How are captured units represented?

[Zakhal]

If merchant vessel looses a morale check the player looses the control of the ship for a duration of time? Ship would stay where it is and if enemy forces come close it might surrender.

[mdiehl]

IRL, at any one time numerous merchant ships are "laid up" in every major port, for routine maintenance or necessary repairs. Ships spend a lot more time in ports, and a lot less time at sea, IRL compared to wargames.

Quite so. I read somewhere, quite recently, that owing to a variety of reasons, of Japan's surviving merchant capacity at the end of WW2, something like half was laid up awaiting delayed maintenance.

I'd say it's better to make it a simple system. Forget the morale check stuff since it's arbitrary and because it seems not to simulate anything real (unless you specifically mean mutinies).

IMO the best way to do it is to have a random number check if a ship is in port when the port is captured. The ship sails if random (100) < 100-(flot damage+system damage). Ship is otherwise scuttled in port and available for reflotation if not actually destroyed by the scuttling process.

[Knavey]

Why not make a generic set of merchant ships that can be used by either side. If they are taken when the port falls (or whatever the triggering situation is) they switch flags. No need for classes, just call them generic and put in some value for guns. Both side would have a certain number of these vessels and that would change as they are captured.

[fcooke]

That game had a capture mechanism that worked pretty well. On the high seas too. If a combat tf ran into a transport tf without escorts the merchies would sometimes put up a fight, sometimes not. some merchies would get sunk, others damaged and captured. It seemed to be a good balance.

[mdiehl]

Capture of any vessels by combat vessels on the high seas should be virtually impossible. To do so, a ship had to have boarding parties trained to do it and the means to board. The only kinds of ships that should be able to attempt it are US CVE ASW TFs and Axis auxiliary cruiser-raiders.

Generic container ships is a poor idea. PW pretty much got the model right, AFAIC.

[LTCMTS]

Three thoughts

1. During the final Japanese assault on Corregidor, the first two Type 95 tanks got stuck on the beach and the IJA platoon leader used a captured M3 Stuart to haul them up the hill to the Golf Course.

2. The IJN tried to raise the radars from the PoWs and Repulse for technology upgrades, especially for gunnery radar.

3. The Japanese took the Browning .50 cal design and produced a series of A/C guns up to 30mm. They also tried (and failed) to create a version of the Garand and the Bofors 40mm.

The Japanese went to war on a string, without the excess industrial capacity to adjust to technology changes and faced the same industrial obsolesence that the Soviets came to after the Brezhnev build up of the '70s left them with the excess to respond to American technology challenges.

By any measure, the only possibility of a Japanese victory, even in a straight up Orange Plan, would be enormous luck, coupled to a complete failure of AMerican morale, USN and USAAF stark incompetence and a diversion of some form of at least 75% of the US's industrial capacity.

[elcid]

A US destroyer, thought effectively "scuttled" at Soerabaja, was rebuilt as something like a DE or gunboat, and deployed with the IJN. It is the only US warship in WWII to serve under both US and Japanese flags. There were more than one or two Duch examples of this sort, depending on what counts- including a couple of destroyers. The Thai gunboats were both built and refitted in Japan, but only served in the Thai navy. But TWO Chinese light cruisers had sunk in shallow water (they were really giant river gunboats, intended for shallow operations), and both were raised and served in the IJN - although not as CLs - but as gigantic DEs!!!! The Chinese names were Ning Hai and Ping Hai. The Japanese names were Ioshima and Yasoshima (both of which could be translated "many islands" - they refer to Japanese island groups). But these CLs COULD have been refitted as CLs, as they had been designed in Japan, one was actually built there, and their guns and engines were naturally Japanese. The problem with refitting captured ships is fixing NON Japanese systems - thus hornet would be valuable mainly as a source of scrap steel - or for an auxiliary purpose (transport of vehicles, storage for teak, as the German navy used its carrier, etc.).

