Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Bases/Atoll questions

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Bases/Atoll questions Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Bases/Atoll questions - 11/17/2008 6:26:13 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3576
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
I am putting this as a general question as it covers multiple areas. I realize these kind of issues will not be addressed in AE's initial relase but might be considered for future patches.

Was the issue of Port size and capacity looked at in terms of geography. For example, I recall a thread where a player was griping about his opponent having 400+ ships disbanded in port at Iwo Jima. Iwo is a volcanic island with vitually no shelf around it. The water depth falls very steeply so there is no natural anchorage. Other places have incredible potential for large ports because of the geography but, at least in the stock map, have 0 or 1 SPS. Ulithi Atoll, Kwajalein, and Rekata bay are all good examples. Noumea for example has three large natural bays around the city.

Could the code for base potential size be altered? I think moving away from the SPS + 3 to SPSx2 would be a much better solution. So these small atolls with a few square miles of usuable land could not be built up to even level 4 AB's. A base that was 0(1) at game start could only be built to level 2. There are so many islands out in the Pacific that just are not capable of building a 4000 ft runway let along a 8000-10000 ft runway.

Lastly, was the issue of making ports work like airbase in terms of personnell looked at. By that I mean that Naval BF's would have Nav Support troops like AV support. These troops would affect both repair and cargo handling. IMO, ports have a number of functions in WiTP. These are somewhat handled generically in the game. Expanding a port increases all the abilities of the port but that wasn't really the case in RL. What does it mean to expand a port? Here is a list of what I consider:

1. Increasing the physical space of the anchorage by dredging, removing obstacles, etc
2. Increasing wharf and cargo handling which may be accomplished by moving lighters and other small craft into the anchorage. Also would involve warehouse and material movement infrastructure inland. Also, an increase in the manpower would be necessary to make all this infrastructure work.
3. Adding or increasing ship repair abilities. While certainly some shipyards were expanded during the war, most of this type of increase was accomplished by moving specialist ships in like AR's, floating dry docks, machine shops, etc. Most of the forward ports could only accomplish emergency repairs. The US built a huge fleet of AR's and their relatives but they were not available until 1944 or later.

So, a wish list, or maybe better: my thoughts list, would be to address those issues. Just OMO but maybe this way:

1. AB has done a lot of work on the map. I am sure he knows where most if not all of the natural anchorages are in the Pacific. So the AE feature that limits how many and how large a ship can dock at a port is based on "anchorage size, not port size. In fact, I would recomend eliminating the "Port Size" all together.
2. AE has greatly changed cargo loading and unloading. Why not base those abilities on the presence of NAV support as I mentioned above. As WiTP is now, I can put five SeaBee units at a base and turn it into a level 4 port in a few weeks. And POOF: huge numbers of ships can now unload there! Are the SeaBees using their bulldozers and pile drivers to do this? If I use my SeaBees to build a beatiful new level 4 airfield, it is of no use to me until I move Av Support in. Has anyone ever thought how strange this is? If changing the code to accomadate this, why not greatly, and I mean GREATLY, increase the time and supply requirements for port expansion. Port infrastructure is a completely different animal than AB infrastructure. Keep in mind that NAV support does not just represent manpower but also lighters, floating cranes, fork lifts, etc
3. Somehow find a way to detact repair ability from port size. The forward bases just didn't have the inate repair ability the game gives them. I am sure many are familiar with the story of how Halsey reprimanded Arleigh Burke for sending his DESRON to Brisbane to get the engines rehabbed. Why not Noumea? Much closer! Because even in 1943 with the port having an immensely larger cargo handling capability than just a year before, it did not have the facilities to do the work. Perhaps what really needs to be done is enhance AR capability while decreasing port repair ability for those port's without established shipyards at the beginning of the war.

I know I just rewrote have th code for the game but just wanted to put my two pennies in

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
Post #: 1
RE: Bases/Atoll questions - 11/17/2008 8:21:55 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Was the issue of Port size and capacity looked at in terms of geography.



Port size is in there for loading / unloading (maximum tonnage of ships docked based on port size). There is no provision for how many ships can be disbanded in a size 3+ port.

quote:



Could the code for base potential size be altered?



Could it? Sure anything "could" be. Will it be? Probably not in my lifetime. The minimum airbase is level 3 BTW, not 4. There are plenty of bases that start out as 0 (0)'s.

quote:



Lastly, was the issue of making ports work like airbase in terms of personnell looked at. By that I mean that Naval BF's would have Nav Support troops like AV support.



Its in there.



_____________________________


(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 2
RE: Bases/Atoll questions - 11/17/2008 9:38:49 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
In the past, I came up with an econometric model of port size. Basically, I used the harmonic mean of anchorage size, capital investment in facilities, and trained local population/garrison.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 3
RE: Bases/Atoll questions - 11/17/2008 10:33:00 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4902
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
Yamato Hugger has provided some answers, and Don can provide more detail regarding the port loading/unloading system in AE, but regarding the port size and SPS values themselves, AE has basically the same limitation as stock does, in that there is no separation between port facility size and anchorage size. This results in the same sort of compromises that must be made in stock. So ports like Truk, than have massive protected anchorages, but only limited facilities (say, compared to Osaka), will have an "average" port size and SPS value taking into account both of these things. As you guess there would need to be major work on the code to change this to a system that has separate values instead of a combined one.

Having said that, port size does mean more in AE, since it determines such things as how many ships can dock at the port (as opposed to just anchor there), and the largest size of ship (in tonnage) that can dock there also.

