Wrong arrival dates in every mod?!

[Historiker]

In both stock and mods, the dates of arrival of ships is taken from history. If the ship was completed on 7/25/43, it will - in most cases - arrive at exactly that date in game, too.
The same with planes. They come into game when they did IRL.


But is that correct?
How many Japanese ships were produced slowere or had even halted production again and again because of lacking materials?
How many maiden flights or serial productions were limited by rare materials or delayed after enemy bombardments?

So why should these units arrive at the historcal date, when IRL, the completement was later than usual because of lacking ressources?
As the Japanese player has to pay for the building of the ship and has to get enough oil and ressources to his Industry, the delay has to happen because of lacking HI or shipyard points - and not because it's already in the data.
I've read about countless cases that the production of Axis ships was stopped because of materials - but this shouldn't be in the data, no?

Or look at the Aichi B7A. It's maiden flight was in mai 42. Still, its production didn't start until Mai 44 because of engine problems, earthquake and bombardement. Ok, the engine problems may have been unavoidable and the earthquake has to inflict the date in the game as well (while it doesn't damage any industry, but that would require events that the game unfortunately doesn't have) - but what about the bombardement? Shouldn't a player recieve them earlier when he prevents the enemy from bombarding the factories?


I know it is much easier to simply take the historcal data than caluculation and estimating how much time was lost - but as Japan has to pay for everything and can influence bost production of ships and the plane's date of arrival - shouldn't these dates be in the game without their historical problems?

Just a few thoughts...

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

In both stock and mods, the dates of arrival of ships is taken from history. If the ship was completed on 7/25/43, it will - in most cases - arrive at exactly that date in game, too.
The same with planes. They come into game when they did IRL.


But is that correct?
How many Japanese ships were produced slowere or had even halted production again and again because of lacking materials?
How many maiden flights or serial productions were limited by rare materials or delayed after enemy bombardments?

So why should these units arrive at the historcal date, when IRL, the completement was later than usual because of lacking ressources?
As the Japanese player has to pay for the building of the ship and has to get enough oil and ressources to his Industry, the delay has to happen because of lacking HI or shipyard points - and not because it's already in the data.
I've read about countless cases that the production of Axis ships was stopped because of materials - but this shouldn't be in the data, no?

Or look at the Aichi B7A. It's maiden flight was in mai 42. Still, its production didn't start until Mai 44 because of engine problems, earthquake and bombardement. Ok, the engine problems may have been unavoidable and the earthquake has to inflict the date in the game as well (while it doesn't damage any industry, but that would require events that the game unfortunately doesn't have) - but what about the bombardement? Shouldn't a player recieve them earlier when he prevents the enemy from bombarding the factories?


I know it is much easier to simply take the historcal data than caluculation and estimating how much time was lost - but as Japan has to pay for everything and can influence bost production of ships and the plane's date of arrival - shouldn't these dates be in the game without their historical problems?

Just a few thoughts...

Not in my mod, ships arrive ready for duty long after they were commissioned regardless of where they were built for the allies, or they have very low crew experience to reflect there need for training. Literally years of research went into figuring out when ships were actually ready for duty.

For the Japanese with production is a different story.

[el cid again]

First - there IS a date bug - or two - depending on your viewpoint.

1) Land, naval and air units set to the same date do NOT appear on the same date. One of them is out of sync with the others (I forget which).

2) The dates should be Tokyo Time - which applies to ALL Japanese forces and much more of the map than Hawaii Time does. These are off by one day - due to the International Date Line.

Second - historical arrival time is always right. If there was a delay - there is a delay = history. As AKWarrior says - ships should appear on the date they arrive in theater or otherwise are ready for operations - with very rare exceptions. [KGV went into battle with yard workers on board - and was so green she didn't do well vs Bismarck. This also happened PTO - but not often.]

Third- game arrival time can be delayed - for Japan ships. A player can suspend production.. Lack of points may also delay production.

Fourth - land or air units may arrive with less than the right strength - or the wrong plane - if the right stuff is not available. In some cases they also can be delayed by the situation - and also change point of arrival if the arrival point is occupied by the enemy.

I think the system is fairly good except

1) The date for land, air and sea should be the same

2) The Allies should have production delays possible

both are hard code matters

[DuckofTindalos]

Prince of Wales went into battle against the Bismarck with dockworkers on board, not King George V.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Prince of Wales went into battle against the Bismarck with dockworkers on board, not King George V.

Absolutely correct - POW is KGV class - but not the class leader. Somehow I wrote the class name instead of the ship
name - as I think of her as "a" KGV. Good catch.

[Bogo Mil]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
First - there IS a date bug - or two - depending on your viewpoint.

1) Land, naval and air units set to the same date do NOT appear on the same date. One of them is out of sync with the others (I forget which).

