Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: 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

[Also replying to Jim's posts in Gen. Hoepner's AAR]

You are correct, the Allies could have produced a lot more AK capacity if they wanted to. This is the Allied AK capacity in CHS, note how the curve flattens in 1945 - I guess someone high ranking figured that they had enough AKs to win the war:



However, I don't think making AKs respawn is the best solution. I guess (but I don't know [;)]) that until late 1944 the US produced as many AKs as they could, so respawns shouldn't be possible, or only at the expense of other ships. After late 1944 it's probably too late for respawned ships, since they won't arrive in time to make a difference (what was the building time for a Liberty/Victory ship?). IMO it would be better if the database also includes ships that could have been build in 1945, but weren't (assuming there's data for these ships somewhere).

Furthermore, I think your estimate that an Allied player probably loses 1000 AKs in a PBEM is extremely exaggerated. I would be shocked to hear that the average Allied PBEM'er loses more than 500 AKs - maybe people who have played some games into 1945 can post some numbers.

Also, the problem you mention basically applies to all ships, planes and ground devices. The US could have produced a lot more of everything in 1945 if they had wanted to, but they didn't, since it was foreseeable that the war would end soon. Not sure how to handle this - make more "stuff" appear in 1945 than in reality, just in case the Allied player has to deal with a Japanese "overachiever"??

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: VSWG
However, I don't think making AKs respawn is the best solution.

If you read the PDF I linked a few posts up topic, you’ll see a chart in the appendix that shows Liberty ship production dropped off significantly after 43 (by more than 50%). I attribute this to reduced losses in the Atlantic, so 100-120 Liberty's a month were not needed anymore. But the fact remains the capacity to produce 100-120 Liberty's a month still existed in 44 and 45 and could have been ramped up again if needed.

I don’t understand the resistance to making some AK’s respawnable, there was more than sufficient capacity to justify it. Not all of them need be respawnable, just enough to assure there is at least 4 mil or so lift on map by mid 44 so the allies can keep the game chugging forward. Make all Liberty's respawnable and that should cover the rare game where too many AK’s are sunk.

Most games won’t see these ships respawning, but the rare game where the allies take massive AK losses will have some means of allowing the game to continue into 44 and beyond with a respawnable AK fleet.

I can understand how respawning BB’s, CA’s, and DD’s would change the game balance, but AK’s simply keep the allies in the game. They aren’t game winning ships, but if you lose too many they are game losing ships.

Here’s the chart:



Jim

[spence]

(what was the building time for a Liberty/Victory ship?).

I'm sure it was mostly a publicity stunt but I think one of the Kaiser yards took a Liberty Ship from keel laying to fitting out in somewhat under 4 days.

[Terminus]

It was TOTALLY a publicity stunt...

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: VSWG
Furthermore, I think your estimate that an Allied player probably loses 1000 AKs in a PBEM is extremely exaggerated.

Here’s the 6/45 Intel screen from PZB’s old game. It wasn’t a CHS game, so there should probably be another 200 or so allied ships sunk from the SRA that aren’t sunk in stock games because they aren’t in stock.



With 1700+ allied ships sunk, I think it’s safe to assume the allies lost close to 1000 AK’s if not more.

Jim

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

If you read the PDF I linked a few posts up topic, you’ll see a chart in the appendix that shows Liberty ship production dropped off significantly after 43 (by more than 50%). I attribute this to reduced losses in the Atlantic, so 100-120 Liberty's a month were not needed anymore. But the fact remains the capacity to produce 100-120 Liberty's a month still existed in 44 and 45 and could have been ramped up again if needed.

I think the drop in Liberty Ship production in 1943/44 can be explained by the increase of Victory Ship production.

I don’t understand the resistance to making some AK’s respawnable, there was more than sufficient capacity to justify it. Not all of them need be respawnable, just enough to assure there is at least 4 mil or so lift on map by mid 44 so the allies can keep the game chugging forward. Make all Liberty's respawnable and that should cover the rare game where too many AK’s are sunk.

I don't like respawns because they are unlimited. It allows you to use your respawning ship classes in a wreckless manner, since you know they will "come back". Maybe you wouldn't play the game like this, and me neither, but there are already a lot of threads dealing with respawning US carriers, and how an Allied player should actually try to exchange carriers with the IJN in 1942 simply because then he'll get more Essex class carriers. I foresee that a players will use respawning AK classes exclusively for extremely dangerous invasions, simply because their loss doesn't matter.

