RHS ship production

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Elladan

The production time in game (in days) is the lower of (10*durability) or (time to arrival). That's how long you pay for a given ship assuming you don't accelerate.
So a sub with durability value 49 takes 490 paid days to complete, costing Japanese 24010 shipyard points in total.

Did I ever say how much I hate hard code? What is so hard about letting US enter the correct data in a field? A German submarine takes about 9 months to build. A German sub also has a diving depth on the order of 650 feet = durability = 65 = 650 days to build. This is the source of the problem. We can decrease durability - but then pay the price in a sub too easy to sink. Since ALL subs are too easy to sink the way code works - I hate do do that.

Another problem may be the way devices are coded. Stock used 9999 for big guns - and I use the actual weight.
So even a gun that weighs huge amounts - hundreds of tons - is much less. It makes battleships relatively cheaper in RHS. On the other hand, 9999 is code for "immobile" - and I have MOBILE heavy guns. Also 9999 is used for people (in land units) - and it makes the reports seem out of whack. Immobile is meaningless for naval guns anyway. What a system.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

How much do you want to add, Sid?
When you add even only some hundred shipyards, you'll have to add HI, too. But that HI needs ressources - and where shall they come from? Even if you boost the Oilfields in Sumatra and Borneo, this stays wrong. Where should the TKs come from to sent the new needed Oil to Japan? What if this fields get damaged while being conquered? As the hard code is so "brilliant" that there is no way to improve the repairspeed of facilities, a longer batte at one oilfield may already break Japans neck...

There is too much industry - according to Andrew - who reduced it (while RHS increased it) from former CHS levels. And there is vastly too much resources. Games are not pressing Japan for oil either - not as much as should happen. So we have some latitude here.

I use "Russian engineering." You try a value, then move in the right direction, until you get close enough. It is a crude system - so it cannot ever be perfect. Just functional.

Two effects of this (because I will put the proper shipyards in places like Korea and China now - after long being told it would not be a good thing) is that

1) Japan will have an incentive to capture HI and shipyards

2) Japan will have to manage how HI is used - it can build more tanks - airplanes - or ships (by turning things on and off) - but it cannot build unlimited amounts of them - and complaints "Japan built 60,000 planes last year" will fade.

[el cid again]

Good news - we can cut German sub durability ratings in half. In WITP terms we need to use 330 feet vice 660 feet. German subs were rated at 100/200 meters - and WITP wants the operating depth - not the crush depth.

[Elladan]

Did I ever say how much I hate hard code?

Many times [;)]

A German submarine takes about 9 months to build. A German sub also has a diving depth on the order of 650 feet = durability = 65 = 650 days to build. This is the source of the problem. We can decrease durability - but then pay the price in a sub too easy to sink. Since ALL subs are too easy to sink the way code works - I hate do do that.

It's a matter of choosing a lesser evil. In this case I would go with less durability - easier to sink subs, it's a no-brainer for me. Better to have weaker subs than to not have them at all due to lack of shipbuilding. The same goes for TK/AO, couldn't you just reduce them to AK/AP standard? You would have to accept the code doesn't work as you would like it to do but at least it would allow players to actually build those vessels.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Good news - we can cut German sub durability ratings in half. In WITP terms we need to use 330 feet vice 660 feet. German subs were rated at 100/200 meters - and WITP wants the operating depth - not the crush depth.

U VII C/42 had a regular diving deep of 200m while the shipyards guaranteed a deep of 400m (sic!) without damage
U IX had a diving deep of 150/200m

[el cid again]

I have pretty difinitive data on U Boats - and I read German.

We use four sub classes of them - 3 of IX and 1 of VII -

specifically IXC, IXC40 and IXD2 as well as VIIF.

Curiously all have a depth rating of 150 meters = 492 feet. The way they are operationally rated (and not usually mentioned by buffs) is "75/150 meters" - which is 246 feet = 25 in WITP durability terms. That reduces the build time to 250 days for all (down from 490 days for the Type IX and 660 days for the Type VII).

German submarines were overbuilt - which is fairly typical of German engineering and in particular of German submarines - but they did have inconsistencies (essentially not every part could sustain the pressures of operation at great depth). So for long life and minimal equipment casualties - vital in a long distance ocean operation - it was SOP (literally doctrinal) to operate at half the crush depth. In English we call that the "safe operating depth" and the concept that it is about half the rated crush depth is still the usual one. Although in the present age US engineering is using values as low as 5-10% extra (in power capacity for an electronic device for example), it is still standard in all forms of vehicle engineering to test at 100% (double) the rating you intend to give the thing (in terms of weight or strength requirements).
For example, at Chevrolet Engineering, we carry 3 tons of sand as the load for a 1.5 ton truck. Not that this is a good idea - but to insure that it won't break if used anywhere near its rated load.

