Port size.

[Ron Saueracker]

There have been many comments on port sizes. One which readily comes to mind is Noumea, with a start size of six in the mod.

I think we are all a little confused as to what these port sizes are supposed to represent. Is it size of the "natuaral" harbor? Is it the ability to service ships? What is it?

I think it is a mixture of all of these. Natural size only matters if the base should be capable of expansion to a size 3 or not and whether it can support anti sub nets. Once a size three, with no capacity figured into the model, the need to up the figure now has everything to do with the actual service infrastructure of the port.

Many ports such as Noumea, Ulithi, Truk, Lunga Roads etc were not developed to the same "infrastructure" level as say Aukland, NZ or Perth-Freemantle, Australia, which were thriving urban centres as well. Noumea, Ulithi, Truk and Lunga Roads were basically Advanced Bases with large anchorages capable of containing a vast array of auxilliaries within them which provided some of the same services as ports but on a limited and somewhat less effective scale (lighters instead of quays, repair ships and floating dry docks instead of repair yards, tankers instead of fuel farms, stores and ammo ships instead of warehouses and magazines). Therefore, capacity issues aside for large natural anchorages, any further development capability of bases within the WITP model should be influenced by prence of urban development.

So, I would think that Noumea, being a large natural anchorage would at least be able to max out as a level 3 port. Because it is part of the urban centre of Noumea, the capitol of New Caledonia, but because it was not in any way a military or major port to begin with, I'd start it as a level 2 (needs to develop anti submarine defences). This allows it to develop into a level 5, which, considering the massive congestion issues this port experienced, is about right.

Lunga Roads was nothing prior to the war. Schooner traffic was the norm moving people and copra. This puppy should be a level 0 at the start in my book. Allows for a max level of three which allows disbandment and anti sub nets, which basically models the large roadstead. The was very little here urban/infrastructure-wise...all this was provided by temporary facilities and naval auxillaries.

Truk and Ulithi are basically the same...huge anchorages but not much of a urban/port infrastructure. I'd start Truk as a level 1 and Ulithi as a level 0. We can't have these places start at a 5 or 6 or they would rival major port cities whuich to me is and always has been a ridiculous aspect of the map models to this point.

Anyone catching my approach here? Nobody can whine to me about Truk being underated at this level because the lack of any ops maximums for NUMBERS of ships is not present in the logistics model derails any such arguement.

[Bradley7735]

Are you talking about SPS size or starting size?

Ulithi should be larger than SPS 0. The whole reason the USN occupied the atoll was because of the port.

If you make all but the largest non-urban ports (Truk) SPS 0, then you would have to send all your ships back to urban areas for even slight repairs.

I think Truk and Ulithi would be potentially larger than Noumea, but I'm just guessing.

It would definitely slow the game down.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Are you talking about SPS size or starting size?

Ulithi should be larger than SPS 0. The whole reason the USN occupied the atoll was because of the port.

If you make all but the largest non-urban ports (Truk) SPS 0, then you would have to send all your ships back to urban areas for even slight repairs.

I think Truk and Ulithi would be potentially larger than Noumea, but I'm just guessing.

It would definitely slow the game down.

But these non urban ports are large natural harbors so, because there is no limitation on capacity/amount which can dock, why give them the same same infrastructure benefits as San Francisco?. Once they are size 3 they can disband as many as you want and are protected from sub attack. Being large does not necessarily mean they have derricks, quays, railroad lines to dockside etc like urban ports do.

[madmickey]

Ron if you change the port size would you also change your request on size of port for replenishment. Could BB replenish from Noumea port size 3? The speed of replenishment may be effected in smaller ports.

[Bradley7735]

Ron, I see where you're coming from. I'm not disagreeing with you. But, the game doesn't accurately model late war US auxilaries.

The problem is exactly what you've been saying all along. Ships shouldn't be able to use ports the way they do. I would be cautious about lowering all ports to 0 or 1 sps. You may make it un-historically difficult for the US to advance in 44/45.

It would be cool if US naval base forces acted similar to Naval HQ's. And if your ideas of ship repair/replenishment were implemented. That way, Ulithi would be useless to japan (as was the case), and ideal to the US.

Take a size 3 port. Add Naval HQ, AR's, AD's, and a US naval base force, and it acts as a size 7 or 8. Japan could do the same, but it only gets up to 5 or 6. San Fran would still be significantly better, but the US could still use one or two major ports in the middle of nowhere.

[Andrew Brown]

I also think that it might be a good idea to make the port in Noumea smaller. I am thinking that 3(3) might be a good value.

Brisbane should probably be smaller as well - perhaps a 5(5) for port size.

[eMonticello]

I would even go as far as decreasing the size of Seattle and San Diego to perhaps 6(8). In the long-run, it doesn't matter but it does force the US player to actually spend resources to build up those bases in the early months. I haven't made up my mind about SF and LA.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Ron if you change the port size would you also change your request on size of port for replenishment. Could BB replenish from Noumea port size 3? The speed of replenishment may be effected in smaller ports.

