Major refittment/conversions of ships....Hyuga, Ise?

[RolandRahn_MatrixForum]

Hi!

I'm sorry if this question has already been asked, but I wonder how the programm will deal with refittments...
Hyuga and Ise where converted from battleships into something that could carry a lot of float planes (for the expense of two main turrets).
Will this be represented in the game?
In PacWar, Hyuga & Ise where battleships in the 41/42 scenarios and hybrid things in the 44 scenarios....
There was no conversion if you started in 41 or 42, Hyuga and Ise where (IIRC) still battleships in 44...
How will this be handled in WitP?

Another point are the construction programms.
Shinano was going to be the third Yamato, the decision to reconstruct her as a carrier was made after Midway....
Will there be some special rules that influence construction programms?
I could, for example, imagine that an US carrier TF (without Battleship support) runs into a Battleship TF (for example, at Midway).
If, for example, Hornet and enterprise are sunk by IJN BBs I could imagine that the US would give BBs a higher priority, resulting in 2 more Iowas and some Montanas....

Just some questions/ideas.

Kind regards,
Roland

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Gary has put a lot of work into the resource and ship building/replacement routines. I will be polishing them and adding the Matrix touch later in May and June. The ship building routines are pretty historical. We might be able to alter the routines at run time to meet new ship demands.

It would not be too difficult to covert the battleships during game execution. Please remind me, if I forget.

Bye...

Michael Wood

___________________________________________________

Originally posted by RolandRahn
Hi!

I'm sorry if this question has already been asked, but I wonder how the programm will deal with refittments...
Hyuga and Ise where converted from battleships into something that could carry a lot of float planes (for the expense of two main turrets).
Will this be represented in the game?
In PacWar, Hyuga & Ise where battleships in the 41/42 scenarios and hybrid things in the 44 scenarios....
There was no conversion if you started in 41 or 42, Hyuga and Ise where (IIRC) still battleships in 44...
How will this be handled in WitP?

Another point are the construction programms.
Shinano was going to be the third Yamato, the decision to reconstruct her as a carrier was made after Midway....
Will there be some special rules that influence construction programms?
I could, for example, imagine that an US carrier TF (without Battleship support) runs into a Battleship TF (for example, at Midway).
If, for example, Hornet and enterprise are sunk by IJN BBs I could imagine that the US would give BBs a higher priority, resulting in 2 more Iowas and some Montanas....

Just some questions/ideas.

Kind regards,
Roland

[Svar]

Originally posted by Mike Wood
Hello...

Gary has put a lot of work into the resource and ship building/replacement routines. I will be polishing them and adding the Matrix touch later in May and June. The ship building routines are pretty historical. We might be able to alter the routines at run time to meet new ship demands.

It would not be too difficult to covert the battleships during game execution. Please remind me, if I forget.

Bye...

Michael Wood

___________________________________________________

How will you deal with decisions that were made after the war begins, such as the decision to complete 9 Cleveand class Light Cruisers as the Independence class light Carriers? The decision was made in March 18, 1942 after the keels for the first 5 keels were already laid down. Will the player have the ability to make these decisions or will the game make them for him? If the game controls the production of ships will it react to the fortunes of war or will it follow the historical production schedules? Finally, how will the ship building routines deal with all the US ships that were ordered, keels laid on many and subsequently cancelled when it became apparent that they weren't needed as the war progressed? For instance, there were 24 Essex class Carriers actually built (some after the war) and another 8 cancelled.

[mogami]

