Merchant Ships

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Andrew Brown
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hex 82,170
Contact:

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by Andrew Brown »

Second eliminate the 9:1 refinery output. Make it 10 oil in = 10 fuel out. Why? Without giving anything away, in one of my current games the defenders of Palembang are lobbing 1000's of Molotov cocktails at the IJA while dining on lubricants and diesel fuel (and they aren't going to run out for a very, very, very long time). The game doesn't differentiate different types of supply (avgas, bullets, food, medical supplies, diesel, etc). With that true, having refineries produce supply seems incorrect because the refinery is differentiating its output (some fuel oil and some avgas, diesel, lubricants, etc). Just seems to make more sense to have both systems be in line with one another.

An interesting comment.

As you mention, since "supply" is not split up into particular sub-components, then avgas is a part of "supply", even though the Real Life source comes from refineries. I wanted this aspect of refinery output modelled in the game, thus the single point of supply that refineries produce. Of course the significant flip side to that is that refineries produce "generic" supply points which can be used for any purpose.

It may well be that the loss of realism created by refineries producing "generic" supply points is larger than any gain in realism by simulating the need to ship some of the supplies needed by air units from refineries.

It would definitely be an interesting experiment to cut the supply output of refineries to 0.

Andrew
Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

Image
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3727
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by vettim89 »

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: vettim89
One problem with that is that most players on the Japan side turn off most if not all the LI in the Home Islands as the HI produces all the supply they need. There actually may be the root of the problem.

Is this definitely the case? Having never played the Japanese I have little knowledge of their long term supply situation in-game. Are there AARs where doing this is discussed?

If it is true then the game deviates significantly from some of the assumptions made in creating the economic aspects (the rule for which was - use the old WitP as the starting point rather than start from scratch, and only change things when there was justification).

Andrew

Andrew,

If you look over at my other thread you can see that just pre-war levels allow the production of over 400K of supply every month with all the LI turned off. Add in various points conquered with a little additional HI and more inportantly refineries and you can get an addition 50K pretty easy. Don't know for sure but half a million supply a month seems like enough
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
User avatar
stuman
Posts: 3945
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Elvis' Hometown

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by stuman »

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: vettim89
One problem with that is that most players on the Japan side turn off most if not all the LI in the Home Islands as the HI produces all the supply they need. There actually may be the root of the problem.

Is this definitely the case? Having never played the Japanese I have little knowledge of their long term supply situation in-game. Are there AARs where doing this is discussed?

If it is true then the game deviates significantly from some of the assumptions made in creating the economic aspects (the rule for which was - use the old WitP as the starting point rather than start from scratch, and only change things when there was justification).

Andrew

For what little it is worth, I generally keep LI going, I seem to use up supplies at a prodigious rate [:)] Sometimes I will turn it off , depending upon what is going on, but not as a rule. Maybe I am just a spendthrift.
" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

Image
User avatar
Andrew Brown
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hex 82,170
Contact:

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by Andrew Brown »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Fixing abstract supply is probably impossible as i'm sure you know. Only band aid there would be temporary reductions. I would (were it possible) lock down resources in the SRA to prevent mass evac from turn 2 onward.

Nik I agree with you regarding the supply availability. In particular, it seems to me, more from reading AARs than playing, given I've been too busy to play any AE for over a year now :-( is that the British in India have too easy a time launcing early offensives, when in fact it took them ages to accumulate enough material to support such offensives.

There have been changes to the game to limit the movement of supplies through Burma, but I think that supply generation for the British in India may be far too generous. It could be reduced, in a mod, by starting a large amount of the HI in India in a damaged state, and using a house rule that the Allied player should try as much as is possible to repair it. This would mean a lower starting point for supply production in the area, but ramping up to a much greater level as the war progesses. The only catch is that the Allied player could compensate for that to some extent by shipping in excess supplies from the USA - something which would have been very limited in the real war for political reasons.

Time permitting, I hope to cobble together such a test scenario, based on Da Babes, sometime soon. There are some other interesting ideas in this thread that I might add as well.

