Shinano Options

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Local Yokel

I just had another thought reguarding IJN building, you may have considered this already...

CVL Ibuki...was originally planned/laid down as a heavy cruiser that would have been similar to the Mogami. Perhaps this ship is also worthy of the Shinano treatment, as I find I usually need CA type ships far worse than another light carrier.

We bring her and her sister in as CVLs in late-44 (if you want to build them) but it would be a lot of fun to complete them as a pair of CAs!

[Local Yokel]

@Shark7: Your suggestion of a similar treatment for Ibuki is a good one. The alternative paths construction can take look straightforward enough. Unless you can see a flaw, the obvious way to implement the cruiser option is to clone the Mogami class and increase the number of TT's on the clone.

In effect, my approach with Shinano has been to oblige the player to make the choice between BB or CV as soon as the ship is delivered. It would be unrealistic for a player to be able to use Shinano as a BB but then convert her to a CV, since the conversion opportunity reflects a decision to change the design that must actually have been taken long before the date on which the ship is completed. Since you can't convert a ship whilst it's still under construction, you have to fudge an equivalent result by making the ship so ineffectual as delivered that the player is obliged to make an immediate choice upon delivery between upgrading the ship to make it an effective unit or converting it to a different type. Neutering the main armament seems as good a way as any of achieving this.

I recognise that my approach may be open to objection. The conversion option only imposes a time penalty, but doesn't involve an enlarged expenditure of ship construction points. OTOH, if you elect to convert Shinano to a carrier, you will actually have paid battleship construction costs for her because of the difference between her durability as a BB and that as a CV.

In Ibuki's case, probably better to build her at cruiser durability cost, and offer a conversion to carrier on arrival - same approach as Shinano.

[Local Yokel]

@Bradley7735: Fixing the crew's experience level at the outset is certainly an interesting alternative approach, but one that I fear might open a can o' worms.

The default arrangement is for no experience value to be assigned to ships in the database. It follows that the game code must be assigning such values. Though I haven't analysed experience levels in detail, the rough and ready assessments I made when comparing IJN v USN ASW experience suggested that the experience level assigned by code is influenced both by ship and by navy. IJN crew experience levels are generally higher than USN, and probably all Allied navies. Why this was done I don't know, but it looks like a design decision taken at an early stage, since it seems that a compensating mechanism had then to be introduced to make Allied crews more experienced than Japanese in ASW work. The code may be assigning higher experience levels to IJN crews than Allied for a range of reasons I can't guess. On this ground alone I am reluctant to make a small number of ships an exception to the rule that the game code determines a crew's initial experience, because it may affect those ships' performance in ways I do not know.

I have long thought it a significant failure of WitP's design that it fails to afford the same degree of control over naval crew training/experience gain as the player enjoys over aircrew training. Going further than that, I would have liked to see the game include mechanisms for rewarding players who train groups of ships to work cooperatively, as I regard this as a significant factor in determining the effectiveness of a naval force. Unfortunately the game is what it is, so we're not going to see that. Rant over.

I don't understand why you conclude that my method will always tend to give Yamato class ships bad combat outcomes. Certainly if the player sends them into battle with the accuracy value of the main battery halved then they're not likely to get many hits. But that's exactly the reason for emasculating the big rifles: no sensible Japanese player is going to put such major units in harm's way until he has upgraded the weapons and paid the delay cost of doing so.

[herwin]

It takes about 5 solid years of experience to take a 30-skill newbie to a 90-skill expert. In game terms, that means you gain a point every month.

[PaxMondo]

LY

- like your solution for the early Yamato class and will, with your permission, blatantly "borrow" it for my mod.

[Omat]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think a few months ago, JWE posted a time line of all major construction and the yards that were used.

Hello

You mean this thread?

tm.asp?m=2599283

Hope it helps..

Omat

[Nemo121]

One other solution is to be a bit more creative and have ships finished as "hulls".

That hull has the durability etc etc you want to simulate basic building costs. You then give several "conversion" options. One converts the "hull" to a CL, the other to a CLAA, the other to a CVL.

