Database Error?

[rockmedic109]

Looking through the Database, I noticed that under "Ships" the listed "Fuel" was the ship's "Endurance" rating rather than their "Fuel" rating according to the "Classes" list. This is in Nik 5.02 and in the stock DB. It doesn't appear to have any effect that I can see.

I am guessing that anything over the normal load of fuel is ignored in the program and the correct range will be displayed. {West Virginia is correct and the other BBs at PH on 12-7-41 are wrong--but all display the correct range}.

The only bad effect I can imagine would be BBs needing almost 20,000 fuel points to refuel. Anybody know for sure if there is a problem or not?

[el cid again]

Looking through the Database, I noticed that under "Ships" the listed "Fuel" was the ship's "Endurance" rating rather than their "Fuel" rating according to the "Classes" list. This is in Nik 5.02 and in the stock DB. It doesn't appear to have any effect that I can see.

I am guessing that anything over the normal load of fuel is ignored in the program and the correct range will be displayed. {West Virginia is correct and the other BBs at PH on 12-7-41 are wrong--but all display the correct range}.

This is true in stock and CHS in many cases - but not all. It probably is an issue with moving data with a utility. It DOES matter too.

[rockmedic109]

Thanks.

And OUCH. Lots of typing and looking. All of the PH BBs are wrong except for West Virginia.

[saj42]

A lot of the PG, PCs etc have the wrong figures too[:(]
I found this when using the database editor. Having played Nik Mod for 6 months I can't say I've seen any problems with ship fuel levels at the start of the game.

[el cid again]

I found this when using the database editor. Having played Nik Mod for 6 months I can't say I've seen any problems with ship fuel levels at the start of the game.

Unless you are a loggie doggie, you won't see the ability to move as a problem! There is a gross and compound problem in WITP - particularly stock - with respect to logistics:

you don't need to move many supplies (they are generated locally - everything from electron tubes to 16 inch shells, apparently)

and your ships are far too load efficient at moving what you need to move

and your ships can move far too far

with far too little fuel.

I doubt many PLAYERS will see it as a "problem" their ships can move. Never mind they are almost nuclear powered in come cases - moving much farther than the real ship could do on much less fuel.

But those of us who want to simulate the problems of a campaign see it as a terrible problem. Aside from logistics directly, there is the "AKs to burn" attitude - you don't need your ships to feed your economy or troops - so you use them as expendable assets for assault.

I reported this as a major problem in the bug thread - and it was not grounds to redo ship data either in stock or CHS. I was almost in shock - but there it is: we are almost playing Risk it is so fictional.

[rockmedic109]

So. Does it take 20,000 fuel to fill up a battlewagon or does it take 4700?

[saj42]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I found this when using the database editor. Having played Nik Mod for 6 months I can't say I've seen any problems with ship fuel levels at the start of the game.

Unless you are a loggie doggie, you won't see the ability to move as a problem! There is a gross and compound problem in WITP - particularly stock - with respect to logistics:

IIRC the class data is correct - it's just the ship data that is incorrect?
reselecting the ship class on the individual ship record will reset the fuel figure

[el cid again]

IIRC the class data is correct - it's just the ship data that is incorrect?
reselecting the ship class on the individual ship record will reset the fuel figure

In the case of this error, this is correct. In many cases the class data is also wrong - BUT THIS thread is about using the wrong data entirely - and the class data is never as bad as using the wrong field entirely is! To the extent Matrix and CHS believed their data, they should have wanted to use it in the right fields. Not caring it was completely the wrong field - a much larger one - blows me away.

[mlees]

I'm just thinking out loud, so please forgive if this sounds stupid:

Is Fuel = fuel points, and Endurance = Range on a full tank of gas?

Will the game engine do the math and figure out how much fuel is expended for each hex then moved?

For example:

Fuel = 3500 (game fuel units)
Endurance = 12,000 (in miles)

So, every hex (60 miles) this fictional ship moves, it uses 17.5 Fuel Units?

(12,000/60 = 200 hex range. 3500fuel/200hexes = 17.5.)

If a ship has 1500 endurance, same range, then that ship expends 1500/200 = 7.5 Fuel per hex.

[el cid again]

Is Fuel = fuel points, and Endurance = Range on a full tank of gas?

Fuel is fuel in tons.

Endurance is range on full tanks in nautical miles.

Strangely, ships move in knots but the map is in statute miles! The landlubber map people never thought about that - and the manual actually says the map is in nautical miles - but it isn't. I cought it half a year ago. Might be fixed in II.

[el cid again]

Will the game engine do the math and figure out how much fuel is expended for each hex then moved?

For example:

Fuel = 3500 (game fuel units)
Endurance = 12,000 (in miles)

So, every hex (60 miles) this fictional ship moves, it uses 17.5 Fuel Units?