[AmiralLaurent]

It was an usual feature during the war to capture merchant vessels either at sea or in port, the latter having been most of the times (but not everytime) scuttled.

And some operations by IJN were designed to capture shipping at sea during Singapore or Java evacuations or later by sending raiders (including cruisers in March 1944) in the Indian Ocean.

In UV, when a surface force meets a merchant ship it is sunk on the spot. In dozens of cases, it was captured instead.

So my rules would be :
_ capture at sea is possible when a merchant vessel only TF meets a surface combat fleet that is set on 'Patrol/Do not retire mode'. So no quick raids to capture a ship, you have to make it stop, board it, replace the crew, etc...
_ in this case, you have a chance of capture for each ship.
_ ships with troops aboard will be less likely to surrender.

The main source for captured tonnage was the ships scuttled in Singapore, Surabaya, Manilla and so on. Here I would say that any merchant ship sunk in a port has a change to be raised and reused... even by its own side.
For example, if for one reason or another, a port is taken with 10 merchant ships inside, all are scuttled but could be raised. And ships sunk in port by prior attacks could also be raised.
But if the Allied retook the port one month after, they could raise the boats also. Or they could raise the boats before the port is taken.

Mogami said that in any game, a human player will get all the ships out of IJN range quickly. But he would not let
Singapore and Java without supplies or they will fall quickly. Not to speak of Manilla.
Then some, if not most, of the merchants available in the Far East should be small and low (1500 tons) and start the campain with damage showing their bad state. And some should have no fuel or few fuel. So the fuel in Manilla will be used to refuel the warships or the merchants here.
I definetly like the idea of a morale roll for a merchant ship to leave a port under blockade by an enemy fleet.

The above should apply to Allied ships for sure but I don't think Japanese should be concerned by capture at sea or morale check. Allied merchant crews were often from several nationalities, with a good part of their crew Indian or Chinese with few motivation to risk their lives for some bucks. I don't think USN transports (AK and AP) coming in 1942 should be concerned.

A distinction should be done in my mind between what I would call military transports (Japanese and Allied transports with military crew) and civilians ones (with civilian crew unprepared for war, most of the ships present on the Allied side at the start of the war). The first should be very difficult to capture and will follow most if not all orders, as warships.

Regarding victory points, you should be given points for units lost by the enemy and the same points as bonus if you captured the ship.

Examples :
AP John Wayne is value 12 points and is in Shangai at the start of the war.

1) the crew fails the morale check and the ship is captured on day 1 of the war.
IJN gains 12 points because the ship was lost by the Allied
and 12 more points because it can now use it.
When the USN will sink this ship, USN will score 12 points. Overall a 12 points difference.

2) the crew pass the morale check and went to sea on day one, being sunk shortly later in open sea.
IJN gains 12 points

In case 1, the double points awarded is important because you can scuttle the ship you just captured (case of a cruiser raid in Indian Ocean for example) and still have the same points difference as if you sink it in battle.

As other have said here, capture of military equipment is almost useless because of lack of spare parts, manual and training. But supplies and fuel should be captured in part (the most engineers the defenser had, the most fuel/supplies would be destroyed before the surrender/defeat... maybe it could be an order for engineers like build fortif/port/airfield... just destroy everything before surrender/retreat).

The only country to use in great numbers captured material during WWII was Germany. And they could do that because they captured also the factories (in France, Italy or Czechoslovakia) that build those materials.
Germany was also the greatest user of captured warships. Most of them were captured before being launched and were finished by the Kriegsmarine. Others were surrendered for political reasons (like the French ships in Bizerte in November 1942) and the others were scuttled in ports during "alliance changes" (France and Italy).
Both sides in North Africa use captured trucks and during the war the Red Army used tens of captured Panzer in some units (cases known to me in 43 and 44) but in both cases, they were using only part of the captured park and using the rest as spare part source and all this materiel was rapidly falling apart. In Pacific theater, there are not enough vehicles to make a difference.

