Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Nice work Leo, thanks.

Thanks!

The thing is, if you slow down the US engineers you will also slow down the glacial Japanese engineers too ... So the game will still balance out the same, but will be even more "logistically frustrating" for Japan.

Like Mogami says, it's all about denying the B-29 bases not how fast they can be built. As a corollary to this, I actually think it's more important to stop the US getting fighter bases within range of the Home Islands. The B-29 is not a wonder weapon, it can be shot down and will take large op losses coming from the Marianas. Combine it with fighters though (and B-24s/B-17s) and it's kaput time.

True... but I think this can be arranged...


What about the following modifications (once we get all numbers):


#1
Slow down the construction speed overall.

Current construction speed is very "linear" - what about making it "logarithmic" (i.e. "linear" means line on graph while "logarithmic" is exponential curve)?

That way bases can be expanded in normal pace when building until some "middle size" values (i.e. 1-2-3-4 size bases) while 5-6-7-8-9 bases will take a lot more.


#2
Find a way to introduce "diminishing returns" when massing ENG units in one HEX (when building below SPS - apparently something already exists in code when building above SPS).

That way we effectively remove tactics of hording (i.e. massing) of huge number of ENG units to extremely speed up the construction time.


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
Do we know of any other blatant example of base building in Pacific where we 100% sure know what ENG units were used and how long it took?

[juliet7bravo]

To many variables for that to be really useful. The terrain type and soil composition was the determining factor. Some places (a very few) they could literally bulldoze a strip, lay down Marston Mat and start landing fighters. Other places (like most) the ground/soil was too unstable and took alot of sculpting (for lack of a better word) because of drainage and needed crushed coral/rock to stabalize. Other places they had to literally reclaim land from the ocean to get a long enough strip. Similiar issues with ports.

Is there a terrain type modifier to port/AF construction? If not, there should be. Time and supplies required should be based on the terrain modifier. Also, getting to the next size should be increasingly harder up to a size 5-6, then level off/drop to reflect that you're now building infrastructure, not moving major dirt or building hard surface runways. Clearing jungle, cutting runways, drainage, sinking pilings, building breakwaters or piers, oil storage ect. hard work...putting up warehouses, workshops, and an "O" club is easy in comparison.

[Splinterhead]

While the construction speed may in fact be too fast, the idea of diminishing returns for stacking is wrong. If Tinian is the size of Manhatten as has been stated, you could fit an extremely large number of engineers there without diminishing returns if you have sufficient materials because the different units could build in seperate areas simultaneously. This is like having 20 ten man crews building 20 houses in the time 1 ten man crew could build 1 house, materials permitting.

By contrast, building over SPS has a relatively low point of diminishing returns because it involves terrain modification. Construction then becomes sequential. This is more akin to building a skyscraper in that multiple processes are taking place in the same space.

Therefore, I believe, the basic model is correct and it is only the speed of individual squads, etc that may be to fast.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

......the Allies capture the airfields they will already be built (but hopefully with massive damage when Allies get them)

This leads on to another thread that I initiated about base repair times. These are themselve to fast. a port with 100% damage was fully repaired in 4 days while the air base only took 3 days. I did have a few Eng on the base when I recaptured it but its still to fast.

Overall eng seem to be supermen.

[mogami]

Hi A size what (?) port was repaired in 4 days from 100 percent damage by how many engineers?


Is anyone playing Allies in Scenario 15 or 16 or Lemusr 26 getting Pearl Harbor repaired in just 4 days?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

While the construction speed may in fact be too fast, the idea of diminishing returns for stacking is wrong. If Tinian is the size of Manhatten as has been stated, you could fit an extremely large number of engineers there without diminishing returns if you have sufficient materials because the different units could build in seperate areas simultaneously. This is like having 20 ten man crews building 20 houses in the time 1 ten man crew could build 1 house, materials permitting.

By contrast, building over SPS has a relatively low point of diminishing returns because it involves terrain modification. Construction then becomes sequential. This is more akin to building a skyscraper in that multiple processes are taking place in the same space.