I, personally, found that to be the simplest way of dealing with this, rather than forcing it to be finished as a CL and then converted. Let the hull be built and then when it came time to decide what to put on the deck ( guns, bridge etc or flight deck/hangars ) let the conversion take care of it.

[Local Yokel]

The attraction of this approach is that you don't have to introduce crippled devices to force the player to decide what final form the ship is to take, which is good. However, the image below shows that in the case of my proposed BB to CV conversion for Shinano, it is the game rather than the mod designer that calculates the damage values the ship will sustain in the conversion. Presumably that's not much of a problem, since I assume that all such damage is going to be repaired during the period of conversion (in this case 244 days). But what about crew experience, which I believe is in part type-dependent? Since there's no such thing as a barebones hull in the game, I assume you still have to choose a ship type for the hull, and that this will play a part in determining crew experience unless you specify values for this explicitly - which I'm trying to avoid.

[Nemo121]

Well experience is a global modifier for ships right? IOW there isn't air experience or ASW experience etc. Just day or night experience.

So, so long as the ship is set as a warship it should have the right experience shouldn't it? I'm not certain, hence the question... As far as I know though experience is determined by year and whether or not it is a warship. Anyone?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
I have long thought it a significant failure of WitP's design that it fails to afford the same degree of control over naval crew training/experience gain as the player enjoys over aircrew training. Going further than that, I would have liked to see the game include mechanisms for rewarding players who train groups of ships to work cooperatively, as I regard this as a significant factor in determining the effectiveness of a naval force. Unfortunately the game is what it is, so we're not going to see that. Rant over.

Actually, my friend, there is. For both of your concerns. I'll send you a pm explaining how it's done. It's pretty neat and I think you will appreciate the subtlety.

Ciao. J

[Local Yokel]

I have just judged Japanese warship experience levels in my scenario by quickly skimming through the range of values as at 1 Apr 1944, since I happened to have it temporarily set to open at this date. I assume that this can't be scenario-dependent since experience values have been assigned by the game not the database.

There seems to be a wide range of such experience values, extending from low 30's for subchasers to high 60's for big gunships. Although that's a bit alarming at first sight, I imagine you won't find many opponents who will be happy to let you build a hull at subchaser cost and then convert it into a carrier - so instead the barebones hull will be one that can be credibly adapted to each of the conversions you have in mind.

In that case things aren't so bad. If you designate your hull as being a cruiser and pay the construction cost appropriate for that, it seems likely to enter service with a crew experience level in the upper sixties (night or day). Had you designated it a carrier the experience level would, I think, have averaged out around 62. Converting a 'carrier hull' to a cruiser is therefore likely to leave the conversion at an experience disadvantage relative to your other cruisers (disregarding experience gains in game). Converting a 'cruiser hull' to a carrier will likely give you a carrier with above-average experience, although you hope that extra experience isn't going to be tested in a surface fight! It might, though, assist the carrier in damage control after it has taken a hit.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
I have long thought it a significant failure of WitP's design that it fails to afford the same degree of control over naval crew training/experience gain as the player enjoys over aircrew training. Going further than that, I would have liked to see the game include mechanisms for rewarding players who train groups of ships to work cooperatively, as I regard this as a significant factor in determining the effectiveness of a naval force. Unfortunately the game is what it is, so we're not going to see that. Rant over.

Actually, my friend, there is. For both of your concerns. I'll send you a pm explaining how it's done. It's pretty neat and I think you will appreciate the subtlety.

Ciao. J

There is? Even for groups of ships? That's brilliant - can't wait to learn more!

So far as practicable I pay quite a lot of attention to force composition and maintaining the unity of my cruiser sentai and destroyer divisions. If I am getting a combat bonus because my ships are used to working togther then that's great news.

It also raises interesting implications for the development of effective ASW teams, even if I can't set up a game equivalent of the Terror of Tobermory. [8D]

[inqistor]

M'kay, what was the deal with Yamato guns? I have found nothing about problems.
Was ship in yard all the time then, or was she in active duty?

