At its heart the idea that we use dissimilar systems for different sides is flawed. It also is not consistently implemented: an aircraft plant can be captured - and it works fine - but it refuses to produce enemy aircraft - and starts over at 0 - which I think is also fine. Ultimately we need to go over to a more honest economic model - and if needs be we can do this inside the game turns (automatically generating the right kinds of yards in this case - if a port changes hands). But so far it appears that a vast array of reforms is being implemented - and certainly economic modeling is getting a lot for attention. Regardless, the charter is "get the data right - and code will follow in due course" - and that is what we do. We can neither change what code did in the past nor what it will do in the future - so I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.

Consider facing for AA guns on ships: Why is it in the data set? It isn't used. But it will be used some day. So we spend a lot of time getting it right. On principle.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/19/2008 4:03:54 PM >

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 52
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 4:09:17 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan



quote:

n a test with NO ships disabled, warships produce and there is always a surplus of points - although not all warships advance every day.

Now you contradict yourself in one sentence. If ships do not advance every day they do not eat shipyard points so they do not produce. In game it means you do not have enough shipyard capacity for all of them. The whole problem lies in how much you are below the balance line.




This is a misunderstanding of what happened IRL, or what should happen in game terms. We were running out of points - and I see with longer tests we still do. But IRL many ships were planned - or begun - or even mostly built - but not completed. They "ran out of points" IRL. I don't want to give players the option (which I did) to build every possible thing - and see it practical to implement it - UNLESS they capture a lot of shipbuilding capacity (which - if it cannot be done now - I promise it will be possible someday - even if I have to do it myself: it is like not putting in Russian ships - it was never acceptable to me not to do so - and it is amazing that actual money was spent to write code to make it impossible - but I still did it). In practical terms, we were not, and should not, try to make it that you can leave every ship turned on and get every ship built - on time. This is not possible in any large building program - never mind one in a country like Japan. It appeared we had too much difficulty - so I am trying to mitigate it - and that is all I am trying to do. I have been monitoring this for about 48 hours - and I like what we have now a lot. But I did not promise you could build everything - I don't want you to be able to - and I don't intend to make it possible.

None of this is really related to relative ship costs - except in a technical detail sense - that they can make it relatively harder or easier. I have no intention of going to "Auxiliaries = AKs = AOs" again - ever - under any circumstances. It is as wrong as can be - and we are not moving in that direction.

The goal SHOULD be "give players options" AND "players THEN pick and choose which ships they want to complete" AND "if they keep a working economy long enough, and don't try for too much, they will get all or almost all they tried for." I think for AIO and CAIO I should do this for Japan myself - so junk does not prevent good stuff from showing up in a timely way.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/19/2008 4:12:07 PM >

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 53
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 4:16:15 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Sid...
Don't forget that the game uses the data you give to it in it's own way...



Yes and no. The game is evolving - and how the data is used is evolving significantly. I work not just for how it is - but for how it will/should be.

Further - remember - NO ONE anywhere knows how the code works. Quote "After a year I thought I knew how this worked (a particular aspect of combat). Then I found a branch in code, and it changes everything. I am sure of nothing." That from a Matrix programmer.

So it isn't practical to worry too much about what the code says.

Further - if I want to know how it really works (which is usually NOT how it was planned to work in a complex program like this one) - I can measure it. I often do just that - to design a workaround - sometimes even a perfect one. The problem is there are too many things to do this for - and I often just keep what was - without a lot of analysis - so we can issue something before the 22nd century.

The best we can do is figure out what the data should be - and if it is not working right - either code can change (see Russian ports and Russian ships for example) - or we can modify the data (see what I am doing right now) - to help get a better compromise.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 54
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 4:17:54 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


You want historical correct durability? That's fine, I really like it! But when this means, that one needs 15 times more points to built the ships, then "genius turns to madness" (refering to one of my favourite musicals...)
Yes, there will still be ships arriving, but far to less and far to late!



We are producing Yamato class battleships and large carriers - and tankers - and just about everything else - so I don't see this as a big problem. We need to test more extensively to see just how well the new compromise is working?

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 55
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 4:19:10 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


Your test runs must be like the one I did, with a huge amount of building points to see, how much the building list needs - not without any points!


Au contraire, mon ami, my test runs were wholly unmodified standard loads - these start you with 200 warship points and 100 merchant ship points - and 0 repair points.

HOW do you change what it starts with? I see no field - although there must be one - as all scenarios have these values.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/19/2008 4:20:34 PM >

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 56
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 4:23:26 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

When the civil ships in RHS are historical correct and there historical date of arrival is set in the DB, than you have to assure that they will enter the game at exactly the historical date wihtout any changes made by the player. I guess even you can't discuss this, no?






No. A game world is not the real world. Too many variables. Is the economy functioning perfectly? Is the player giving enough priority to ships vs - say - planes ? [Most players maximize planes far too much - robbing HI points from ships]
Did the enemy damage something - anything really - in the complex chain that must all work?