Furthermore, you cannot prove that the US could have build additional Liberty/Victory ships without making sacrifices in other areas. Where did the "excess" steel go to? The engines? The manpower? Was it really "excess"? You have to make sure that no item is used "twice" if you allow large ships to respawn.

Again, I agree with your reasoning regarding shipping in general, I just don't want to solve the problem with respawning ships. Ideally, there should be a check sometime in 1944, where the game engine determines whether the Allied player needs more AKs, and increases their production for a price in resources or supplies.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: spence

(what was the building time for a Liberty/Victory ship?).

I'm sure it was mostly a publicity stunt but I think one of the Kaiser yards took a Liberty Ship from keel laying to fitting out in somewhat under 4 days.

The PDF article states the average time to build a Liberty was 30-40 days. Some yards averaged 15 days in the high peak period.

Jim

[wworld7]

Thanks for the update, I look forward to it even if this changes.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: spence

(what was the building time for a Liberty/Victory ship?).

I'm sure it was mostly a publicity stunt but I think one of the Kaiser yards took a Liberty Ship from keel laying to fitting out in somewhat under 4 days.

It was 4 and 1/2 days, and it was definately a publicity stunt. But it was still impressive. Name one other participant in the War who built a 10,000 ton vessel in 4 and 1/2 MONTHS, let alone DAYS (stunt or not).

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: VSWG
Furthermore, I think your estimate that an Allied player probably loses 1000 AKs in a PBEM is extremely exaggerated.

Here’s the 6/45 Intel screen from PZB’s old game. It wasn’t a CHS game, so there should probably be another 200 or so allied ships sunk from the SRA that aren’t sunk in stock games because they aren’t in stock.

I said that the average Allied PBEM'er probably doesn't lose more than 500 AKs - this game is certainly an outlier.

[Don Bowen]

[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]

ORIGINAL:  VSWG[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]You are correct, the Allies could have produced a lot more AK capacity if they wanted to. This is the Allied AK capacity in CHS, note how the curve flattens in 1945 - I guess someone high ranking figured that they had enough AKs to win the war:[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]

[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]CHS ran out of ship slots, compromises had to be made.  [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]We are not experiencing this problem in AE.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]

[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]However, I don't think making AKs respawn is the best solution. [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]

[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]There will be no respawn of AKs.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]If the respawn switch is on: [/font]
[font="times new roman"]US CVs respawn[/font]
[font="times new roman"]US/Australian Cruisers respawn[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Japanese Midget Subs respawn[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Barge Types regenerate (not respawn).   This means that same ship is reincarnated in the same slot with the same name.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]That is it.  Nothing else respawns.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]You can expect detailed, extensively researched ship OOBs.[/font]

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: VSWG

You are correct, the Allies could have produced a lot more AK capacity if they wanted to. This is the Allied AK capacity in CHS, note how the curve flattens in 1945 - I guess someone high ranking figured that they had enough AKs to win the war:

[font="times new roman"]CHS ran out of ship slots, compromises had to be made. [/font]

[...]

[font="times new roman"]You can expect detailed, extensively researched ship OOBs.[/font]

...and so I'm wrong! [:)] If a possible AK shortage is solved by a better OOB then this is, of course, the best solution. Good news!

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: VSWG
I think the drop in Liberty Ship production in 1943/44 can be explained by the increase of Victory Ship production.


Allied player should actually try to exchange carriers with the IJN in 1942 simply because then he'll get more Essex class carriers.

According to John Ellis’ book World War II a Statistical Survey, the entire allied warring world combined produced 497.1 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945. Figures for the US are included, but only between 1942 and 1945 (the years they were at war). In that short period the US produced 334.5 m. metric tons of crude steel.

That means the rest of the allied warring world only produced 162.6 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945. The US more than doubled that figure in just three years, so I seriously doubt steel shortages are what caused the drop-off of US merchant ship production. The Axis warring world produced 196.5 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945, so the US in just three years almost out-produced the rest of the warring world combined.

If you review production figures for every major equipment item produced in the US, you’ll see a dramatic decrease across the board after 1943. This is because the US had won the upper hand in the Atlantic and over the skies of Germany. Basically the attrition war at sea and in the air was won by 43 and all that remained, was for us to build up for the land invasion to finish off Germany.

