Andy v the AI

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Quick observation:

To me I wonder if there are too many successful Mk-14 torp attacks? Just bearing in mind the supposed Dud rate for this stage of the war?

Even through the end of 1942 (when virtually everything that could go badly for US subs was going bad) they still sank 140 ships for 584,000 tons. So quite a few of the blasted things managed to work in spite of their shortcomings...

[greg_slith]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think one should be able to unload some of the heavy stuff..IF they'd use amphibious ships like LST? At least for stuff that could be expected to be able to move on their own power or be towed. For example, one might not be able to unload medium tanks from xAK to lvl 1 port, but I think one should be able to unload those tanks from LST. After all, if you can unload heavy stuff from LST on enemy shore, you sure as hell should be able to do it in your own port...

Yes indeedee. Amphibious ships have amphibious capability and it is very important.

Does that mean that an AP will unload things like dual 16" CD guns and RADAR at smaller ports than a xAK could? If so, cool. Would the loading program assign heavy equipment to AP's instead of xAK's?

[Panther Bait]

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think one should be able to unload some of the heavy stuff..IF they'd use amphibious ships like LST? At least for stuff that could be expected to be able to move on their own power or be towed. For example, one might not be able to unload medium tanks from xAK to lvl 1 port, but I think one should be able to unload those tanks from LST. After all, if you can unload heavy stuff from LST on enemy shore, you sure as hell should be able to do it in your own port...

Yes indeedee. Amphibious ships have amphibious capability and it is very important.

Does that mean that an AP will unload things like dual 16" CD guns and RADAR at smaller ports than a xAK could? If so, cool. Would the loading program assign heavy equipment to AP's instead of xAK's?

I don't think APs are amphibious, they are just troopships. I don't even know if APAs (attack troopships) have amphibious capability. Ship/boat designations starting with an "L" for landing (e.g. LST aka Landing Ship - Tank) should all have amphibious capability.

[Flying Tiger]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Not sure I will take a look (or rather ask John to !!) [:D][:D]

Andy!! You're still here! what happened to the AAR? You were breaking the world speed record with this, then suddenly ZIP!

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Quick observation:

To me I wonder if there are too many successful Mk-14 torp attacks? Just bearing in mind the supposed Dud rate for this stage of the war?

Trust me there are not,,,,[8|]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think one should be able to unload some of the heavy stuff..IF they'd use amphibious ships like LST? At least for stuff that could be expected to be able to move on their own power or be towed. For example, one might not be able to unload medium tanks from xAK to lvl 1 port, but I think one should be able to unload those tanks from LST. After all, if you can unload heavy stuff from LST on enemy shore, you sure as hell should be able to do it in your own port...

Yes indeedee. Amphibious ships have amphibious capability and it is very important.

Does that mean that an AP will unload things like dual 16" CD guns and RADAR at smaller ports than a xAK could? If so, cool. Would the loading program assign heavy equipment to AP's instead of xAK's?

Depends on what type of TF they are in....

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Quick observation:

To me I wonder if there are too many successful Mk-14 torp attacks? Just bearing in mind the supposed Dud rate for this stage of the war?

Even through the end of 1942 (when virtually everything that could go badly for US subs was going bad) they still sank 140 ships for 584,000 tons. So quite a few of the blasted things managed to work in spite of their shortcomings...

Oh I know Mike...I know but just from looking at the attacks in the above AAR I'd say the dud rate is about 60-70% based on the number of hits vs torps fired. I know this is a lot but I think it should be 90% at this stage correct? As I say it's just a gut feel from a quick scan of the AAR. If it's set at the correct level in the DB and working as designed then I can have no qualms of course [;)]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen




Yes indeedee. Amphibious ships have amphibious capability and it is very important.

Does that mean that an AP will unload things like dual 16" CD guns and RADAR at smaller ports than a xAK could? If so, cool. Would the loading program assign heavy equipment to AP's instead of xAK's?

I don't think APs are amphibious, they are just troopships. I don't even know if APAs (attack troopships) have amphibious capability. Ship/boat designations starting with an "L" for landing (e.g. LST aka Landing Ship - Tank) should all have amphibious capability.

APA's are presumed to be carrying small landing craft and so have an instrinsic amphib capability which is higher than an xAP. The AP is somewhere in between the two.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen




Yes indeedee. Amphibious ships have amphibious capability and it is very important.

