Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[spence]

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Norm3

Any chance you want to elaborate on that? A horrific image of exploding fleet carriers, that have just made port with some damage after a major clash with the other side, has ruined my meal and beer.


Well - Mutsu did blow up sitting in port - and it was a relatively regular feature of captial ships of all nations in all eras. It was a minority issue - but it does happen. I like it.


In 1942, the German replenishment oiler "Uckermark" (formerly known as "Altmark" - of the "Cossack" incident) blew up in Yokohama Harbor, also destroying the raider/AMC "Michel".

I'd love to have those ships in AE, especially the "Uckermark" - an AO capable of 21-22 kts would be a fine thing to have. Also, there was a German submarine base in Soerabaya that had some auxiliaries IIRC, as well as a handful of Arado 196 floatplanes.

I'd say the problem with having those German ships in the game would be that the Germans never released them to Japanese operational control and that at least until the Germans surrendered the Japanese were unwilling to appropriate German ships to their own uses. After Germany's surrender though I believe the Japanese did take over half a dozen U-boats or so though I don't think they ever deployed operationally.

Cid mentions the fact that Battleships of all nations in all eras had a bad habit of blowing up. There was an article in Strategy and Tactics Magazine back in the good ole days that listed the cause of loss of every Dreadnaught/Super-Dreadnaught BB that ever existed and IIRC the single most common cause of loss of these type ships was more or less spontaneous explosion a la Mutsu.

[el cid again]

There is a book (Dreadnaught I think is the title) also listing the cause for every ship lost between Dreadnaught and Vanguard (the last built). Same result.

None of the German submarine released when Germany surrendered was functionally operational in IJN. BUT TWO Type IXs were given to Japan mid war - both commissioned in Germany - one made it to Japan - and eventually it did serve (after studies) - in a training role. Since we have ALL Japanese subs in the game INCLUDING trainers....

I have no problem with "my enemy's enemy is my ally" either. Let Japan control German ships - it is certainly better than having the Allies do it.

I didn't realize any raiders or tankers were still PTO in 1942 - I must put them in!

EDIT: Michael was not sunk in an explosion in port - but by a US submarine at sea. It may have been damaged, however - as it was in Japanese waters at that time.

[Jim D Burns]

I’m curious how the two AK fleets stack up against one another in AE. How many AK’s does each side have and what are their total lift capacities in tons?

I think the larger capacity allied AK’s should be respawnable with a 4-6 month respawn rate if possible. In CHS the allies have 2,009 AK’s according to VSWG’s count with a total lift capacity of 8,000,000+ tons.

Given that the allies will probably lose close to half of that in an average game that sees lots of KB raids going on, that’s not a very large lift capacity for the end of the war, were transit times can see AK’s at sea for 2-3 months one way.

The US could have easily made up for heavy losses if needed, just because it wasn’t needed historically, doesn’t mean it won’t be needed in some games. I’m not saying all allied AK’s should be respawnable, just enough to assure that the allies can maintain a decent lift capacity for 1944 onwards so the game doesn’t grind to a halt if Japan sank too many AK’s in a successful first two years.

Jim

[spence]

I’m curious how the two AK fleets stack up against one another in AE. How many AK’s does each side have and what are their total lift capacities in tons?

I think the larger capacity allied AK’s should be respawnable with a 4-6 month respawn rate if possible. In CHS the allies have 2,009 AK’s according to VSWG’s count with a total lift capacity of 8,000,000+ tons.

Given that the allies will probably lose close to half of that in an average game that sees lots of KB raids going on, that’s not a very large lift capacity for the end of the war, were transit times can see AK’s at sea for 2-3 months one way.

The US could have easily made up for heavy losses if needed, just because it wasn’t needed historically, doesn’t mean it won’t be needed in some games. I’m not saying all allied AK’s should be respawnable, just enough to assure that the allies can maintain a decent lift capacity for 1944 onwards so the game doesn’t grind to a halt if Japan sank too many AK’s in a successful first two years.

