Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I want to go back and look at this chart. I lost my internet this weekend

First, the Japanese never extracted any where near what the 1940 Dutch numbers. I suspect this was a combination of a number of things: damage to the facilities, lack of technical expertise, and lack of spare parts. Looking at the numbers, Japanese production equaled

1942 46% (only held tha facilities part of the year and probably were repairing damage)
1943 76%
1944 61%
1945 10% (part of the year only - Aussies retook Borneo, RN bombed Palembang)

Second the Japanese were no where near as efficient at refining locally the way Royal Ducth Shell was. Probably the same reasons as above but perhaps the refineries were a little more fragile. Again by year

Dutch 98% refined locally
1942 53% refined locally
1943 47% refined locally
1944 67% refined locally (likely a bump up because of the sub war)
1945 68% refined locally

I wish there could be more than one kind of refinery: one for HI and one for SRA. If you could do that, I would make the HI ones take 10 oil and put out 3 fuel and 7 supply. The SRA ones would only pump out 3 fuel. Regardless, I think there is justification here to lower the Refining Centers in the SRA by 50%. Perhaps make them 60% of current levels with a portion already damaged. I know this penalizes the Allied player too but we are only talking about 4-5 months of the war compared to 40 months in Japans hands.

On another note, perhaps fuel should be completely removed from the HI equation and the resource input just raised.

I read in Dunnnigan and Nofi that one of the transport ships sunk early in the war was carrying the refinery engineers and techs along with most of their equipment. Luck of war.

By a Dutch submarine IIRC. Talk about your irony

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I'm still of the mind that a quicker (albeit dirtier) and easier solution is to reduce transport capacities for the produced supply/resource/oil to account for it's abstract nature vs. trying to recalculate the entire Japanese industry + tweak the Allied industrial base. Such a reduction would require more tonnage/assets to do what players do now and make the assets needed to move them more scarce and vulnerable to interdiction.

Me too.

Since a supply point is a Point, it can mean whatever we want it to mean, so long as it’s consistent, so … a supply point is = 1.5 metric tons. So … divide Cargo Capacity by 1.5. Leave liquid alone (that is independent, anyway) and leave troops alone (that’s independent too).

Tried this and the Load Cost does not break down. It’s actually a skoosh better, conceptually. One can still load same units on the same ships, but the excess cargo space (which people used to just fill up with excess supply) is significantly reduced; i.e., requires more follow up supply TFs.

It also helps make rearming a bit more normal. The Point requirement isn’t changed, but the good AKEs and AEs will still have enough (barely) to rearm a BB, but will have less Total Content, so will run out of 16” shells quicker and have to go to filling out smaller weapons; i.e., make people use more than 3 AKEs to rearm the Pacific Fleet.

Also helps the perception that supply use by units is much less than it should be. Units will still use the same amount of supply, it will just take longer to build up that monster stockpile; i.e., slow down the tempo a bit.

Haven’t seen a downside yet.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I'm still of the mind that a quicker (albeit dirtier) and easier solution is to reduce transport capacities for the produced supply/resource/oil to account for it's abstract nature vs. trying to recalculate the entire Japanese industry + tweak the Allied industrial base. Such a reduction would require more tonnage/assets to do what players do now and make the assets needed to move them more scarce and vulnerable to interdiction.

Me too.

Since a supply point is a Point, it can mean whatever we want it to mean, so long as it’s consistent, so … a supply point is = 1.5 metric tons. So … divide Cargo Capacity by 1.5. Leave liquid alone (that is independent, anyway) and leave troops alone (that’s independent too).

Tried this and the Load Cost does not break down. It’s actually a skoosh better, conceptually. One can still load same units on the same ships, but the excess cargo space (which people used to just fill up with excess supply) is significantly reduced; i.e., requires more follow up supply TFs.

It also helps make rearming a bit more normal. The Point requirement isn’t changed, but the good AKEs and AEs will still have enough (barely) to rearm a BB, but will have less Total Content, so will run out of 16” shells quicker and have to go to filling out smaller weapons; i.e., make people use more than 3 AKEs to rearm the Pacific Fleet.

Also helps the perception that supply use by units is much less than it should be. Units will still use the same amount of supply, it will just take longer to build up that monster stockpile; i.e., slow down the tempo a bit.

Haven’t seen a downside yet.