Actually Wikipedia writes:

As war loomed, priority was given to accelerating military construction. On 16 December—months ahead of schedule—the battleship was formally commissioned at Kure.

which would suggest that ship was accelerated,
and if it was accelerated, she should be also accelerated in-game, so current date is date with acceleration, and real commission time would be 26 December.


Now, as for special Shinano mission:
It was supposed to have space for 139 planes, for rearming, and repair them. In-game planes can not take ordnance to another CV, so that could mean 139 torpedoes in pool for Shinano, however that would defeat the purpose of it, as with that number of torpedoes, it will be main assault ship, not auxiliary.

And greatest problem, for Shinano, is conversion of its Air Groups. Seeing, how it is done for CSs, it seems, the only option is to have separate Float Plane unit, for every future CV unit , which Shinano should have. That also indicates, that pre-conversion HULL should NOT be CV, as its airgroups would overflow with pilots, if downgraded to few Float Planes, after conversion to BB.

I would like to point you to my earlier experiment on this topic.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

M'kay, what was the deal with Yamato guns? I have found nothing about problems.
Was ship in yard all the time then, or was she in active duty?

Actually Wikipedia writes:

As war loomed, priority was given to accelerating military construction. On 16 December—months ahead of schedule—the battleship was formally commissioned at Kure.

which would suggest that ship was accelerated,
and if it was accelerated, she should be also accelerated in-game, so current date is date with acceleration, and real commission time would be 26 December.

Some information about Yamato's initial gunnery problems can be found in her TROM on the Combined Fleet site. This also refers to 'final fitting out' in the period between 21 Dec 1941 and 10 Feb 1942.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Now, as for special Shinano mission:
It was supposed to have space for 139 planes, for rearming, and repair them. In-game planes can not take ordnance to another CV, so that could mean 139 torpedoes in pool for Shinano, however that would defeat the purpose of it, as with that number of torpedoes, it will be main assault ship, not auxiliary.

And greatest problem, for Shinano, is conversion of its Air Groups. Seeing, how it is done for CSs, it seems, the only option is to have separate Float Plane unit, for every future CV unit , which Shinano should have. That also indicates, that pre-conversion HULL should NOT be CV, as its airgroups would overflow with pilots, if downgraded to few Float Planes, after conversion to BB.

I would like to point you to my earlier experiment on this topic.

I have a table of IJN Carrier ordnance loads which indicates that Shinano's torpedo loadout was only 36, but I can't speak as to the provenance of this data. I have reservations about its accuracy because the chart suggests an inventory of bombs to be carried by the ship that is somewhat at odds with its projected role as a re-arming platform operating within range of enemy CV's, through which more vulnerable Japanese carriers stage their airgroups and thus attempt to remain beyond the range of enemy retaliation.

It seems to me an enormous waste of Japanese resources to regard Shinano as nothing more than a carrier of replenishment aircraft, but I suppose one might include it as a conversion option. Since the 'fortress carrier' concept I've described is not reproducible in the game, I see no alternative to treating Shinano as a weak strike carrier. If you can find a way to reproduce her intended employment, go for it!

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

ORIGINAL: inqistor

M'kay, what was the deal with Yamato guns? I have found nothing about problems.
Was ship in yard all the time then, or was she in active duty?

Actually Wikipedia writes:

As war loomed, priority was given to accelerating military construction. On 16 December—months ahead of schedule—the battleship was formally commissioned at Kure.

which would suggest that ship was accelerated,
and if it was accelerated, she should be also accelerated in-game, so current date is date with acceleration, and real commission time would be 26 December.

Some information about Yamato's initial gunnery problems can be found in her TROM on the Combined Fleet site. This also refers to 'final fitting out' in the period between 21 Dec 1941 and 10 Feb 1942.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Now, as for special Shinano mission:
It was supposed to have space for 139 planes, for rearming, and repair them. In-game planes can not take ordnance to another CV, so that could mean 139 torpedoes in pool for Shinano, however that would defeat the purpose of it, as with that number of torpedoes, it will be main assault ship, not auxiliary.