Hi, The idea of production for long lead time items like ships being player driven needs some consideration. While I am in favor of the players having some input it is mainly a question of how often and how much. Monthly would be too often. Never would be to little. Perhaps a yearly 1 Jan input into that years ship funding? Leave all prewar building as was and then every year the player is asked what his priorities for new builds would be. The ships that appeared in 1943 were funded and planned before the war began. In fact the US 1940 building program was one of the factors that led Japan into going to war in 41. They realized their window of opportunity would be gone once these ships were completed and in service. The major impact would not be realized by new CV's or BB's they simply take too long. (If the player decided he wanted more BB's he would need to fund them in the 42 phase to get them sometime in 45. He could of course ask for more CA/CL/DD and get them before the war ends but these ships (at least from Allied side) are already being produced in great numbers. How valuable a few new IJN CA's would be is a matter of what they lose and whether the IJN is even a factor by delivery time. The Japanese player has to understand from the beginning he has to succeed or fail with the IJN as is on Dec 7 1941 (and the ships already under construction) Submarines and escort ships would be where I placed my resources for any new builds. Both sides have to realize they are dependent on pre war construction programs for the bulk of their wartime reinforcements.
Now aircraft and LCU production is another matter. Here is where I would concentrate my player/game inter action. Things like road/railroad construction capabilities and where to use them would be a major factor in Japanese planning. Armaments production ("hmmm AA or AT?")
Also ship refits/upgrades (while probably having only a minor impact would still be interesting) If the Japanese player wanted a 3rd Yamato class BB he would have to complete Shinano as a BB (what this would do to it's availabilty date I don't know) Shinano's construction was halted in Dec 40 (it was tieing up the ship yard) After Midway the Japanese decided they could get a 50 plane CV able to asborb some damage so they began modifing it in 42 but it was not launched intill Oct 44 (meaning the Nagisaki shipyard could not undertake any new construction during this time ) So regarding Shinano, a ship not actually under construction when the game begins the question would be what is Nagisaki doing? and whether to proceed with building as BB or CV (I can not imagine a Japanese player who would not proceed with it's construction in some shape but I have to research what impact this would have on other ships being available) But from my experiance at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard I would guess that 4 DD/SS/DE type ships could be constructed in the drydock Shinano would occupy, and they only need a year. (this means a Dec 7 move to complete Shinano would mean a loss of 8 DD/SS/DE type ships) I admit I am quessing I will update after I search for more data. My major point being that ship production inputs are largely beyond the scope of the game ( The war was and should be fought by what was already built/building) A political game covering the period after WW1 to 1941 would be the place to have shipbuilding inputs. (and then use this data as a Witp OB)

an interesting side note. If the Japanese want to produce more Yamato class BB's they will also need to protect the Kashino
This tanker-like vessel was specifically built to carry the massive 18" gun turrets of the Yamato-class battleships from the manufacturers to the shipyards. She had two large holds capable of housing the giant turrets, and an innovative double hull. When she was done carrying the turrets for the Yamato and Musashi, and the further Yamato-class battleships were cancelled, she reverted to an ammunition transport and was sunk by the U S submarine Growler in 1942

[Svar]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, The idea of production for long lead time items like ships being player driven needs some consideration. While I am in favor of the players having some input it is mainly a question of how often and how much. Monthly would be too often. Never would be to little. Perhaps a yearly 1 Jan input into that years ship funding? Leave all prewar building as was and then every year the player is asked what his priorities for new builds would be. The ships that appeared in 1943 were funded and planned before the war began. In fact the US 1940 building program was one of the factors that led Japan into going to war in 41. They realized their window of opportunity would be gone once these ships were completed and in service. The major impact would not be realized by new CV's or BB's they simply take too long. (If the player decided he wanted more BB's he would need to fund them in the 42 phase to get them sometime in 45. He could of course ask for more CA/CL/DD and get them before the war ends but these ships (at least from Allied side) are already being produced in great numbers.

I agree on you implementation of player input for new ship construction and think it should reflect the typical build time of any particular ship class that was actually started during the war. For instance, the Iowa class battleships could be built in 32 months but the last two took 41 months and 39 months respectively. The Baltimore class Heavy Cruiser typically took 24 months to complete and while the Essex class Aircraft carrier could be completed in as little as 18 months they typically took 20 months. These build times only reflect the actual time for construction. There is also sea trials and shakedown cruises before a ship is ready for deployment.

On a slightly different note, some provision needs to address the new ship construction destined for the ETO. IMO the historical deplovment of new ship construction should be maintained. The only effect the player should have is on new ship construction destined for the PTO.

How this is implemented is a good question. There is a growing but limited US shipbuilding capacity and some of the ships authorized by the 1940 build program were superceeded by the 1942 build program due to the realities of war. The biggest change was the authorizing of 20 new CV's and 20 new CA's (9 of the CV's were the Independence class CVL's). Not all of the 1942 build program ships were completed (mostly cruisers) but only 4 of the 15 authorized 1940 build program BB's and CB's were completed.