Therefore, I believe, the basic model is correct and it is only the speed of individual squads, etc that may be to fast.

Please read the:

"Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ENG units stacking!"

http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp? ... 6mpage%3D1


Leo "Apollo11"

[Splinterhead]

I have read it and even commented in it. Then and now you seem to be unable to understand the difference between simultaneous and sequential construction. They are modelled in the game because they are valid concepts. If the engineers are building too fast it is NOT a stacking issue.

[BartM]

what about taking out the engineers in non-engineer units ? reducing some of the engineers overall (for everyone), and making the seebees larger then most as they were specialized in doing what is discussed here. Look at Lugna they managed to get the airstrip operational (dont have the dates) in record time, and had a small group of planes flying out of there.

I have to agree that in the overall of the game, there are very very few +9 bases or ever +7 really more so from SPS 0's. Once the three islands are being taken, I would guess Japan doesn't have much to stop that, so really, all your doing is delaying what is comming anyways. Constant B-29's flying into Japan.

As far as "hording" Engineer units into one spot, they don't automatically teleport. (this hopefully is covered in the one ship TF with the patch). since you can place one ENG on one AP, you still need a large TF to horde, and that is just transport of troops and small amounts of Supplies. No escorts ? what about Japaneese subs around the area ? no air cover ? Really, if someone wants to throw all their engineers in one island and build it, fine. That is just so many other areas that are not being repaired, built and also, that person is running a huge risk of being overtaken by a couple of Divisions of "real" infantry which would slaughter any number you wish of engineers on an island what is being discussed here.

I do agree with you Leo that supplies need to be looked at closely, and make sure both fuel AND supplies are being taken when constructing past SPS. Maybe that is the issue more then actually hording Engineers... the lack of supplies needed once your built to a certain number.. (supplies should be diminshed when ANY ativity is taking place on a base and even if you have a base with storage, the black market has a way "borrowing" items.)

also the bottom line here, the US simply has TONS of seebees no one can expect an allied player to just leave them sitting on the west coast

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

I finally managed to conduct my comprehensive ENG unit tests in WitP (I was hampered with but that in small scenarios you have to have large large number of LCUs in order WitP not to freeze after consecutive turn executions)!


Leo's WitP ENG unit testing


Testing finds

#1
According to WitP manual 1 ENG vehicle has value of 5 ENG squads.


#2
EXP and commander of ENG unit do not have any effect on construction speed.


#3
Fatigue itself didn't slow down construction speed (75% fatigued unit was as fast as 0% fatigued unit) but it produced disruption (because tired unit had to work) and disruption slowed construction!

For example if disruption was 25% then it, roughly, slowed construction time by 25% (i.e. unit was only 75% effective)!


#4
Presence or not presence of HQ (of any kind) does not have any effect on construction speed.


#5
ENG unit construction capabilities add up (in other words 2 same ENG units would build 2x faster and 4 same ENG units would build 4x faster).


#6
Construction cost in time of Airbase or Port object is same (i.e. it doesn't matter if you build one or another - if you build both your construction speed is 50%).


#7
When constructing Airbase and/or Port object (if their intended build values are below or equal to SPSs) the cost in time is as follows:

Size 0->1 = each ENG squad constructs 0.002500 (1/400) of object
Size 1->2 = each ENG squad constructs 0.001667 (1/600) of object
Size 2->3 = each ENG squad constructs 0.001250 (1/800) of object
Size 3->4 = each ENG squad constructs 0.001000 (1/1000) of object
Size 4->5 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000833 (1/1200) of object
Size 5->6 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000714 (1/1400) of object
Size 6->7 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000625 (1/1600) of object
Size 7->8 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000555 (1/1800) of object
Size 8->9 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000500 (1/2000) of object

NOTE: I am 100% sure in values above!


#7
When constructing Airbase and/or Port object (and if their intended build values are above SPSs) I can't calculate the cost in time.

It is because there appear to be "diminishing returns"!!!

In other words you can put as many ENG squads you wish but construction speed can't be accelerated further after some number of MAX ENG squads (this is 100% different that it was when you build below SPS limitations)!

