Originally posted by Attack Condor IIRC the base at PM actually had three airbases in it's 30 mile "hex" - wouldn't that increase the capacity of the "base" in the thirty mile hex? I'd be curious just where all of the Allies air reinforcements would go to if Noumea, or Brisbane, both level 9 airfields were "full".
Just a thought...
I think it would be quite impossible to run out of tarmac if Allied. There are six possible level 9 field complexes alone on New Caledonia. Six more on Oz. By the time the huge reinforcements arrive, any Allied player worth his salt should have PM, GG, Espiritu Sato, Efate, Lunga...
The IJN on the other hand would experience problems late in the game. But this is only in game terms. One would assume that any extra would remain off map on other bases until damaged squadrons were withdrawn. Simply withdraw the squadrons as was really done to make room for fresh ones. I don't see much of a reason to withdraw squadrons otherwise.
The only reason I'm discussing stacking limits anyway is to attempt to get more realistic sortie levels for air missions. Level 9 airfields with over 250 support points can become veritable stationary deathstars, near sisters to the monster CV TFs which cruise around due to the premise (no Midway) of the game and impregnable CAP (ie uncoordinated air strikes vs allways fully coordinated CAP)
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Originally posted by Mr.Frag Very simple fix to this really. Increase SYS damage and increase repair rates in size 6/7/8/9 ports. Ships would burn out quicker, but a high proportion with always be in for repairs, forcing you to plan for those major operations by holding back ship use to keep them in shape for the big attacks.
Personally, there just always seems to be way too many transports available to me. Other ships are right, but transports are overboard. It might be historical, but it certainly doesn't play right.
Many of the transports listed were in theatre but were committed to supplying Truk, Noumea etc. As these bases get free supply and fuel, these ships are released for other duty.
I kinda like your idea about faster repair rates for operational system damage, but one will run into problems regarding battle damage. There is no way to differentiate so this severe damage requiring major repair yard facilities will just be repaired too quickly at a forward base with no facilities. In the big picture, all the bases in UV are forward bases.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Mr. Frag,
I respectfully disagree with the idea of increasing SYS damage. In my experience in UV if you have ships out for a week or so in thunderstorms, you get SYS in the range of 8-10 (roughly). Now extrapolate that to WiTP where the distances are much greater. You'll end up having crippled your fleet everytime you put to sea. Historically, ships did stay at sea for extended periods - TF38/58 stayed out for weeks at a time on occasion. Although there is always minor wear and tear, there's nothing like the equivalent of 10 SYS damage you find in the game. You won't even be able to send ships in convoy from Japan to the NEI/Singapore area without putting into port all along the way to keep SYS down. I personally think SYS needs to be toned down in WitP or else we'll have incorrect damage calculations.
Ron,
I agree in part about your statement that some ships are more valuable than bases. CVs of course, as they allow you to project power anywhere. But I don't like the idea of a Portland class CA becoming more valuable in the long run than, say, Lunga. In terms of power projection and ability to interdict enemy movement, a well-supplied forward base is tops in my book, at least until later in the war when more CVs are available. Thats what I meant about having problems with ships being more valuable than bases...
"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."
Mad, I'm speaking specifically for UV ... WitP has implemented all sorts of changes with bigger ports, repair facilities and goodies of that nature to deal with this over abundance of ships.
Something I've noticed (dev team does too). If weapons fields are damaged (red), don't send back until fixed ( a few turns or so) or they will come back as damaged and will never repair.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Originally posted by DJAndrews but given the fact that I only received 6 relatively useless ships in the entire game, isn't it worth keeping damaged, low-value combat vessels for such things as raiding, short-range FT, convoy protection, etc.?
Given the fact that at the begining of August '42 you already have pretty much every capital ship availiable to you as IJN, what more can you expect?
The way it works, unless you send stuff back you won't get much since at the end of July you have 90% of Japans avail capital ships.
You also have to remember how reinforcements work:
APs, MLs, MSWs and subs are sent independently... usually in dripps and drabs dependent on number available in Japan and the number you have in theatre.