And as Yamato Hugger says, Naval support DOES play a role in how effectively a port operates, so in AE we can use this as a means of representing the facilities provided by large naval bases, instead of having to rely on port size alone. As an example, Pearl Harbor is a size 7 port in AE, because there is also Naval Support present to contribute to the efficient operation of the port - Pearl Harbor was not a massive civilian port like, say, San Francisco.

Andrew


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 4
RE: Bases/Atoll questions - 11/17/2008 1:16:38 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3576
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Yamato Hugger has provided some answers, and Don can provide more detail regarding the port loading/unloading system in AE, but regarding the port size and SPS values themselves, AE has basically the same limitation as stock does, in that there is no separation between port facility size and anchorage size. This results in the same sort of compromises that must be made in stock. So ports like Truk, than have massive protected anchorages, but only limited facilities (say, compared to Osaka), will have an "average" port size and SPS value taking into account both of these things. As you guess there would need to be major work on the code to change this to a system that has separate values instead of a combined one.

Having said that, port size does mean more in AE, since it determines such things as how many ships can dock at the port (as opposed to just anchor there), and the largest size of ship (in tonnage) that can dock there also.

And as Yamato Hugger says, Naval support DOES play a role in how effectively a port operates, so in AE we can use this as a means of representing the facilities provided by large naval bases, instead of having to rely on port size alone. As an example, Pearl Harbor is a size 7 port in AE, because there is also Naval Support present to contribute to the efficient operation of the port - Pearl Harbor was not a massive civilian port like, say, San Francisco.

Andrew




I must say I am pleasantly surprised. I am continually pleasantly surprised every time a question gets answered and we get the "Its in there" answer! Major Kudos to the AE team.

PH was not a great port at all. The anchorage was not that big, shallow, and very restricted. I think back to the old WiTP board game and it did base building completely different. You didn't build Ports, you moved BF's into hexes. Some hexes had little anchors in them meaning they had a suitable anchorage present for port development. IIRC, a BF only worked at 50% in a non-anchorage hex and I think you could not put more than a level one BF in a non-anchorage hex (I may be wrong on that). In addition, it took like a month to fully deploy a BF. BF's deployed in already existing ports increased the ports abilities when deployed. So, to increase a port that started the game at level 2 to level 6 would take a minumum of four months IF you had the BF available. Build up ports was a very tedious process in the board game as it should be and greatly limited both sides abilitiy to conduct offensive operations. Especially because the board game had very nasty cargo unloading limitations. BTW, the whole anchorage thing worked for amphibious assaults too. Much easier to offload your transports if they actually had somewhere to park the ships. This is where I was coming from in the original post. If I understand your answer correctly, Andrew, Iwo Jima can still be built up to at least a level 3 port and you can undock the entire US Pacific Fleet there once it is at level 3 or above. Is that correct?

I guess the whole SPS could be made better if the values are a little more harsh. The vast majority of atolls should be 0/0 IMHO. I am playing Big B 1.4 now and Tarawa's SPS was 2/1 at the beginning making the max AB size 5. Really? Ever seen a picture of this place. Where exactly are you going to put that 8-10,000 ft runway? One last thing, going back to the board game, AB construction was not handled very well (Level 1, 5, 10 AB's) but one thing I did like was Atoll's could only have level 1 AB's built on them and the construction cost was GREATLY affected by terrain. Also, building a level 1 AB was easy. A level 5 was hard and took a long time. A level 10 was a major undertaking and took a REALLLY long time




_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 5
RE: Bases/Atoll questions - 11/17/2008 1:32:32 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14724
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Dont forget stacking limits apply as well you cannot dump 10 Seabee Bns onto an atoll for insta AF/Port and Forts

I fully expect a few allied players to get burned if they try to take an atoll and hold it without proper forces to support it

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 6
RE: Bases/Atoll questions - 11/17/2008 1:49:52 PM   
hbrsvl

 

Posts: 1155
Joined: 10/2/2002
Status: offline
Yamato hugger- Is there a rule(or rule of thumb) stating how many ships a port of given size can handle per game turn, without slow downs in loading/unloading?

I.e., a port size one can handle 10, 20 30 7000 AKs? A port size 2 can handle? 2,3,4 times as many as size one?

Or is it like a size one can handle 50,000 total of AP, AK, AO, TK and a size 2 can handle 2-3 times that amount and so on?

Thanks, Hugh Browne

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 7
RE: Bases/Atoll questions - 11/18/2008 5:47:52 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hbrsvl

Yamato hugger- Is there a rule(or rule of thumb) stating how many ships a port of given size can handle per game turn, without slow downs in loading/unloading?

I.e., a port size one can handle 10, 20 30 7000 AKs? A port size 2 can handle? 2,3,4 times as many as size one?

Or is it like a size one can handle 50,000 total of AP, AK, AO, TK and a size 2 can handle 2-3 times that amount and so on?

Thanks, Hugh Browne


It will be in the manual. I hesitate to give exact numbers because things are always changing and what is true today may not be so tomorrow.

Edit: But this I can say, both of the above apply. A port size limits BOTH the largest ship that may dock there, AND the total tonnage of ships that may dock there. So (and this isnt current, I am just plucking numbers out of the air here) say a level 2 port can accomidate a 3000t ship max and 5000 tons of ships total.

Edit2: The Pensacola cant refuel at Tulagi at the start of the game. Its too big

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 11/18/2008 5:59:50 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to hbrsvl)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Bases/Atoll questions Page: [1]
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

0.121