Jim

Something seems a little bit upside-down and inside-out with respect to history when the Japanese Player from the get-go has the lift for amphibious invasions of Karachi and/or Hawaii in addition to the PI?DEI while still meeting all his resource/oil requirements for full production but the Allies have a potential shortfall (especially after the U-boats were well and truly beaten in 1944-45 the Atlantic). The perponderance of historical evidence indicates the Japanese were short on total lift (for their historical plan of conquests) from day 1 and it got worse from there.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: spence

I’m curious how the two AK fleets stack up against one another in AE. How many AK’s does each side have and what are their total lift capacities in tons?

I think the larger capacity allied AK’s should be respawnable with a 4-6 month respawn rate if possible. In CHS the allies have 2,009 AK’s according to VSWG’s count with a total lift capacity of 8,000,000+ tons.

Given that the allies will probably lose close to half of that in an average game that sees lots of KB raids going on, that’s not a very large lift capacity for the end of the war, were transit times can see AK’s at sea for 2-3 months one way.

The US could have easily made up for heavy losses if needed, just because it wasn’t needed historically, doesn’t mean it won’t be needed in some games. I’m not saying all allied AK’s should be respawnable, just enough to assure that the allies can maintain a decent lift capacity for 1944 onwards so the game doesn’t grind to a halt if Japan sank too many AK’s in a successful first two years.

Jim

Something seems a little bit upside-down and inside-out with respect to history when the Japanese Player from the get-go has the lift for amphibious invasions of Karachi and/or Hawaii in addition to the PI?DEI while still meeting all his resource/oil requirements for full production but the Allies have a potential shortfall (especially after the U-boats were well and truly beaten in 1944-45 the Atlantic). The perponderance of historical evidence indicates the Japanese were short on total lift (for their historical plan of conquests) from day 1 and it got worse from there.

Spence, I'm very curious to see how the changes being incorporated into AE will actually address the concerns you have mentioned. These have been huge issues since Alpha.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: spence

I’m curious how the two AK fleets stack up against one another in AE. How many AK’s does each side have and what are their total lift capacities in tons?

I think the larger capacity allied AK’s should be respawnable with a 4-6 month respawn rate if possible. In CHS the allies have 2,009 AK’s according to VSWG’s count with a total lift capacity of 8,000,000+ tons.

Given that the allies will probably lose close to half of that in an average game that sees lots of KB raids going on, that’s not a very large lift capacity for the end of the war, were transit times can see AK’s at sea for 2-3 months one way.

The US could have easily made up for heavy losses if needed, just because it wasn’t needed historically, doesn’t mean it won’t be needed in some games. I’m not saying all allied AK’s should be respawnable, just enough to assure that the allies can maintain a decent lift capacity for 1944 onwards so the game doesn’t grind to a halt if Japan sank too many AK’s in a successful first two years.

Jim

Something seems a little bit upside-down and inside-out with respect to history when the Japanese Player from the get-go has the lift for amphibious invasions of Karachi and/or Hawaii in addition to the PI?DEI while still meeting all his resource/oil requirements for full production but the Allies have a potential shortfall (especially after the U-boats were well and truly beaten in 1944-45 the Atlantic). The perponderance of historical evidence indicates the Japanese were short on total lift (for their historical plan of conquests) from day 1 and it got worse from there.

Spence, I'm very curious to see how the changes being incorporated into AE will actually address the concerns you have mentioned. These have been huge issues since Alpha.

Interestingly, this "problem" has more than one dimension.

We've also struggled to get the historical Japanese troops, for the intial invasions aboard their historical ships. With the loading routines and ship capacities in stock, an IJA battalion that historically fit aboard one ship typcially rated as an "AK" in stock) requires five times as many ships to load.

So while trying to increase historical accuracy along one dimension we may slide things in the opposite direction in a different dimension (since not all the factors we have to deal with are orthogonal!).