The vast majority of U boats actually fighting in the war were Type VII and Type XI. ALL type IX had the SAME depth rating of 150 meters. Type VII varied from 150 meters to 300 meters (this latter for the never built VIC42) - but most were in the 150 - 180 meter range. Again - the safe sustained operating depth is half the rating. Because we believed the Germans had the "best" submarine technology (they did not) we tested their boats extensively after the end of WWII - and we simply sank the Japanese guppy's. Turned out that the much vaunted late war German submarines were not safe to operate at speed, had a bad hull form preventing good control, and the exotic Walther engine technology was dangerous and never perfected (in spite of expensive and extensive effort in the UK, US and USSR). And the sonar which we adopted for post war submarines - while German - was not a submarine sonar - but that of CA Prinz Eugen!
For details in English of all this, see US Submarines Since 1945. See also Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy for the assessment that Japanese guppy's were "based on superior hydrodynamic research."

Correcting this data goes a long way to solving the relative problem of German submarine costs - although at the price of making them more vulnerable.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Elladan

Did I ever say how much I hate hard code?

Many times [;)]

A German submarine takes about 9 months to build. A German sub also has a diving depth on the order of 650 feet = durability = 65 = 650 days to build. This is the source of the problem. We can decrease durability - but then pay the price in a sub too easy to sink. Since ALL subs are too easy to sink the way code works - I hate do do that.

It's a matter of choosing a lesser evil. In this case I would go with less durability - easier to sink subs, it's a no-brainer for me. Better to have weaker subs than to not have them at all due to lack of shipbuilding. The same goes for TK/AO, couldn't you just reduce them to AK/AP standard? You would have to accept the code doesn't work as you would like it to do but at least it would allow players to actually build those vessels.

It is an RHS reform that AOs are NOT rated the same as AK type ships in terms of durability. As an engineer, a sailor and a student of marine damage control, I am offended this is not universally demanded - or so universally understood a game ever was devised without building it in. However, we can mitigate the problem a bit. Note that tankers ARE more expensive and take longer to build - not just harder to sink - although the cost is probably greater than the ratio adopted - we can reasonably approximate the relative values using a somewhat reduced multiple (3 vice 4). A more extreme solution would be to make Auxiliaries 150% (vice 200%) of AK value - and tankers 200% (vice 400% - or now 300%).

[Elladan]

You should use a square root of your value as a multiplier as increase in durability affects both the cost per day and the number of paid construction days needed. Thus it should be ok for TK to have durability 1.5-2.0 times higher than AK of the same displacement. AOs could cost more, say 125% of the same hull built as TK.

[el cid again]

Well - you can have your cake and eat it too - because something like that is already in the RHS durability values.
We don't give you a linear relationship between size and durability - as size increases - durability goes up - but at an ever decreasing rate. This was calculated (took a man week) and is in all the values now - so I am talking about reducing the values by 25% (or if need be by 50%) - but these are already compressed values. Thus Yamatama Maru (which isn't a tanker - but probably was the largest AK in the world - at 42,000 tons) does NOT have a durability rating calculated on a linear basis. Same for the "jumbo" tankers.

[Elladan]

But if you have a hypothetical AK and TK of the same size, TK would have 4 times the durability of the AK, right?

[el cid again]

Yes - was - No - Now it is 3x. However - as size increases - the durability increases at a decreasing rate.

As we decrease the durability value, it has a square effect (in terms of the number of required points removed) - the difference in durability (per day) times the difference in durability (number of days). This will have a dramatic impact.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yes - was - No - Now it is 3x. However - as size increases - the durability increases at a decreasing rate.

As we decrease the durability value, it has a square effect (in terms of the number of required points removed) - the difference in durability (per day) times the difference in durability (number of days). This will have a dramatic impact.

Will this be in 7.7895?

[Elladan]

If I understand your method right you wanted TK to be 4 times (or 3 in more recent version) as durable as AK of the same size - i.e. you calculated a durability value for a given tonnage using your highly sophisticated algorithm and then multiplied the result by 4 (or 3 as the case may be) to get a value then entered into the database for TK. What I say is by doing this you increased building cost 16 times (or 9 [;)]) not 4 times as intended at the beginning. So to make a given TK 4 times as expensive as an AK of the same size (which is reasonable) you have to multiply your base durability value by a square root of the factor, i.e. 2.
Hope what I wrote has any sense And I reduced the example to TK and AK of the same size only.

[el cid again]

All delayed ships are considered to be "in production" - and cost the economy. Thailand is not permitted to have ships under player control until the day AFTER Thailand formally began to cooperate with Japan - 22 December 1941. So the entire RTN and its tiny merchant fleet cost to produce. To mitigate that we:

1) Permit the Royal Thai Dockyards to build merchant ships and even small warships. They could - but rarely did. This small capacity goes on throughout the game - compensating in part for the loss of points to Japan before the navy "appears".