And greatest problem, for Shinano, is conversion of its Air Groups. Seeing, how it is done for CSs, it seems, the only option is to have separate Float Plane unit, for every future CV unit , which Shinano should have. That also indicates, that pre-conversion HULL should NOT be CV, as its airgroups would overflow with pilots, if downgraded to few Float Planes, after conversion to BB.

I would like to point you to my earlier experiment on this topic.

I have a table of IJN Carrier ordnance loads which indicates that Shinano's torpedo loadout was only 36, but I can't speak as to the provenance of this data. I have reservations about its accuracy because the chart suggests an inventory of bombs to be carried by the ship that is somewhat at odds with its projected role as a re-arming platform operating within range of enemy CV's, through which more vulnerable Japanese carriers stage their airgroups and thus attempt to remain beyond the range of enemy retaliation.

It seems to me an enormous waste of Japanese resources to regard Shinano as nothing more than a carrier of replenishment aircraft, but I suppose one might include it as a conversion option. Since the 'fortress carrier' concept I've described is not reproducible in the game, I see no alternative to treating Shinano as a weak strike carrier. If you can find a way to reproduce her intended employment, go for it!

IIRC, didn't Shinano have a large portion of its hangar space dedicated to machine shops and repair facilities. While it could carry 147 A/C, I believe those not in the wing were actually crated replacements and spare parts, with Shinano herself only having the 47 plane air wing for 'self defense'. I'm asking for a confirmation of my data and not arguing against how you have it in your mod.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
I have long thought it a significant failure of WitP's design that it fails to afford the same degree of control over naval crew training/experience gain as the player enjoys over aircrew training. Going further than that, I would have liked to see the game include mechanisms for rewarding players who train groups of ships to work cooperatively, as I regard this as a significant factor in determining the effectiveness of a naval force. Unfortunately the game is what it is, so we're not going to see that. Rant over.

Actually, my friend, there is. For both of your concerns. I'll send you a pm explaining how it's done. It's pretty neat and I think you will appreciate the subtlety.

Ciao. J

There is? Even for groups of ships? That's brilliant - can't wait to learn more!

So far as practicable I pay quite a lot of attention to force composition and maintaining the unity of my cruiser sentai and destroyer divisions. If I am getting a combat bonus because my ships are used to working togther then that's great news.

It also raises interesting implications for the development of effective ASW teams, even if I can't set up a game equivalent of the Terror of Tobermory. [8D]

When you do get the info, please repost it here so the rest of us might learn a trick or two about how the game works.

[JWE]

LY was concerned that potential opponents might think he had 'insider' information. He received no unauthorized disclosures; just detail descriptions that any good mathematician with an appropriate test bed could figure our for themselves, given the desire and the time. This is a synopsis.

Reaction to a sub and the number of ships having a chance at making contact is governed by the TF leader’s stats (skill, aggression, etc..). Each ship that gets a chance to contact will fail or succeed based on its own skipper’s stats. Aggression is modified a bit depending on the kind of TF and the kind of combat. ASW ships in an ASW TF contacting a sub, will get full reaction marks. A SurfCom TF in contact with a sub might get some reaction minuses, for example.

When a ship attacks, the better the crew experience, the better the attack profile used. This is the number of ASW weapon slots that shoot (sometimes, not all ASW weapon slots are used), the number of attacks the ship makes, and the % chance of maintaining contact after each attack. Much like the split tube thing, if all DC are concentrated in one device slot, the number of ASW weapons used will equal the Num value in the slot (i.e., maybe 6 or 8). If the DCs are split out into multiple Device slots (left, right, stern, front, etc..) each slot has a chance to shoot (or not), depending on crew experience. The chance to hit with “each” slot, for “each” pass, is also a function of crew experience. So, more passes (attacks) by more weapons (slots) by more ships ups the aggregate odds considerably.