Navy ships are never sent alone, always as part of a group/fleet which has certain set compositions. CVs are usually escorted by DDs and CLs. BBs and CAs sail together, along with DD escorts.
So if you have no destroyers available - usually at least 6 are needed - don't expect to get any carriers or BBs even if those are available.
Never at any time expect to get all the capital ships available - the system will usually keep 1 or 2 back in reserve, and may release these if you send an equivalent ship back.
In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter
Given the fact that at the begining of August '42 you already have pretty much every capital ship availiable to you as IJN, what more can you expect?
We must be playing a different game. I was referencing a Scen 17 game against the computer set on Hard, 120% commitment. The game ended on Jan 1/43 with an IJN autovictory. At the time the game ended IJN had (in theatre):
Aside from the initial reinforcement of IJN ships in June-July I only received one alotment of ships (comprised of 1CVE and 5 DDs) during the entire game. At games end, the following were either in Japan or slated to arrive in Japan (some had been sent back):
2 CV (sent back - summer 42)
3 CVL (Sent back - 2 in summer, 1 in Fall)
1 CVE
9 BB (1 sent back - Sept 42)
7 CAs (3 sent back - Summer 42)
17 CLs (5 sent back - scattered)
68 DDs (unknown number sent back -estimate about 10)
36 SSs
As I was saying in the previous post, I was not sending back any ships of CL or smaller size unless they dropped below a speed of 18 (what I had deemed necessary for surface raiders seeking unescorted transports or as convoy escorts). Capital ships were returned when SYS damage reached 30, but I never had a capital ship returned to the theatre.
Originally posted by DJAndrews
We must be playing a different game. I was referencing a Scen 17 game against the computer set on Hard, 120% commitment. The game ended on Jan 1/43 with an IJN autovictory. At the time the game ended IJN had (in theatre):
Aside from the initial reinforcement of IJN ships in June-July I only received one alotment of ships (comprised of 1CVE and 5 DDs) during the entire game. At games end, the following were either in Japan or slated to arrive in Japan (some had been sent back):
2 CV (sent back - summer 42)
3 CVL (Sent back - 2 in summer, 1 in Fall)
1 CVE
9 BB (1 sent back - Sept 42)
7 CAs (3 sent back - Summer 42)
17 CLs (5 sent back - scattered)
68 DDs (unknown number sent back -estimate about 10)
36 SSs
As I was saying in the previous post, I was not sending back any ships of CL or smaller size unless they dropped below a speed of 18 (what I had deemed necessary for surface raiders seeking unescorted transports or as convoy escorts). Capital ships were returned when SYS damage reached 30, but I never had a capital ship returned to the theatre.
What was your ship commitment level at the end of the senario?
I'm guessing the reason you never got any ships back is because you had so many anyway. Getting the whole combined fleet to the South Pacific is impossible unless you edit your senario to up your commitment level.
If you're willing, try an experiment. Continue your game as solo, send all your capital ships and some DD's back. Once your commitment level goes back to high, those ships avail in Japan should start making their way to you.
In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter
Originally posted by Veer What was your ship commitment level at the end of the senario?
I'm guessing the reason you never got any ships back is because you had so many anyway. Getting the whole combined fleet to the South Pacific is impossible unless you edit your senario to up your commitment level.
If you're willing, try an experiment. Continue your game as solo, send all your capital ships and some DD's back. Once your commitment level goes back to high, those ships avail in Japan should start making their way to you.
The ship commitment was LOW at games end and never went above MODERATE during the entire game.
Are you saying that of the 2-300 combat ships listed as being part of the game, I'm never going to see more than 120 ships? What is the maximum ship allotment for Japan?
If what you say is correct I can't imagine any reason to send ships back to Japan. If you keep track, damaged ships repair almost as quickly at a size 9 port as they do in Japan. Any ships that have come back to me in other games have not improved significantly in terms of weaponry. So what advantage is gained by simply rotating the names of the ships.
As far as the experiment is concerned I'm not sure what you mean by solo. The game was played against the computer in the first place. I could go back and restart the game as early as November 42 but the turns take a while to play, even if the IJN does nothing, because of the number of allied bombing attacks each turn.