[Ron Saueracker]

The steel shortage experienced by the US near the end of the war hampered the building programs started after Dec 7/41. This had an adverse effect on the completion of many orders, primarily capital size ships, and is responsible for the cancellation of many ships as was the inevitable victory over Japan.

I agree with Mogami that the ship production should be predominantly left along historical lines. We are basically fighting the war, not running the countries at war. So, let losses affect production on all levels, not hindsight, and have it resolved by the AI.

[byron13]

Ron:

I moved several of the earlier threads on WitP production from last year up to the present to try and quell the urge debate what has already been debated.

Much of what is in those posts is clearly outdated since UV and WitP will be using the same/similar engines, and now we see what the UV engine looks like.

But, with respect to production, you've got two camps that would like WitP to do different things. One group wants to fight WWII over with the same materiel to see if they can fight it better than was done historically. This group essentially sees themselves as the generals that must make do with what they're provided.

The other group wants their role as gamer expanded to include production decisions. The scope of WitP has room for political decisions like when to declare war on countries, etc., so why not the political decisions of what to produce? This group wants to fight WWII not at the admiral/general level, but on the national level making policy decisions. They want to see if they can fight WWII better on both the battlefront and the home front. Since the idea of the game is to allow the player to change history, why not give him additional flexibility to do what he wants? An all-out bomber offensive? A huge land battle in China with American armies? Basically, if the game doesn't chain you to historical military strategies, why should it chain you to historical production? Another argument is that variable production would enhance replayability (like we ever had that problem with PacWar!)

Both arguments are valid. The first is certainly more challenging and has a greater sense of history. The latter is more fun and, if done right, not unrealistic in itself. I would prefer to have production be, in large part, under the player's control with some ability to, for example, build things that were on the drawing board but not produced or accelerate production of things that were delayed for some reason. In deference to the wishes of the other, historically-based production crowd, I think the ideal would be to have the default be historical production with an option of ahistorical or player-controlled production. That way, both groups can get their wish. The option would be determined at the beginning of the game just like the option to play UV with or without Midway. To the extent variable production is allowed for at all, I can't believe it would be too difficult to have historical production hardwired into the code as a default or an option or, alternatively, have production set so that if the player doesn't fiddle with it too much, the resulting production will be largely historical.

And now, let the debate rage whilst the 2by3 and Matrix staff laugh at our outrageous desires . . . .

[brisd]

WITP is a strategic level game, not an operational level game like UV. Some of the posters in this forum seem to forget that. No sane person would want to re-fight the Pacific War at operational level. What I see WITP is as an update of the SSI's Pacific War, with same scale, scope and decision making. You represent the Imperial/Allied General Staff, not individual admirals or generals fighting the campaign in South Pacific or elsewhere.

I do want to see political and production OPTIONS, but also the ability to re-fight the war with minimal player input in those areas for purists sake. Looking forward to seeing the UV engine in operation and more detail on this game as well.

[mogami]

Hi, I want the player to control production. I just tried to point out ships are not produced like airplanes, Where you simply tell the factory to switch to a new type or increase production of what it is making. A ship even if you are going to build one of a class you already have requires a new set of plans (since something is always found that needs changed after a ship does it shakedown.) The ship yard needs a long lead time before laying the keel, etc. You just can't decide in May you want a new BB and have it laid down in June. The proper method would be in May you decide you want a new BB. The shipyards all take a month or two deciding if they can accept the order and bid. Then the ship contract gets awarded to one of them and 7-8 months later the ship begins construction and this requires 24-36 months. Provided of course the shipyards have empty drydocks large enough to start construction (many are all ready occupied with prewar building)
Then after it is launched it takes another 6 months before the crew is ready to be sent to the Pacific. Meaning there is very little likelihood of a player ever being able to see a new BB that was not already in the works in Dec 41. It is the same for all ship types only the smaller ones with lower build times might actually show up during the course of the game. Shipyard capacity as well as material availability also have to be considered. If Kure ship yard is building ships it is lost for repair of any ship needing dry-dock time. I am all for the players controlling this I only point out that Dec 7 1941 and later is a little past time for wanting new capital ships in any amount that will alter what you fight the war with and is not worth taking up a lot of time in game design. A simple editor included with the game will allow the players to test any theory concerning prewar building programs.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

I am not sure how we are going to handle this. Probably make the conversion, if it was made during the war. As a theatre commander, you would not make that decision, it would be made in Washington.