Does that mean that an AP will unload things like dual 16" CD guns and RADAR at smaller ports than a xAK could? If so, cool. Would the loading program assign heavy equipment to AP's instead of xAK's?

Depends on what type of TF they are in....

Does that imply, that we might be able to unload big stuff by using Amphibious TF instead of Transport TF? [8D]

[moose1999]

Don Bowen:

"The frantic pace of WITP is no longer present."

I love this remark! [:D]
Imagine trying to explain the problem of the 'frantic pace' of WITP to the average RTS gamer... LOL [:)].
I guess everything is relative...

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think one should be able to unload some of the heavy stuff..IF they'd use amphibious ships like LST? At least for stuff that could be expected to be able to move on their own power or be towed. For example, one might not be able to unload medium tanks from xAK to lvl 1 port, but I think one should be able to unload those tanks from LST. After all, if you can unload heavy stuff from LST on enemy shore, you sure as hell should be able to do it in your own port...

Yes indeedee. Amphibious ships have amphibious capability and it is very important.

Does that mean that an AP will unload things like dual 16" CD guns and RADAR at smaller ports than a xAK could? If so, cool. Would the loading program assign heavy equipment to AP's instead of xAK's?

Landing ships and craft (LST, barge, etc) will fully unload without restriction - they run up on the beach, drop the ramp, and everything gets off. All other ships have unload "rates", with amphib ships (APA/AKA and LSD/LSV) being the highest, navalized transport and cargo ships (AP/AK) next, and civilian (xAP/xAK types) lowest. These rates reflect the ability of the ship (cranes, unloading stations, well decks) and inherent landing craft (LCVP/barges down to whale boats). What can unload from each ship is a simple calculation between rate and adjusted load cost. This might indeed lead to some ridiculous unloads - like 16in CD guns from an APA - if the factors all line up correctly. Its the load cost of the device and the cargo capacity of the ship (and the rate, of course) that determine unloadability.

Yes, the allocation and load routines will attempt to load ships properly. Troops into troop space, equipment into cargo space, heavy equipment (especially tanks) into AKA, LST, LSD/LSV, and finally AK/xAK. APA, AP, and xAP would be used for heavy equipment if their cargo capacity is sufficient and there's nothing better. AE expanded capacity types (aircraft, troop, cargo, liquid) and tries to use each appropriately. But it also tries to get the unit loaded/unloaded and will cut the odd corner.

A few notes:

• Always try and use the most appropriate ship. Amphib and landing ships for invasions or small friendly ports, merchants for major hauling pier-to-pier using major ports.
• Non-amphibious ships tend to cause higher casualties in landing forces. Actual losses, not disablements. You have have noticed the "lost in surf" type messages in AARs. Merchant freighters are especially bad.
• Amphbious TFs unload slower at small friendly ports than they do during amphibious invasions. They also generate less losses for unloading units and supplies. The hurry-up-we-need-it-ashore-now amphibious unload is replaced with a slower, calculated unload that reflects caution and carefully handling during actual unload and proper handling/storage on the beach.
• Naval Support is key. No matter how much you got, it ain't enough. It emulates shore parties for cargo handling (stevedores in ports), lighters, small amphibious vehicles, beach master, etc.

[Sardaukar]

That sounds good, very good indeed. Thanks for clarification, Don!
 
So, if I really really want to get that Base Force unit with all important 200t radar set somewhere, but cannot unload it from xAK, I better start to scrounge for amphibious ships that can do it.
 
I think it's really good, makes you think a lot how one is going to use more valuable ships like AKA, LST, LSD/LSV.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Quick observation:

To me I wonder if there are too many successful Mk-14 torp attacks? Just bearing in mind the supposed Dud rate for this stage of the war?

Trust me there are not,,,,[8|]

Okey dokey. If all's working as designed then good with me.

[DuckofTindalos]

I can safely confirm that. The dud rate is its historically abysmal self; it's just that when you have a lot of attacks, some of the 15-20% dice rolls do succeed.

[Speedysteve]

Coolio. Thanks T[:)]

[DuckofTindalos]

NP...[8D]

[dr. smith]

Don,
I assume from reading other posts, offload rates are affected by port size.  Thus low rated ports have less pier area and that affects how much you can offload.  i.e. not many ships can get to the pier and offload.  But once the ship is pierside, what prevents it from offloading cargo?  Not lack of stevedores, many a infantryman were used as brute muscle to aid in unloading cargo all across the Pacific.