I like it...especially if it doesn't mess with the unit load and rearm aspects. Its all an abstraction anyway....the bottom line is if we tie up an adequate amount of shipping over an extended period - objective achieved.

So to update (correct me if I miss something) -

1. Export the ship class file with witploadae.
2. Open WITPclsxxx.csv
3. Divide the data in the Bulk Capacity column by 1.5.
4. Save file
5. Import WITPclsxxx.csv with witploadae.

I assume the class file updates the capacities of all of the ships without the necessity of doing anything to the ship file.

-----

Does anyone know how resource centers impact load/unload rates at ports? (the manual indicates they do.)

Is it a 1 point per resource center adding 1 point of load/unload rate per ship relationship....or is their some additional math in the equation?

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I'm still of the mind that a quicker (albeit dirtier) and easier solution is to reduce transport capacities for the produced supply/resource/oil to account for it's abstract nature vs. trying to recalculate the entire Japanese industry + tweak the Allied industrial base. Such a reduction would require more tonnage/assets to do what players do now and make the assets needed to move them more scarce and vulnerable to interdiction.

Me too.

Since a supply point is a Point, it can mean whatever we want it to mean, so long as it’s consistent, so … a supply point is = 1.5 metric tons. So … divide Cargo Capacity by 1.5. Leave liquid alone (that is independent, anyway) and leave troops alone (that’s independent too).

Tried this and the Load Cost does not break down. It’s actually a skoosh better, conceptually. One can still load same units on the same ships, but the excess cargo space (which people used to just fill up with excess supply) is significantly reduced; i.e., requires more follow up supply TFs.

It also helps make rearming a bit more normal. The Point requirement isn’t changed, but the good AKEs and AEs will still have enough (barely) to rearm a BB, but will have less Total Content, so will run out of 16” shells quicker and have to go to filling out smaller weapons; i.e., make people use more than 3 AKEs to rearm the Pacific Fleet.

Also helps the perception that supply use by units is much less than it should be. Units will still use the same amount of supply, it will just take longer to build up that monster stockpile; i.e., slow down the tempo a bit.

Haven’t seen a downside yet.

So you are telling me that what I said all those pages ago is now in line with your thinking? Credit to Brian ala BigB because he came up with the same idea for WiTP.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: vettim89
So you are telling me that what I said all those pages ago is now in line with your thinking? Credit to Brian ala BigB because he came up with the same idea for WiTP.

Yep. Didn't want to go there initially because of all the other implications, but the guys ran some makee-lookee stuff over the weekend and it ain't bad.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: treespider
I like it...especially if it doesn't mess with the unit load and rearm aspects. Its all an abstraction anyway....the bottom line is if we tie up an adequate amount of shipping over an extended period - objective achieved.

So to update (correct me if I miss something) -

1. Export the ship class file with witploadae.
2. Open WITPclsxxx.csv
3. Divide the data in the Bulk Capacity column by 1.5.
4. Save file
5. Import WITPclsxxx.csv with witploadae.

I assume the class file updates the capacities of all of the ships without the necessity of doing anything to the ship file.

I think that will do it. I would be careful with the smaller numbers though. Cargo cap is for ARD sizes too, and there's a bunch of barges, subs, and landing craft and even DDs that need to be looked at carefully.

Yep, cargo cap is automatic from class file.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: treespider
I like it...especially if it doesn't mess with the unit load and rearm aspects. Its all an abstraction anyway....the bottom line is if we tie up an adequate amount of shipping over an extended period - objective achieved.

So to update (correct me if I miss something) -

1. Export the ship class file with witploadae.
2. Open WITPclsxxx.csv
3. Divide the data in the Bulk Capacity column by 1.5.
4. Save file
5. Import WITPclsxxx.csv with witploadae.

I assume the class file updates the capacities of all of the ships without the necessity of doing anything to the ship file.

I think that will do it. I would be careful with the smaller numbers though. Cargo cap is for ARD sizes too, and there's a bunch of barges, subs, and landing craft and even DDs that need to be looked at carefully.

Yep, cargo cap is automatic from class file.

So maybe just adjust the following types, ???? = not sure:
29 - AMC
35 - AS ???
36 - AD ???
37 - AV ???
38 - AVD ???
39 - AVP ???
40 - AR ???
41 - ARD ???
42 - AGP ???
43 - AG ???