Andrew
Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

Image
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Second eliminate the 9:1 refinery output. Make it 10 oil in = 10 fuel out. Why? Without giving anything away, in one of my current games the defenders of Palembang are lobbing 1000's of Molotov cocktails at the IJA while dining on lubricants and diesel fuel (and they aren't going to run out for a very, very, very long time). The game doesn't differentiate different types of supply (avgas, bullets, food, medical supplies, diesel, etc). With that true, having refineries produce supply seems incorrect because the refinery is differentiating its output (some fuel oil and some avgas, diesel, lubricants, etc). Just seems to make more sense to have both systems be in line with one another.

An interesting comment.

As you mention, since "supply" is not split up into particular sub-components, then avgas is a part of "supply", even though the Real Life source comes from refineries. I wanted this aspect of refinery output modelled in the game, thus the single point of supply that refineries produce. Of course the significant flip side to that is that refineries produce "generic" supply points which can be used for any purpose.

It may well be that the loss of realism created by refineries producing "generic" supply points is larger than any gain in realism by simulating the need to ship some of the supplies needed by air units from refineries.

It would definitely be an interesting experiment to cut the supply output of refineries to 0.

Andrew

Tonnage-wise, supply breaks up into fuel, ammo, consumables, engineering supplies, and replacements. Consumables were probably the most constant and least important. Replacements, fuel and ammo supply offensive and defensive operations. In the game I think, replacements are the most important. Fuel and ammo require toluene and hence either refinery output or conversion from coal.

What the civilian economy needed were primarily consumables and coal (for power generation, steel-making, and as chemical feedstock). Unlike military operations, the demand didn't reflect the intensity of combat. Could you take the manpower and require certain levels of supply and resources to for them to remain operational, and higher levels of supply and resources for them to actually produce manpower points? Industrial plants would then require operational manpower to produce and manpower points to expand. The total manpower in the home islands would then set an underlying level of resource and supply demand which could be tuned to establish a minimum cargo fleet.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Fixing abstract supply is probably impossible as i'm sure you know. Only band aid there would be temporary reductions. I would (were it possible) lock down resources in the SRA to prevent mass evac from turn 2 onward.

Nik I agree with you regarding the supply availability. In particular, it seems to me, more from reading AARs than playing, given I've been too busy to play any AE for over a year now :-( is that the British in India have too easy a time launcing early offensives, when in fact it took them ages to accumulate enough material to support such offensives.

There have been changes to the game to limit the movement of supplies through Burma, but I think that supply generation for the British in India may be far too generous. It could be reduced, in a mod, by starting a large amount of the HI in India in a damaged state, and using a house rule that the Allied player should try as much as is possible to repair it. This would mean a lower starting point for supply production in the area, but ramping up to a much greater level as the war progesses. The only catch is that the Allied player could compensate for that to some extent by shipping in excess supplies from the USA - something which would have been very limited in the real war for political reasons.

Time permitting, I hope to cobble together such a test scenario, based on Da Babes, sometime soon. There are some other interesting ideas in this thread that I might add as well.

Andrew

During WWII, I believe India imported consumables and resources to feed and supply its population. Loss of Burma hit the Indian economy hard, especially the lost agricultural imports. It wasn't until the British got on top of that that they began more than defensive operations along the Burmo-Indian border. Again, you might require resources and consumables to sustain various kinds of industrial plants to model this civilian demand.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3727
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by vettim89 »

We agreed that economic concerns were to be moved to the thread I started specifically for that discussion. This thread is supposed to be about Merchant Shipping (not that the OP has ever governed us before [:D])
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: vettim89

We agreed that economic concerns were to be moved to the thread I started specifically for that discussion. This thread is supposed to be about Merchant Shipping (not that the OP has ever governed us before [:D])

It takes a while for everyone to get the word...
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
User avatar
Local Yokel
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Somerset, U.K.