Maybe the engineer vehicles could be captured, it seems to me that the Japanese stemroller captured on Guadalcanal was really useful to prepare Henderson Field.

But USN should not use Zero before holding Japan and IJN not use B-17 before hodling Seattle...

[mdiehl]

1) the crew fails the morale check and the ship is captured on day 1 of the war. IJN gains 12 points because the ship was lost by the Allied and 12 more points because it can now use it. When the USN will sink this ship, USN will score 12 points. Overall a 12 points difference.

I completely disagree. There should be no "morale check." Any fueled ship that is capable of making way without foundering should be presumed uncapturable.

There should be no additional VP awarded for ships captured as opposed to merely sunk or scuttled. Indeed, the whole notion of "casualty VP" should be thrown out. The only VP should be for turns holding objectives.

[AmiralLaurent]

Mdiehl, morale check should be done by civilian crews because they are historical. Most ships captured intact during the first months of 1942 had not respected the order of fleeing or scuttling given by the Allied command.

And if points are given for ships sunk (as in UV), more points should be given for ships captured, especially in short scenarios.

If you play the full campain, who will count the points, you win or lose the war. As it will take years, you will just play it without bothering for long if you are losing or winning.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by mdiehl
I completely disagree. There should be no "morale check." Any fueled ship that is capable of making way without foundering should be presumed uncapturable.

Uncapturable??? I guess you dont want a historically accurate game then.

Some Examples of very capturable ships:

Ben Nevis (5,264 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 9th, 1941 - Captured by IJN off Hong Kong, renamed Gyokuyo Maru

Federlock (6,607 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 8th, 1941 - Captured by the IJN in the China Sea, renamed Fukuzan Maru

Kaiping (2,563 tons) - Freighter UK
Jan 2, 1942 - Captured by IJN in port of Manila, renamed
Kaiho Maru

Kalgan (2,655 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 12, 1941 - Captured by IJN in port of Bangkok, renamed
Nishi Maru

Kiangsu (2,661 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 8th, 1941 - Captured by IJN off Amoy, renamed
Kimnon Maru

Munlock (5,240 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 8th, 1941 - Captured by IJN in the China Sea renamed
Rizan Maru

Pleiodon (5,878 tons) - Tanker UK
Feb 15, 1942 - Captured by the IJN in port of Singapore, renamed
Nansie Maru

St. Quentin (3,528 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 8th, 1941 - Captured by IJN in China Sea, renamed
Shinai Maru

Spirilla (5,695 tons) - Tanker UK
Feb 15, 1942 - Captured by IJN in port of Singapore, renamed
? Maru

Vitorlock (5,030 tons) - Freighter UK
Dec 8th, 1942 - Captured by IJN in China Sea, renamed
Wazan Maru

Tjisaroea 97,089 tons) - Steamship NEI
Mar 4th, 1942 - Captured by IJN DD Arashi, renamed
Chihaya Maru

Duymaer Van Twist (1,030 tons) - Cargo Ship NEI
Mar 4th, 1942 - Captured by IJN CA Atago, renamed
Dai Maru

Majang (536 tons) - Cargo Ship NEI
Feb 15th, 1942 - Captured by IJN in Stait Banka, renamed
Niko Maru

Sigli (1,579 tons) - Freighter NEI
Mar 2, 1942 - Captured in Ind Ocean by IJN DD Hayashio,
Shigure Maru

Tobelo (983 tons) - Cargo Ship NEI
Feb 21, 1942 - Captured by IJN near Kupang Timore, renamed
Tobi Maru

Mindanao (5,236 tons) - Tanker USA
Feb 10th, 1942 - Captured by IJN east of the Philipines, renamed
Palembang Maru

Morazan (2,984 tons) - Freighter USA
Dec 8th, 1941 - Captured by the IJN in port of Shanghai, renamed
Ekkai Maru

