Merchants, transports and landing ships by numbers

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: PanzerMike

[&o]I have commented on the transports versus merchants a few months ago.
fb.asp?m=4721652

This is how I see it:

Merchant Marine (MM) represent cargo ships that carry both resources across the convoy lanes and/or supplies from port to port. The same class of ships is used for both these purposes IRL, as far as I know. Wether they carry oil, coal, grain or ammunition, food rations, spare parts is irrelevant. All cargo to be unloaded in ports, using their facilities.

Transports (TR) represent the purpose built long range large ships or converted civilian ocean liners to carry troops and tanks. They often also have cranes, masts, nets, etc. to transfer the troops and vehicles to landing craft if necessary. They often are also lightly armed with AA or light guns.

Landing ships (LS) represent all the different purpose built craft like the LCT, LVP, Higgins, etc. They enable invasions and beach supply.

So, I think port supply would be the task of merchant ships instead of transports. They (MM) can be sunk by interdiction, just like merchant ships used on the convoy lines. Think of the Italian Navy shipping supplies to Libian ports.

The mechanism for interdiction (naval units within 4 hexes and/or air units within 8 hexes) is fine with me. You can counteract this by basing interceptors near the port, or have naval units on patrol outside the port.

Good summary here Mike, thanks!

The mechanism for interdiction (naval units within 4 hexes and/or air units within 8 hexes) is fine with me.

Don't get me wrong. The system is fine to me except that I would like to see more transport ships destroyed. We are losing merchants, we must lose transports and take care of them (build some if needed). In fact, I just would like to change this rule of "1 transport for 1 port unlimited supply amount" by, let's say, "1 transport for 1 port for xx supply amount". That way, the Axis has to make a choice between invasion and supply. They will have less problem in early war to do invasion. But, in 1942 or 1943, if they are losing ships for supply of Norway, I am not sure to see any UK invasion.

And, at last, what is hidden in my words is that I am already thinking of the Pacific.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

There is a small chance of a transport loss.

That why I was asking you to display the number of transport sunk when supplies are destroyed in the Supply Interdiction report here:
fb.asp?m=4804189

So that this is tranparent.

[PanzerMike]

I still think merchant (not transports) should do Port supply. But within the current system, where transports do Port supply, I agree with what you say ncc

[ncc1701e]

I see perfectly what you mean with merchants vs transports, PanzerMike. But, it is perhaps too late to change the game mechanism.

[ncc1701e]

Alvaro,

Here is my hypothesis:
1. Studying the map, it seems the lower limit for port supply is xx of 20.
2. Changing the rule to "1 transport for 1 port for 20 supply amount".

What's give:
1. if every transport are intercepted every turn for every port:
--> Germany has no more transport on 19 Jul 1940 if they have invaded Norway
--> Italy has no more transport on 7 Jun 1940
Hardly possible

2. if 1/4 transport are intercepted every turn for every port:
--> Germany has no more transport on 14 Mar 1941
--> Italy has no more on 11 Oct 1940

Of course with protection, this date must be better at the end. And, building new transport may help.
Maybe something to try but only after the 1.00.07 patch is out. Let's secure.

What do you think of this?

[AlvaroSousa]

This is very nice work you have done. But I would like to keep the supply transport simple for players so they can focus on the strategic aspects of which ports they need to supply their armies. If I introduce this then I have to introduce turning on and off the ports. Then I have to write for the A.I. to do the same. Now this is getting into complex coding and debugging changing the operation system. Quite possible I have to add a new variable which would affect ongoing games. And so on and so on and so on.

Easier things that don't impact the ease of play for the game I usually include.
Items that require a lot of coding, debugging, and modification, potentially impacting current games I save for the next version of the game.

What would be horrible is if I introduced a completely new mechanism that botched the game which takes me 2 weeks to fix as bad press piles up and drops sales. All for a bug of a new feature. Steam is not forgiving in this nature. So the cost of time and profit is pretty large for a risky change. On the surface it seems simple but game design and coding are I'd say 25x more complex than a player realizes when accounting for all cascading effects.

WarPlan 2 already ideas on the drawing board for doing the MM and transport system better that is more immersive without micromanagement.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

But I would like to keep the supply transport simple for players so they can focus on the strategic aspects of which ports they need to supply their armies. If I introduce this then I have to introduce turning on and off the ports.