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by Local Yokel »

ORIGINAL: vettim89

* The Japanese economy can run entirely or nearly entirely on the resources gathered from points already held by IJ on 7 Dec 1941

* The Japanese war time supply need can be met soley from the supply produced by the HI (20 resource + 2 fuel = 2 HI and 2 supply). This means that the bulk if not all of the LI is turned off because it is less efficient at producing supply (15 resource = 1 supply)

* Because of the above two facts, most JFB import little to none of the resources found in the SRA. This has a two-fold effect: fewer xAK/xAKL are needed to haul Resources and those that are used are more efficient than their RL counterparts due to shorter distances to be covered


I recognise that one needs to be a bit leery about drawing conclusions from USSBS, but unless the figures it tabulates are seriously in error then:

1) With a couple of notable exceptions, yes, the real Japanese economy was able to function by reliance upon resources already available within Empire territory on 7 December 1941, and didn't need to capture the SRA in order to source those materials.

2) Those notable exceptions consist of (a) the oil required to drive the Japanese mercantile marine and (more importantly) the Imperial Navy, and (b) the bauxite required for aluminium production, and, by extension the aircraft industry. Incidentally, the Palaus made a modest but significant contribution to meeting Japan's bauxite needs, yet in the game there's not a single resource centre on Peleliu or Babelthuap.

3) Far and away the largest slice in the Japanese import pie was coal followed by iron ore. The Japanese placed heavy reliance upon imports of good quality coking coals from North China to run the coke ovens at the Yawata works et al., and China and Manchukuo were also their principal sources of iron ore. By weight, all the other imports required by the Japanese economy pale into insignificance. What this implies is that the vast majority of resource traffic should pass through the Yellow Sea along the same trade routes as existed pre-war.

A more differentiated economic model for the game might, in theory, better simulate these patterns, even down to the more exotic raw materials such as tin, but I doubt that any added sophistication would be worth it - in the case of tin, for example, the Japanese captured ample finished ingot stock for their long term needs when Malaya and the Indies were overrun, so any requirement 'in game' for its haulage from the SRA wsould be a worthless detail.

The conclusion I draw is that there is no foundation of any substance for a complaint that the game does not oblige the Japanese player to haul resources from the SRA since, in real life, the obligation to do so was in tonnage terms minimal.

Likewise, in view of the data set out in JWE's posts, I can see little basis for a complaint that the Japanese are deprived in the game of any significant percentage of the shipping 'lift' they enjoyed. I do, however, think that room remains for concern about the extent to which the game accurately reflects the hard choices the Japanese planners had to make between satisfying the economy's resource hauling requirements and the need to provide sufficient shipping for the offensive into the Southern Area. I have always been under the impression that sufficient shipping for the troops was only provided by denuding the resource hauliers of some of their ships, yet, as I hinted at the start of this thread, I have never heard of a Japanese player having to reduce his resource shifting operations in order to provide sufficient invasion transports. If we accept that all Japanese merchantmen of significant size are represented in game, then some other mechanism seems to be at work that gives the Japanese player an unwarranted advantage in this respect.

Since I have a preference for playing the Japanese side, I can scarcely be accused of seeking some advantage for myself by inviting attention to this. I do so because, as a Japanese player, I want to be confronted with the same kind of hard choices as were made by those in whose shoes I stand, so that I can better contrast my performance with theirs. Whilst it's not directly in point in this thread, I want to see any opponent having to face the same hard choices as confronted the Allies. At present, the impression I get from the AAR's is that Allied forces are able to maintain a much higher operational tempo than, historically, was feasible at the date on which it is brought to bear. This suggests to me that at present the game is subject to imbalances of greater importance than the availability or otherwise to Japan of a few extra ships.
Image
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
I can see little basis for a complaint that the Japanese are deprived in the game of any significant percentage of the shipping 'lift' they enjoyed. I do, however, think that room remains for concern about the extent to which the game accurately reflects the hard choices the Japanese planners had to make between satisfying the economy's resource hauling requirements and the need to provide sufficient shipping for the offensive into the Southern Area. I have always been under the impression that sufficient shipping for the troops was only provided by denuding the resource hauliers of some of their ships, yet, as I hinted at the start of this thread, I have never heard of a Japanese player having to reduce his resource shifting operations in order to provide sufficient invasion transports. If we accept that all Japanese merchantmen of significant size are represented in game, then some other mechanism seems to be at work that gives the Japanese player an unwarranted advantage in this respect.
Which, I think, brings us to some conclusions.