No, not really, because some ports can grow to the appropriate size given time. I also allow bases with Naval Base Units to qualify in my house rules. I'd expand it to include presence of AEs though.

[jwilkerson]

I haven't run any tests on this yet ( even though I promised myself I would ) ... but when Halsey took over ( Oct 42 ) in SOPAC .. he was told it took 24 ships one month to unload at Noumea ... in any game we play Noumea will be built up to the max by Oct 42 ... so do you think a maximum of 24 ships can unload in a 30 day period at maximum port size for Noumea in the game ? ( I'm betting way more than this can unload ). Slowing down the Allied return might not be a bad thing ... so far looks like they can come back way too fast ( in the as delivered game - too early to tell for CHS ).

So in general I like smaller ports at the start ... but the real fix would have to be in slowing down how long it takes to build them up ... especially to the higher levels ... the first three levels are probably fine ... but more time needs to be added for the higher levels IMHO [ and since that requires a code change - it won't happen - so we have to "simulate" by using smaller ports at start ].

[Halsey]

I'd like to see all the base facilities reduced at the start. This allows both sides to determine which course they will take in producing results with their strategy's.

Then both sides would have to decide which ones are to be built up.

This would aleviate the problem of zooming in with nothing, and taking a fully functional base without any effort to improve it's operational use.

Only prewar facilities, proven to be transportation hubs should remain enlarged.[;)]

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I haven't run any tests on this yet ( even though I promised myself I would ) ... but when Halsey took over ( Oct 42 ) in SOPAC .. he was told it took 24 ships one month to unload at Noumea ... in any game we play Noumea will be built up to the max by Oct 42 ... so do you think a maximum of 24 ships can unload in a 30 day period at maximum port size for Noumea in the game ? ( I'm betting way more than this can unload ). Slowing down the Allied return might not be a bad thing ... so far looks like they can come back way too fast ( in the as delivered game - too early to tell for CHS ).

So in general I like smaller ports at the start ... but the real fix would have to be in slowing down how long it takes to build them up ... especially to the higher levels ... the first three levels are probably fine ... but more time needs to be added for the higher levels IMHO [ and since that requires a code change - it won't happen - so we have to "simulate" by using smaller ports at start ].

I believe the game doesn't care whether 1 ship or 100 ships unload anywhere. Port size only impacts the speed of loading or unloading.

A 7000 point ship will take the following time based on port size to unload.
0 17.5 days
1 14 days
2 11.67 days
3 10 days
4 8.75 days
5 7.78 days
6 7 days
7 6.36 days
8 5.83 days
9 5.38 days
10 5 days

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I haven't run any tests on this yet ( even though I promised myself I would ) ... but when Halsey took over ( Oct 42 ) in SOPAC .. he was told it took 24 ships one month to unload at Noumea ... in any game we play Noumea will be built up to the max by Oct 42 ... so do you think a maximum of 24 ships can unload in a 30 day period at maximum port size for Noumea in the game ? ( I'm betting way more than this can unload ). Slowing down the Allied return might not be a bad thing ... so far looks like they can come back way too fast ( in the as delivered game - too early to tell for CHS ).

So in general I like smaller ports at the start ... but the real fix would have to be in slowing down how long it takes to build them up ... especially to the higher levels ... the first three levels are probably fine ... but more time needs to be added for the higher levels IMHO [ and since that requires a code change - it won't happen - so we have to "simulate" by using smaller ports at start ].

I believe the game doesn't care whether 1 ship or 100 ships unload anywhere. Port size only impacts the speed of loading or unloading.

A 7000 point ship will take the following time based on port size to unload.
0 17.5 days
1 14 days
2 11.67 days
3 10 days
4 8.75 days
5 7.78 days
6 7 days
7 6.36 days
8 5.83 days
9 5.38 days
10 5 days

Brum, your numbers seem to be way off (although I haven't ran any tests). Could you be thinking game periods (like 12 hour phases). Even at that it would seem that a 7000 capacity ship unloads faster than you represent. Worthy of a second test.

Buck

[Oliver Heindorf]

Brum, your numbers seem to be way off (although I haven't ran any tests). Could you be thinking game periods (like 12 hour phases). Even at that it would seem that a 7000 capacity ship unloads faster than you represent. Worthy of a second test.

Buck

I second that. 5 days for 7000 point ship - no way. iirc the times should be reduced by 50%

per 12 pulse the numbers are correct.

[Herrbear]

From the manual: Section 6.1.19, page 98.

"Task Forces carrying cargo will automatically begin unloading once they reach their Destination
Hex as long as it is a coastal hex. If unloading in a friendly port, the TF will dock. The speed of the
unloading is dependent on the size of the port; the unload rate of supplies from a ship is equal to
100 times the port level (modified by damage) +400 per turn. So, an undamaged size 5 port would
unload 900 units (troops, supplies, etc.) per turn."