Paz (4,260 tons) - Freighter USA
Jan 2, 1942 - Bombed and Captured by IJN off Manila, renamed
Hatsu Maru

President Harrison (10,509 tons) - Passenger Ship
Dec 8, 1941 - Captured by IJN off Shanghai , renamed
Kachidoki Maru

Dukar (1,350 tons) - Freighter NOR
Dec 8, 1941 - Captured by IJN off Hong Kong, renamed
Amoy Maru

Gran (4,140 tons) - Freighter NOR
Dec 9, 1941 - Captureg by IJN in port of Bangkok, renamed
Hoshi Maru

Halldor (1,515 tons) - Freighter NOR
Dec 25,1941 - Captured by IJN in port of Hong kong, renamed
Haruta Maru

Hellios (1,922 tons) - Freighter NOR
Dec 8, 1941 - Captured by IJN off Saigon, renamed
Setsuzan Maru

Herleik (1,891 tons) - Freighter NOR
Dec 8, 1941 - Captured by IJN in port of Bangkok, renamed
Yalin Maru

These are examples of ships that were captured *intact* either at sea or in port. It is not a complete list and does not include the many ships that were scuttled but ultimately reflotted and used by Japan during the war. Some Mechanism for captured shipping is a MUST. Unless you are going to give the Japan an artifically higher number of indigenous shipping to compensate.

[mdiehl]

If WitP uses the merchant marine and transport OOB from PW or UV then the Jpn already has far more capacity than it should have. The talk of the need for a means to capture merchants is at this point a bit like talking about chroming a horse.

Yeah, some of those ships were captured afloat. I wonder how many of them were laid up for repairs or for lack of fuel, or were operating at manifestly sub-par speed because they made a hasty exit from port? Almost all of them I'd wager. "Morale checks" had nothing to do with it.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by mdiehl
If WitP uses the merchant marine and transport OOB from PW or UV then the Jpn already has far more capacity than it should have. The talk of the need for a means to capture merchants is at this point a bit like talking about chroming a horse.

Yeah, some of those ships were captured afloat. I wonder how many of them were laid up for repairs or for lack of fuel, or were operating at manifestly sub-par speed because they made a hasty exit from port? Almost all of them I'd wager. "Morale checks" had nothing to do with it.

mdiehl

First thats just an unsubstantiated opinion on your part, but if that was the case then why didnt the ones in port scuttle themselves? As far as capturing merhants at sea I dont think speed is a critical issue.

Regarding the oob. AS far as I can tell UVs merhant OOB is historical. While its true that because the game just models one theater more ships may be available than was probably realistically possible, given other commitments, this will not be a problem in WitP because it models the whole war. The problem is, if WitP's starting oob is historical than there MUST be some sort of mechanism to model captured shiping, because it was a SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL reality. I can name at least 80+ merhants that were either captured or reflotted and put into service by Japan. I dont want to give Japan anything. I want them to have to work to get this critical extra shipping. How can you argue against that?

[mdiehl]

I'm not saying they didn't capture ships. I'm saying that most of the ships the captured were lost because of reasons having nothing to do with a "morale check" WTF that means. In most cases you'll find it's ships laid up, ships with mechanical problems, or ships that fled too late.

Thing is, it is supposed to be a game that allows deviations from history. Why should the Allied player be forced to keep his ships in harms way if it is obvious that it is better to get them out or scuttle them?

