Ship experience

[ChezDaJez]

I think the experience gap is way to large. Instead of 35-45 night exp for USN and 75-85 night exp for Japan, it should be more like 50 for USN and 60 for Japan.

I went through a few ships to compare day/night experience values from a saved game versus the AI. The date is 6/2/42.

Here is what those numbers are:

IJN-
BB Yamato: 68/67
BB Kirishima: 66/74
BB Haruna: 65/65
CA Tone: 77/65
CA Atago: 74/74
CA Mogami: 75/73

USN
BB West Virginia: 71/48
BB Nevada: 70/55
BB Arizona: 72/44
CA Vincennes: 74/55
CA San Francisco: 73/39
CA Indianapolis: 67/50

RN/RAN
BB Prince of Wales: 69/72
BB Warspite: 67/77
CA Australia: 71/45
CA Canberra: 67/47

I simply chose whatever ships were listed first on the screen.

The day values are very comparable overall. The night values are considerably different but not so much so that its unrealistic IMO. The Brit BBs are very experienced in night action, equal to or better than the Japanese. It is interesting to note that some ships are better night fighters than day!

Chez

[Oldsweat]

This one sure got popular.

We had Krivak destroyers/cruisers who would turn in front of us hoping for a collision and an international incident. We always had to go up and take pictures to prove the Soviets turned into our path.

Rainform team to the bridge! Yeah, that went on for a long time, we went up into the Baltic a couple of times and got the same routine from the not only the Russians but the East Germans.

So,
dereck, ChezDaJez, Oldsweat..
Are you guys satisfied that the typical USN experience rating of 60Day/35night is accurate?

B

Without a thorough understanding of the internal workings of the game, I tend towards no, I'd bump it up closer to the Japanese for day and at least 10 for night ops. Conversly I'd tweak the learning curve in training to more acurately reflect differnet nations responses to lessons learned. The US and Commonwealth should adapt pretty fast and train up quickly, the Japanese a bit slower. I have no idea about the Dutch since I'm not familiar with their system, although as a refugee force they would probably be exposed to the US and UK training establishments. Don't know if this would require a fundamental tweak of the game's plumbing or just values in the unit dB.
Having said this I accept that this is a game and the designers probably had to factor in some things to make it at least an enjoyable experience for folks playing the Japanese, especially since things would normally go sour for them pretty quick once 1943 rolls around. Still not real crazy about the auto victory thing though, or what sounds like some special good deals against China (I only have time to play the AI due to my field work schedule and so far I'm holding my own there).

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I think the experience gap is way to large. Instead of 35-45 night exp for USN and 75-85 night exp for Japan, it should be more like 50 for USN and 60 for Japan.

I went through a few ships to compare day/night experience values from a saved game versus the AI. The date is 6/2/42.

Here is what those numbers are:

IJN-
BB Yamato: 68/67
BB Kirishima: 66/74
BB Haruna: 65/65
CA Tone: 77/65
CA Atago: 74/74
CA Mogami: 75/73

USN
BB West Virginia: 71/48
BB Nevada: 70/55
BB Arizona: 72/44
CA Vincennes: 74/55
CA San Francisco: 73/39
CA Indianapolis: 67/50

RN/RAN
BB Prince of Wales: 69/72
BB Warspite: 67/77
CA Australia: 71/45
CA Canberra: 67/47

I simply chose whatever ships were listed first on the screen.

The day values are very comparable overall. The night values are considerably different but not so much so that its unrealistic IMO. The Brit BBs are very experienced in night action, equal to or better than the Japanese. It is interesting to note that some ships are better night fighters than day!

Chez

You know those values are randomized and change from game to game. regardless, the average 'at start' is still 35 US, 65 IJN. that's a mighty big spread.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: Big B

So,
dereck, ChezDaJez, Oldsweat..
Are you guys satisfied that the typical USN experience rating of 60Day/35night is accurate?

B

I think the experience gap is way to large. Instead of 35-45 night exp for USN and 75-85 night exp for Japan, it should be more like 50 for USN and 60 for Japan.

The USN won at least one battle in 42 (Balikpapan) and I would argue they won at least two more (both Guadalcanal fights where Japan lost a BB). And the battle where Furutaka (or Kinugasa) bought it. That was a clear cut USN win. They only lost a DD for a CA and a DD.

Japan had a slight advantage in night battle experience. They have a HUGE advantage in their torpedoes. So, giving them double the exp and great torpedoes means that the USN has a 1 in 10 chance of winning night battles in the game. It needs to be at least a 4 in 10 chance for the USN to win.

