#### OFFICIAL ADMIRAL's EDITION AAR ####

[rjopel]

WOW
 
COOL
 
[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

[Local Yokel]

This is really interesting stuff - thank you very much.

My first reactions were that it will supply an incentive to expand ports that is currently absent, and that it would make ammunition replenishment much more challenging. On reflection, I'm not so sure.

At present, in the absence of a suitable tender, a player needs a size 8 port to replenish torpedoes (both for submarines and surface ships). Now it looks as though this requirement is relaxed to a size 7 port. That suggests there is a substantial incentive to expand a number of ports that could never previously have functioned as torpedo reload points unless a tender was present. It seems that much may turn on standard potential sizes for ports, and how much extra effort will be required to expand to each successive size. Clearly expansion from size 6 to size 7 massively enhances a port's potential.

If port SPS's in CHS are anything to go by, port expansion to the 'magic value 7' raises interesting possibilities - e.g. Rabaul and Noumea would qualify, but Suva would not. Townsville will, Darwin won't. Previously none of these could have attained this magic value in CHS.

John's table also suggests that cruisers will be able to reload torpedoes in a port where an AE is present. Previously an AD was required. That introduces a significantly greater degree of flexibility into forward fleet logistics (well, for the Japanese and the RN at least - oh, and the Omaha CL's too I suppose). The way I read it, an AD is still going to be needed to replenish destroyers' torpedo loads; is that correct?

One thing I'm not clear about is how the threshold requirement can be met by tenders. If capacities of AE's are the same as in CHS then the individual Japanese AE's in the Kashino class and Mamiya satisfy it for Type 93 replenishment, whilst the Kinesaki class don't. Some of the Allied AD's don't have a capacity in CHS, so no doubt they'll be given one in Admiral's Edition. What I'm wondering is whether the threshold requirements can be met by aggregating the capacities of multiple AE's - i.e. would the presence of 2 Kinesaki's make it possible for cruisers to reload their Type 93 banks, for example? Logically, if you can tot up available Naval Support squads to get across the threshold, you ought to be able to do the same with tender capacities.

On the one hand it looks as though fleet replenishment has been made more difficult, but on the other the means for accomplishing it seem to have been extended. It's great news if this means that players will be properly rewarded by effective management of their fleet logistics.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: JWE

There’s a table in the manual. Looks like this. Top row is the native Port Rearm value, by port size. 1st column is the weapon, 2nd column is the rearm cost. Please note ONLY SOME weapons will be included. For the rest, please think a bit and interpolate.

Next columns are whether a port of given size can do the deed (y) or, if not, how many Naval Support squads you have to have to rearm that weapon. Last column is what kinds of tenders are appropriate to rearm that weapon (presuming, of course, that the tender has “capacity” equal to or greater than the weapon rearm cost.

Port-7 can do just about anything. Port-6 begins to have hefty NavSup requirements for BB guns. Smaller ports can handle smaller guns. Naval Support squads are very important. Tenders are very important. Your Base Forces are now highly useful (and fragile) and making up an efficient fleet train becomes mandatory

This is just a sample – it just shows SOME guns, SOME torps and sorties. DCs, mines, etc.. work the same way. No warranty, things might have to be adjusted, but this is pretty close.

And they throw in the kitchen sink... Awesome job on the manual AE team! [&o][&o][&o]

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Oh, yeah, carrier stuff. There are now two devices in the weapon slots; sorties (just like WiTP-1) and new torpedo sorties (at least for those carriers with a/g capable of them). When you fly a sortie, you consume a sortie point. When you are out of sortie points, you don’t fly.

Sorties also have a rearm cost. Sorties cost 500 points. Torp sorties cost 1500 points. You have to still follow the rules and find a port with the proper threshold number, or an AKE or an AE (with the proper capacity number). Once you do, you consume supply in the same manner as other ammo: [# of sorties x (500 or 1500)]/2000 = supply consumption in tons.

From the look of it, these sortie points are somewhat like different types of magazine stowage. Does this mean that you can top up the two types separately? E.g can you choose to load non-torpedo ordnance at a port where you can meet that threshold, but not the torpedo loading threshold? Indeed, can you choose to load one but not the other? Presumably, since these take up different weapon slots, they remain completely distinct from each other.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
This is really interesting stuff - thank you very much.

My first reactions were that it will supply an incentive to expand ports that is currently absent, and that it would make ammunition replenishment much more challenging. On reflection, I'm not so sure.

At present, in the absence of a suitable tender, a player needs a size 8 port to replenish torpedoes (both for submarines and surface ships). Now it looks as though this requirement is relaxed to a size 7 port. That suggests there is a substantial incentive to expand a number of ports that could never previously have functioned as torpedo reload points unless a tender was present. It seems that much may turn on standard potential sizes for ports, and how much extra effort will be required to expand to each successive size. Clearly expansion from size 6 to size 7 massively enhances a port's potential.

If port SPS's in CHS are anything to go by, port expansion to the 'magic value 7' raises interesting possibilities - e.g. Rabaul and Noumea would qualify, but Suva would not. Townsville will, Darwin won't. Previously none of these could have attained this magic value in CHS.

John's table also suggests that cruisers will be able to reload torpedoes in a port where an AE is present. Previously an AD was required. That introduces a significantly greater degree of flexibility into forward fleet logistics (well, for the Japanese and the RN at least - oh, and the Omaha CL's too I suppose). The way I read it, an AD is still going to be needed to replenish destroyers' torpedo loads; is that correct?