For the time being I can't determine/calculate/estimate those modifiers but it appears that MAX ENG squads allowed number is determined by overall size of SPS value!

For example if you have beach (i.e. "dot") HEX with SPS (0 - 0) and attempt to construct base there all ENG squads above 200 don't count at all (i.e. equivalent of 200 ENG squads will build that place at same speed as equivalent of 1000 ENG squads)!!!

Perhaps developers can help here - I am kindly asking for their help in this matter!



Discussion

IMHO the construction speed appears to be too fast even if just single big ENG unit is building at one place.

Having several big ENG units at one place throws things out of whack 100%.


For example single US EAB unit has:

30 ENG squads
20 ENG Vehicles (20 x 5 = 100 ENG squads equivalents)

Or combined 130 ENG squads equivalents.

This means that such EAB ENG unit can construct imaginary HEX that starts with 0 - 0 (i.e. it is "dot") but which has SPS (9 - 9) to 9 Airbase and 9 Port in:

Size 0->1 : 1 / (1/400 x 130) x 2 = 6 days for 1 Airbase - 1 Port
Size 1->2 : 1 / (1/600x 130) x 2 = 9 days for 2 Airbase - 2 Port
Size 2->3 : 1 / (1/800x 130) x 2 = 12 days for 3 Airbase - 3 Port
Size 3->4 : 1 / (1/1000x 130) x 2 = 15 days for 4 Airbase - 4 Port
Size 4->5 : 1 / (1/1200x 130) x 2 = 18 days for 5 Airbase - 5 Port
Size 5->6 : 1 / (1/1400x 130) x 2 = 21 days for 6 Airbase - 6 Port
Size 6->7 : 1 / (1/1600x 130) x 2 = 24 days for 7 Airbase - 7 Port
Size 7->8 : 1 / (1/1800x 130) x 2 = 27 days for 8 Airbase - 8 Port
Size 8->9 : 1 / (1/2000x 130) x 2 = 30 days for 9 Airbase - 9 Port

Or combined 6 + 9 + 12 + 15 + 18 + 21 + 24 + 27 + 30 = 162 days (give or take few).

In just 5 months the biggest possible base that can be build (9 - 9) is constructed.

Is this OK?

IMHO no.

It is accelerated several times.

Now imagine 5 EAB units working together. Since they all add up their ENG squads they would have equivalent of 650 ENG squads (650 = 5 x 130) and this would mean that from 0 - 0 the "dot" can be build to 9 - 9 (in our example) in just 30+ days (or just single month)!!!



Conclusion

IMHO the developers (Matrix/2By3) should consider two things:

#1
Slow down the construction speed overall.

#2
Find a way to introduce "diminishing returns" when massing ENG units in one HEX (when building below SPS - apparently something already exists in code when building above SPS).


IMHO the base construction was one of the mayor obstacles in historic War in the Pacific and the whole war was, in fact, waged around bases that had to be constructed slowly because nothing could have been build "overnight"!

Therefore those two measures I suggested above would slow down base construction to acceptable and historic values!


BTW, I myself and several other (most prominent of them is, of course, "Nikademus") brought this up before but this time I added empirical data (from testing) into equation...



What do you think gentleman?

Matrix/2By3?



Leo "Apollo11"

It seems the construction ratios from size to next size are all some sort of linear relationship. In your 6 + 9 + 12 + 15 + 18 + 21 + 24 + 27 + 30 statement it appears the difference in "size" (abstracted to mean the complexity of infrastructure as well as the mere length of the runway, etc...) between a 1 and a 2 is the same as between an 8 and a 9. While I don't think it is reasonable for this relationship to be exponential or logarithmic, I do believe it should have some sort of quadratic polynomial type relationship whereby a the difference between a size 8 and size 9 was DRAMATICALLY different than that between a size 1 and size 2.

For example, take the size of the port facilities today at the Long Beach docks in California or New Orleans (call that a size 10) and those at Charleston, SC (call that a size 8). It would take YEARS and hundreds of millions of dollars of investement to get Charleston up to the capacity of Long Beach. But take the port at Jacksonville and compare to Charleston (Jacksonville being a 6 or maybe a 7) and it would not take near that much to get Jacksonville up to the size of Charleston.