Japan should have a significant chance to be surprised. It happened once in 42 and many times in 43/44. Giving 80 night exp to Japan makes it impossible for the USN to catch up in 43/44.

All i'm saying is that the gap is too large. It makes the USN out to be inept most of the time and Japan to be superhero's most of the time. It needs to be closer.

I concur

ORIGINAL: dereck

It's a historical fact that at the beginning of the war and up until sometime in 1943 the Japanese were almost without exception the victors in night actions with the US

Have to disagree with you on that.

Spence's list of 1942 surface actions generally showed no intrinsic superiority in battle...but in 1942 they were usually on the right side of the equation when it came to showing up with superior force.

Also, at Guadalcanal, outside of Savo the Japanese were not clear winners in any of the following surface actions: Cape Esperance (total US Victory) 1st Guadalcanal (ended up loosing BB Hei), 2nd Guadalcanal (ended up loosing BB Kirishima), Tassaforanga - traded a DD for a CA - very good trade - but they still had to haul-ass out of there at top speed with their reinforcement mission screwed up....not like they triumphantly proceeded down to Lunga Pt to give Henderson the works after brushing aside the USN.

B

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

So are you saying all crew members stay on one ship for the entire war? Model is totally off. Crew got transfered and diluted to help man the ever expanding fleet, especially in the Allied case. Crews did not get better over long haul on a per ship basis, in fact they probably got worse throughout the war.

This does not even invokve crew deaths and injuries. Point is there should have been crew factors modelled into the game to help deal with the myriad of influences on crew quality, naval doctrine etc. We have individual pilots, leaders, squads etc but the ships are all robots![8|]

No I am not, but with your point that crews got worse, that is certainly a good step in the right direction of ships not gaining experience rapidly.

In all fairness, of all games on this subject, or naval combat in general, I have seen no game dealing with modern (i.e. WWI or above) that model in crew factors beyond what WitP models. I suppose that we are going to fault WitP for raising the bar on everything but one item?

Do I think the model is 100% accurate? No. But do I think that it is accurate in the sense gaining experience takes a long time to acheive, and a ship is not going to go past the 100 level? Yes.

I also think that there are people here who are critical of the game, just to be critical of it. Show me a game on WitP's scale where you have individual crew factors.

I have to ask Ron, since you like all these little details, do you assign new captains to each of you DDs, CLs, CAs, BBs, and CVs at least once every nine months? Ship captains rarely commanded a ship longer than 12 months before being assigned or taking over another ship. Now since obviously most players aren't going to do this, why should they have to manage with crew? I agree many respects of the game are oversimplified (a bit too much in some cases), but I also acknowledge that any other game dealing with this subject is far more simplified. (Pac War and Koei's PTO come to mind).

How would you like the crew modeled, "DD Paul Jones has 3 officers and 50 men, waiting on replacements before ship can sail"? Admittedly it would be cool, but it would also ward off numerous players. Few people reject WitP because it is too simple, but many do because it is too complex. So, 2by3 can oversimplify some things(Ship crews, a factor no other game takes into account but lets go ahead and fault them) and make more money, or make it so detailed that 20 people will buy it, the company folds, and then that's all she wrote. I know which I would do....

I'm critical of the game where it is warranted, period. Why have LCUs calculated down to the man but not even have crew factors for ships? Why can't a BB with a 1000 man crew not have a crew of 100 crew squads, which are capable of being disrupted, fatigued, wounded, killed, acrue experience, etc, just like ground unit squads? Simple as that, we don't need a crew breakdown or anything whacko.[;)] By utilizing a pool as the LCUs do, we would solve all the problems (at least most of them). By assigning VPs to them, we might also alleviate players throwing ships away because they are too "cheap" without the crew factored in.

I used to actually switch COs but given the limited model and all the bugs, what's the point?

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm critical of the game where it is warranted, period. Why have LCUs calculated down to the man but not even have crew factors for ships? Why can't a BB with a 1000 man crew not have a crew of 100 crew squads, which are capable of being disrupted, fatigued, wounded, killed, acrue experience, etc, just like ground unit squads? Simple as that, we don't need a crew breakdown or anything whacko.[;)] By utilizing a pool as the LCUs do, we would solve all the problems (at least most of them). By assigning VPs to them, we might also alleviate players throwing ships away because they are too "cheap" without the crew factored in.

I used to actually switch COs but given the limited model and all the bugs, what's the point?