Originally posted by DJAndrews The ship commitment was LOW at games end and never went above MODERATE during the entire game.
There you go, that's why you never got any new ships.
Are you saying that of the 2-300 combat ships listed as being part of the game, I'm never going to see more than 120 ships? What is the maximum ship allotment for Japan?
As Mogami stated, ship commitment is dependent on a number of points. As Japan it starts out high in Scen 17, peaks at 12,000 or so in June-July and then falls to 8,000 or some in late '43 and falls even more in '44. (Opposite happens to the allies). There is no maximum number of ships.
If what you say is correct I can't imagine any reason to send ships back to Japan. If you keep track, damaged ships repair almost as quickly at a size 9 port as they do in Japan. Any ships that have come back to me in other games have not improved significantly in terms of weaponry. So what advantage is gained by simply rotating the names of the ships.
You send ships back to Japan to get replacements for ships shot up during the course of the campaign. If your ship is still battleworthy not much point in sending it back. If not it's just free victory points to your enemy, and keeps your commitment level for new ships down.
As far as the experiment is concerned I'm not sure what you mean by solo. The game was played against the computer in the first place. I could go back and restart the game as early as November 42 but the turns take a while to play, even if the IJN does nothing, because of the number of allied bombing attacks each turn.
Play the game as head to head, stand everything down and just keep clicking. Or you can send all the ships back, set it to comp vs comp, let it run for 12 turns and get back in.
In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter
Hi Veer. Thanks for the feedback. My interest in this thread started because I couldn't see the point of sending ships back when playing as the IJN, unless they were so damaged as to be useless. Reading through various threads I had gotten the impression that many players send undamaged, smaller ships back in the hopes of getting more powerful ships. I didn't see this happening and questioned whether it was actually a good idea.
I think I understand a little better now, what with your explanation and the results of the experiment you suggested I run. I was surprised to realize that we're only playing with about a third of the available ships at any given time. The results of the test, by the way, are as follows:
All in-theatre combat ships were sent back to Japan between Nov. 8 and 14. About half those sent back had between 15 and 30 Sys damage which resulted in them being unavailable for between 26 and 131 days (depending on ship type). The commitment level rose to moderate when the first 16 ships were sent back and rose to high when the next group was returned.
Replacements Received:
Nov 9: 15 ships (2 BB, 1 AV, 2 CA, 1 CL, 9 DD) Commitment remains high.
Dec. 2: 13 ships (2 BB, 1 CA, 1 CL, 9 DD). Commitment drops to moderate.
Jan. 1: 14 ships (1 CV, 1CVL, 2 CA, 2 CL, 8 DD). Commitment drops to low.
In the end, I received the same number of ships as I had sent back (perhaps a coincidence) but overall their value was lower. This was of course because there were no high value carriers available initially. This seems to be where the problem occurs for the Japanese player. The large commitment of CVs, BBs and CAs in June-July means that there are only a limited number of replacements that are immediately available.
When you send CVs back they become unavailable for 11 + 4 x Sys Damage days. For CAs its 11 + 2 x Sys days. Thus if there is even moderate damage to a CV (say 20) the carrier will be unavailable for 91 days (a CA for 51 days). As you pointed out, the Japanese committment drops rapidly after July and so about the time your damaged CVs and CAs are ready, the bottom drops out of your commitment and it gets to be very difficult to get them back, except as a 1:1 swap.
So from an IJN point of view I think it is better to use damaged ships until their speed drops too low or alternatively, to repair in-theatre at a size 9 base. It take between 1 and 6 days to repair a point of sys damage at Rabaul or Truk.
It may be different for the Allies because of the AAA upgrades, but the IJN don't seem to get any better ships the second time around. In fact, in the test that I ran, none of the DDs that came back were radar-equipped.
It would also seem that there is little point in conserving your forces when playing the IJN. If you keep ships alive you are penalized by having your replcaements held until after the allies have achieved their technical superiority. I guess its better to trade ships in combat rather than have them wait in Japan until its too late.
As a last question, does the comittment level pattern (eg. Low in May-high in June-July-low thereafter, for the IJN) change with the variability parameter or is it the same pattern with just varible levels of committment?