After 43 production figures dropped to a level that allowed the US to maintain current force levels and meet lend lease commitments. There was no longer a need to rapidly increase force levels. US force levels still grew in 44, just at a much slower pace than before.

I agree that some of the shipyard capacity went into producing Victory ships, but only 6 of the 17 shipyards that produced Liberty ships built any Victory ships.

http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/u ... tsbldg.htm

As to your CV respawn exploit, you seem to think the allies are gaining some benefit by the respawn, when in fact they are being short changed big time. These are the Essex class hulls that were renamed in honor of lost combatants during the war.

CV-10 Yorktown laid down 1 Dec 41, commissioned Apr 1943
CV-12 Hornet laid down 3 Aug 42, commissioned Nov 1943
CV-16 Lexington laid down 15 Jul 41, commissioned Feb 1943
CV-18 Wasp laid down 18 Mar 42, commissioned Nov 1943

As you can see, they were all laid down long before their earlier namesakes were sunk. So in fact the allies get hosed because unless they lose the earlier namesakes, they don’t get these hulls. I agree CV respawns should be taken out. But these hulls need to be added to the 1943 CV arrivals to make things historically correct. As things stand now, the allies lose the power of 4 CV’s in 1943 whether they lose the earlier carriers or not.

Jim

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

According to John Ellis’ book World War II a Statistical Survey, the entire allied warring world combined produced 497.1 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945. Figures for the US are included, but only between 1942 and 1945 (the years they were at war). In that short period the US produced 334.5 m. metric tons of crude steel.

That means the rest of the allied warring world only produced 162.6 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945. The US more than doubled that figure in just three years, so I seriously doubt steel shortages are what caused the drop-off of US merchant ship production. The Axis warring world produced 196.5 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945, so the US in just three years almost out-produced the rest of the warring world combined.

If you review production figures for every major equipment item produced in the US, you’ll see a dramatic decrease across the board after 1943. This is because the US had won the upper hand in the Atlantic and over the skies of Germany. Basically the attrition war at sea and in the air was won by 43 and all that remained, was for us to build up for the land invasion to finish off Germany.

After 43 production figures dropped to a level that allowed the US to maintain current force levels and meet lend lease commitments. There was no longer a need to rapidly increase force levels. US force levels still grew in 44, just at a much slower pace than before.

I agree that some of the shipyard capacity went into producing Victory ships, but only 6 of the 17 shipyards that produced Liberty ships built any Victory ships.

http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/u ... tsbldg.htm

I already mentioned all this in the last paragraph of post #661. As I said, I completely agree with you that the US could have build a lot more ships, I just don't want to see this implemented by another respawn rule. For now I'm willing to believe that the new OOB will prevent any AK shortage for the Allies. If not, I hope they find a different solution, like adding the ships that were canceled by the Maritime Commission to the OOB, and implementing some trigger for their arrival, and a cost.

As to your CV respawn exploit, you seem to think the allies are gaining some benefit by the respawn, when in fact they are being short changed big time. These are the Essex class hulls that were renamed in honor of lost combatants during the war.

CV-10 Yorktown laid down 1 Dec 41, commissioned Apr 1943
CV-12 Hornet laid down 3 Aug 42, commissioned Nov 1943
CV-16 Lexington laid down 15 Jul 41, commissioned Feb 1943
CV-18 Wasp laid down 18 Mar 42, commissioned Nov 1943

As you can see, they were all laid down long before their earlier namesakes were sunk. So in fact the allies get hosed because unless they lose the earlier namesakes, they don’t get these hulls. I agree CV respawns should be taken out. But these hulls need to be added to the 1943 CV arrivals to make things historically correct. As things stand now, the allies lose the power of 4 CV’s in 1943 whether they lose the earlier carriers or not.