[Chaplain]

In fact I think all bases should be minus 2 in max size for Japanese or +2 in max size for USA.

That's the best and most practical suggestion I've heard. It addresses the inherent differences between the pholosophies of the two nations, as well. I like it.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Nice work Leo, thanks.

The thing is, if you slow down the US engineers you will also slow down the glacial Japanese engineers too ... So the game will still balance out the same, but will be even more "logistically frustrating" for Japan.

Like Mogami says, it's all about denying the B-29 bases not how fast they can be built. As a corollary to this, I actually think it's more important to stop the US getting fighter bases within range of the Home Islands. The B-29 is not a wonder weapon, it can be shot down and will take large op losses coming from the Marianas. Combine it with fighters though (and B-24s/B-17s) and it's kaput time.

I'm not so sure as the correct idea is to "slow down the engineers" as it is to re-evaluate what the "size" entity represents. Is the difference in "size" between a size 1 and 2 facility the same as the difference in "size" between a size 6 and size 7 facility? Think of this. A size 1 airfield is a 3000-4000' sod strip with only very rudimentary set of support buildings (maybe only a small hanger, if that). A size 2 is the same field with a paved 4000' runway. How much "engineering" is required to go from one to the other. Now think of going from a size 7 to a size 8. A good example of that exists where I live. Offutt AFB is a single 10000' runway capable of handling a 747, but the base facilities could only support a max of 200 or so aircraft (if that...it actually today supports only about 30 or so), vs Epply airfield, Omaha's main airfield which has 2 10000 ft runways but could definitely handle upwards 300-400 aircraft. To get Offut up to Epply (conceptually one size) would require an ENORMOUS amount of work and cost.....

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi A size what (?) port was repaired in 4 days from 100 percent damage by how many engineers?


Is anyone playing Allies in Scenario 15 or 16 or Lemusr 26 getting Pearl Harbor repaired in just 4 days?

THis was the bases of my initial post

I capture Lae from the Japanese. From its capture to complete repair it took 4 turns. see below.

..............Turn of Capture.......Trun+1.........Turn+2........Turn+3
Port...............100.....................100 .............100..............0
Service .........100.......................81................13 .............0
Runway .......... 52........................0..................0.............0

Don't know how many engineers there were but the list below is nearly correct except the Aus Div, Aus Bde and Aus HQ were a US Div, US Cav Div and US HQ respectively. Everything else was the same.

[mogami]

Hi, OK I see. Size 3 port repaired in 4 days size 1 airfield repaired in 3 days.
by 255 engineers and 45 vec or 480 eng sqds total.
Thanks.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

I have read it and even commented in it. Then and now you seem to be unable to understand the difference between simultaneous and sequential construction. They are modelled in the game because they are valid concepts. If the engineers are building too fast it is NOT a stacking issue.

I _DO_ understand the difference - please don't tell me what I do or don't understand (also that is not civilized thing to do in forums).

I am 100% behind what "Nikademus" wrote in that thread (his explanation is even better than mine).

BTW, if you want to put 100 ENG units on one place (exaggerated but possible in UV and WitP) and think it is OK thing to do then this discussion is not needed at all..


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

It seems the construction ratios from size to next size are all some sort of linear relationship. In your 6 + 9 + 12 + 15 + 18 + 21 + 24 + 27 + 30 statement it appears the difference in "size" (abstracted to mean the complexity of infrastructure as well as the mere length of the runway, etc...) between a 1 and a 2 is the same as between an 8 and a 9. While I don't think it is reasonable for this relationship to be exponential or logarithmic, I do believe it should have some sort of quadratic polynomial type relationship whereby a the difference between a size 8 and size 9 was DRAMATICALLY different than that between a size 1 and size 2.

For example, take the size of the port facilities today at the Long Beach docks in California or New Orleans (call that a size 10) and those at Charleston, SC (call that a size 8). It would take YEARS and hundreds of millions of dollars of investement to get Charleston up to the capacity of Long Beach. But take the port at Jacksonville and compare to Charleston (Jacksonville being a 6 or maybe a 7) and it would not take near that much to get Jacksonville up to the size of Charleston.