But we are doing the best we can to increase historical accuracy in all dimensions - or at least be better than (greater than or equal to) stock in all dimensions!

[spence]

I appreciate your efforts to make the game more historical.

I think that the problems you find relating to loading the Japanese battalion, are in part a result of loading data derived from US Army/Marine Corps/Navy records that may have come to you. There seems to have been an initial assumption that the Japanese way of doing things was in all respects similar enough to the US way that there was only a need to write a single program which would deal with both sides (not being a programmer at all I don't have a real good idea how difficult it would be to program the differences but I guess it would be complicated in any case). With regards to loading and landing though; the Japanese were not loading to make an assault landing on a hostile defended beach and thus the requirements to have certain items available in a certain order which contributed to US loading tables were not applicable (along with a generally higher level of equipment/supply for the Allies).

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: spence

I appreciate your efforts to make the game more historical.

I think that the problems you find relating to loading the Japanese battalion, are in part a result of loading data derived from US Army/Marine Corps/Navy records that may have come to you. There seems to have been an initial assumption that the Japanese way of doing things was in all respects similar enough to the US way that there was only a need to write a single program which would deal with both sides (not being a programmer at all I don't have a real good idea how difficult it would be to program the differences but I guess it would be complicated in any case). With regards to loading and landing though; the Japanese were not loading to make an assault landing on a hostile defended beach and thus the requirements to have certain items available in a certain order which contributed to US loading tables were not applicable (along with a generally higher level of equipment/supply for the Allies).

While we do have the shipping data in TM-E 30-480 (1 Oct 44) ... that wasn't what I was thinking of when I posted. I was actually thinking of specific data, one case in point being the activities of the 2nd Bn, 143rd IR, 55 ID. This unit was loaded aboard the Johoro Maru and landed at Prachuap Khiri Khan on 8 Dec 1941 (also known as 7 Dec 1941 for those who date the start of the war in conjunction with events to the east of the IDL).

Trying making a Bn landing force (1/3 of a regiment) and loading it aboard this ship in stock. I did and it took an extra four ships, before I could load the whole battalion. That's what I was thinking of when I made my post.

In stock there is only one type of troop loading. In AE there are two ... call them "combat" and "long haul" if you like ... in AE we call them "amphibious" and "transport". One is more efficient in terms of space utilization, the other is more efficient at retarding troop disruption due to landing on a hostile shore. Don and JWE can comment further, but there are also differences in efficiency for Japanese troop loading vis-a-vis Allied.

[Ron Saueracker]

I just can't wait to see this puppy! The amount of work you guys have put in is amazing and I'm sure what we've been told is just scratching the surface of your efforts. That's why I posted my last reply...the logistical excesses of WITP must have been quite the challenge to reign in. Merry Christmas to you all by the way![:)]

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: spence

I appreciate your efforts to make the game more historical.

I think that the problems you find relating to loading the Japanese battalion, are in part a result of loading data derived from US Army/Marine Corps/Navy records that may have come to you. There seems to have been an initial assumption that the Japanese way of doing things was in all respects similar enough to the US way that there was only a need to write a single program which would deal with both sides (not being a programmer at all I don't have a real good idea how difficult it would be to program the differences but I guess it would be complicated in any case). With regards to loading and landing though; the Japanese were not loading to make an assault landing on a hostile defended beach and thus the requirements to have certain items available in a certain order which contributed to US loading tables were not applicable (along with a generally higher level of equipment/supply for the Allies).

While we do have the shipping data in TM-E 30-480 (1 Oct 44) ... that wasn't what I was thinking of when I posted. I was actually thinking of specific data, one case in point being the activities of the 2nd Bn, 143rd IR, 55 ID. This unit was loaded aboard the Johoro Maru and landed at Prachuap Khiri Khan on 8 Dec 1941 (also known as 7 Dec 1941 for those who date the start of the war in conjunction with events to the east of the IDL).