Yeah - only that is at cruising speed. It uses more fuel if it moves at full speed.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
To the extent Matrix and CHS believed their data, they should have wanted to use it in the right fields. Not caring it was completely the wrong field - a much larger one - blows me away.

This is something El Cid pointed out a while ago. I have only just got around to checking this out and indeed there are a LOT of ships with their fuel level set to the ship class endurance value. I also assume that this is some sort of database error, and not done intentionally, and should be corrected.

I just added a check/fix for this to my map conversion script, and came up with the attached list of ships in the stock scenario 15 that had the wrong fuel levels set. All I need to do now is run a turn or two to make sure that the AI can still lauch the opening attack on PH.

Andrew

[33Vyper]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: el cid again
To the extent Matrix and CHS believed their data, they should have wanted to use it in the right fields. Not caring it was completely the wrong field - a much larger one - blows me away.

This is something El Cid pointed out a while ago. I have only just got around to checking this out and indeed there are a LOT of ships with their fuel level set to the ship class endurance value. I also assume that this is some sort of database error, and not done intentionally, and should be corrected.

I just added a check/fix for this to my map conversion script, and came up with the attached list of ships in the stock scenario 15 that had the wrong fuel levels set. All I need to do now is run a turn or two to make sure that the AI can still lauch the opening attack on PH.

Andrew

Just a quick question....does changing the fuel value of these ships affect their 1st turn viability?
Do they need to have fuel > standard to accomplish movement?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper
Just a quick question....does changing the fuel value of these ships affect their 1st turn viability?
Do they need to have fuel > standard to accomplish movement?

Good question, and that is why I mentioned above that I wanted to test it to see whether there is any effect.

Andrew

[rockmedic109]

It looks like it has been this way for almost two years now. Does the game just fill up the ship according to what is in "Class" or does it use each individual ship's rating for fuel {i.e. Arizona would need 19,750 fuel points to fill up it's tanks}?

Thousands of games have been played like this so even if more fuel is needed, it doesn't seem to have that major of an effect. Would be nice to get it fixed, though. Has someone notified the new team about it?

Is the new CHS going to fix this for it's scenario? I am curious, not trying to dump a greater workload on your desk.

Thanks for all your hard work.

[el cid again]

Just a quick question....does changing the fuel value of these ships affect their 1st turn viability?
Do they need to have fuel > standard to accomplish movement?

It appears that each ship has an individual record. This permits things to be done - like track how much fuel is left in the tanks - how many systems are damaged - etc. IF a record is wrong - the program is not hip to it - it thinks it is right - so it just subtracts what is used this 12 hours from the field. It does THAT based on CLASS data too - so a too big fuel load lasts a long time.

Now it ALSO appears that the game was hard coded at a certain point in the data set - a quite inaccurate point in fact in many ways. IF you change the fuel of a class to right AND IF you update all ships to that new class value - SOMETIMES the ship cannot do its first turn missions as it used to in Scenario 15. That is why CHS carriers do not begin at Etorofu. And RHS carriers didn't try to figure out where to start - they start a day's sailing out. Stock and CHS did not address a big fuel question of a different kind - all ships start with full tanks. RHS has addressed that for the one case that really matters: half the tankers of the task group supporting the Kiddo Butai are missing - and remain missing until 21 December - their capacity being "used" to support the ships at sea. [Yet another OB error has the number of tankers in stock and CHS wrong: it is 8 vice 6 - and they are in two divisions of 4. The first division also had destroyers - so that is the one you get to see in play. The 2nd Support Division appears at Yokosuka (read Tokyo hex)
on 21 December - representing the time it took to return to Japan after refueling everything else on 6 December and before. Now that means you have 4 tankers instead of 6 - which sounds like 2/3. But RHS ALSO reduced the capacity of tankers - since the capacity is not the grt of a tanker - so it ends up very close to 5/8 of the capacity of stock and CHS is at sea - as well as exactly half the actual capacity historically used. And in stock and CHS you had two "free" tankers which, in fact, were with Kiddo Butai, and not available to haul fuel somewhere else - those "free" tankers now are tied up for two weeks.] This is not perfect. The "missing" tankers are treated as "under construction" and cost a few construction points. They also are not at risk to being torpedoed or bombed as tankers crossing half the ocean would be. And task force 2 is not as large as it was in stock and CHS for later ops. But it is better than magically starting mid ocean with full tanks on everything. [I cruised to San Francisco - and back to Oahu - for a month - going home to get more planes - and STILL had 1/3 of the tankers fuel when we sailed into Tokyo.]

[witpqs]

Something I've wondered about is that 'special TF' the tankers are in - hard-coded so that the tankers can act like AO's. The player has to be careful to keep the TF intact, because if he disbands it and trys to reform it, he loses the ability to refuel from those tankers.

Why not just get around that hard-coding bugger by making those particular tankers in AO's instead? I know that they were tankers, but they had been outfitted to work like AO's. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...