This is good example and nice thinking!

BTW, since we now know formulas (through what I discovered) how bases are build below SPS limits in current WitP what exact formulas you suggest and how would that practically translate in time of contraction?


Also my point exactly (as well) is that large bases took months (years in peacetime - Singapore and Pearl Harbor for example) to build and that it took a lot of ENG, a lot of supplies and lot of $$$...


Leo "Apollo11"

[DJAndrews]

Just to interject an additional direction into this discussion, I'm a little concerned that the case of building up of the lower sized bases (2-4) so in a short time was dismissed so quickly.

I haven't done it in WITP yet but it looks like the allies still have their "insta-base" capability from UV. With the number of eng units they have at their disposal they can throw up several size 3 o 4 airfields in a couple of weeks. This lets them put in say, 300 fighters and dive bombers, and 200 level bombers almost instantly. Who needs CV power?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Well, there are some design decisions that might be deemed strange at first sight, as regards SPS levels, and bases (not so much Engineers), but work OK overall.

For instance, many history books state that Tinian airfield complex, when completed, was largest airfield complex in the world at the time. That would mean level 9 or 10 in the game (Mike mentioned 12, perhaps that's not so unrealistic after all), yet in game it's given SPS 4, and largest possible buildup of 7. When looking at extreme examples like these, they should be having SPS of 5-6, starting level 0, and possible buildup of up to 5 or 6 points above SPS, with completely new set of rules applied to them. Obviously, none of us wants any of the additional complexity associated with that (at least I hope so [:D]), so even extreme examples like Saipan/Tinian are shoehorned to work within same system that works for Lunga, or Batavia, or Palau, or any of the miniscule atolls with funny names. Seems like an OK decision to me.

Also, I noted that many base levels are significantly changed from their UV levels. I accept that as the way to abstract base values somewhat. In UV you had some fantastic locations for ports and airbases, as if the writing was on the wall: "Look, this is excellent location for an airbase!! Other locations are NOT nearly as good! Build ME!".

In WITP it's verymuch different (just look at the Lunga, Gili Gili or any other UV base in WITP and note how their values changed *very* significantly, though the airbase rules remained practically the same as in UV). Here, the writing on the wall is: "There are many potential locations for solid bases, but none of them is excellent (except those in Japan and US), and none of them is already built. YOU have to decide what you're going to build into a solid base, by sending whatever engineers you have."

Perhaps the decision to make building apparently fast is made so as to alleviate this issue? Like, in UV Rabaul was IIRC SPS 8/8 or 9/8, easily built to 9/9 even for tiny IJN ENG units. In WITP Rabaul is SPS 5/5 but once you decide THAT is the base you want to build, the building appears to be faster?

O.

Excellent observations Oleg!

I was also wondering why base sizes differ from UV and why, for example, Tinian (for which I always read that it was the biggest air base there was) is "only" size 7...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Splinterhead]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

I have read it and even commented in it. Then and now you seem to be unable to understand the difference between simultaneous and sequential construction. They are modelled in the game because they are valid concepts. If the engineers are building too fast it is NOT a stacking issue.

I _DO_ understand the difference - please don't tell me what I do or don't understand (also that is not civilized thing to do in forums).

I am 100% behind what "Nikademus" wrote in that thread (his explanation is even better than mine).

BTW, if you want to put 100 ENG units on one place (exaggerated but possible in UV and WitP) and think it is OK thing to do then this discussion is not needed at all..


Leo "Apollo11"

Of course you are 100% behind what Nikademus wrote since he was agreeing with you. If you can show me any case where any commander turned down an offer of more engineers then you would actually have a point.

Your reply to mjk428 when he (correctly[;)]) pointed out that your Tinian argument was illogical was to repeat the following quote " One woman can have a baby in nine months but nine can't have a baby in one." That indicated to me that you in fact did not understand the difference between sequential and simultaneous. The fact is that the componant parts of an airfield are not structurally interdependant and are in different physical places, therefore if sufficient manpower and materials exist to build all parts at the same time, then they can all be built at the same time. Tinian was a manpower limitation situation in my (and some others) opinion(s).

