Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
akdreemer
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:43 am
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Contact:

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by akdreemer »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown



That is my view as well. I would rather have a broader representation of different aircraft before having a great veriety of a single type. Within reason of course.

Andrew

I agree also. I would like to see the 7F7 as carrier capable.

RM

Then we'ed need aircraft size limitations for CVs.

The only carriers that can carry this plane are the Midways. If the Midways are not in the database then no problem leaving the F7F off the carrier capable list. Only the Sqadrons aboard the Midways could upgrade to the F7F's, all the rest would be land based Marine Corp aquadrons.
User avatar
PeteG662
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:01 pm

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by PeteG662 »

Guys,

I will be doing some research on LCUs for the mod. The LCUs in the game are partially abstracted by the devices so I will concentrate on finding the correct weapon systems and run from there. I have some sites with US and Commonwealth OOBs but TOEs are harder to come by. How would you like the data? Should I try to keep it to WitP editor format or just list the weapon systems by unit, etc.?

Pete
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

I would suggest a progressive upgrade for all forts. What you ahve listed probably would be only available by 1943. By mid-war the US armed forces were getting man-power hungry. Thus a lot of the coast defense units were disbanded. Not much of a chance of a Japanese invasion by then! I am working on a yearly breakout of the composition of the CD units at Hawaii, thus maybe can figure out an upgrade path for these units, with the West Coast units coming last. As an example, it appears that all of the 12 mortars were disbanded late 43 or early 44. i will post to the forum when as I compile the various CD Zones...

Richard

NO..., what I was suggesting was to reflect the capabilities as of 12/7/1941. In areas
where improvement was an option (Oahu, the West Coast) they would be much more
potent by the end of 1942 with increased numbers of Medium and Light Calibre Weapons
(155 mm and smaller---in Oahu at least 24 additional 155's were added). The point is
that these installations were "avoided like the plague" by enemy TF's throughout the
war---and as represented in the game currently, that is not the case. Given the limits
of the coding, increasing the numbers (as a means of representing the increased ac-
curacyof fixed coast artillery) is an easier way to correct the situation.
User avatar
mlees
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:14 am
Location: San Diego

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by mlees »

The only thing I would note is that to increase the number of guns in a CD unit SOLELY to increase its effectivness against ships would ALSO increase that CD units power vs land units in it's hex. I'm not sure if you could do one without affecting the other.
User avatar
PeteG662
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:01 pm

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by PeteG662 »

We may be able to change the raw data for the "device" in the device tables to make the weapon systems more potent instead of increasing the number of weapons.....just a thought here.
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: mlees

The only thing I would note is that to increase the number of guns in a CD unit SOLELY to increase its effectivness against ships would ALSO increase that CD units power vs land units in it's hex. I'm not sure if you could do one without affecting the other.

Yea.., this is a point I'd considered too. One of the reasons I felt the heavier calibres
were the ones to increase. These big guns were devestating against THINGS, but
should really not be that effective against troops. Troops were much more highly ef-
fected by lighter and fastter firing weapons which could bring down effective fire
quickly. But you are right, it's a problem.
User avatar
mlees
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:14 am
Location: San Diego

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by mlees »

I have not messed with the editor. Please forgive noob question.

Is it quantified in the editor what affect a 16inch MK-Omigod would have on land units?

Is it editable?

I seem to remember folks mentioning a penetration value (I assume for hits on ship type targets). I think there was a "warhead" or "destructiveness" value. Modding THAT would also affect the damage done to BOTH land and sea targets, if that same value is used for both targets. I am a glass-half-empty kind of guy. Sorry I can't offer good advice.
User avatar
PeteG662
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:01 pm

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by PeteG662 »

There are two separate values for devices - one is versus soft targets (troops, etc) and one versus hard targets (tanks and ships etc). I think that manipulating the device for one of these values would work to increase effectiveness (in theory at least) but not increase numbers and potentially have the same outcome.
User avatar
mlees
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:14 am
Location: San Diego

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by mlees »

Tanks AND ships? Hmmm.
(Imagining a 16 inch naval gun in an Antitank direct fire role sounds amusing, but not realistic.)
How are aircraft classed? Soft?
User avatar
PeteG662
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:01 pm

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by PeteG662 »

Unsure of the classification of individual pieces. I would ASSUME that ships and tanks would be coded as Hard targets for purposes here and and aircraft and troops would be Soft. Take a look at the editor and maybe you could figure out if this would work in lieu of adding numbers of weapons.
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by Tanaka »

So when do u guys think u can get this monster out by??? [:D]
Image
User avatar
Tankerace
Posts: 5408
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 12:23 pm
Location: Stillwater, OK, United States

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by Tankerace »

2005 [:D]
Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
User avatar
akdreemer
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:43 am
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Contact:

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by akdreemer »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

I would suggest a progressive upgrade for all forts. What you ahve listed probably would be only available by 1943. By mid-war the US armed forces were getting man-power hungry. Thus a lot of the coast defense units were disbanded. Not much of a chance of a Japanese invasion by then! I am working on a yearly breakout of the composition of the CD units at Hawaii, thus maybe can figure out an upgrade path for these units, with the West Coast units coming last. As an example, it appears that all of the 12 mortars were disbanded late 43 or early 44. i will post to the forum when as I compile the various CD Zones...

