Comprehensive WitP ENG unit testing...

[Mr.Frag]

I don't get you ...

You post first that it takes 1 day for 1800 engineers to go from a size 7 -> 8

You throw 1800 engineers at a size 6 -> 7 and it takes 9 days and you call that a massive acceleration?

Whats massive about it? According to your own numbers, it shouldn't have even taken a single day if it had not been over the SPS value.

I'm confused.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I don't get you ...

You post first that it takes 1 day for 1800 engineers to go from a size 7 -> 8

You throw 1800 engineers at a size 6 -> 7 and it takes 9 days and you call that a massive acceleration?

Whats massive about it? According to your own numbers, it shouldn't have even taken a single day if it had not been over the SPS value.

I'm confused.

You have to look at overall picture... it is _EXTREME_ acceleration unfortunately...

My test show that _MASSIVE_ base can be build (and with both Airbase and Port 3+ over SPS) in very very short time which not OK...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, And to compare what the USA actually did run a second test after editing the airfield back to 0 (4)

Your wish is my command Russelll... [;)]


Tinian is SPS 1 (Port) - 4 (Airbase) and was set to 0 - 0.

I build it from there to 4 - 7 (i.e. MAX that it can reach).


I used 10 SeaBee battalions.

Since 1 SeaBee in WitP is 30 ENG squads + 30 ENG vehicles equaling 180 ENG squads equivalents altogether it means that 10 Battalions thus are 1800 ENG squads equivalents.


I build both Port and Airbase in parallel.


Port size:

0 turns = Port 0
2 turns = Port 1
5 turns = Port 2
14 turns = Port 3
25 turns = Port 4 (MAX reached - expansion stopped)


Airbase size:

0 turns = Airbase 0
2 turns = Airbase 1
3 turns = Airbase 2
6 turns = Airbase 3
8 turns = Airbase 4
15 turns = Airbase 5
30 turns = Airbase 6
39 turns = Airbase 7 (MAX reached - expansion stopped)


Very very fast... way to fast...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Mr.Frag]

You have to look at overall picture... it is _EXTREME_ acceleration unfortunately...

Nope, don't go there. I don't have to look at the overall picture without including the build rates for overbuilding SPS. It is an incomplete picture without that part of the puzzle.

Extreme accelleration is a conclusion based on a infinite number of engineers being thrown at the task. Separate your conclusions as to there being a problem (building too fast) from the actual data. The data itself will lead to the conclusions without help.

Not trying to be difficult, but calculating where to place a cap requires the complete picture being applied against all factors. I don't advocate a change unless the change is the *right* change. Right now, I have incomplete data to base the change on. Fill in the blanks so I can turn around and then advocate the *right* cap which is your end goal. [;)]

The task at hand is calculating the speed of engineers to overbuild by 1, by 2, by 3. You have already covered the non-overbuild values.

If you come back and say overbuilding requires:

Size 4->5 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000833 (1/1200) of object *and* x2, x3, x4 if over SPS (etc) then it is a simple matter to say we need a cap of 750 eng units or 500 end units etc.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Nope, don't go there. I don't have to look at the overall picture without including the build rates for overbuilding SPS. It is an incomplete picture without that part of the puzzle.

Extreme accelleration is a conclusion based on a infinite number of engineers being thrown at the task. Separate your conclusions as to there being a problem (building too fast) from the actual data. The data itself will lead to the conclusions without help.

Not trying to be difficult, but calculating where to place a cap requires the complete picture being applied against all factors. I don't advocate a change unless the change is the *right* change. Right now, I have incomplete data to base the change on. Fill in the blanks so I can turn around and then advocate the *right* cap which is your end goal. [;)]

The task at hand is calculating the speed of engineers to overbuild by 1, by 2, by 3. You have already covered the non-overbuild values.

If you come back and say overbuilding requires:

Size 4->5 = each ENG squad constructs 0.000833 (1/1200) of object *and* x2, x3, x4 if over SPS (etc) then it is a simple matter to say we need a cap of 750 eng units or 500 end units etc.

I think it will be extremely hard for me to calculate the formula for building when over SPS because it is not "linear" (i.e. it depends on SPS value and how much over SPS value you build - thus, for example, building port to 4 when SPS is 2 is not the same as building port to 6 when SPS is 4).

The below SPS was rather easy to discover and calculate though...

Do you think you can possibly ask developers some day about formula (I am 100% sure my below SPS formula is 100% accurate)?


Nonetheless you simply can't deny the facts I discovered:

Tinian was historically build in 1 year (Aug 1944 - Aug 1945) and I, using same number of ENG units, accomplished the same task in 1 month in WitP game.

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that WitP (and UV) construction speeds are at least 10x over accelerated...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Mr.Frag]

Nonetheless you simply can't deny the facts I discovered:

I'm not denying the facts at all, just want all the facts before I go propose a cap so I know all the implications.