Further - you seem to be missing what I did. IF Japan PLANNED the vessel - it is in RHS. But they could not hope to build all they planned (neither, for that matter, could even the USA). You MUST turn off something - or you will get the code idea of what comes out first.

And it isn't realistic to calibrate to the point an unguided game will produce only historical ships to the day. That would take - oh - 15 or 20 years to get right.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 57
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 4:28:08 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

When you add 5% more than the historical correct ships to let planned ships also enter the game and to allow the player to decide what to build: fine, I like that! But then you also have to assure that the 95% historical ships still enter the game at exactly their historic date after stopping the new 5%.



What is a "historical ship"????

I say it is any ship authorized by an official building plan.

Further - plans themselves changed with the war situation.

Further - at some point - all plans became almost completely moot - nothing more was buildable really. Due to the changes in war situation.

I added a lot more than 5% more ships - for one thing the game as presented to me had a gross number of missing ships. RHS represents many ships in multiple ship units - as a workaround but also for playability and even better simulation. [I do this even if there are no slot limits in other games - sometimes multiple is better] But in terms of WITP as it began, there is vastly more than 5% extra to build - our multiple LC units are expensive compared to single ships.
The alternative is not to give players what they need/should have/would have. And the more we give them, the more they need to manage things - not just accept things showing up. You can do that, but you get what you get when you do.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 58
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 4:31:48 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

As this means atm, that the need for shipyards is several times higher than what Japan has, you must change something. Reduce the costs of the ships so significantly that the actual industry is enough to assure their historic enter of the game or assure this dates by adding more shippoints. Whether this is done by enlarging the pool or by new industry doesn't matter, but please don't call your game "historic scenario", when Japan nearly builts no merchant ships as it is today...






It isn't reasonable to increase the building capacity several times over - but it is reasonable to increase it by a major fraction - and I just did: initial naval shipyards have 1254 points (and more will build automatically - if you don't try for any) - initial merchant yards have 1496 points - reversing the stock ratio - and there are 1184 repair yard points to help you maintain the actually bigger as well as more expensive fleet. It appears that these values work to some degree with player neglect - and they should work adequately if really managed. You DO have the option to increase them. You should NOT do much of that - a wise player will TURN OFF shipyards at certain locations on certain dates - but I leave the details to players to work out. IF you invest in ships more - you won't be building horribly too many planes - that is for sure.

It isn't reasonable to cut ship costs - for one thing I need half a year to change them all - by major fractions - but I have done some things to help - attacking the worst cases (a strategy that can be done in two days).

Tests indicate a major break in the logjam - lets see how it works? Just don't expect it to be "you get everything with no work" - because it does not mean that. You can have merchant ships - lots of them. I am a technician and I have addressed this matter with some impact. It looks like it was easier than I at first expected. And some things (e.g. the meta carrier training groups) you helped me to see could be done with less (actually zero) impact.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/19/2008 4:43:09 PM >

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 59
RE: Victory Points - 1/19/2008 5:15:13 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


Your test runs must be like the one I did, with a huge amount of building points to see, how much the building list needs - not without any points!


Au contraire, mon ami, my test runs were wholly unmodified standard loads - these start you with 200 warship points and 100 merchant ship points - and 0 repair points.

HOW do you change what it starts with? I see no field - although there must be one - as all scenarios have these values.

These points have a device number. Look at it and you can change the pool...

And yes, you must look at how much it is consuming, because otherwhise things like the one discussed here are happening...

When Japan has built ( I just say some numbers) 250 AKs, 10 AOs, 35 TKs within the war, then a "historic szenario" must offer enough points to built all this 295 civil ships with the shipyards in the game - as they where built in them. When you add extra ships to this 295 which were intended to be built, which were cancelled because of lacking materials, etc. - then you do something I really like! But even then, this 295 ships have to be built at the historical correct dates when stopping this extra ships when the player doesn't change anything concerning the shipyards...

You always declare: "we can't do this as there were only so much steel", "we can add more capital ships to offer free choose of what to built as there were only so much big shipyards" "one mustn't expand the factories as Japan couldn't import machine tools"
But while there every inch away from history is a real drama, it's totally ok to you that Japanese Shipyards must built German, Thai and Vichy ships; that only a very small percentage of the historically built ships will enter service as you've made them incredible expensive (2 KM SS as expensive as a Unryo CV...); that some ships are built (for points!!!) over years because of their enlarged durability while their construction originally may have only lasted for some month...


Go on as you want, if you don't understand this problem, there's no hope in further efforts to convice you - so I'll let you go on undiscussed and play another mod or change your Version in a much more historic way...

< Message edited by Historiker -- 1/19/2008 5:40:26 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 #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  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 >> RE: RHS ship production Page: <<   < prev  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

0.359