AI and Jap Production

[bstarr]

In making an Allied player vs. Jap computer mod, what adjustments need to be made to the Jap factories? Increase shipbuilding? Armament factories? I know supply and fuel is automatically increased by the playing at a harder lvl, but should oil and resource be upgraded as well?
bs

ps. happy easter

[el cid again]

This is a very complicated matter that cannot be addressed briefly and correctly at the same time. It is under study - and some modification - in both CHS and RHS teams.

[rockmedic109]

I am not completely sure. With El cid saying that it is being looked at by the CHS team {I want to start with CHS 1.08 when it comes out}, I may need to rethink my plans.

But I currently plan to increase Resources and Oil by 50% in Japanese home islands. I am not sure about increasing Heavy Industry.

Engine production is something that others have commented on. I don't know for sure. My idea was to increase the Engine production by 50%. I remember hearing that one {Nakajima or Mitsubishi} really needs a ramped up production. I was going to increase them by 100%. May have to up Oil and resources to compensate.

I was going to put small {10-15} repair yards at Truk and Cam Ranh Bay. AI doesn't seem to know how to save damaged ships.

[el cid again]

But I currently plan to increase Resources and Oil by 50% in Japanese home islands. I am not sure about increasing Heavy Industry.

This seems very wrong. Japan is going to war to get oil most of all, and other resources as well. The code system is way to easy on Japan - it needs to import only a fraction of what it should. Seems like you are going the wrong direction here.

CHS (meaning Andrew) is modifying resources and industry - mainly by reducing things significantly in Japan - and adding small amounts in other places. RHS is making a quick pass (tons of research are required) at getting resources right (weight wise) - and then eating excess supplies that come with them (where they are excess). That is the plan - it is not implemented fully. In neither case is Japan going to be as well off as it was - because there is a consensus the Japanese need to earn their production by importing resources - and then feed their troops by exporting supplies. To that end I have blocked hex sides that would permit a free supply line to Asia from Japan - and I think Andrew has as well. No matter how big you build you will never get to import resources without using ships - something players may be able to do if they figure out how in present scenarios. It is gamey, strategic nonsense, and I want no part of it.

Another dimension of this is reduction of the capacity of ships. I am probably going farther with this: my cargo ships will have about half of what they did before for example. Because the way things work there is way too much cargo capacity - and it is being misrepresented what it means to carry a real load (which usually is not done to perfect efficiency of weight and space measures - and anyway ships are rated on tax space - not real usable space!).

[el cid again]

Engine production is something that others have commented on. I don't know for sure. My idea was to increase the Engine production by 50%. I remember hearing that one {Nakajima or Mitsubishi} really needs a ramped up production. I was going to increase them by 100%. May have to up Oil and resources to compensate.

I worked on this first. Hard. Joe liked what I did - but even though I took something done by others and just implemented it in greater detail - it failed to win a consensus with the others. So it won't be in CHS, but it will be the heart of RHS air production. I had severe problems - only 10 slots show up in reports - and some of them are hard coded - reporting company names only! What I did was

1) Assign engines by power rating to aircraft. I used the historical designation of the most common engine in each range.

2) I assigned each engine to a manufacturer - its real one if possible.

The result is a system in which some planes need an Ha-5 engine made by Mitsubishi. That is necessary - because some reports ONLY say "Mitsubishi" - while most say Mitsubishi (Ha-5).

What this means is that you cannot build engines in 1942 which are small, and use them in 1944 when you get planes that need bigger engines. On the other hand, if you are content to build planes with 500hp engines in 1944, by all means do so. You decide. Some of the engines need to be developed too.

What all this means is that Japan has a more rational engine production system. Planes with similar engine ratings can share production - but planes with radically bigger engines cannot. Usually that means late war high performance planes need different engines. And that means that the engine production must change - and so there will be some inefficiencies.
In the end Japan needs to carefully manage aircraft and engine production - and unless it makes a lot of Ki-27 Nates (or some such) it won't produce as many planes as it could. I am a real loggie doggie (that is a military term) at heart - and so is Joe - so we can get all the planes we want - but that in part is because we don't go for numbers - we go for quality and mission.

I do not think increasing engine capacity is simulating the real situation at all well. It probably should be decreased, not increased - if you are interested in simulation. The way to get more engines is to invest more - not to get them free in 1941 by modding.

[el cid again]

I was going to put small {10-15} repair yards at Truk and Cam Ranh Bay. AI doesn't seem to know how to save damaged ships.