Having been stationed on a ship which was normally at sea 200+ days out of 365 a year (and sometimes 3-4 months between ports) fatigue is not a factor on a ship. Unlike ground units where you are exposed to sleeping in the mud, beeing sniped at, being affected by heat, etc ... an a ship you may work 12 hour shifts 7 days a week while at sea but you 1) have a clean bunk to sleep in every day 2) four meals a day (and much better food than ground pounders get) 3) are not constantly being fired at by snipers 4) have a climate controlled environment to live and work in except when topside for watch periods or working on flight deck 5) comforts such as barber shops, stores where you can buy books and sodas (etc), movies, a laundry which cleans your clothing for you.

Don't try to compare a land based unit with ship's company. They are completely different creatures

[LargeSlowTarget]

Admittedly I know little about living aboard a ship, but I doubt many WWII era ships had the luxury of a climate controlled environment, and the crew not only lived and worked but fought a war against a strong opponent who could hit back from the air, surface and below at any time - that means frequent alerts for long periods, stress, fear etc..
From what I have read about the battle of Savo Island, the Allied ship crews had been very fatigued by the climatic conditions and from being on almost constant alert for several days. I've read something about an island at Ulithi atoll that was turned into a Fleet Recreational Center to give the sailors a break once in a while.
Compared to mud-sailo... er, Marines and soldiers, ships crews had it better, but it's hard to imagine that fatigue is not a factor when operating in a war zone.

[Dereck]

Actually they did have air conditioning - at least American ships. In July 1944 Admiral King asked the British for the loan of 6 landing ship infantry for MacArthur's 7th Fleet and, after the British sent them through the Panama Canal and they arrived in Australia the US immediately classified them as "unfit for use in combat zones" because they had "no air conditioning, no tropical kit and precious little comfort for thr crew".

"The Pacific Campaign: The US-Japanese Naval War 1941-1945", by Dan van der Vat, page 344.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: dereck

Actually they did have air conditioning - at least American ships. In July 1944 Admiral King asked the British for the loan of 6 landing ship infantry for MacArthur's 7th Fleet and, after the British sent them through the Panama Canal and they arrived in Australia the US immediately classified them as "unfit for use in combat zones" because they had "no air conditioning, no tropical kit and precious little comfort for thr crew".

"The Pacific Campaign: The US-Japanese Naval War 1941-1945", by Dan van der Vat, page 344.

Some ships did, some didn't. Most S-boats (subs) did not, except one that had AC from funds raised by private subscription before the war. I forget which boat this was, but iirc, it was one of the most successful S-boats, and i have (partly from this) thought that there was probably an association between AC and combat effectiveness in tropical zones. This is not only for reasons of the crew, but preserving the function of electronic and other delicate equipment.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

IJN-
BB Yamato: 68/67

USN
BB West Virginia: 71/48
BB Nevada: 70/55
BB Arizona: 72/44
CA Vincennes: 74/55
CA San Francisco: 73/39
CA Indianapolis: 67/50

RN/RAN
BB Prince of Wales: 69/72
BB Warspite: 67/77
CA Australia: 71/45
CA Canberra: 67/47

Can anyone give a logical reason why Yamato, launched after 12/7/41 would have a higher night naval score than every pre-war USN and Australian ship? It looks to be at least 20% higher than Aussies and about 15% to 20% higher than pre-war USN ships.

Yamato comes out of the gate with more experience than you can gain from just steaming around the map. New japanese construction should at least be the same as Allied construction. And should be less than pre-war ships of all nations.

All prewar ships of all nations without prior combat experience should be within 10% of each other. All new construction should be within 0% of each other.

[String]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

IJN-
BB Yamato: 68/67

USN
BB West Virginia: 71/48
BB Nevada: 70/55
BB Arizona: 72/44
CA Vincennes: 74/55
CA San Francisco: 73/39
CA Indianapolis: 67/50

RN/RAN
BB Prince of Wales: 69/72
BB Warspite: 67/77
CA Australia: 71/45
CA Canberra: 67/47

Can anyone give a logical reason why Yamato, launched after 12/7/41 would have a higher night naval score than every pre-war USN and Australian ship? It looks to be at least 20% higher than Aussies and about 15% to 20% higher than pre-war USN ships.

Yamato comes out of the gate with more experience than you can gain from just steaming around the map. New japanese construction should at least be the same as Allied construction. And should be less than pre-war ships of all nations.

All prewar ships of all nations without prior combat experience should be within 10% of each other. All new construction should be within 0% of each other.