[elcid]

two japanese regiments used captured US light tanks

a fair number of B-17s were restored to service by Japan and used for training purposes - and might have done other jobs

a number of ships were used by Japan - including on US destroyer and one dutch destroyer


capture should be a possibility - unescorted merchants at sea should be liable to capture, complete with cargo


IMHO

[elcid]

Someone above said that capture should "only" be allowed to US CVE groups and Axis merchant cruisers, as there is a need for a special party. Well, new flash: VIRTUALLY ALL WARSHIPS HAVE A LANDING PARTY/BOARDING PARTY/PRIZE CREW. It is the same party, in most cases, or substantially the same party, augmented for the mission in others (e.g., a prize crew usually adds a couple of specialists if they are not naturally part of the boarding party). It does not take very many people to man a merchant ship - typically a watch must have two or three men once the ship is underway - one to steer and one to change engine speed if required. It is nice to have an officer in charge, and a radioman, and a navigator, and a signalman, and of course a couple of deck hands for lots of reasons. But warships have all of those things, and the Watch Quarter and Station Bill provides for a cross section to be assigned to the Landing Party/Boarding Party/Prize Crew. In the USN these people go to a USMC 'Landing Party School' and (in period) they all qualify on four weapons: an LMG, a rifle, a shotgun, and an SMG. Every petty officer already qualifies on a pistol as a Basic Military Requirement. The British system is similar, and the Japanese system is a copy of the British. Germans used a different method: in which a large ship had several "prize crews" instead of the normal one of most navies. German (and some other Axis) large ships also were a bit like APDs, in that there is is provision to carry troops, berthing them in the passageways on fold down bunks. These ships should be rated as better fast transports than USN and UK ships are, with much higher capacities. They also theoretically could embark actual merchant crews, if that was the mission.

[LTCMTS]

Is there a provision for the capture and use of supplies? As an example, the capture of British supply dumps and transport was a major enabler for the success of Yamashita's offensive down the Malay Peninsula in 1942, just as the failure to capture such dumps was a major factor in the failure of the Japanese offensive in 1944 at Kohima/Imphal, especially since the Japanese had planned on supporting their offensive with captured enemy supplies.

[mdiehl]

VIRTUALLY ALL WARSHIPS HAVE A LANDING PARTY/BOARDING PARTY/PRIZE CREW.

News Flash Special Report: Very very very very few of them ever captured a ship on the seas. Sinking merchants or capturing them in port was far more common.

[bradfordkay]

"I'm not saying they didn't capture ships. I'm saying that most of the ships the captured were lost because of reasons having nothing to do with a "morale check" WTF that means. In most cases you'll find it's ships laid up, ships with mechanical problems, or ships that fled too late."


Mdiehl, the "morale check" is a game designer's method of abstracting all the possible problems that could prevent a ship from leaving port. Sure, many ships could be given enough system damage at the start of the game to prevent them from leaving port, but this still won't model the cases where the native crews (the black gangs and deck hands on many of the western ships in the area were not westerners) melted into the background rather than risk being sunk at sea by the Japanese. There were multiple reasons for ships not leaving port, and we are just offering ideas as to how that could be modeled in the game. Noone is saying that actual morale is the only reason the ships were captured.

[mdiehl]

Mdiehl, the "morale check" is a game designer's method of abstracting all the possible problems that could prevent a ship from leaving port. Sure, many ships could be given enough system damage at the start of the game to prevent them from leaving port, but this still won't model the cases where the native crews (the black gangs and deck hands on many of the western ships in the area were not westerners) melted into the background rather than risk being sunk at sea by the Japanese. There were multiple reasons for ships not leaving port, and we are just offering ideas as to how that could be modeled in the game. Noone is saying that actual morale is the only reason the ships were captured.

I figured it was an abstraction. Problem is that if one calls it a morale check or a reaction check or whatever, the usual propaganda is going to kick in: "It's a morale check. Everybody knows that Allied morale was terrible, where I come from, so the tendency should be for Allied flagged ships to fail said checks. Everyone knows that Japanese morale never failed, where I come from, so the tendency should be for Japanese flagged ships to pass said checks."

I offer an alternative solution. Any time a civilian container ship with more than 10% sys damage passes through the same hex as a warship or any hex adjacent to a warship, the container ship is automatically captured. Any civilian container ship with more than 25% sys damage may not leave the port in which it currently resides.