Of course, that is the logical sequel of this. [:)] But, you know, you will face the problem because you can destroy transports when troops are loaded. Thus, I know exactly the scenario to test:
1. Do crazy invasions to destroy all your transports,
2. With only the needed transports number to supply your ports left, do encirclements that leads to increase the number of ports to supply.

The system won't invent new transports, will it?

This is perhaps a little border line but it exists. [;)]

And, thinking of Pacific, Rabaul that was completely bypass by the US. At the end, no supply ships were able to pass. By the way, the merchants and the transports were all sunk at the end.

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

What would be horrible is if I introduced a completely new mechanism that botched the game which takes me 2 weeks to fix as bad press piles up and drops sales. All for a bug of a new feature. Steam is not forgiving in this nature. So the cost of time and profit is pretty large for a risky change.

Yes, that is why I said "Maybe something to try but only after the 1.00.07 patch is out. Let's secure". I miss the fact I do not see transports sunk like merchants. Other than this, the whole game is great.

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa
On the surface it seems simple but game design and coding are I'd say 25x more complex than a player realizes when accounting for all cascading effects.

I know I am coding myself. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

WarPlan 2 already ideas on the drawing board for doing the MM and transport system better that is more immersive without micromanagement.

Great, can't wait!

[AlvaroSousa]

They have a 10% chance to get sunk. Players should be building transports and MMs during the game as those countries did in real life.

This isn't Axis and Allies ya know.

[Meteor2]

Dear ncc1701e,
I like it a lot, that you are going into this depth in analysing the logistic aspects.
For the PTO or even WP2 these thoughts and suggestions are important, IMHO.
Please do not stop to publish them. [:)]

In the Med I always wondered, if there is a possiblity to deactivate ports, if
they are to exposed the enemy attack, leading to the „80 lost“.

Alvaro, please: consider the recalculation of these numbers. 20, 40 oder 80...
is so unbeliveable.

[PanzerMike]

About the 80 lost, the way I understand it, this does not actually cost you anything in PP. It simply means less supplies available for units that use that port's supply. As long as no transport is sunk, no real harm is done. It just a pain in the butt if you are dependent on that port.

So, with the current system I see no real need to disable a port with the intent to prevent losses; there aren't any (apart from the occasional transport due to the 10 percent chance).

[Meteor2]

Thanks for the answer.
But to remove (my [:D]) confusion, why not use MM/Transports for the same duties?
Goods have to be supplied on a convoy route to to ports. By ships.
Both are subject to interdiction and can be lost, based on the danger on route.
Danger based on subs, bombers, CAP, surface vessels, weather, etc..
And the losses of ships and supply is calculated on these Parameters.
Why not? [&:]

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

But I would like to keep the supply transport simple for players so they can focus on the strategic aspects of which ports they need to supply their armies. If I introduce this then I have to introduce turning on and off the ports.

Of course, that is the logical sequel of this. [:)] But, you know, you will face the problem because you can destroy transports when troops are loaded. Thus, I know exactly the scenario to test:
1. Do crazy invasions to destroy all your transports,
2. With only the needed transports number to supply your ports left, do encirclements that leads to increase the number of ports to supply.

The system won't invent new transports, will it?

And here is the result of my test. Initial condition is to decrease the number of transports available due to some troop transports been sunk with invasions. In the following screenshot, I have 10 transports available and 8 in use.

[ncc1701e]

Now, with the Red army coming, three ports are isolated from main supply. I have still 10 transports available but now I have 11 transports in use. Every port is in supply, there is no impact on port supply. The game engine is indeed inventing a none existing transport.

Now what is the probability on ETO to obtain this, I would say very unlikely. But, thinking of PTO, I think this is important to change the mechanism because PTO is mainly a naval game imho.

Thus, why not enhance the current behavior in Warplan ETO to "playtest" it before Pacific? Just asking.

[AlvaroSousa]

I might actually reduce this complexity and make it simpler. I already see problems with this new fix I made I didn't realize before.

I might make it that it doesn't actively use any ships.
I will shift it to MMs.
And instead it will just have a chance to sink an MM 10% per interdiction per port.

It simplifies everything. Instead of players going crazy trying to figure out how many transports they have and asking me a mountain of questions on why this number isn't right or the other number isn't right.

It will be cleaner and simpler.