LCU and ships arrive one day too early. If the game sais "2 days", they arrive in the next turn. Air groups arrive at the correct date. I have no idea why this bug was never fixed...

I think the system is fairly good except

2) The Allies should have production delays possible

both are hard code matters

I think you can introduce some kind of "random delay": Let all ships, which were built on map (not at east coast or Britain), arrive a bit earlier, but with some sys damage. This will cause additional delay if the shipyards are busy repairing wrecked ships (imho reasonable even for the Allies), and it allows the player to press a ship into service before it is really completed.

[el cid again]

Another convention can and probably should be that a ship introduced early has a lower experience rating. The Manual says that ships will gain experience from a "shake down cruise" - so it is a nice combination if the original rating is low enough to benefit from that.

[Historiker]

I think you can introduce some kind of "random delay": Let all ships, which were built on map (not at east coast or Britain), arrive a bit earlier, but with some sys damage. This will cause additional delay if the shipyards are busy repairing wrecked ships (imho reasonable even for the Allies), and it allows the player to press a ship into service before it is really completed.

You'll find this somewhen in witw - it's already in the DB [;)]

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Another convention can and probably should be that a ship introduced early has a lower experience rating. The Manual says that ships will gain experience from a "shake down cruise" - so it is a nice combination if the original rating is low enough to benefit from that.

You can also add a bit of systems damage since there are always something not right or not installed aboard a newly commissioned ship. For the US this might not be a big issue as one can calculate how long it too various ship classes to workup, although wringing out the data is a bit tedious. Just because a ship is put into commission for the first time does not make it ready for duty, and for the Japanese it makes sense to add system damage to newly commissioned ships if there was no delay in built into the building schedule to allow for the couple of months it took to train a crew and get the ships hardware ready for duty.

[Bogo Mil]

I think it is better to model the reduced combat effectiveness with damage only. I think we should not encourage the players to let ships in some backwater run around in circles in order to improve their experience. I hate every kind of "bootcamp training".

It might be a bit of a problem for the very large ships (CV, BB), because those repair very slowly, and 5 points of sys damage don't reduce their abilities considerably. There it might be necessary to start with low experience. Another option would be a bad captain plus a house rule, that such a captain must not be exchanged for a month or so. Cruisers and smaller ships repair fast enough, so you can let them start with 10-30 sys damage and that's it.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil
It might be a bit of a problem for the very large ships (CV, BB), because those repair very slowly, and 5 points of sys damage don't reduce their abilities considerably. There it might be necessary to start with low experience. Another option would be a bad captain plus a house rule, that such a captain must not be exchanged for a month or so. Cruisers and smaller ships repair fast enough, so you can let them start with 10-30 sys damage and that's it.

From the "for what is worth department" I am into my 3 month of the level 7.91 RHSMAIO and have found that all the ships' damages are now repairing and refitting at a very accelerated rate of what it use to be. All the Pearl attack related damage has been cleared and the 1/42 refits were done within 1 to 2 weeks on the outside. I am sure that all the 7.91 scenarios have similar results. I have no idea what the RL rate of repair was and couldn't find an INTERNET reference for comparison.

I have some other things to report also but will make a separate posting later.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Another convention can and probably should be that a ship introduced early has a lower experience rating. The Manual says that ships will gain experience from a "shake down cruise" - so it is a nice combination if the original rating is low enough to benefit from that.

You can also add a bit of systems damage since there are always something not right or not installed aboard a newly commissioned ship. For the US this might not be a big issue as one can calculate how long it too various ship classes to workup, although wringing out the data is a bit tedious. Just because a ship is put into commission for the first time does not make it ready for duty, and for the Japanese it makes sense to add system damage to newly commissioned ships if there was no delay in built into the building schedule to allow for the couple of months it took to train a crew and get the ships hardware ready for duty.

This is pretty normal in all navies. And certainly Prince of Wales had problems in her first action. [Presumably most members of this Forum know she engaged the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen - a companion of HMS Hood the day she was sunk. Many know she still had yard workers on board - had never had a shake down cruise - and suffered gunnery difficulties which - combined with the loss of Hood - confusion about which enemy ship was which - and the superb shooting of the enemy cruiser - conspired to cause her to withdraw from the battle - which of course would have been redeemed had Bismarck had been sunk.] I once went to a new ship - during a period of navy expansion - so there was a shortage of experienced sailors (like in WWII). The captain put chiefs - sometimes first class petty officers - in charge of each department and division (a division is a sub department on a navy ship). The officers nominally assigned just observed. Only two officers knew their jobs - the captain and the XO (unless you count the doctor - but he isn't a naval officer in the line). There was only one sailor on board who had either been to Landing Party School or in a firefight, or other things naval landing parties do. So naturally that dictated who would organize and train the landing party - never mind he was in a rating that is nominally forbidden to be risked in such activities. Theory and practice are not the same - and a ship is not just what the computer data thinks it is - particularly at first.