I do appreciate the fact that we made what we did, because we needed what we made and if we had needed something different, we would have made that, instead.

I will talk to Gary about this (he is programming that part of the game).

Bye...

Michael Wood
_________________________________________________

Originally posted by Svar

How will you deal with decisions that were made after the war begins, such as the decision to complete 9 Cleveand class Light Cruisers as the Independence class light Carriers? The decision was made in March 18, 1942 after the keels for the first 5 keels were already laid down. Will the player have the ability to make these decisions or will the game make them for him? If the game controls the production of ships will it react to the fortunes of war or will it follow the historical production schedules? Finally, how will the ship building routines deal with all the US ships that were ordered, keels laid on many and subsequently cancelled when it became apparent that they weren't needed as the war progressed? For instance, there were 24 Essex class Carriers actually built (some after the war) and another 8 cancelled.

[Packrat]

As a note: Most ships of the WWII period were built on slipways, only a small percentage were constructed in drydocks. So construction has less impact on repair facilities. The lead in times for materials acquisition are still a controlling factor in inputing ships into the construction pipeline.

I think that real production (and political) control might need to wait for a Global WWII game where we don't have the "off map" problem.

[Scouters]

I would take the viewpoint that you a the theatre commander and you would have rather limited input into production.

Perhaps every 3 months you would be taken to a screen divided into several boxes, each corresponding to a sector weapon production. These sectors could be: capital ships, small combatants, support ships, aircraft, and ground forces. Within each sector there would be specific weapon types (e.g. under aircraft would appear fighters, dive bombers, torpedo bombers, level bombers, search aircraft, etc.) You would then assign each weapon type a number from 1 (lowest priority) to 5 (highest priority). An example:

AIRCRAFT

Fighters 3
Dive Bombers 5
Torpedo Bombers 1
Level Bombers 3
Search Aircraft 3

The above would be the equivalent of the theatre commander telling the Joint Chiefs "Forget about torpedo bombers, I need more dive bombers!"

You're actual effect on production would be affected by several factors, including your prestige as a commander. In the beginning of the conflict you will have almost no effect, but as you succeed you will find your recomendations carrying more weight. Do poorly and nobody will care about your opinions.

Certainly there should be realistic limitations on what you can change. No matter how loud you cry you won't get 8 New Jersey class BB's. But maybe you could get yourself an extra CLAA or perhaps an extra squadron of level bombers.

Scouters

[Jeremy Pritchard]

While working on the OBC files for the original Pacific War this dilemma struck me. Since PacWar has an EXTREMELY limited production for ships, it requires that everything is decided before the game starts.

The question does raise, what would happen in history that would effect production?

Chances are, the war would have not changed production as much as people assume. Sure, Midway was a fluke (the Japanese lost their 4 carriers due to a chain of events that were very unlikely in happening), but it was inevitable that carriers would take over from battleships. Had Yamamoto managed to engage the US carriers at Midway (which was virtually impossible since the USN moved their carriers FAR to the East, out of range from the IJN after the battle) the need for carriers would still be felt by both sides (in fact more by the USN).

Chances are the IJN would have their carrier force whittled away (even without a Midway) and there would be a need for a larger number of smaller carriers (Unryu). The IJN would have built the Unryu no matter what happened with their navies (unless they won in 1942).

The Shiano faced a series of delays, primarily due to the fact that the IJN did not know what to do with the ship. Converting it to a carrier would probably have happened even without a Midway, but a victory at Midway might have resulted in it being completed as a battleship (due to overconfidence).

There was also the decision to build the Ibuki (plus another) varient of the Mogami class CA. The Ibuki was modified to a CVL in 1943, and the other ship scrapped due to the realized need for lighter vessels (destroyers and destroyer escorts). There were also plans for large cruisers, which were also scrapped.



Where you CAN get really creative is aircraft.

There were many almost designs.