So unless "per turn" means per phase, I think my math is correct. I haven't tried any tests to see.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear


From the manual: Section 6.1.19, page 98.

"Task Forces carrying cargo will automatically begin unloading once they reach their Destination
Hex as long as it is a coastal hex. If unloading in a friendly port, the TF will dock. The speed of the
unloading is dependent on the size of the port; the unload rate of supplies from a ship is equal to
100 times the port level (modified by damage) +400 per turn. So, an undamaged size 5 port would
unload 900 units (troops, supplies, etc.) per turn."

So unless "per turn" means per phase, I think my math is correct. I haven't tried any tests to see.

Tests do seem to be in order (you know how much confidence I have in manuals being where we are from). Seriously, Brum give a try. I still am not up and running with the new files you gave me or I would do the tests.

[Oliver Heindorf]

tested one ship load : selected AK Pansylvanian to load supply from Seattle ( size 10 port ) - it made 2000 points/day -> 3,5 days before it will set sail.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear


From the manual: Section 6.1.19, page 98.

"Task Forces carrying cargo will automatically begin unloading once they reach their Destination
Hex as long as it is a coastal hex. If unloading in a friendly port, the TF will dock. The speed of the
unloading is dependent on the size of the port; the unload rate of supplies from a ship is equal to
100 times the port level (modified by damage) +400 per turn. So, an undamaged size 5 port would
unload 900 units (troops, supplies, etc.) per turn."

So unless "per turn" means per phase, I think my math is correct. I haven't tried any tests to see.

Guess you are correct Brum. I guess we can call that a "Brummer"[:D][:D]

[Herrbear]

That agrees with the manual for loading supplies on a ship. Unloading, according to the manual should be what I posted earlier.

[shawn118aw]

If I may, there are 2 parts to the Port question. One is the Size of the PORT and the other is the other is the loading and unloading rates of the ships at that port given the support available. Reference U.S. War Department book on Japanese Military Forces, page 180, parg (6)

Loading and Discharge. Japanese are expert at handling ships and have achieved a considerable degree of efficiency in loading and unloading military cargo. The rate of loading and unloading will depend on many factors, such as availability of piers, cranes, trained stevedores, ect. It is estimated that in well equipped ports loading and unloading of a ship combat loaded averaging 5,000 tons, using shore or ship gear, could e accomplished in 3 days (operating 24 hours a day. Where piers are not available, but an adequate number of motor barges (MLC) can be utilized, the same rate could be achieved for combat loaded ships. Where lighters have to be used, as many as 6 days may be required to unload or load a ship. Harbor congestion or lack of an adequate number of lighters and stevedoring crews may extend the required time to several weeks. General cargo can be unloaded at an average rate of 1,500 long tons per 24-hour day at piers or with MLC, and 800 long tons per 24-hour day by lighters.

So it seems the rate is set and therefore the major question is how much support is available at a given port to equal the amount of thru put for its size value…if there are only so many piers, workers, ect, then each ship (as is done today) must take a number and get in line. In the Air Force we call this number a “MOG #”—Max On Ground at any one time, the max parking of aircraft at a base.

Note for reference: 7,000 tons is 210 rail cars of cargo.

So for port sizes I give you 2 examples. The first is Wake Island (I been there many times as an Air Force C130 pilot). That harbor “usable” is only 1000 yards x 3000 yards and had/has NO docks or piers. It had room inside the logon for only 6 to 8 --7000 cargo ship. I would rate Wake as a 1 and max as a 1. Wake’s Loading and Unloading capability at 800 tons per 24-day per ship gives it a gross max thru put of 5600 tons per day and limited to only 8 AK size ships.

Next is Midway (been there also). At its peek had 28 square mile of shallow lagoon to anchor ships but only usable to anchor 12 Cruisers/AK’s types at one time. By late 1944 it only had 7 short piers for Subs based there and 4 long piers for cargo ships, therefore 8 –7000 cargo ship could dock. I would rate Midway as a 1 to start and max as a 2. Midway’s Load/Unload capability at 1500 tons per 24-day per ship gives it a max gross thru put is 12,000 tons per day and limited to 12 AK’s and 14 subs.

Just for reference, is Rotterdam (yes Rotterdam)—in 2005 the busiest port in the world! It has 49 Docks or piers, 58,000 people working there, capable of loading or unloading (total) 965,300 tons per day, and can handle 900 ships per day (it’s 25 nm of shore line long and 3 miles deep area.)

I believe this is the detail that the game should be looking at when talking about ports.

Just an USAF pilot that should have been in the Navy!

[Lemurs!]

That is great information and i appreciate you sharing it, but the problem with representing this is if there is a workforce there or not.

I wish we had port units so we could mod more about this. As far as i know port size above 3 only affects repair speed and unloading.
If i had dock units that could effect unloading then i could rerate ports like Truk to size 3 or 4.

Yes, Truk's lagoon is huge and protected but there was no work force beyond a port unit and no repair facilities beyond repair ships. Kinda wish repair ships had a bigger part in the game as well.

Mike