The main problem with this really good idea is the massive data entry required to implement it. But we should implement it every time we review any ship that it might apply to.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

I think it is better to model the reduced combat effectiveness with damage only. I think we should not encourage the players to let ships in some backwater run around in circles in order to improve their experience. I hate every kind of "bootcamp training".

It might be a bit of a problem for the very large ships (CV, BB), because those repair very slowly, and 5 points of sys damage don't reduce their abilities considerably. There it might be necessary to start with low experience. Another option would be a bad captain plus a house rule, that such a captain must not be exchanged for a month or so. Cruisers and smaller ships repair fast enough, so you can let them start with 10-30 sys damage and that's it.

Yet that is what really happens - and how this game is designed to work. A shake down cruise is a good idea - and players who do it are rewarded - as they should be - provided only we modders put the ship in with low enough ratings in the first place.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil
It might be a bit of a problem for the very large ships (CV, BB), because those repair very slowly, and 5 points of sys damage don't reduce their abilities considerably. There it might be necessary to start with low experience. Another option would be a bad captain plus a house rule, that such a captain must not be exchanged for a month or so. Cruisers and smaller ships repair fast enough, so you can let them start with 10-30 sys damage and that's it.

From the "for what is worth department" I am into my 3 month of the level 7.91 RHSMAIO and have found that all the ships' damages are now repairing and refitting at a very accelerated rate of what it use to be. All the Pearl attack related damage has been cleared and the 1/42 refits were done within 1 to 2 weeks on the outside. I am sure that all the 7.91 scenarios have similar results. I have no idea what the RL rate of repair was and couldn't find an INTERNET reference for comparison.

I have some other things to report also but will make a separate posting later.

Some ships were never repaired. One Battleship was sunk en route to the USA AFTER the war ended! It all depends on how much damage there is. At first - also it mattes that the place was damaged - and too many other ships needed work. You cannot do everything at once.

In the game we don't do enough damage in most initial attacks - and repair is too easy. This is particularly so vs AI because it won't optimize the attack or follow up with another one. The best human games come close to right- but it is rare to do better than history. Mainy if you succer the ships to sea and sink them where they cannot be repaired.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil
It might be a bit of a problem for the very large ships (CV, BB), because those repair very slowly, and 5 points of sys damage don't reduce their abilities considerably. There it might be necessary to start with low experience. Another option would be a bad captain plus a house rule, that such a captain must not be exchanged for a month or so. Cruisers and smaller ships repair fast enough, so you can let them start with 10-30 sys damage and that's it.

From the "for what is worth department" I am into my 3 month of the level 7.91 RHSMAIO and have found that all the ships' damages are now repairing and refitting at a very accelerated rate of what it use to be. All the Pearl attack related damage has been cleared and the 1/42 refits were done within 1 to 2 weeks on the outside. I am sure that all the 7.91 scenarios have similar results. I have no idea what the RL rate of repair was and couldn't find an INTERNET reference for comparison.

I have some other things to report also but will make a separate posting later.

Some ships were never repaired. One Battleship was sunk en route to the USA AFTER the war ended! It all depends on how much damage there is. At first - also it mattes that the place was damaged - and too many other ships needed work. You cannot do everything at once.

In the game we don't do enough damage in most initial attacks - and repair is too easy. This is particularly so vs AI because it won't optimize the attack or follow up with another one. The best human games come close to right- but it is rare to do better than history. Mainy if you succer the ships to sea and sink them where they cannot be repaired.

Sid, I don't remember in previous games where repairs/refits were made this quickly. Are you saying that the AI is now taking over the human controlled player's repairs and it is different than human games. That doesn't make sense.

[el cid again]

There are NO changes to the code.

But - thank AKWarrior - we DID change the speed of repairs at certain points.

Note the HQ at Hawaii has 14 ND (= 14th Naval District) in its name. It is NOT just a name.
We originally tried ot make it separate - slot code would not allow it - so we folded it into Fleet HQ -
but we DID put ND assets in there. Ships DO repair faster at PH, San francisco, Kodiak, a few other places.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There are NO changes to the code.

But - thank AKWarrior - we DID change the speed of repairs at certain points.

Note the HQ at Hawaii has 14 ND (= 14th Naval District) in its name. It is NOT just a name.
We originally tried ot make it separate - slot code would not allow it - so we folded it into Fleet HQ -
but we DID put ND assets in there. Ships DO repair faster at PH, San francisco, Kodiak, a few other places.

As I suspected, and to that end they maybe too efficient. It's your sandbox.

[el cid again]

We just used the stock idea of naval HQ - and we could reduce the number of support squads - which is all they really were in stock.

Hmmm - that may mean we are seeing something else

instead of the Naval District HQ effect - which are just 180 support squads - it may be the effect of the supply sinks - which often are many more than that