Underway Replenishment Test

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

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

User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

That's what I was thinking - the 1000 ops points is necessary for the AE - not the BB. If the AE moved one hex from Guam to meet the BB, it used some of its ops point and would have to wait a day to try replenish. I could see the developers setting that kind of restriction to keep the AE from reloading a number of BBs in a single day.

In the tests the AE always did wait a day. I moved the TFs together, set Remain on both, ran a day forward , and then hand-ordered the BB to take. One reason the BB always wanted to take fuel too. You can't separate the two operations.
The only idea I have left is what you said - the algorithm is not working as it should. It seems to be just the Iowa class BBs that cause the issue? That would imply that the data for that class is borked in the underway replenishment calculations.

PS- new thought - is weather a factor in any of the results?

Weather is not a factor. It should be for underway refueling from Turn 1 if in RL, but it isn't. Same for ammo.

I used Iowas because I wanted pure 16inchers. No 14inchers from the old slow BBs. The debate in the other thread centered around the 5400 reload cost of 16in ammo, so I went there.

I don't think the algo is broken; I think it's doing what Loka says. The pulling ship's ops points control. But the algo is maybe not as useful as it could be if it consumed ops points from smallest caliber to largest. First 20MM, then 40MM, then 5inch, then 16inch.
The Moose
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: dave sindel

Thanks for doing this testing Moose. And for posting the results and analysis. Had to have been time-consuming. Is it something MichaelM should look at do you think?

I don't think it's necessarily broken, but I also don't think there's any good place to go to understand the mechanism. I searched a number of ways on the topic and got lots of hits, but other than the Don Bowen posts I pasted nothing from a dev. Not saying there aren't any more, but I didn't find them.

Alfred's new manual ought to cover this I would think. So many Allied players have never seen 1945 that it's not a top subject here in the forum. But I know from AI games that it's a really important mechanism in the late game if you do get there.

There are more than 20 relevant posts from Don Bowen and JWE/Symon when I stopped counting plus 2 from michaelm. The best posts were made on:

Don Bowen
  • 4 Aug 2009
  • 18 Aug 2009
  • 3 April 2011

JWE
  • 29 Mar 2009
  • 12 Sept 2009
  • 8 July 2010

Both in this and in particular the other thread there has been some very erroneous statements made. I was going to continue with my recent policy of not bothering to waste my time giving the correct answer but as Bullwinkle has gone to this effort I have partly relented.

1. On what I have seen disclosed, I am not convinced there is a bug with the at sea rearming code per se. It seems to be behaving in general accordance with how the devs have explained it in the past. There is some key data not presented which would make this clearer and which I touch upon below.

2. If the undisclosed data is not what I think it is, there is a possibility that a bug exists with bombardment task forces and that bug was introduced (or perhaps "awakened") with the change made in an early patch which introduced min distance/escorts not bombard etc aimed at conserving anti-aircraft ammo (which covers dedicated AA weapons and DP guns).

3. OP is a key factor in the process. Contrary to what some say, both the dispensing and receiving ships expend OP. The rate of expenditure is never completely visible to the player (one needs access to the code) and no dev has ever disclosed any OP expenditure rate for any action which consumes OP.

4. Contrary to what others have said in the other thread, small weapons have never been replenished first before the big guns. Look at the weapon system of any ship class and you will always find the "big" weapon system in weapon slot #1 and the descending weapon slots are occupied in order by decreasing "big" weapon systems. The rearming code first looks at slot #1 and proceeds downwards. (this is where the possibility arises of a bug associated with the bombardment change).

5. Much inaccuracy was also posted in the other thread re size of tenders required. There are two checks:
  • threshold
  • cost

(a) Threshold check

Does the tender have on board supply points greater than or equal to the Rearm Cost of the "biggest" weapon (IOW the first weapon slot which needs ammo).

If threshold check is passed, then all weapons including the "biggest", are rearmed.

If threshold check is failed, then proceed to next "biggest" (as per weapon slot). Note there is no backtracking involved and again the bombardment TF change comes into play.

(b) Cost check

A successful threshold check then proceeds to both consume on board tender supply points (see point 6 below) as weapons are rearmed and in turn makes passing the threshold check more difficult subsequently as the tender will now have less supply points on board.

6. The rearm cost is detailed in the manual. For naval guns it is 2x the effect value. Thus the 16in/50 Mkk7 of the Iowa class has a rearm cost of 5400. They therefore need an AE/AKE with a cargo capacity of 5400 and have on board 5400 supply points. Once the tender has rearmed any weapon on an Iowa class, it will have dipped below the threshold check (see point 7) and cannot rearm the rifles of any other Iowa.