The original basis for the discussion was Buck Beach's and then Lokel Yokel's concerns of missing ships and missing tonnage. I believe that any missing tonnage (in the grand scheme of things) is small, and represented by a disproportionally large number of extremely small, and operationally valueless, vessels.

I think (hope) we have given some comfort level to Mr. Palmer that we have done everything possible to provide Japan with a merchant fleet that comports as closely to reality as we can make it, both in terms of numbers of historical vessels and in terms of historical tonnage. I don't think we can make Buck quite as comfy, because I just can't see 300 missing significantly sized vessels. There could be spelling differences, heck .. there could be totally wrong or even arbitrary names given to a ton of ships. We'll do our best to slick things up, but because a vessel is not specifically named does not mean it is not represented. We spent most of the time with numbers and tonnages, so names got the hind teat, although we tried. So I don't think they are missing, I think they are just stealth, or hiding under an assumed identity.

@vettim89
@Bradley7735

The idea of trying to model seatrucks as "barges" has some merit; because that's frankly what they were. However, at the risk of sounding glib, I would have to say this is perhaps an exercise for a mod. On the one hand, it is valid, one can make a 1,000 of those little things and get all of 250,000 tons of lift out of it (lot of work for $2.50).

On the other hand, one might consider the 30% of Allied shipping that's not represented. US has 1300 xAKs total in game. Jeez Louize, they built 2710 Libertys, 534 Victorys, and 612 USMC C's that weren't converted into something else. That's 3856 hulls. Ok, most of them were in the ETO, but ... that approximately 25,500,000 gross tons of capacity that are not represented, but could be, depending on time and circumstance. 250k vs a potential 25,500k does not seem be a good trade-off.

I like some of the ideas, and I don't think they are bad, just not quite acceptable for a game with general player accessability. Hope you guys understand. It ain't bad, it's actually good, it's just not ... um ... in the box - if ya know what I mean.

Ciao. John
Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by Buck Beach »

I am going to try to upload a couple of my files showing my research. They are my wps150 showing the add-ons starting at 16143. I have included my wpc150 only for reference to sizes of the new classes I create, These new classes are for those ships that were acquired by Japan prior to the War or captured. Other that these new classes are a figment of my immagition based on general information provided by JWE as to size comparisons.

The ship data as to Name, location of construction (after start of war), build date, and sinking are from my main source and vetted in many cases with other sources. Sizes and classes were based on ship LPP and approximated to a LOA comparison. There are many ships in the data where they are still being researched and of course errors from my incompetence.

For those interested you may want to view my new Allied ships starting I believe at line 15000. There are a considerable number of Esso tankers that were 2 or three trip ponies and a slew of new APs from an old published source. There is also a whole bunch smaller ships that I have been working on.

Remember everyone that this info was for me and a sure wouldn't warrent how correct it is. However, it sure can be used as a starting point for any further research you may pursue.

If you have any specific questions you may PM or email me.

Buck

Oh BTW I am not finished with my searches.
Attachments
BuckDocuments.zip
(261.29 KiB) Downloaded 19 times
User avatar
Brady
Posts: 6084
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:48 pm
Location: Oregon,USA

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by Brady »

I always woundered just how many of the Allied ships in the Pacific were actualy used on the run to the USSR and theirfore not realy in our war???
Image


SCW Beta Support Team

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
User avatar
stuman
Posts: 3945
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Elvis' Hometown

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by stuman »

ORIGINAL: Brady

I always woundered just how many of the Allied ships in the Pacific were actualy used on the run to the USSR and theirfore not realy in our war???