I would hate to go propose something that *shafts* the Allies who invented the very concept of *insta* basing with their SeaBee units.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Tinian was historically build in 1 year (Aug 1944 - Aug 1945) and I, using same number of ENG units, accomplished the same task in 1 month in WitP game.

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that WitP (and UV) construction speeds are at least 10x over accelerated...


Leo "Apollo11"

Actually, 1 month versus 1 year means 12x, not 10x.

[Mr.Frag]

Tinian was historically build in 1 year (Aug 1944 - Aug 1945)

Thats a little bit of a lost leader ... Yes, construction of the base went on for that time, but the actual time spent to go from nothing to B-29's flying was 5 months, not a year.

If the base was not B-29 ready, Japan would not have been subject to B-29 raids until Sep 45. We know that is obviously not the case.

[mogami]

Hi, The Base had 4x runways operational (hard surface) for B-By Jan 1945. I have to find out the order Bomb Groups deployed to Tinian but the 6th begane flying from there in Jan 1945. There is a photo on the internet of B-29 on runway (unpaved) when only 3 runways had as yet been laid out. (Tinians north field had 4 runways when complete.)
Actually I think Tinian has been made too small. (max size 7) But it was never something I worried about becasue having the Japanese build it larger was more silly then making it to small for USA. In fact I think all bases should be minus 2 in max size for Japanese or +2 in max size for USA.

[Mr.Frag]

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

Hmm, interesting thought ...

Perhaps *only* Seabee units can overbuild beyond the 3x sps? That would bring in the Allied advantage yet confine it to the specialty boys.

[Xargun]

If you want to modify building, just modify the amount of completion an IJA / IJN engineer does vs an American engineer... Same with the Brits and OZ engineers... There's not that many usable bases for the japanese to begin with and if you lower the max size, then why have the Marshalls in the game at all as only Kwajelein would be worth anything.

If modifying of engineers or bases become a necessity, I think modify how fast they build NEW (not repair, only build new) facilities should be changed instead.. Make the US engineers better than anyone else... Or make a new type of Engineering unit for the Seabee units and give them a bonus... Not all engineers are the same..

Xargun

[mogami]

Hi, Leo Tinian had to be considered a size 7 by Feb 1945 because the first bombing mission from there occured then.
"In January of 1945, the 313th Bombardment Wing (6th, 9th, 504th, and 505th Bombardment Groups) under the command of Brig Gen John H. Davies took over the newly-built North Field on Tinian. They took part in a high-altitude daylight raid on Kobe on February 4. "

So it required the Seebees From Aug to Jan to go from 0 to 7. (5 months)

Also damage the airfield 100 percent before you begin. I don't think you are able to expand damaged airfields.

[Zeta16]

Why don't they just change the Marianas to start from zero when the US takes them. Did you just say that US bulit fields from a new instead of using the Japanese ones. It seems like this could slove some of the problems.

[mogami]

Hi Zeta. Well the US built new runways they did use a lot of the existing Japanese support buildings.

[Zeta16]

Just seeing if we could make some people happy. It really doesn't matter once the US takes those islands anyways.

[mogami]

Hi, My Point of view as Japan is not to let the enemy have those bases. I build them myself to use in defending them. Even if it required 6 months to get them ready the Allies have time if they take the bases in mid 1944.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Tinian was historically build in 1 year (Aug 1944 - Aug 1945)

Thats a little bit of a lost leader ... Yes, construction of the base went on for that time, but the actual time spent to go from nothing to B-29's flying was 5 months, not a year.

If the base was not B-29 ready, Japan would not have been subject to B-29 raids until Sep 45. We know that is obviously not the case.

He's also making some other assumptions. The Island has to be siezed by troops, then
have both the supply and the engineer units landed on it before construction can begin.
Tinian reached Lvl 7 (in game turns) by January of 1945 when major raids began launch-
ing from it. By the end of the war, the whole Island was one enormous airbase com-
plex far larger than the Japanese ever built anywhere or needed too---I don't think the
Game even has a way of expressing the job done on Tinian. (lvl 12?)

[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.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Leo Tinian had to be considered a size 7 by Feb 1945 because the first bombing mission from there occured then.
"In January of 1945, the 313th Bombardment Wing (6th, 9th, 504th, and 505th Bombardment Groups) under the command of Brig Gen John H. Davies took over the newly-built North Field on Tinian. They took part in a high-altitude daylight raid on Kobe on February 4. "

So it required the Seebees From Aug to Jan to go from 0 to 7. (5 months)

Also damage the airfield 100 percent before you begin. I don't think you are able to expand damaged airfields.

The airfield damage would add MAX 1-2 days and would not significantly decrease speed of construction at all.

OK... so if we say that historically US SeaBees needed 5 months then the coclusion is that speed of construction is 5x accelerated (i.e. 5x faster than it should be)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[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.