There is a chance of losing contact after each pass by each ship. The sub gets a chance to evade. Again depends on crew experience and leader stats. If you have 3 superior ships and 1 dolt, the dolt could lose the contact, and the sub evades. However, if all the ships have similar (high) crew experience and similarly skilled skippers, the chance of an early termination is significantly reduced. One might think of exp as a “base” % chance to do something. Base chances are modified in different ways in each step, but a base is a base. A 70 exp crew might have a “base” 70% chance of making multiple attacks, using every weapon slot, hitting with a weapon slot, and maintaining contact. A 40 exp crew will experience the same modifications but start with a much lower base and likely lose it for everybody else. Good old successive probability mathematics.

There is no specific benefit for specific ships working together, but a task group that gains experience together receives a synergistic benefit by its uniformity. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Although the benefit does not apply to specific ships, it does make it important to find replacements for damaged TF members that have leader and experience values that are very similar to the others in order to maintain the synergy; good with good aggregates to superior, good with mediocre aggregates to mediocre, mediocre with mediocre aggregates to poor.

[Shark7]

So this begs the questions: Is there any way other than actual combat experience to help 'train up' a ships crew? IE I've seen 'shakedown cruises' mentioned, but what effect do these actually have on improving a ships fighting capabilities?

[JWE]

So this compels the answers: someone with decent math skills and an appropriate test bed can figure it out. [;)]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JWE

LY was concerned that potential opponents might think he had 'insider' information. He received no unauthorized disclosures; just detail descriptions that any good mathematician with an appropriate test bed could figure our for themselves, given the desire and the time. This is a synopsis.

Reaction to a sub and the number of ships having a chance at making contact is governed by the TF leader’s stats (skill, aggression, etc..). Each ship that gets a chance to contact will fail or succeed based on its own skipper’s stats. Aggression is modified a bit depending on the kind of TF and the kind of combat. ASW ships in an ASW TF contacting a sub, will get full reaction marks. A SurfCom TF in contact with a sub might get some reaction minuses, for example.

When a ship attacks, the better the crew experience, the better the attack profile used. This is the number of ASW weapon slots that shoot (sometimes, not all ASW weapon slots are used), the number of attacks the ship makes, and the % chance of maintaining contact after each attack. Much like the split tube thing, if all DC are concentrated in one device slot, the number of ASW weapons used will equal the Num value in the slot (i.e., maybe 6 or 8). If the DCs are split out into multiple Device slots (left, right, stern, front, etc..) each slot has a chance to shoot (or not), depending on crew experience. The chance to hit with “each” slot, for “each” pass, is also a function of crew experience. So, more passes (attacks) by more weapons (slots) by more ships ups the aggregate odds considerably.

There is a chance of losing contact after each pass by each ship. The sub gets a chance to evade. Again depends on crew experience and leader stats. If you have 3 superior ships and 1 dolt, the dolt could lose the contact, and the sub evades. However, if all the ships have similar (high) crew experience and similarly skilled skippers, the chance of an early termination is significantly reduced. One might think of exp as a “base” % chance to do something. Base chances are modified in different ways in each step, but a base is a base. A 70 exp crew might have a “base” 70% chance of making multiple attacks, using every weapon slot, hitting with a weapon slot, and maintaining contact. A 40 exp crew will experience the same modifications but start with a much lower base and likely lose it for everybody else. Good old successive probability mathematics.

There is no specific benefit for specific ships working together, but a task group that gains experience together receives a synergistic benefit by its uniformity. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Although the benefit does not apply to specific ships, it does make it important to find replacements for damaged TF members that have leader and experience values that are very similar to the others in order to maintain the synergy; good with good aggregates to superior, good with mediocre aggregates to mediocre, mediocre with mediocre aggregates to poor.

Sounds like a variant on Gibbs sampling (MCMC). There's also something akin to Bayesian survival analysis. Let me sleep on it.

See this posting. It develops a comment by Vernor Vinge discussed here.