It's been a while, but I though I remember reading that most of the ships on that run were Soviet flagged. I will try to look it up. BUt it's been a long day so I make no promises [:)]

Ok, see this ( short but sweet ) :

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/L/e/Lend-Lease.htm

" The North Pacific route accounted for twice as much Lend-Lease tonnage as any other route. It consisted of two parts. The sea route extended from U.S. West Coast ports, such as Seattle, through Alaskan ports to Vladivostok. Ships on the western part of this route were under Soviet flag and were treated as neutral vessels by Japan, which was anxious not to disturb its non-aggression pact with Russia. The air bridge extended from Great Falls through Edmonton, Whitehorse, Galena, and Nome to Uel'en, Markovo, Iakutsk, Kiernsk, and Krasnoiarsk to Novosibirsk. Over 8000 aircraft flew this route during the latter part of the war. Aircraft were picked up at Nome by Russian pilots, were marked with Soviet colors, and were left unmolested by the Japanese on their flight to Siberia. "

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

Image
User avatar
Brady
Posts: 6084
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:48 pm
Location: Oregon,USA

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by Brady »

Lend-Lease reached Russia through four routes, two of which were within the scope of the Pacific War. The Persian route ran through the western Indian Ocean and through Iran (Persia) into south Russia. It would have been susceptible to attack had the Japanese seized Madagascar or even Colombo, and did suffer some losses from far-ranging German and Japanese submarines

It was my understanding that these ships were not Rusian flaged, and that the ships on the Alaska run were not Russian entirely.

That Russian ships picked up material in Alaska, the vast bulk of which was sent their from the US west coast on US ships, the Alcan did come on line untill later and then did not move as much as the seaboarn rute.

Sometime ago I spot checked some ships and while I was looking for "other" things I noticed that many were on runs to Alaska for most of the war.

Howeaver I dont know how many actualy serviced this route.

Image


SCW Beta Support Team

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
User avatar
stuman
Posts: 3945
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Elvis' Hometown

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by stuman »

ORIGINAL: Brady
Lend-Lease reached Russia through four routes, two of which were within the scope of the Pacific War. The Persian route ran through the western Indian Ocean and through Iran (Persia) into south Russia. It would have been susceptible to attack had the Japanese seized Madagascar or even Colombo, and did suffer some losses from far-ranging German and Japanese submarines

It was my understanding that these ships were not Rusian flaged, and that the ships on the Alaska run were not Russian entirely.

That Russian ships picked up material in Alaska, the vast bulk of which was sent their from the US west coast on US ships, the Alcan did come on line untill later and then did not move as much as the seaboarn rute.

Sometime ago I spot checked some ships and while I was looking for "other" things I noticed that many were on runs to Alaska for most of the war.

Howeaver I dont know how many actualy serviced this route.


Right, per the above quote the majority of Lend Lease to Russia went via the N. Pacific. The ships that docked in Russian ports were almost all Russian flagged ( if memory serves there may have been some other neutral ships involved). Sometimes Russian ships went to the West Coast itself, other times they picked up stuff in Alaska. It's been a while since I looked at all of this.

A bit more :

" War-time Minister of the Soviet Navy, Admiral Nikolai Kuznetsov, wrote in his memoirs: “Transport vessels loaded at the ports on the west coast of the United States arrived in Vladivostok, Nikolayevsk-on-Amur and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, in the Soviet Far East. As a rule, the time at sea ranged from 18 to 20 days — plus the time it took to deliver the cargoes by rail, first, in the United States and then on Soviet territory. Although the Soviet Union strictly observed neutrality, the Japanese interfered with the passage of ships in the Pacific and sometimes sank our vessels…” "

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

Image
User avatar
Brady
Posts: 6084
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:48 pm
Location: Oregon,USA

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by Brady »

I beelave it was in Thunder Below that I recalled reading of the USS Barb setting up on a convoy, only to stop at the last second as it was a Soviet Convoy while she was in the Sea of Otousk (sp?). Its posable that the ships sunk were by US sub's I suspect in part.
 
 When I was doing some stuff for WiTE I came across an article that sugested to me a lot of the material was carried on US flaged ships to Alaska, I nead to try and find that.
 
 The ships to Indian Ports though were not Rusian Flaged ships afik.
 
 
Image


SCW Beta Support Team

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
User avatar
stuman
Posts: 3945
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Elvis' Hometown

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by stuman »

ORIGINAL: Brady

I beelave it was in Thunder Below that I recalled reading of the USS Barb setting up on a convoy, only to stop at the last second as it was a Soviet Convoy while she was in the Sea of Otousk (sp?). Its posable that the ships sunk were by US sub's I suspect in part.