45 - AE
46 - AGC ???
47 - AKA

51 - APD ???

55 - AP
56 - AK
57 - AKV ???
58 - AKE
59 - AKL

80 - xAP
81 - xAPc
82 - xAK
83 - xAKL


Not sure if I want to touch any of the L's, (LST, LSI etc)

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: JWE

It also helps make rearming a bit more normal. The Point requirement isn’t changed, but the good AKEs and AEs will still have enough (barely) to rearm a BB, but will have less Total Content, so will run out of 16” shells quicker and have to go to filling out smaller weapons; i.e., make people use more than 3 AKEs to rearm the Pacific Fleet.

Unless my calculations are adrift, dividing existing ammunition ships' capacities by 1.5 would take them below the capacity figure required to reload magazines for weapons having a calibre greater than 14". Japanese AKE's down to but excluding Kyushu Maru class conversions could still replenish 14" magazines, but not even the Lima Maru AKE's could replenish the Nagatos. On the Allied side I can't see any AE/AKE that can replenish a 16" magazine, and the Pyros lose the capacity required to replenish 14" magazines.

Presumably the alternative would be to make an exception of AE/AKE capacities so that they remain above the same Re-arm Cost thresholds as before and thus could still reload the same calibre weapons as before, though this would cancel the 'less Total Content' effect.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Does anyone know how resource centers impact load/unload rates at ports? (the manual indicates they do.)

Is it a 1 point per resource center adding 1 point of load/unload rate per ship relationship....or is their some additional math in the equation?

I too would be interested to learn the answer to this. One has to perform some mental gymnastics to visualise the way in which the manual's explanation of the effect of refinery and oil centres being present translates into the corresponding effect for resource centres, but as I read it the bonus given to cargo handling of resources is a net effect after consumption by local HI/LI of locally-generated resources has been deducted.

The impression given is that the load/unload rate is affected on a 'per ship' basis, but I find that counter-intuitive because, if true, it would imply a fluctuation in specialist cargo handling equipment related to the number of ships that happened to be making use if it. Consequently I would have thought that the better approach might be to treat it as a fixed pool of cargo load rate points that could be drawn down in each phase until exhausted, then replenished fully at the end of each phase.

[JWE]

Yes. Probably have to make an adjustment in certain specific classes (Lima for Japan, let's say, and Mt. Hoods and Lassens for US to let them rearm respective 16" guns.

There's also lots of adjustments made because of the differences in Allied/Japanese cross load factors, troops in cargo and cargo in troops is different for each side and different between class types, and woof !

We should have a decent Babes-based class file for this a bit later in the day - both DBB and BabesLite - so people can take a look.

[Local Yokel]

The same approach is going to be needed for Japanese destroyer tenders, at least. The proposed reduction in capacity means that there is no Japanese AD that can meet the 2160 Rearm Cost threshold for the Type 93. Haven't looked at the impact on AS's.

[Shark7]

Seems to me that adjusting the cargo capacities isn't the ideal solution. Starting to think that increasing the resource center output and industry resource input dramatically would be a better solution after all.

Basically, if you triple or quadruple the resource output and inputs, then you tie up more of the ships to move resource and not supply. That alleviates the issues with AE/AD/AS type ships or the mechanics of how it works.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Seems to me that adjusting the cargo capacities isn't the ideal solution. Starting to think that increasing the resource center output and industry resource input dramatically would be a better solution after all.

Basically, if you triple or quadruple the resource output and inputs, then you tie up more of the ships to move resource and not supply. That alleviates the issues with AE/AD/AS type ships or the mechanics of how it works.

I disagree. If we were just talking about the Japanese Economy than what you said would be true. The issue has to deal with both sides ability to surpass the historical pace. Lowering cargo capacities would affect the Allies as well

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
The same approach is going to be needed for Japanese destroyer tenders, at least. The proposed reduction in capacity means that there is no Japanese AD that can meet the 2160 Rearm Cost threshold for the Type 93. Haven't looked at the impact on AS's.

Those should be ok.

Ehime Cargo goes from 3670 (3575 cargo + 1/3 of 285 troops) to 2447.
Akasi Cargo goes from 3850 (3750 cargo + 1/3 of 300 troops) to 2567.

See no reason, at all, to penalize ships that convert back-and-forth within class, beyond this point; particularly the Japanese who weren't noted for doing much to transform a cargo ship into something that hauled ammo or torpedoes. Think the conversion time schedules are more important, here, than cargo capacity, so, yeah, good point, the "Cargo" version becomes the limit for the "Tender" version.

Apropos, the Lima goes from 6288 (6125 + 1/3 of 490) to 4192, so simply upping the AKE capacity to 4500 doesn't pull things too far out of whack. A "gameboi" will only get 300 extra tons, and only from 46 ships, if he converts them all into AKEs in order to cheat the supply movement. I can live with that.

[ed] besides, in DBB we cut the rearm (load) costs for mines and torpedoes, so this was not seen as a problem in MO's tests. We should probably do the same load cost tweaking for BabesLite, to keep things consistent. Anyway, don't see any issues here. btw and fyi, in DBB, the Type 93 torp loads at 1620, not 2160.

[ed] just looked and BabesLite already has the reduced load costs.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

The same approach is going to be needed for Japanese destroyer tenders, at least. The proposed reduction in capacity means that there is no Japanese AD that can meet the 2160 Rearm Cost threshold for the Type 93. Haven't looked at the impact on AS's.

Not sure if it hurts them, but remember the bazillion AG conversions also. Do AG's have the same lower-limit problem?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Seems to me that adjusting the cargo capacities isn't the ideal solution. Starting to think that increasing the resource center output and industry resource input dramatically would be a better solution after all.

Basically, if you triple or quadruple the resource output and inputs, then you tie up more of the ships to move resource and not supply. That alleviates the issues with AE/AD/AS type ships or the mechanics of how it works.

I disagree. If we were just talking about the Japanese Economy than what you said would be true. The issue has to deal with both sides ability to surpass the historical pace. Lowering cargo capacities would affect the Allies as well

I intend on doing both... I did some quick and dirty math at the house this morning before coming to the office.

Anyhow if you reduce capacities as JWE suggested,

and implement my originally suggested proposal of:
Inputs:
-20 RP per LI
-15 RP, 2 Fuel per HI
- 10 Oil per ref.

Outputs:
-2 supply per LI
- 2 HI per HI
- 10 fuel per Ref.

Then you get a very good approximation of the number of Marus/day I estimate were needed to move resources from Mainland Asia to the Home Islands...factoring in port delays and the like. Of course that's my estimation...others may have differing opinions and /or estimates.

Maru/day = the number of Marus need to perform a particular task for a given day....so you could have 1000 Marus perform the task for 1 day or 1 Maru perform the same task for 1000 days.

But the beauty of this is by reducing caps...you affect the supply transport side of the equation...which resource and industry input /outputs did not address.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Not sure if it hurts them, but remember the bazillion AG conversions also. Do AG's have the same lower-limit problem?

AG is a small craft tender. They mostly help repairs and aren't strictly small and small escort rearmament vessels. Nonetheless, there's still a bunch that can rearm "stock" escort ship torpedoes, more that can rearm "DBB" escort ship torpedoes, after the reduction.

[Don Bowen]

Might be able to address the ship resource capacity issue by creative math with the industry values that are available in the editor. How about:

1. Double resource output per resource center point (from 20 to 40).
2. Double Resource input to HI and LI but do not affect output.

Doubling everything effectively halves the capacity of ships to haul resource without affecting their ability to haul other stuff.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Might be able to address the ship resource capacity issue by creative math with the industry values that are available in the editor. How about:

1. Double resource output per resource center point (from 20 to 40).
2. Double Resource input to HI and LI but do not affect output.

Doubling everything effectively halves the capacity of ships to haul resource without affecting their ability to haul other stuff.

If this works I much prefer this approach than futtsing with the ships carrying capacity.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Might be able to address the ship resource capacity issue by creative math with the industry values that are available in the editor. How about:

1. Double resource output per resource center point (from 20 to 40).
2. Double Resource input to HI and LI but do not affect output.

Doubling everything effectively halves the capacity of ships to haul resource without affecting their ability to haul other stuff.

This doesn't sound bad to me either.

I hate to sound so wishy-washy, but I'm not a production freak. All I want to see is more ships being used in the role they are supposed to be used in.

And do it in a way that doesn't break anything else.

So any simple, straight forward, solution works just fine for me. Think I'll have the guys play with this one for a while.