7. The amount of supply points consumed in rearming (there is a 2013 post from me on this) is:

[(Rearm Cost)(Number of Guns)(Ammo per Gun)]/2000

So if all 9 rifles on an Iowa expend 2 shells, and no other weapon system fires, the consumption is

(5400)(9)(2)/2000 = 48.6 supply points. Rounded up to 49, the tender will dip from holding 5400 supply points down to 5351 supply points (and hence failing the threshold check subsequently)

8. Just as OP expenditure rates have never been disclosed, the order in which ships within a TF are checked for rearming has also never been disclosed.

9. Refueling always gets done before rearming. In fact a port with zero fuel points is intended to not allow rearming. The recoding effort to alter that was not considered to be warranted.

Alfred
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



In the tests the AE always did wait a day. I moved the TFs together, set Remain on both, ran a day forward , and then hand-ordered the BB to take. One reason the BB always wanted to take fuel too. You can't separate the two operations.
The only idea I have left is what you said - the algorithm is not working as it should. It seems to be just the Iowa class BBs that cause the issue? That would imply that the data for that class is borked in the underway replenishment calculations.

PS- new thought - is weather a factor in any of the results?

Weather is not a factor. It should be for underway refueling from Turn 1 if in RL, but it isn't. Same for ammo.

I used Iowas because I wanted pure 16inchers. No 14inchers from the old slow BBs. The debate in the other thread centered around the 5400 reload cost of 16in ammo, so I went there.

I don't think the algo is broken; I think it's doing what Loka says. The pulling ship's ops points control. But the algo is maybe not as useful as it could be if it consumed ops points from smallest caliber to largest. First 20MM, then 40MM, then 5inch, then 16inch.

Pay attention when rearming 16" guns in port. It often uses the full Ops of the ship, and doesn't even load completely in a single day. My guess is that it's trying to rearm from the AE, seeing that 11 rounds of 16" ammo for all the gun devices is more than 1000 Ops, and saying, "Nope."
User avatar
sstevens06
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:12 pm
Location: USA

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by sstevens06 »

Thank you Bullwinkle58 for the tests, and thank you Alfred for the detailed explanation.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

Placeholder for Alfred response.

Can't tonight, but I think there may be an issue now that Alfred has confirmed checks are made from Slot 1 south. In the first run, with an almost-empty New Jersey, not one shell of any kind was sent from a pristine, 5400 AE with 5400 supply on-board. IOW, no 40MM when the 40MM inventories on New Jersey were at 2(36.)

My format may have not made that clear.
The Moose
User avatar
John B.
Posts: 3985
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:45 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by John B. »

very interesting.

It seems that underway replenishment mainly concentrated on ammunition for AA guns and aircraft. It does not appear that BBs rearmed at sea with large caliber ammunition so any limitations that the game places on using AEs to re-arm the Iowas seems pretty realistic.

"From 22 March to 27 May [during the battle of Okinawa] the five ammunition ships of Service Squadron Six--Wrangell, Shasta, Lassen, Mauna Loa, and Vesuvius--in a total of 106 days servicing, delivered a daly average of 143 tons, making a total of 15,159 tons. . . The types of ammunition issued 22 March-27 May indicate the demands: 77,482 5-inch, 38-caliber projectiles; 34,773 5-inch rockets; 119 2,000-pound bombs, G.P.; 65 1,000-pound bombs, G.P.; 280 1,000-pound bombs, G.P.; 100 500-pound bombs, S.A.P.; 3,671 250-pound bombs, G.P.; 18,579 100-pound bombs, G.P.; 83 torpedoes A/C/; 810 depth charges; 289 arbors." http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/BBBO/BBBO-28.html (extensive article on US Navy logistics in WWII by Rear Admiral Carter) Shore bombardment ships (which I presume includes BBs) rearmed at the anchorage at Korama Retto. Id.

Also note the average transfer rate per day of 143 tons. The Iowa class battleship held about 1,200 16" shells in storage. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php. Weighing in at slightly more than one ton per shell it would take the five AEs at the average rates listed more than a week to rearm one Iowa that had shot off most of her main battery shells. Even with surge rearming it would take several days to rearm just the main batteries. Since use of the 16" guns was fairly infrequent in WWII (as opposed to the game) compared to the daily use of AA ammo and aircraft bombs it makes all kinds of sense that the Navy would not have the AEs equipped to transfer 16" shells.

Other Fun facts, the first underway replenishment in wartime took place in 1917 under the watchful eye of then Chief Engineer Chester Nimitz. the first at-sea transfer of ammunition was on February 23, 1945 to the CV Bennington. The Carrier TFs would spend 2 days attacking Japan and then meet up with underway replenishment group and line up for 40 miles each ship refueling, breaking away, rearming, breaking away, and then re victualing and breaking away to return to attack Japan.

http://www.sname.org/HigherLogic/System ... cc2f9a1d1b
John Barr
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by geofflambert »

By the way, Bullwinkle58, thank you for doing the playtests.