I have added repair yards in China, the Philippines (Cebu), Indonesia, Panama, places that really had them. Not fictional places.

[rockmedic109]

"This seems very wrong. Japan is going to war to get oil most of all, and other resources as well. The code system is way to easy on Japan - it needs to import only a fraction of what it should. "

True. My intention is to assist an anemic AI. Though playing on "Hard", it may not be needed.

I want to take CHS 1.08 and modify it slightly for a better AI game. Then play with a few house rules basically to limit gameyness. Stop the recon by sacrifice, training up bombers by running supply missions to their own base, no holding Manila {MacArthur declared it an open city and did not defend it} and so on.

One House Rule I am thinking about now is about the subs in Manila. How many could have sailed on Dec 8? In my previous games, the S boats tried to defend the Philippines and the others began interdiction duties. My current thought is that the 21 sub salute {sailing them all on Dec 8} is wrong and that sending them to areas off Japan is also wrong {Asiatic Fleet Command would keep them all for defense of the Philippines}.

[bradfordkay]

rockmedic109 wrote: "One House Rule I am thinking about now is about the subs in Manila. How many could have sailed on Dec 8? In my previous games, the S boats tried to defend the Philippines and the others began interdiction duties. My current thought is that the 21 sub salute {sailing them all on Dec 8} is wrong and that sending them to areas off Japan is also wrong {Asiatic Fleet Command would keep them all for defense of the Philippines}."


In my past couple of games I have instituted a personal rule where 2 subs per tender per day can be sent off to war. Thus it takes about a week to send them all out to sea. This is probably still too fast, but I've accepted it as a reasonable compromise between my desire to get at the invading enemy and what the base is capable of...

[mlees]

One House Rule I am thinking about now is about the subs in Manila. How many could have sailed on Dec 8?

I have a book at home that lists the USN sub patrols, by theatre/base, and the dates they sailed, how long they were out.

If you wish, I can post the historical sailing dates of the US boats in subic. I think you will be surprised at how fast they got to sea for their first patrols.

[rockmedic109]

Sounds like a good one. I think I'll add it to my list.

Thank you

[rockmedic109]

If you'd like. Sounds like a lot of work, though. Bradfordkay's idea of two subs per Tender sounds like a good idea that can work throughout the game.

As much of a history fiend as I am, I doubt I could limit myself to sailing the subs on the day they actually sailed.

Maybe changing their entry date to the day they sailed? It protects them from Japanese bombers on port attack, but against the AI, this is uncommon and subs are rarely hit in them.

[mlees]

I thought that you were trying to tone down the shotgun effect of the US boats coming out of Manilla.

If you feel that 2 per day is sufficient, play it that way. I think that number is a tad low. I was offering a historical record to bolster my own self esteem, opinion wise. [8D]

IRL, I think they (the subs) did come out like gangbusters in the first three days. (One boat was sunk in Cavite by Landbased bombers.) Later on, they staggered back in, then staggered back out again, as their own individual needs dictated.

[Mike Solli]

Ok, what happens if you disband a sub in a port without an AS?

[ChezDaJez]

Another dimension of this is reduction of the capacity of ships. I am probably going farther with this: my cargo ships will have about half of what they did before for example. Because the way things work there is way too much cargo capacity - and it is being misrepresented what it means to carry a real load (which usually is not done to perfect efficiency of weight and space measures - and anyway ships are rated on tax space - not real usable space!).

Exactly what is a tax space rating, how is it determined and how does it apply to WWII merchant vessels? More specifically, how does it apply to WitP?

If my understanding of what a tax space rating is, then it is not a worldwide standard and can be determined by individual countries for the purposes of revenue generation. And it does not reflect a "true" depiction of useable cargo space.

According to the International Convention of Admiralty and Maritime Law, ship weights are determined by gross tonnage and cargo capacity by net tonnage. The Lloyd's of London Ship Registry used gross and net tonnage for rating ships and uses net tonnage for insurance purposes. International law also uses gross and net tonnage values.

I don't have a problem with lowering the amount of cargo capacity available to Japan as I seldom use more than 50-60% of the available merchants in my games. I also don't use 50% of the AKs available to the Allies either when I play that side.

Whatever standard is used needs to be consistant across the board and for all nationalities.