The exclusion of unloading certain types of cargo at a port does not make sense if its due to a lack of what you call naval support - you mention 16 in guns as a cargo in particular, it could easily be tanks as well.  No number of stevedores, shore parties, lighters will unload it.  Only a crane/davit of sufficient size will unload it.

Are cranes a part of Naval Support?  And are cranes assumed to be part of a port once it reaches a certain size?  I would assume a port of any size would have the means to offload its normal ship traffic.  If it's a 1, probably just inter-island lighters.

Also, are ships rated for possessing their own cranes?

And what is distressing about all this is you have one of the MOST experienced guys (Andy Mac) in WITP land falling victim to sending stuff to where it can't unload.  How is a "normal" (if that term can even apply here) player to cope?  Unless there is an extremely helpful cheat sheet that easily explains this, I am doomed to have hundreds of ships piled outside of roadsteads all across the South Pacific. 

I did not mean to call you "stupid", sorry about that.  But what I find incomprehensible is asking a single player to go into the minutia of cargo handling when the US Navy had many hundreds/thousands of officers to do it (hence let the computer do it!) and even they had trouble.  To comprehend the matrix of units vs. cargo vs. port vs. naval support is another hurdle for the many hundreds of average players who bought WITP.

[Dili]

The cranes are abstracted i guess into Naval Support and bigger port sizes.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Dili

The cranes are abstracted i guess into Naval Support and bigger port sizes.

Exactly right. Port size load capacities abstract pier size, number, strength, cranes, access roads and capacity, longshoremen, lighters, harbor tugs, bars and grills and other facilities frequented by seamen. Naval support abstracts military cargo handling parties, yard craft of all types, and customers for the facilities frequented by seamen.

[greg_slith]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen




Yes indeedee. Amphibious ships have amphibious capability and it is very important.

Does that mean that an AP will unload things like dual 16" CD guns and RADAR at smaller ports than a xAK could? If so, cool. Would the loading program assign heavy equipment to AP's instead of xAK's?

Landing ships and craft (LST, barge, etc) will fully unload without restriction - they run up on the beach, drop the ramp, and everything gets off. All other ships have unload "rates", with amphib ships (APA/AKA and LSD/LSV) being the highest, navalized transport and cargo ships (AP/AK) next, and civilian (xAP/xAK types) lowest. These rates reflect the ability of the ship (cranes, unloading stations, well decks) and inherent landing craft (LCVP/barges down to whale boats). What can unload from each ship is a simple calculation between rate and adjusted load cost. This might indeed lead to some ridiculous unloads - like 16in CD guns from an APA - if the factors all line up correctly. Its the load cost of the device and the cargo capacity of the ship (and the rate, of course) that determine unloadability.

Yes, the allocation and load routines will attempt to load ships properly. Troops into troop space, equipment into cargo space, heavy equipment (especially tanks) into AKA, LST, LSD/LSV, and finally AK/xAK. APA, AP, and xAP would be used for heavy equipment if their cargo capacity is sufficient and there's nothing better. AE expanded capacity types (aircraft, troop, cargo, liquid) and tries to use each appropriately. But it also tries to get the unit loaded/unloaded and will cut the odd corner.

A few notes:

• Always try and use the most appropriate ship. Amphib and landing ships for invasions or small friendly ports, merchants for major hauling pier-to-pier using major ports.
• Non-amphibious ships tend to cause higher casualties in landing forces. Actual losses, not disablements. You have have noticed the "lost in surf" type messages in AARs. Merchant freighters are especially bad.
• Amphbious TFs unload slower at small friendly ports than they do during amphibious invasions. They also generate less losses for unloading units and supplies. The hurry-up-we-need-it-ashore-now amphibious unload is replaced with a slower, calculated unload that reflects caution and carefully handling during actual unload and proper handling/storage on the beach.
• Naval Support is key. No matter how much you got, it ain't enough. It emulates shore parties for cargo handling (stevedores in ports), lighters, small amphibious vehicles, beach master, etc.

That kind of answer makes sense. Thanks.[&o] Although I'm sure I'm gonna have plenty of WTF?[:@] moments as i retrain my brain.