Slowing down the rate of construction is something that should be addressed, Iagree, but I believe that imposing limitations based on faulty logic is the wrong way to do it. You disagree. However, under the current conditions you can use a house rule to occomplish your goal;while, if you succeed in forcing the change you propose you will be limiting the options of others. It is not my intent to insult you but I strongly believe you are wrong in your reasoning. Anyway, that is my final word on the subject in all probability.

[mogami]

Hi, There are no bases that can can be built from nothing to Long Beach or even Jacksonville or Charleston size. The problem is perception in that the large bases remain too small. LB handles 65 million tons a year. Jacksonville over 7 million tons per year. (That in WITP terms is loading or unloading 19k per day) Jacksonville in WITP is a size 10 because size 10 is the largest size there is. Once a port gets to a certain size it is like every port of that size even though we know in reality LB is 9 times larger then Jacksonville. (Jacksonville is larger then any port that can be built from nothing in WITP. Jacksonville is larger then any port that cannot be built to a size 10 and no port can be built to a size 10 so Jacksonville remains larger then any port that any engineer in WITP will be asked to build)

There are no 0 to 9 hexes. There are 8 to 9 hexes. There are no 9 to 10 hexes.

The real question is how long to build from a 3 or 4 to a 7 not from a 0 to a 9. Measuring something that never occurs in the game provides interesting insight into how the system works but tells us nothing about what will actually take place in a game. Only the parts that can actually happen matter.
Tinian was captured in a completly useless condition. The USA built it from nothing in 4 months. How long does it take in WITP to do this? 30 days? Then the process is 4x too fast. Where the actual excess is remains the question.

In the 4 months of building Tinian when was it a 1 and then how long before it was a 2 and so on? All the talk about building a base from nothing to the size of Long Beach is waste of effort because there are no hexes where such a thing can be done. A size 5 port is so far from a size 10 that they cannot be compared. You can't build a size 10 anywhere on the map. So it is pointless to talk about how long it would take to do.


(I've been reading my posts correcting the typos and such and discovered that I have been watching too much Cartoon Network with my nephews. I'm starting to talk like "Mojo Jojo"
"I am Mojo Jojo, Mojo Jojo is me. If you ask my name I will tell you it is Mojo Jojo because that is my name. " [X(] ( My nephews like it when I talk like that)

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

Of course you are 100% behind what Nikademus wrote since he was agreeing with you. If you can show me any case where any commander turned down an offer of more engineers then you would actually have a point.

Your reply to mjk428 when he (correctly[;)]) pointed out that your Tinian argument was illogical was to repeat the following quote " One woman can have a baby in nine months but nine can't have a baby in one." That indicated to me that you in fact did not understand the difference between sequential and simultaneous. The fact is that the componant parts of an airfield are not structurally interdependant and are in different physical places, therefore if sufficient manpower and materials exist to build all parts at the same time, then they can all be built at the same time. Tinian was a manpower limitation situation in my (and some others) opinion(s).

Slowing down the rate of construction is something that should be addressed, Iagree, but I believe that imposing limitations based on faulty logic is the wrong way to do it. You disagree. However, under the current conditions you can use a house rule to occomplish your goal;while, if you succeed in forcing the change you propose you will be limiting the options of others. It is not my intent to insult you but I strongly believe you are wrong in your reasoning. Anyway, that is my final word on the subject in all probability.

OK... let's start again...


In WitP we already have numerous limitations in order for players not to abuse the game engine:

We have 25 ships limit for combat TF.

We have air coordination rule that prevents player from massing all CV into "death star" TF.


Why were those rules implemented?

Only because of abuse.


So, what is wrong to have similar regulation preventing "industrious" players to horde ENG units at one place in order to facilitate extreme base building speeds (i.e. building huge bases "overnight" that are 100% ahistorical and impossible)?


I hope you see my point here...


Leo "Apollo11"