Trying making a Bn landing force (1/3 of a regiment) and loading it aboard this ship in stock. I did and it took an extra four ships, before I could load the whole battalion. That's what I was thinking of when I made my post.

In stock there is only one type of troop loading. In AE there are two ... call them "combat" and "long haul" if you like ... in AE we call them "amphibious" and "transport". One is more efficient in terms of space utilization, the other is more efficient at retarding troop disruption due to landing on a hostile shore. Don and JWE can comment further, but there are also differences in efficiency for Japanese troop loading vis-a-vis Allied.

Joe, historically did the whole battalion load or just a portion of it. The Japanese were notorious for sending bits and pieces of units to various places throughout the war.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: spence

I appreciate your efforts to make the game more historical.

I think that the problems you find relating to loading the Japanese battalion, are in part a result of loading data derived from US Army/Marine Corps/Navy records that may have come to you. There seems to have been an initial assumption that the Japanese way of doing things was in all respects similar enough to the US way that there was only a need to write a single program which would deal with both sides (not being a programmer at all I don't have a real good idea how difficult it would be to program the differences but I guess it would be complicated in any case). With regards to loading and landing though; the Japanese were not loading to make an assault landing on a hostile defended beach and thus the requirements to have certain items available in a certain order which contributed to US loading tables were not applicable (along with a generally higher level of equipment/supply for the Allies).

While we do have the shipping data in TM-E 30-480 (1 Oct 44) ... that wasn't what I was thinking of when I posted. I was actually thinking of specific data, one case in point being the activities of the 2nd Bn, 143rd IR, 55 ID. This unit was loaded aboard the Johoro Maru and landed at Prachuap Khiri Khan on 8 Dec 1941 (also known as 7 Dec 1941 for those who date the start of the war in conjunction with events to the east of the IDL).

Trying making a Bn landing force (1/3 of a regiment) and loading it aboard this ship in stock. I did and it took an extra four ships, before I could load the whole battalion. That's what I was thinking of when I made my post.

In stock there is only one type of troop loading. In AE there are two ... call them "combat" and "long haul" if you like ... in AE we call them "amphibious" and "transport". One is more efficient in terms of space utilization, the other is more efficient at retarding troop disruption due to landing on a hostile shore. Don and JWE can comment further, but there are also differences in efficiency for Japanese troop loading vis-a-vis Allied.

Joe, historically did the whole battalion load or just a portion of it. The Japanese were notorious for sending bits and pieces of units to various places throughout the war.

According to one source (Kawamoto) The Johore Maru had onboard the full 2nd Bn/143 IR/55ID of 1090 men as well as an additional support unit of 1510 men, 50 trucks and 100 horses.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
According to one source (Kawamoto) The Johore Maru had onboard the full 2nd Bn/143 IR/55ID of 1090 men as well as an additional support unit of 1510 men, 50 trucks and 100 horses.

I think the problem is the game way underestimates what a single ship could carry. Here’s a snip from the US Merchant Marine website stating what a single liberty ship could haul:

“Her 5 holds could carry over 9,000 tons of cargo, plus airplanes, tanks, and locomotives lashed to its deck. A Liberty could carry 2,840 jeeps, 440 tanks, or 230 million rounds of rifle ammunition.”

http://www.usmm.org/libertyships.html

440 tanks on one ship is a lot of lift capacity. The game doesn’t even come close to getting it right.

I found these pages linking from the ship lists page here:

http://www.usmm.org/ships.html

The game currently limits the lift capacities of ships far too severely. Part of the reason so many auxiliaries get sunk in game is because players are forced to use hundreds of ships to haul supplies around when just a few should be able to do the same job.

If anything should be limited, the game should limit the amount of supply and oil available at any time to be shipped, not the capacity of the ships. The allies available supplies and oil should increase dramatically as the war progresses until it is almost limitless. Japan should be severely hamstrung from the start (after all that’s why they went to war) and decline slowly from there.

Jim

[jwilkerson]

Jim,

Thanks for helping make my point.