Chez

[el cid again]

I want to take CHS 1.08 and modify it slightly for a better AI game

Andrew says it has become clear that we need to put most things in the same slots as stock - or in empty slots. I independently came to the same conclusion about the same time. The AI is not really AI - it is mostly a collection of instructions tied to slots - mostly in the location file -sometimes in the class file, ship file or device file (for sure). You can manipulate that programming - but you cannot make it smarter. Thus, if you want a different non-malaria hex in a tropical zone, you can do it - but you cannot add even one non-malaria hex. [You can get rid of them only by not using the non-malaria slots - otherwise - if the location is in the zone it is always malarial.] If you want almost all units in the Philippines under AI control to abandon their posts and run to Manila instead of Bataan, swap slots. You can make them run ANYWHERE they can get to - just put "anywhere" in the Bataan slot. Or you can make them stand their ground - maybe - by not putting any location in the Bataan slot. But you don't make the AI even pretend to think - it always does what you (and the Matrix programmers) told it to do.

[el cid again]

no holding Manila {MacArthur declared it an open city and did not defend it}

Fear not - under AI it won't be defended. Everyone runs except the Fort Drum (Manila Bay) fortress. Unless you put Manila in the Bataan slot, it won't be defended.

FYI I believe it is MUCH smarter to DEFEND Manila than to abandon it. I almost always disagree with MacArthur - he is close to the bottom of my list of US generals - and the only 20th Century US commander (probably the ONLY one in any century) to be defeated by an inferior force twice!
[He outnumbered Homma and had a major set of expensive assets - one of which ALONE could have denied Manila Bay to the enemy for a long time - if only he gave it food - Fort Drum (Disclosed in about 1983) - see The Concrete Battleship. At one point he had at least 80,000 held in place by 2,000 effectives. When the IJA brought up an ad hoc artillery division, it took 20 minutes to break the US position. He outnumbered and vastly out-equipped the Chinese Volunteer Army of Korea - and was actually trying to jump off in an attack on the SAME river line on Thanksgiving Eve 1950 - the Chongchong River. That time he managed to almost set a record for losing ground at high speed - it rivals the great tank offensives of history - only this was done when HE had the tanks and the enemy was INFANTRY!] Every person not on Corregidore in the Bataan campaign cought both malaria and dengue fever - and for what?
It was Mac who decided NOT to go there, and stopped stockpiling food there. Reversing this decision was not exactly wise. And allowing Manila to fall undamaged (which attracts me too) didn't matter in the end - it was the most destroyed Allied capital in WWII except Warsaw - and again because of the way Mac did it. [Allowing 8 inch shells in a city is bound to have adverse effects on the infrastructure.]

[el cid again]

One House Rule I am thinking about now is about the subs in Manila. How many could have sailed on Dec 8?

All but about 3 - it should be a die roll - which survive the air raid. It is wrong to let them evade it - we were not that clever. We knew war was coming, but not exactly when. Don't give your game commanders 20-20 hindsight. However, you might reasonably rotate a fraction to sea - something Kimmel considered doing with battleships. Put 1/3 (1/4 maybe more reasonably, 1/2 maximum) at sea - and that might be possible - if you become Adm Hart.

[el cid again]

Exactly what is a tax space rating, how is it determined and how does it apply to WWII merchant vessels? More specifically, how does it apply to WitP?

GRT - gross registered tons - is a measure of volume in units of 100 cubit feet. It measures all of a ship minus certain things - notably engines.
It is not limited to just cargo space - and note it is also not a measure of weight. It is used to tax the ship when it enters a port, a canal, etc.

This is not a WWII concept alone - it is still the way of the sea. It is applied to WITP badly, without thought: you can lift as many "tons" as a ships grt rating. Go look at the thread on logistics - and you will see why we are using a much lower value. A ton of military goods needed about 2.33 grt to ship - they were more bulky than heavy - on the average. And the ship is partly not really usable space. We applied various factors and came remarkably close to divide by 5 would not be excessive. So in WITP you have vastly overstated cargo capacity. Add to that most ships consume far too little fuel - and you have way too much logistical power - and can burn cargo ships at will.

[el cid again]

If my understanding of what a tax space rating is, then it is not a worldwide standard and can be determined by individual countries for the purposes of revenue generation. And it does not reflect a "true" depiction of useable cargo space.

Each country can define what it wants - but the rating of a ship tends to be universal. Virtually everyone defines the space by the rules of Lloyds of London - which is not a government at all. It indeed does not reflect a depiction of usable cargo space. Someone did an analysis and found that an AK is typically about 55% of grt if you want deadweight, if I remember correctly.

[el cid again]

Whatever standard is used needs to be consistant across the board and for all nationalities.

Since all great minds think alike, clearly yours is a great mind.