Someone pointed out in this thread that the experience numbers are random (within a certain range) numbers generated for each game

[Tom Hunter]

Bradley7735

Yamato is high because the Japanese get a random number in a range that is higher than the range used for the USA.

IMHO Yamato is the one ship that just might be justified in starting with a higher XP rating than normal, both because it was a very high prestige ship, and because it was commissioned when the Japanese were still in pretty good shape and could have put together a good team without too much difficulty.

The really interesting question is not Yamato, it's Shinano. That ship did not have an exceptionally good crew.

[Bradley7735]

Yeah, but my point is that Japan's new construction comes in much higher than USN. They should all come in around 40, and then allow the player to train it to 55 or send it into combat green. Japan's new construction comes in much higher than training cruises can attain.

I can understand a starting difference between the USN and Japan. Even though it is too great a difference. And, the RN should be a bit higher than IJN at game start, since they had actual combat experience.

But, new construction should all be the same. 40/40 or 50/50. There is no logic on why Yamato starts at 75/65. I would bet that Iowa starts at 75/45. What is the logic behind that significant difference?

[Bradley7735]

Yeah, I can see Yamato as an exception. And, you do see the jist of my thread. Shinano probably has higher starting stats than Essex. I don't know for sure, but I bet it does. My point is that they should both be relatively green at start.

Thanks for the reply.

bc

[Oldsweat]

Admittedly I know little about living aboard a ship, but I doubt many WWII era ships had the luxury of a climate controlled environment, and the crew not only lived and worked but fought a war against a strong opponent who could hit back from the air, surface and below at any time - that means frequent alerts for long periods, stress, fear etc..
From what I have read about the battle of Savo Island, the Allied ship crews had been very fatigued by the climatic conditions and from being on almost constant alert for several days. I've read something about an island at Ulithi atoll that was turned into a Fleet Recreational Center to give the sailors a break once in a while.
Compared to mud-sailo... er, Marines and soldiers, ships crews had it better, but it's hard to imagine that fatigue is not a factor when operating in a war zone.

Depends a lot on nationality of the ship. The US has always designed their warships for long range operations in a wide variety of conditions, conversley German warships of the period, IIRC, were largely designed with the assumption that the crew would spend most of their time ashore, living in barracks. Because of the assumption of long range operation US vessels had a number of what we now term habitability items included. These are things like bunks instead of hammocks, forced draft ventilation, heating, freezers and refrigerators for food storage (the USS Olympia of Manila Bay fame had an ice machine on board and that was the 1890s!), libraries and larger messdecks (many navies sent the food down to the crews berthing spaces) so these things all go towards reducing fatigue and maintaining morale. I think most navies have had canteens (we call the gedunks), laundry, barbershops and so forth to one degree or another.
While you do get tired during high tempo operations I imagine it would be worse in vessels with more spartan amenities.

[Captain Cruft]

You can over-ride the random exp values manually using the editor. Not much fun to do, but possible ...

BTW in all GG games 70 is a sort of magic number. I would expect exp from combat to rise quite quickly to 70 but then much more slowly above that.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

You can over-ride the random exp values manually using the editor. Not much fun to do, but possible ...

BTW in all GG games 70 is a sort of magic number. I would expect exp from combat to rise quite quickly to 70 but then much more slowly above that.

Bingo! You said the magic word...EDITOR (your private - personal "cure-all")

B

[Captain Cruft]

Well yes, but there are nearly 10,000 ships in CHS. Not sure about stock but it's got to be > 5,000.

Like I said, not much fun. I may have to write a utility to do it easier

[Captain Cruft]

As promised, here is a program for bulk setting of ship experience in WitP scenarios.

Run it from the DOS command prompt within the WitP\SCEN folder. Usage should be self-evident.

DISCLAIMER: Use at own risk, always back up scenario files first!

w_setexp.zip (4kb)

[Dereck]

Just an FYI for those who want to raise allied ship experience:

What I do at the beginning of the game to up the experience of my ships is simply put them in TF and park them one or two hexes outside of their home port and let them gain experience by doing donuts at sea. It may take a bit but they DO get daytime experience up to their max allowable.

Then yesterday I was doing another little training test by creating a bombardment task force and having it bombard an empty Japanese base I bypassed. I was able to bombard it and, since I used bypassed bases as target practice for my air units, I figure on doing the same with my ships now just to see how effective it will be raising ship experience. In real life ships do target practice and since we can't target our own bases or dots I'm doing the next best thing for experience gains.