[PanzerMike]

Somebody wrote this (that would be me, hehehe):

Merchant Marine (MM) represent cargo ships that carry both resources across the convoy lanes and/or supplies from port to port. The same class of ships is used for both these purposes IRL, as far as I know. Wether they carry oil, coal, grain or ammunition, food rations, spare parts is irrelevant. All cargo to be unloaded in ports, using their facilities.

Transports (TR) represent the purpose built long range large ships or converted civilian ocean liners to carry troops and tanks. They often also have cranes, masts, nets, etc. to transfer the troops and vehicles to landing craft if necessary. They often are also lightly armed with AA or light guns.

Landing ships (LS) represent all the different purpose built craft like the LCT, LVP, Higgins, etc. They enable invasions and beach supply.

Of I am not mistaken, the above will soon be the way it works. I welcome that.

[Meteor2]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

I might actually reduce this complexity and make it simpler. I already see problems with this new fix I made I didn't realize before.

I might make it that it doesn't actively use any ships.
I will shift it to MMs.
And instead it will just have a chance to sink an MM 10% per interdiction per port.

It simplifies everything. Instead of players going crazy trying to figure out how many transports they have and asking me a mountain of questions on why this number isn't right or the other number isn't right.

It will be cleaner and simpler.

Nooooooo!
Dear Alvaro, that is Not the Solution.
Not a simplification is needed, but a system, that makes sense and is reasonable. All ships and routes should be in danger of being attacked and ships sunk.
This 10% rule Is based on what?
Why can the MM system, with ships, escorts, subs, CAP, bombers, etc. not being used for port supply?
In the PTO, a transport and convoy system has to be more developed and not simplified. [X(]

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: PanzerMike

Somebody wrote this (that would be me, hehehe):

Merchant Marine (MM) represent cargo ships that carry both resources across the convoy lanes and/or supplies from port to port. The same class of ships is used for both these purposes IRL, as far as I know. Wether they carry oil, coal, grain or ammunition, food rations, spare parts is irrelevant. All cargo to be unloaded in ports, using their facilities.

Transports (TR) represent the purpose built long range large ships or converted civilian ocean liners to carry troops and tanks. They often also have cranes, masts, nets, etc. to transfer the troops and vehicles to landing craft if necessary. They often are also lightly armed with AA or light guns.

Landing ships (LS) represent all the different purpose built craft like the LCT, LVP, Higgins, etc. They enable invasions and beach supply.

Of I am not mistaken, the above will soon be the way it works. I welcome that.

All right, you won. [;)]

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

I might actually reduce this complexity and make it simpler. I already see problems with this new fix I made I didn't realize before.

I might make it that it doesn't actively use any ships.
I will shift it to MMs.
And instead it will just have a chance to sink an MM 10% per interdiction per port.

It simplifies everything. Instead of players going crazy trying to figure out how many transports they have and asking me a mountain of questions on why this number isn't right or the other number isn't right.

It will be cleaner and simpler.

Nooooooo!
Dear Alvaro, that is Not the Solution.
Not a simplification is needed, but a system, that makes sense and is reasonable. All ships and routes should be in danger of being attacked and ships sunk.
This 10% rule Is based on what?
Why can the MM system, with ships, escorts, subs, CAP, bombers, etc. not being used for port supply?
In the PTO, a transport and convoy system has to be more developed and not simplified. [X(]

That is the way I would like the game to go too. The purpose of all of this is to include losses to whatever is used (transport ships or merchant ships) to supply port. But, one way or another, if you have no more ships, you can't supply your ports.

[AlvaroSousa]

Supply convoys don't mean if 50% of the RN is near the port you just sail through with your 4 destroyer escort. It represents supplies not arriving and turning back also.

Other games are far more abstract than WarPlan in this aspect.

I will remind all of you Italy got 93% of it's supplies and 90% of it's men to North Africa under harassment.

But I feel if you park a massive fleet right outside the port and no one is there to stop you... then yea you deserve to stop that entire convoy.

The 10% estimate is based on the book I read Struggle for the Middle Sea, by O'Hara which details the Med naval campaigns. Also Black May by Gannon.

I thought about this for a good amount of time trying to examine all the problems it would cause and requests players would make complicating the supply chain even more. If you want to block supply block the port. If you want to save it attack those ships blocking it.

I don't want players micromanaging ports and convoys.

[PanzerMike]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
All right, you won. [;)]

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated [:D]