When I was doing some stuff for WiTE I came across an article that sugested to me a lot of the material was carried on US flaged ships to Alaska, I nead to try and find that.

The ships to Indian Ports though were not Rusian Flaged ships afik.


You have made me start looking at some of my old sources, I will now be up all night ! [:)]

I am sure you are right about the Indian ports routes. I have one quote from a Russian source that states that all ships docking in Russian Pacific ports were Russian flagged,
Russian crewed. And I seem to remember that most were direct Russian to West Coast convoys. But I also think you are right in that other times there were US ships unloading in Alaska, and Russian ships then picking the stuff up.
" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

Image
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3727
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by vettim89 »

To take this is a different direction, perhaps our problem lies in capacity not numbers. In WiTP my one PBEM that went into 1945 was a BigB 1.4 game. My discussions with Brian (who is stalking these Forums again these days) revealed that one of the things he did in the mod was to alter capacilites. I don't think this was 100% a work around to make the mod work. I think he felt that ships capacities were overstated.

You have so many ways of looking at tonnage/capacity. The standard seems to be GRT with its each ton = 100 cubic feet of volume. Then there is NRT which is probably a better measure but rarely available. GT is probably of little use.

Wiki Definitiions

Perhaps the problem is no more complex than the formula for converting GRT/NRT to AE based cargo capacity is just off. I obviously don't have the methodology that was used, but it really does make sense. Would love to hear from JWE or other people in the know on this matter
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: vettim89
To take this is a different direction, perhaps our problem lies in capacity not numbers. In WiTP my one PBEM that went into 1945 was a BigB 1.4 game. My discussions with Brian (who is stalking these Forums again these days) revealed that one of the things he did in the mod was to alter capacilites. I don't think this was 100% a work around to make the mod work. I think he felt that ships capacities were overstated.

You have so many ways of looking at tonnage/capacity. The standard seems to be GRT with its each ton = 100 cubic feet of volume. Then there is NRT which is probably a better measure but rarely available. GT is probably of little use.

Wiki Definitiions

Perhaps the problem is no more complex than the formula for converting GRT/NRT to AE based cargo capacity is just off. I obviously don't have the methodology that was used, but it really does make sense. Would love to hear from JWE or other people in the know on this matter
Things are very different in AE. GRT/NRT don’t mean a thing. If you look around you will occasionally see a “Bale Cubic” or “Grain Cubic” for a ship. That is its actual, physical, volumetric cargo capacity – how many cubic feet of boxes (bales) can you put in the holds. Grain is the same, but includes filling in all the little nooks and crannies between frames, around supports etc.. Either of these are going to be way different from Register Tons. So .. the numbers in AE have nothing whatever to do with GRT/NRT, so there’s no conversion factor because we didn’t care anything about GRT/NRT.

Since everything in the game is in “Tons” of weight, so is the ship cargo capacity. You can fit 444,000 cu feet of toilet paper in a C2-B, but 444,000 cu feet of steel would sink it. What we tried to do with cargo capacity is use “Cargo Deadweight – Design”. Sometimes, we could get the values directly, sometimes we had to calculate it. Design (not maximum) Deadweight minus fuel, stores, water, people, ‘stuff’, comes pretty close. Average industry breakbulk cargo densities factored against Bale Cubic also comes pretty close.

Totals are also lower than they could be, because values are Design values, not Maximum values. Some ships could “overload” by up to 20 weight % (others only by 7 weight %). It was rather extreme allowing some classes to overload while others couldn’t, so everybody uses Design: one big, happy, consistent family, across the board.
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3727
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: Merchant Ships

Post by vettim89 »

JWE,

I did not mean to say you guys were mistaken in assessing the RL capacity on the merchant shipping. Looking back at my OP I can see how you might think that was what I meant.

What I meant was what the game calls a supply point we consider to be a ton, but a supply point may actually represent more than a ton of goods. So even though you guys did a bang up job figureing out the tonnage of all the cargo carrying vessels in the game, we load points not tons. So if the points to tons ratio is off, the capacities are off.
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”