Believe me, I know all that. [;)]

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]

ORIGINAL: VSWG[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]You are correct, the Allies could have produced a lot more AK capacity if they wanted to. This is the Allied AK capacity in CHS, note how the curve flattens in 1945 - I guess someone high ranking figured that they had enough AKs to win the war:[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]

[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]CHS ran out of ship slots, compromises had to be made. [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]We are not experiencing this problem in AE.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]

[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]However, I don't think making AKs respawn is the best solution. [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]

[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]There will be no respawn of AKs.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]If the respawn switch is on: [/font]
[font="times new roman"]US CVs respawn[/font]
[font="times new roman"]US/Australian Cruisers respawn[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Japanese Midget Subs respawn[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Barge Types regenerate (not respawn). This means that same ship is reincarnated in the same slot with the same name.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]That is it. Nothing else respawns.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]You can expect detailed, extensively researched ship OOBs.[/font]

So MSWs no longer respawn? Is this because you toughened up the minelaying requirements?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


As to your CV respawn exploit, you seem to think the allies are gaining some benefit by the respawn, when in fact they are being short changed big time. These are the Essex class hulls that were renamed in honor of lost combatants during the war.

CV-10 Yorktown laid down 1 Dec 41, commissioned Apr 1943
CV-12 Hornet laid down 3 Aug 42, commissioned Nov 1943
CV-16 Lexington laid down 15 Jul 41, commissioned Feb 1943
CV-18 Wasp laid down 18 Mar 42, commissioned Nov 1943

As you can see, they were all laid down long before their earlier namesakes were sunk. So in fact the allies get hosed because unless they lose the earlier namesakes, they don’t get these hulls. I agree CV respawns should be taken out. But these hulls need to be added to the 1943 CV arrivals to make things historically correct. As things stand now, the allies lose the power of 4 CV’s in 1943 whether they lose the earlier carriers or not.

Jim

So allow respawning, but after a two-year delay (to account for shake-down and movement to the POA). Use the original ship names for the ships that were renamed.

[JWE]

I want to put this back on track, a bit, and discuss this in terms of the AE game.

Jim,

I doubt there exists a thoughtful student of War-2 that would take exception to any of your contentions. I personally agree. However, plausibility is a very amorphous and slippery concept around which to build a game; especially one of WiTP’s scope and scale.

There are very many speculative possibilities available to both sides, in terms of what “might” have been accomplished in terms of National industrial policy, and the like, as a function of possible events. However, redefining the game in terms of one potential alternative, no matter how likely, opens the door to every other deeply held alternative world view. If we include JWE’s alternatives, we must also include Don’s, Joe’s, Justin’s, some of which are conflicting. We call it “the slippery slope”, and we do not wish to go there.

There are many, and significant, changes to both the transportation OOB, and the characteristics of the ship classes. But, these enhancements were made with the contemplation of a more historical playing field, as opposed to guaranteeing any particular long-term historical result.

The true value of the WiTP system is it’s ability to accommodate speculative possibilities by providing modders the tools with which to implement them. The AE team is attempting to redefine both the granularity of the play space and the accuracy of the play pieces. To do this, we must be ‘doctrinally’ oriented towards specificity. If we do our job correctly, folks like yourself will have a much better departure point from which to proceed.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
As to your CV respawn exploit, you seem to think the allies are gaining some benefit by the respawn, when in fact they are being short changed big time. These are the Essex class hulls that were renamed in honor of lost combatants during the war.

CV-10 Yorktown laid down 1 Dec 41, commissioned Apr 1943
CV-12 Hornet laid down 3 Aug 42, commissioned Nov 1943
CV-16 Lexington laid down 15 Jul 41, commissioned Feb 1943
CV-18 Wasp laid down 18 Mar 42, commissioned Nov 1943

As you can see, they were all laid down long before their earlier namesakes were sunk. So in fact the allies get hosed because unless they lose the earlier namesakes, they don’t get these hulls. I agree CV respawns should be taken out. But these hulls need to be added to the 1943 CV arrivals to make things historically correct. As things stand now, the allies lose the power of 4 CV’s in 1943 whether they lose the earlier carriers or not.

Jim

So allow respawning, but after a two-year delay (to account for shake-down and movement to the POA). Use the original ship names for the ships that were renamed.

FORGET "RE-SPAWNING"! Just let the US get CV's 10, 12, 16, and 18 under their original names. An Essex is an Essex is an Essex..., who cares what you name it? The whole "re-spawning" non-sense has caused way more trouble than it was ever worth....

[rockmedic109]

If respawning is turned off, will the player get those hulls that were renamed IRL?

[Terminus]

Only if the scenario designer makes it so. In AE, the master scenario has respawn on, so no four extra ships.