Richard

NO..., what I was suggesting was to reflect the capabilities as of 12/7/1941. In areas
where improvement was an option (Oahu, the West Coast) they would be much more
potent by the end of 1942 with increased numbers of Medium and Light Calibre Weapons
(155 mm and smaller---in Oahu at least 24 additional 155's were added). The point is
that these installations were "avoided like the plague" by enemy TF's throughout the
war---and as represented in the game currently, that is not the case. Given the limits
of the coding, increasing the numbers (as a means of representing the increased ac-
curacyof fixed coast artillery) is an easier way to correct the situation.

If you examine all of the coast defense for Oahu (Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, and the North Coast) in December 1941 you get the following totals (current game in parenthesis):

16" CD 4 (4)
14" CD 2 (2)
12" CD 4 (4)
12" M 20 (15)
240mm 12 (0)
8" CD 20 (10)
6" CD 6 (4)
155mm CD 42 (20)
5" CD 2 (0)
3" CD 6 (0)

So what you are suggesting is not too far off. I would hesitate in increasing the number of guns above historical levels, and instead would suggest tweaking the stats.

RM
User avatar
von Murrin
Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 10:00 am
Location: That from which there is no escape.

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by von Murrin »

I'm curious. Will this project be AI capable, so to speak? I know PBEM is where it's at, but I'm wrapping up my current PBEM and it's very likely that I'll soon be in a position where regular email turns won't be possible. The AI will be all I'll have, and I'd love to play this.
I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

I'm curious. Will this project be AI capable, so to speak? I know PBEM is where it's at, but I'm wrapping up my current PBEM and it's very likely that I'll soon be in a position where regular email turns won't be possible. The AI will be all I'll have, and I'd love to play this.

Well, Don Bowen is an ardent AI user(never plays PBEM) so I think your interests and concerns will be well represented.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

[
If you examine all of the coast defense for Oahu (Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, and the North Coast) in December 1941 you get the following totals (current game in parenthesis):

16" CD 4 (4)
14" CD 2 (2)
12" CD 4 (4)
12" M 20 (15)
240mm 12 (0)
8" CD 20 (10)
6" CD 6 (4)
155mm CD 42 (20)
5" CD 2 (0)
3" CD 6 (0)

So what you are suggesting is not too far off. I would hesitate in increasing the number of guns above historical levels, and instead would suggest tweaking the stats.

RM

The figures given aree generally accurate..., but even then they error on the LOW
side by a fair amount. And they totally fail to reccognize the inherent superiority
in accuracy that fixed CD installations have over guns afloat. The FIRE CONTROL
was an order of magnitude better than that of ships. The best ship afloat in 1941
had a range finder with a base distance of perhaps 30 meters---on shore the dis-
tance could easily exceed a mile. The larger the base of the triangle, the more
accurate the "triangulation" of the length of the other legs (range) will be. Couple
that with pre-figured tide tables, fixed solid emplacements that don't have to allow
for their own movements. mine fields to channalize the posibilities of approach, and
all the other advantages of a designed, shore mounted facility, and the chance of
a hit is closer to 20% than the 2% that would be considered good afloat. That's one
of the main reasons that CD instalations don't need to have the number of guns in
a battery that a Battleship would.

Now add in that a shell from a ship that doesn't hit the CD gun itself basically hits
nothing of consequence but a lot of dirt and concrete---while if a shell from a CD
diesn't hit a BB's turret (a larger target in itself), it can still inflict damage on the
other 200+ yard-long portions of the ship. The game does not seem to allow for
this increased accuracy..., and to do so would require re-writing code. What I pro-
posed was a way of reflecting at least SOME of this advantage by increasing the
number of guns (and shots). It's not a perfect solution---but it is easy to imple-
ment
User avatar
von Murrin
Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 10:00 am
Location: That from which there is no escape.

RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

Post by von Murrin »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: von Murrin

I'm curious. Will this project be AI capable, so to speak? I know PBEM is where it's at, but I'm wrapping up my current PBEM and it's very likely that I'll soon be in a position where regular email turns won't be possible. The AI will be all I'll have, and I'd love to play this.

Well, Don Bowen is an ardent AI user(never plays PBEM) so I think your interests and concerns will be well represented.

Excellent. Thank you.[:)]
I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”