User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by rustysi »

Thanks Bull, Alfred.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20781
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by BBfanboy »

I am still confused about Alfred's contention that the first (biggest) weapon slot is replenished first. Consistently, when an AE/AKE does not have enough ops points to reload one of my bigger ships (BB, CA) the ship shows ALL the small ammo replenished but the main guns are the ones that have the shortfall.

Further, if there are smaller ships in the TF that need replenishing, their ammo gets fully replenished first, ahead of the BB.

Is it just that the smaller guns consume so few ops points that all of them can be replenished at less ops point cost than one point of BB main gun ammo?
I should add that very often the secondary guns are almost out of ammo from bombardment followed by air attack on the way home.

I will look for some examples in my current game to illustrate. I have a mixed BB/CA/DD TF that could be an interesting case study.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I am still confused about Alfred's contention that the first (biggest) weapon slot is replenished first. Consistently, when an AE/AKE does not have enough ops points to reload one of my bigger ships (BB, CA) the ship shows ALL the small ammo replenished but the main guns are the ones that have the shortfall.

Further, if there are smaller ships in the TF that need replenishing, their ammo gets fully replenished first, ahead of the BB.

Is it just that the smaller guns consume so few ops points that all of them can be replenished at less ops point cost than one point of BB main gun ammo?
I should add that very often the secondary guns are almost out of ammo from bombardment followed by air attack on the way home.

I will look for some examples in my current game to illustrate. I have a mixed BB/CA/DD TF that could be an interesting case study.

I think the port replenishment code is working as you would expect, but the at-sea is odd...
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Placeholder for Alfred response.

Can't tonight, but I think there may be an issue now that Alfred has confirmed checks are made from Slot 1 south. In the first run, with an almost-empty New Jersey, not one shell of any kind was sent from a pristine, 5400 AE with 5400 supply on-board. IOW, no 40MM when the 40MM inventories on New Jersey were at 2(36.)

My format may have not made that clear.

OK, Reactivate the placeholder.

I re-read Alfred's post above, and I think I understand what should be happening. I re-ran the test and took screenshots, all below. I think I eliminated all variables possible, but if one of your science types can re-design the experiment I'm all ears.

N.B. I ran this with New Jersey as a Surface TF. I also ran it with her as a Bombardment TF (no screenshots.) The results were the same in both.

So, below are ten screen shots. Downfall scenario. Head-to-head so I could turn off the Japanese forces. Guam. New Jersey with ammo (except 20MM) downloaded in the editor. Mt. Baker loaded to 5400 supply. Both ships moved one hex west. One full turn expended in that hex so ops points regenerate and stabilize. New Jersey ordered to Replenish at sea. New Jersey takes fuel from Mt. Baker's bunkers. Both ships expend ops points. New Jersey take zero ammo in any slot. Mt. Baker ends with 5400 supply still on-board.
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

One. New Jersey initial condition. Note date is Sept 3, 1945. 100% fuel. One 20MM slot is full, other is depleted. Oops with editor on my part. Should not matter.

Image
Attachments
Unrep1.jpg
Unrep1.jpg (302.84 KiB) Viewed 636 times
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

Two. Mt, Baker initial condition. 5400 supply loaded. Full fuel. Same date.

Image
Attachments
Unrep2.jpg
Unrep2.jpg (272.78 KiB) Viewed 637 times
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

Three. Both ships moved one hex west with Remain on Station orders. Date Sept. 5.

Image
Attachments
Unrep3.jpg
Unrep3.jpg (149.2 KiB) Viewed 634 times
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

Four. New Jersey just before test. Date Sept. 5. Fuel at 99%.

Image
Attachments
Unrep4.jpg
Unrep4.jpg (215.41 KiB) Viewed 634 times
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

Five. Mt. Baker just before the test. Supply at 5400/5400. Fuel at 99%. Date Sept. 5.

Image
Attachments
Unrep5.jpg
Unrep5.jpg (201.93 KiB) Viewed 634 times
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

Six. Replenish button pushed. New Jersey expends 250 ops points. Refuels from Mt. Baker.

Image
Attachments
Unrep6.jpg
Unrep6.jpg (203.96 KiB) Viewed 634 times
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

Seven. Mt. Baker after button pushed. Supply 5400/5400. Fuel has decreased due to transfer to New Jersey.

Image
Attachments
Unrep7.jpg
Unrep7.jpg (199.31 KiB) Viewed 634 times
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

Eight. New Jersey after the Replenishment attempt. Date still Sept. 5. No ammo has transferred to any slot. Fuel at 100%.

Image
Attachments
Unrep8.jpg
Unrep8.jpg (212.76 KiB) Viewed 634 times
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Underway Replenishment Test

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

Nine. New Jersey top screen after Replenishment attempt. 250 Ops points consumed in the refuel.

Image
Attachments
Unrep9.jpg
Unrep9.jpg (197.84 KiB) Viewed 634 times
The Moose
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”