Essentially, Spence and Ron were saying shipping capacity is over represented, you are saying it is under-represented.

I am saying all of you are correct! And we will try to address both, at least to some extent, in AE!!!


Joe

[rockmedic109]

".....In stock there is only one type of troop loading. In AE there are two ... call them "combat" and "long haul" if you like ... in AE we call them "amphibious" and "transport". One is more efficient in terms of space utilization, the other is more efficient at retarding troop disruption due to landing on a hostile shore. Don and JWE can comment further, but there are also differences in efficiency for Japanese troop loading vis-a-vis Allied............. "

Combat loading and non-combat loading of troops?  This keeps getting better and better. 

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Jim,

Thanks for helping make my point.

Essentially, Spence and Ron were saying shipping capacity is over represented, you are saying it is under-represented.

I am saying all of you are correct! And we will try to address both, at least to some extent, in AE!!!


Joe

My main point was that the lack of such things as 1)a plausable civilian economy, 2) use of merchant ships in a offboard pool to "import" cargo to the major supply/resource/oil centres instead of having the points just majically appear and 3) the availability of supply production at every little "base" across the map due to the hardcoding of the earlier WITP meant that players could utilize sealift for other things like invading the moon. The ship capacities therefore were being tweaked down to somehow alleviate this short of a major overhaul. Thankfully we get a major overhaul because it was impossible to try to correct one issue without screwing up another.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
According to one source (Kawamoto) The Johore Maru had onboard the full 2nd Bn/143 IR/55ID of 1090 men as well as an additional support unit of 1510 men, 50 trucks and 100 horses.

I think the problem is the game way underestimates what a single ship could carry. Here’s a snip from the US Merchant Marine website stating what a single liberty ship could haul:

“Her 5 holds could carry over 9,000 tons of cargo, plus airplanes, tanks, and locomotives lashed to its deck. A Liberty could carry 2,840 jeeps, 440 tanks, or 230 million rounds of rifle ammunition.”

http://www.usmm.org/libertyships.html

440 tanks on one ship is a lot of lift capacity. The game doesn’t even come close to getting it right.

I found these pages linking from the ship lists page here:

http://www.usmm.org/ships.html

The game currently limits the lift capacities of ships far too severely. Part of the reason so many auxiliaries get sunk in game is because players are forced to use hundreds of ships to haul supplies around when just a few should be able to do the same job.

If anything should be limited, the game should limit the amount of supply and oil available at any time to be shipped, not the capacity of the ships. The allies available supplies and oil should increase dramatically as the war progresses until it is almost limitless. Japan should be severely hamstrung from the start (after all that’s why they went to war) and decline slowly from there.

Jim

If I may question your source Jim, I seriousely doubt you could expect to put 440 Shermans on a single Liberty, both because of the space and the weight of such a number of vehicules... (well maybe they are talking about 440 Stuarts or 440 M8, but well...)

[witpqs]

I'm also suspicious of the Sherman figure - maybe they are talking about weight equivalent - 9,000 / 440 = about 20.5 tons each. Even if they could haul that weight, I don't see how they could fit 440 tanks on board. They didn't have a method stack 'em, did they?

[witpqs]

Joe,

As it was mentioned I would like to get a 'vote' in - I hate re-spawning of carriers and cruisers, and I would hate doing it with AK's.

I understand it as a model when dealing with very small vessels like barges or small minesweepers.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm also suspicious of the Sherman figure - maybe they are talking about weight equivalent - 9,000 / 440 = about 20.5 tons each. Even if they could haul that weight, I don't see how they could fit 440 tanks on board. They didn't have a method stack 'em, did they?

Actual claim in the article is "440 Light Tanks" or "260 Medium Tanks"

[witpqs]

Okay, so assuming a light tank is/was considered to be 20 tons, they used a weight calculation. But could you actually pack 440 light tanks (or even 260 mediums) in a Liberty ship?

[This is a serious question, I don't know what mechanism they had to do that at the time.]