The Ki-60 was seen as the heavy radial interceptor (Ki-61 as the light interceptor). It was to be armed with 4x 20mm guns and bombs, and in my mind was the potential IJAAF Hurricane (with the Ki-61 being their Spitfire). However, the Ki-60 did recieve more attention (resulting in the Ki-61 being severely delayed) but was eventually cancelled as it did not meet to the desired specifications. Had either the Japanese concentrated on the Ki-61 from the beginning, or produced the Ki-60 (abliet not as good as the Ki-61, but appears MUCH earlier, in mid 1942 vs. mid 1943) the Japanese would have had a potent fighter around earlier then historically. The Player should be given a choice on supporting specific designs, WITHOUT forewarned knowledge of their success. Possibly investing in the Ki-84 will result in a poor aircraft when investing in the Ki-87 would have been more prudent?

The J3/6M was also another potential fighter. It was a heavy radial fighter, comparable to the Ki-44, but was never built beyond the drawing board.

Along with many others.



So, the only thing that should really be effected by human production are small vessels (up to destroyer), possibly Light Cruisers (some CL's were layed down at the beginning of the war to be completed in 1944), and some Carriers (due to the high priority given to them). The main thing that the player should be responsible for producing are ship modifications (i.e., changing ship types of completed or building vessels). Many IJN Seaplane tenders were changed, or were proposed to be canged (before sunk) into CVE/CVL's. Also, the USN planned to change some liners (like the Junyo class) to fleet carriers had the situation deteroirated. Changing ships on the building slips should also be included, but face HEAVY delays as plans are changed, materials gathered and construction restarted and the hull modified.

[Sultanofsham]

One thing that would be nice is an option for Japan to adopt a more realistic outlook on pilot losses and pilot training. Maybe a setting at the set up of the game so you can play either way or maybe make it so you could request it durring the game with different levels of chance of it happining and different levels of success if it does.
While this doesnt exactly fit this thread it is along the same lines.

[Ron Saueracker]

Hindsight should have no bearing on production. Period. Knowing ahead of time that a certain type of fighter was a good performer should not allow one to produce this and skip over an earlier version which proved a liabilty in combat. Hindsight has also shown that the Japanese should have expanded their pilot training program, allowed for pilot rotation, had a search and rescue priority as the allies did etc. But they did not. It was not in their cultural mindset.

In a simulation, players should not have the benefit of having seen into the future as we have, and make choices based on our knowledge with regard to anything outside strategy and tactics. I believe production adjustments must be handled by an AI routine governed by a strict, historically accurate, technology tree, with players "applying pressure through the chain of command" somehow to POSSIBLY affect production priorities, but not radically revamp them. This is not Master of Orion here, we are not designing bizarre super cruisers and giving them retarded names, it's an attempt at an historically accurate simulation. To do anything else transforms it into a game.

[Sultanofsham]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
Hindsight should have no bearing on production. Period. Knowing ahead of time that a certain type of fighter was a good performer should not allow one to produce this and skip over an earlier version which proved a liabilty in combat. Hindsight has also shown that the Japanese should have expanded their pilot training program, allowed for pilot rotation, had a search and rescue priority as the allies did etc. But they did not. It was not in their cultural mindset.

I'm sorry but as I said it should be an option just as the ahistorical set ups are in UV. If you do not wish to play with said options then its as easy as not selecting them. And if the options are put in it doesnt make it any less of a simulation because it explores the what ifs.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well, here we have the old discussion about historical and unhistorical....

i also want a chance to change the things... as a jap player (knowing what happened) i would love to change the production, as a us player, knowing the historical facts, i too want to change production, throw away the New Jerseys, build instead 8 Essex-class carriers, or build much more apd´s to land much more troops in shorter times, that is fun for me - if i want to replay history, i play pacwar (like i do since it came up first (1991 or 1992??)).

I want the option button (historical or different) so you can decide very easily to play the game (and you have more fun against the AI)

But i don´t know if Gary can do it.... we will see...

[byron13]

Yup, sorry Ron, I agree with my ole buddy Adnan, who contributed considerably to earlier discussions on the topic.

I cannot emphasize enough what Sultan of Sham said: Ahistorical production should be just an option. Players, including those that want the option, can would be able to play with historical production if desired. But for those of us that want to test different strategies or hypotheses, we would like the OPTION of doing something different. As pointed out before, a wargame provides the opportunity to change history, and we see no reason why some of that change cannot include changes in production - if we want to alter it.

Providing an OPTION provides the best of both worlds and satisfies the demands of both camps.

[Ron Saueracker]

As long as the option is there for both, everyone is happy and replay value is enormous.

[byron13]

Ron, quit winking at me!:mad: