How are captured units represented?

[bradfordkay]

Can we include the crew as part of system damage (they are after all one of the most important systems aboard ship!)? I do recall that some ships were trapped due to the desertion of their malay crews (probably fell for that "Co-prosperity" propaganda...).

I understand your reluctance to call it a morale check. I used the term out of laziness. I like your idea if it does include the crew (does sys damage include crew? I'm beginning to think so, though I hadn't thought about it before).

Maybe call it a "preparations for departure" check? No. I'm fine with the sys damage idea, under my previously stated caveat.

[mdiehl]

I would certainly count crew as sys damage. I do not know whether UV does or WitP will.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by mdiehl
I figured it was an abstraction. Problem is that if one calls it a morale check or a reaction check or whatever, the usual propaganda is going to kick in: "It's a morale check. Everybody knows that Allied morale was terrible, where I come from, so the tendency should be for Allied flagged ships to fail said checks. Everyone knows that Japanese morale never failed, where I come from, so the tendency should be for Japanese flagged ships to pass said checks."

I offer an alternative solution. Any time a civilian container ship with more than 10% sys damage passes through the same hex as a warship or any hex adjacent to a warship, the container ship is automatically captured. Any civilian container ship with more than 25% sys damage may not leave the port in which it currently resides.

Mdiehl,

I certainly dont have a problem with sys damage being a factor, but I submit to you that morale is a more accurate determinen.
Its important to point out that we are talking about privately owned civilian vessels, which made up the vast majority of so called "Allied" shipping in the western Pacific at the start of the war. As others have pointed out most of these ships were crewed by so called "native" crews mostly impressed Chinese, Indians, Philipinos, and Indonesians. In many cases of indifference, surrender, abandonment and yes outright mutiny were the basis of capture.

I see no basis for your assertion that most ships captured were floating derilects. To the contrary of the examples I gave you. Over half were captured at sea and most of them were captured within the first few days of the war, while plying their normal shipping routes. For example the SS President Harrison a 10,000 ton passenger liner was captured off shanghia on Dec 8th was certainly not a derilect.

The problem with useing just sys damage is that how do you differentiate between military and civilian shipping? I personally dont think a USN or Army AP or AK would allow itself to be captured at sea no matter what the sys damage. Conversely I think there would be almost zero chance that a civilian merchant vessel would choose to scuttle herself in the open sea rather than safely surrender if given the chance.

Useing moral as the factor would make military shipping all but impervious to capture while allowing the possibility for the historic civilian shipping captures early in the war.

[mdiehl]

I certainly dont have a problem with sys damage being a factor, but I submit to you that morale is a more accurate determinen. Its important to point out that we are talking about privately owned civilian vessels, which made up the vast majority of so called "Allied" shipping in the western Pacific at the start of the war. As others have pointed out most of these ships were crewed by so called "native" crews mostly impressed Chinese, Indians, Philipinos, and Indonesians.

And how will you research the exact nationality of each of these vessels? Having done that, how will you decide whether or not the Chinese crew of one vessel is so ticked off about 1936 that they'd rather scuttle their ship, where the Chinese crew of another bugs out and runs. Under what circumstances will this "morale check" be required? Will you force the Allied player to keep civilian container ships in ports near to Japanese objectives so that the Japanase player will be able to instigate morale checks and capture the ships.

I think the research implications, the manifest opportunities for vague and badly research assumptions, make it clear that thuis path is best wholly avoided.

I see no basis for your assertion that most ships captured were floating derilects.

You see no basis for it because I did not say that. I said that a ships with substantial impairments comprised the proponderance of captures. All that is required is that because of the start of the war, important scheduled maintenance gets skipped in the effort to flee. Since SE Asian merchant ships aren't famous for the quality of their upkeep, there's a decent chance that there will be quite a few ships, in a game, that start the game with modest SYS damage.

Those shoul be relatively easy to sweep up. But if the Jpn player decides to start the game with a move, say, to New Zealand and the PI at the same time, the code should make it very easy for the Allied player to escape with ALL of the civilian merchants in SE Asia (unless Jpn player manages to sink them with a/c).

To the contrary of the examples ...

Irrelevant. I did not say that only derelicts were captured, and I do not believe that your "sample" adequately represents the totality of captured vessels.

The problem with useing just sys damage is that how do you differentiate between military and civilian shipping?

I'm glad you asked. Military crews get a high probability of scuttling their vessels if they are unable to escape. The likelihood of success will be greater if teh ship already has extensive FLOT damage.

Useing moral as the factor would ...

...invite the same suite of unsubstantiated, indeed incorrect assumptions that led GG to set the initial EXP values of Kido Butai in the 90s and the initial EXP values of USN pilots in the 70s in a simplistic combat model in which EXP is treated as a proxy for training and tactics in PW.

[Wallymanowar]

Capturing ships on the high seas was not as unusual as you might think. While the prospects of capturing a fully armed and manned warship on the high seas is practically impossible, the capture of merchant ships was quite common - relatively speaking. In fact, the Germans developed their Raider ships with precisely that in mind. These ships would use their disguises as merchant ships to approach enemy merchant ships and do some quick shooting to disable the other ship's radio and guns (if they were armed). This usually resulted in the surrender of the merchant ship. A prize crew would then be sent over and the ship was then taken back to Germany or scuttled (usually scuttled).

You have to remember that the top speed of a fast merchant ship was around 12 knots - excluding cruise liners - so it's not hard to catch up to with a warship doing 20+ knots. Once you are faced with a warship which has multiple guns which outrange the puny gun you might have surrender is the best option.

[TIMJOT]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
And how will you research the exact nationality of each of these vessels? Having done that, how will you decide whether or not the Chinese crew of one vessel is so ticked off about 1936 that they'd rather scuttle their ship, where the Chinese crew of another bugs out and runs. Under what circumstances will this "morale check" be required? Will you force the Allied player to keep civilian container ships in ports near to Japanese objectives so that the Japanase player will be able to instigate morale checks and capture the ships."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no need to get into the details of exact nationalities. Its very simple. Each *civilian*mechant ship's moral level is randomly generated at the start of each game. Some ships will have high moral; some with low moral and the majority with average moral. (A ship's initial sys damage could also be randomly selected in this manner). A ship would need some miminal morale level to pass a morale check. The lower the moral the less chance of passing the check. Additional morale "hits" based on system damage and shock effects would also lower moral. Unlike a sys damage only system, this at least allows you the possibility of your; highly motivated "Ticked Off" Chinese crew, because a ship with high enough morale has a possibility to pass the morale check despite system damage. As per your example.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
(QUOTE)
"You see no basis for it because I did not say that. I said that a ships with substantial impairments comprised the proponderance of captures."
------------------------------------------------------------------------


To what authority do you base this statement? I see no evidence that this was the case.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
(QUOTE)
I'm glad you asked. Military crews get a high probability of scuttling their vessels if they are unable to escape. The likelihood of success will be greater if teh ship already has extensive FLOT damage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, exactly they get "high probability" because they get MUCH HIGHER MORALE, than merchant vessels. I would also make them less vulnerable to morale "Hits", so as to make them even less likely not to pass a "morale check" Personally I would make the chance pretty close to zero for a military ship not to pass the morale check.


Look Mdhiel, this is how I see the system working. Say, you as the allied player have 20 merchant vessels with various morale and sys damage levels at Hong Kong at the start of the war. Being an astute player you dutifully order them all to safety in Australia. Out of the 20; 12 pass the morale check and set sail. Now, not wanting the remaining 8 to fall into enemy hands. You order them to be scuttled. Scuttleing would have a lower threshold, so 6 of the remaining 8 pass the morale check and are scuttled. The reamining 2 would be left to be captured or sunk.

As for the ships a sea. If any of the 12 are intercepted by combat vessels "unescorted" then they would receive additional morale hits and be required to pass morale check to see if they are captured or fight to the death. Again sys damage would play a major role in determining this.

[mdiehl]

There is no need to get into the details of exact nationalities. Its very simple. Each *civilian*mechant ship's moral level is randomly generated at the start of each game.

That suggestion alone is enough for me to conclude that the entire morale check concept is a poor excuse for an attempted simulation.

Military vessels are likely to be scuttled because that's what military crews are trained to do if their ship is in peril of being captured. "Morale" as such has nothing to do with it.

The concept of morale applied to merchant ships is, by the very way it has been proposed, guaranteed to produce a lousy model. You have absolutely no idea of how the numbers (even randomly generated ones) might reflect real world phenom, so you have no coherent set of logical suppositions and empirical research upon which to base such a model. In short, it'd be a completely fabricated "system" that simulates nothing tangible.

It's not the way that I am used to seeing simulations of things "real" designed. Even the most simple agent-based biota simulations begin with a set of empirical data deemed highly relevant to the simulated behavior.

It is my hope at least that Matrix will not incorporate yet another ambiguous and unresearched quantitative approximation of NOTHING.

That's my POV. 'nuff said.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by mdiehl


Military vessels are likely to be scuttled because that's what military crews are trained to do if their ship is in peril of being captured. "Morale" as such has nothing to do with it.

Mdiehl

MORALE IS A FUNCTION OF TRAINING. Havent you ever heard of "Esprit de Corps", "Elan", "Gung Ho", "Elite" "110%", "Phsyched" ect.... Instilling and maintaining morale is part and parcel of good training.

Morale has always been "abstracted" in war games. Saying its not quantifiable in your opinion and thus cannot be modeled is like saying "fatique", "readiness" and "epirence" does not model anything real. For that matter. How do you quantify 10% sys damage. That could mean anything from a ships boilers being sub par to the bilge pumps and the head malfunctioning. how does that model anything real in regards to capture? It certainly doesnt model your "ticked off" Chinese crew.

That being said. Since I believe that the chance of a military ship either combat or non combat of being captured is probably zero. I have no problem with them being immune from morale checks. However *CIVILIAN* ships are an entirely different matter. Of the 69 ships that I can indentify as being *scuttle* between Dec 7, 1941 to March 9th 1942 the vast majority were done so because either the authorities or their crews did not deem it prudent to risk life, limb and possible capture attempting to run the gauntlet of aircraft and warships they were sure awaited them. Of 40 ships captured intact 24 allowed themselves to be taken while at sea, 16 allowed themselves to be taken "UNSCUTTLED" in port. Only two ships chose to scuttled themselves while at sea to prevent capture. The 3110 ton Tanker Augustina scuttled herself in the Java sea when approached by the IJN DD Harukaze and the 537 ton Cargo ship Makassar scuttled herself in the Banka straight when approached by the IJN CL Yura and DD Asagira. Call it what you want; morale, fear, overideing self preservation or prudence. It figured significantly in the capture and scuttleing of many ships.

[mdiehl]

Call it what you want; morale, fear, overideing self preservation or prudence. It figured significantly in the capture and scuttleing of many ships.

The fact that you can't figure out what to call that which you want to simulate pretty much makes the case that you don't know what you want to simulate. Call it morale? Thanks, no.

Better merely to hard code the capture of your 60 ships than to trot out another hail mary abstraction.

MORALE IS A FUNCTION OF TRAINING.

Morale = .01Training x (Y) where Y is some factor(s) as yet undocumented? It's not saying much to say "morale is a function of" unless you know what the function is. Certainlly, training is a very very small slice of the composition of whatever "morale" is.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by mdiehl
The fact that you can't figure out what to call that which you want to simulate pretty much makes the case that you don't know what you want to simulate. Call it morale? Thanks, no.

Better merely to hard code the capture of your 60 ships than to trot out another hail mary abstraction.
.

Morale (mo ral') n. the courage, self control, enthusiasm, and confidence that help to keep a person's or group's spirits when competeing and or faceing hardship or danger. ( Websters New World Dictionary)

I know what morale is. I only offered you alternatives because you seem to have an adversion to the word.

What is your point anyway? Are you saying abstractions such as expirence, fatique, readiness and morale should not be modeled in the game? If yes, then I guess your are out of luck because they are in UV and undoubtedly will be in WitP. As it stands in UV air units that fall below a certain level of morale are less likely to fly. Don't see why merchants should not be treated the same.

Quite frankly I find it hard to believe you feel that a simulation that hard codes the capture of 60 ships is better than one that offers variable captures and forces the Japanese player to work for them.

[mdiehl]

What is your point anyway? Are you saying abstractions such as expirence, fatique, readiness and morale should not be modeled in the game?

No. My point is one ought to know what one is modeling before one starts labelling it or assigning values. The *only* successful game designs that I have seen that use "Morale" invoke morale in the context of battle -- to wit, a "morale check" that occurs as a result of fire or related battlefield checks preparatory to doing very risky things. Experience is a separate design element, as is readiness.

The idea that a ship simply can't move because it has failed a "morale check" or "system shock" or "paralyzing respiratory virus" (which is an exaggeration but illustrates my objection to naming things when you're not sure what you are modeling) is silly.

When "morale" comes into play in the real world, it is inevitably something that comes up in the context of immediate peril. This brings me back to my suggestion: merchant vessels should only be subject to capture if in immediate peril. Until in immediate peril, players should be able to move them at will. Ships with system damage will move slower, and are thus more likely to be placed in immediate peril.

If yes, then I guess your are out of luck because they are in UV and undoubtedly will be in WitP.

Since you are in the habit of asking and answering your own rhetorical questions, in particular the ones that posit a situation that is already obviously not the case even in the previous generation of this product, PW, (absence of EXP and all that) one hopes that in the future you can have your conversation with yourself. Congrats, you just tumbled over a straw man of your own creation. What a brilliant rhetorical strategist you are.

As it stands in UV air units that fall below a certain level of morale are less likely to fly.

Frankly it's a wierd and poorly done abstraction. The closest that adverse morale ever came to preventing a "unit" from flying is measured in abort rates. Even the hardest hit units like the "bloody 100th" (100th BG USAAF 8th AF) had impressively low abort rates given their unit histories and the targets to which they kept getting assigned. It is entirely inappropriate to posit an entire unit refusing orders to fly.

Don't see why merchants should not be treated the same.

All you have to do is document what, exactly, you are attempting to model with this and document why the values are chosen as they are and you are in position to add realism. But to merely observe that "morale exists" with reference to some trivial dictionary definition and then assert that it needs to be modeled for all circumstances is inappropriate IMO.

Quite frankly I find it hard to believe you feel that a simulation that hard codes the capture of 60 ships is better than one that offers variable captures and forces the Japanese player to work for them.

Matrix/SSI's past performance at modeling these kinds of abstractions leaves me in doubt that the requisite research will be done, or that the Jpns player will have to do much real work to achieve better-than-historical results.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by mdiehl
All you have to do is document what, exactly, you are attempting to model with this and document why the values are chosen as they are and you are in position to add realism.

What I was attempting to model were ships that were captured at sea, not because they could only make 9 knots instead of 12 knots, but because an IJN warship put a shot accross their bows. I was attempting to model the ships that were scuttled in port; not because they were physically unable to get underway, but because their civilian crews did not wish to risk their lives attempting to sail through enemy held waters. I was attempting to model ships that were captured in port (intact) because their crews simply ambandoned them without bothering to scuttle them. I can give you specific examples, but since the whole arguement now seems moot, as the alpha tester have alluded that some sort of hard coded reinforcement is the route that the designers will probably take. I will refrain unless otherwise requested.

[mdiehl]

Actually, even though the point is moot, I'm still curious. How many ships were abandoned, in port, undamaged, and not scuttled?

It's not that I object to exhaustive detail. The sort of stuff we're talking about now strikes me as fairly described as "routine business that gets overlooked when..." an Army HQ is collapsing or bugging out, or a regime is toppled, or in general extraordinary chaos sets in in the face of a rapidly advancing enemy. On par with failure to blow a key bridge, to sabotage a valuable stockpile of fuel, or to scuttle your Type IX U-boat (I'm recalling U-505)because you figure she's already so damaged that the notion of an intact capture never enters your mind.

Seems like some of this could be handled as fortuitous random events that might happen when a port is captured, or when a severely damaged naval unit comes into close proximity of a naval unit with standing orders to attempt a boarding.

[pad152]

Well I like the idea of captured ships, as long as it doesn't become a gamey tactic.

[madflava13]

I like the idea as well, but only for ships in port... and then only as a random chance (with warships less likely than merchants, etc.) My reasoning is that in WW2 in the Pacific, even severely damaged warships did not surrender. Most of the time, the ships were so badly damaged when the crew jumped overboard, there was no hope of salvage. In other instances, the nearby friendlies put the coups de grace on her - Such as the Wasp near Guadalcanal...

[Luskan]

One of you guys might be able to jog my memory - what was the book (mostly pretty inaccurate as far as WW2 pacific histories go - all sorts of generalisations and gloss overs IIRC) that mentioned that the IJN fleet units boarded (DDs and a sub even managed to i think) and captured plenty of merchant ships in the P.I. prior to the fall of Bataan and off Malaysia/ Singapore just before the fall of Singapore.

Basically they were always lone transport ships without escort or convoy - usually civilian, that had delayed their escape too long, and sensibly surrendered rather than than die. They usually carried important personell and westerners trying to escape the IJ advance.

In this instance it isn't a question of the transport crew scuttling or forgetting to scuttle, it is a question of fighting or surrendering to IJN warships/subs/whatever that could blow them to hell without any trouble (especially at that stage of the war). I'd guess that the result of this fight or surrender in these circumstances was always to surrender (usually the ships were filled with civilian refugees that most captains would not risk the lives of in a firefight etc.).

I think that this has less to do with morale (even though an IJN transport is likely to stare down the barrel of a USN CA's guns, give them the bird and then order his crew to "open fire" or "broadside" than a western captain at that stage of the war) and more to do with the speed of the IJN advance.

Perhaps the chances of a clean mid ocean capture where a lone transport (civilian I guess, probably not military) met by any sort of IJN fleet unit in daylight (they're more liekly to shoot first, talk later at night) should begin quite high at the start of the game, and decrease as time goes on. Gives the IJN an incentive to attack fast and scoop up some extra ships?