2) Downrated the RTN subs durability to 20.

3) Damaged ships ALSO appear on 12/22/41 - but with damage. They then cease to cost warship points - and cost repair points instead. These include Sry Aythuia and Trad.

4) Players may delay RTN ship appearence - and then nothing is spent unless/until the players permit it.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yes - was - No - Now it is 3x. However - as size increases - the durability increases at a decreasing rate.

As we decrease the durability value, it has a square effect (in terms of the number of required points removed) - the difference in durability (per day) times the difference in durability (number of days). This will have a dramatic impact.

Will this be in 7.7895?

Yes - and it is already done for Japan - but I am working on shipyards - and I must do the Allies. In a matter of hours probably.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Elladan

If I understand your method right you wanted TK to be 4 times (or 3 in more recent version) as durable as AK of the same size - i.e. you calculated a durability value for a given tonnage using your highly sophisticated algorithm and then multiplied the result by 4 (or 3 as the case may be) to get a value then entered into the database for TK. What I say is by doing this you increased building cost 16 times (or 9 [;)]) not 4 times as intended at the beginning. So to make a given TK 4 times as expensive as an AK of the same size (which is reasonable) you have to multiply your base durability value by a square root of the factor, i.e. 2.
Hope what I wrote has any sense And I reduced the example to TK and AK of the same size only.

Well - we will see. I am running a test just now. Remember - my object was to increase the ability to take damage - not to increase cost. Cost can be greater than the ratio of ability to take damage increase - and that is not necessairily a problem. A bigger problem is the time factor - as usual the oversimplified WITP system has some ships right - some too fast - some too slow - in terms of build time.
My methods are conservative - and I try to adjust in steps toward the goal.

IF we went over to using 2x for AOs- ALL the auxiliaries (which use 2x now) need to convert to 1.5x - or something like that. That is man weeks of work - and I hope to avoid it.

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yes - was - No - Now it is 3x. However - as size increases - the durability increases at a decreasing rate.

As we decrease the durability value, it has a square effect (in terms of the number of required points removed) - the difference in durability (per day) times the difference in durability (number of days). This will have a dramatic impact.

Will this be in 7.7895?

Yes - and it is already done for Japan - but I am working on shipyards - and I must do the Allies. In a matter of hours probably.

Yes - and it is already done for Japan - but I am working on shipyards - and I must do the Allies. In a matter of hours probably.

Are you saying allies will have to manage ship building from the next revision on? I believe there was some discussion the last two weeks that this could be done but I maybe missed that this is going to be implemented. Or am I misinterpreting here?

[Elladan]

I think he meant durability values for some Allied vessels will be reduced to make it on par with Japanese changes.
Sid, could you post a list of changes for 7.7895?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: okami



Will this be in 7.7895?

Yes - and it is already done for Japan - but I am working on shipyards - and I must do the Allies. In a matter of hours probably.

Yes - and it is already done for Japan - but I am working on shipyards - and I must do the Allies. In a matter of hours probably.

Are you saying allies will have to manage ship building from the next revision on? I believe there was some discussion the last two weeks that this could be done but I maybe missed that this is going to be implemented. Or am I misinterpreting here?

No - you misunderstand my reasoning.

The Allies cannot manage ship building - except at the start - by scenario selection. [RHS gives you the chance to say "I want 3 more CLs as CVLs" - or 6 even - lots of choices - but the Allies must make them by scenario selection. We have a scenario with focus on medium subs, on DEs with more speed at the price of fewer units, lots of things]

The reason the Allies must be redone is victory points - and also damage must be to the same standard. A 10,000 ton tanker should be similar for both sides - so to keep things consistent I had to rerate all those Allied ships too.

Another problem is shipyards need to be done - particularly where they might be captured. This gives locations more (economic and strategic) meaning. Vizapatam (in India) isn't even in WITP except for RHS - but it is a major shipbuilding center - was a fairly significant one even then - and we need to insure it is an asset the Allies feel a need to defend. A certain amount of industrial review occurs every time we look at locations. Previously I was working under guidance indicating fears of adding too much industry. But we are not consuming oil or resources fast enough - and we are not producing all of it either (half the resources are absent because of problems in the consumption model - as well as the AKs to lift them). So modest changes are indicated. It will help feed the shipyards HI points (for Japan only) - but even "Allied" cities matter to Japan - if captured. It is part of the whole concept of autarky (local economic independence).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Elladan

I think he meant durability values for some Allied vessels will be reduced to make it on par with Japanese changes.
Sid, could you post a list of changes for 7.7895?

There is an entire thread dedicated to it.