One thing I'm not clear about is how the threshold requirement can be met by tenders. If capacities of AE's are the same as in CHS then the individual Japanese AE's in the Kashino class and Mamiya satisfy it for Type 93 replenishment, whilst the Kinesaki class don't. Some of the Allied AD's don't have a capacity in CHS, so no doubt they'll be given one in Admiral's Edition. What I'm wondering is whether the threshold requirements can be met by aggregating the capacities of multiple AE's - i.e. would the presence of 2 Kinesaki's make it possible for cruisers to reload their Type 93 banks, for example? Logically, if you can tot up available Naval Support squads to get across the threshold, you ought to be able to do the same with tender capacities.

On the one hand it looks as though fleet replenishment has been made more difficult, but on the other the means for accomplishing it seem to have been extended. It's great news if this means that players will be properly rewarded by effective management of their fleet logistics.

Mr. Yokel; It is a pure pleasure to respond to questions like these. To begin, it’s very, very different from CHS.

Yes, there is an incentive to expand ports. Also, the basis port numbers were adjusted to account for this, so there’s a few more that can’t get to a 7, so there is additional incentive to deploy Naval Support (i.e., make a Naval Base) in places where engineer units are lacking or those ports that just can’t get there from here. Planning and flexibility is the key here.

A level-7 has significantly more capability than a level-6, in many more ways than just rearm capability. So the number of ports that can get to a 7 are substantially fewer, and for those that can, it will take substantially more effort to do so.

Any surface ship may load torpedoes from an AKE/AE. Cruisers and DDs (and DD similar ships, like DEs, Es, etc..) may also load torps from an AD. PTs (and MTBs, MLs, HTMLs) may also load torps from an AGP. Only subs may load torps from an AS.

Tenders have a “cargo capacity” data field that is used to determine rearm. The code first checks the data field to see if it’s big enough to satisfy the threshold requirement (of course it will be – pretty silly if it wasn’t). Once it passes this first check, the supply cost, to rearm, is taken from the cargo capacity – so it’s a diminishing quantity and requires a trip to a base having supply to re-stock, as it were.

Further, the number of ships that can convert to tenders of one form or another have been drastically reduced. In our testing, we’re seeing a full 80%, or more, of the Japanese merchant fleet (after the usual Army/Navy requisitions) required to move the necessary resources, oil, supply. Converting a merchie to a tender is a one-way trip, so the merchie fleet forever loses that hull’s carrying capacity. Additionally, only a very, very select few of the most highly valued and capable merchies ‘may’ convert to a select number of specific tender types.

Don’t think replenishment is more difficult, per se, just that replenishment locations are much more limited. However, players will indeed be properly rewarded by effective management of Base Construction and Naval Support assets, and particularly the judicious development and use of their fleet logistical support train.

Ciao. John

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
From the look of it, these sortie points are somewhat like different types of magazine stowage. Does this mean that you can top up the two types separately? E.g can you choose to load non-torpedo ordnance at a port where you can meet that threshold, but not the torpedo loading threshold? Indeed, can you choose to load one but not the other? Presumably, since these take up different weapon slots, they remain completely distinct from each other.

That is an excellent question.

A port (if it has the supply) will rearm all weapons up to its rearm threshold. For example, a CV TF with Enterprise, SoDak, Pensacola, and DesDiv, visiting a straight forward port-6 (no NavSup, no tenders, base rearm = 700) is able to rearm the Pensacola, the secondaries on SoDak, the guns of the DesDiv (but not the torps), and the guns and the nominal sorties of the Enterprise (not the torp sorties).

It’s the “biggest that can fit” on a “first come” basis. Threshold is indeed a threshold; below threshold is fine (presuming supply), above threshold is not allowed.

Unfortunately, player is not given a choice when in a fully capable port. Can't choose to just load this and not that. That would have been really hard to implement.

Ciao. John

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
What I'm wondering is whether the threshold requirements can be met by aggregating the capacities of multiple AE's - i.e. would the presence of 2 Kinesaki's make it possible for cruisers to reload their Type 93 banks, for example? Logically, if you can tot up available Naval Support squads to get across the threshold, you ought to be able to do the same with tender capacities.

Sorry John, missed this one on the first pass. No, sir, aggregation is not allowed. The code would be a bitch, and taking it to its logical conclusion, it would let a gazillion rowboats rearm 7th fleet.

We tried to keep all the different utilities of all the different data fields in mind when we populated them. Quite the pita, if I may say so. But we vetted, re-vetted, and vetted yet again, every time an issue came up. There may be blivets that will be found on release, but if there are, we’ll fix them.

As to Kinesaki/Sunosaki (and Ashizuri), the way ship classes are defined only allows them to have a single “type”. As such, we made these AOs. That means that although they have a “cargo capacity”, they can’t function as a surface ship tender. It’s only one, or t’other – can’t be both (or either). I know it was different IRL, but we just can’t put that degree of graininess into the code; especially for such a very limited number of ships.

Sigh. Ciao. John

[Dili]

JWE is the "rearm cost" or round weight what makes a gun have that limitations? And if so is that available to change in editor? You state here that editor is still evolving: tm.asp?m=2066679&mpage=1&key=# the table shows at right some logistic/comsumption values, unclear if they can be changed or are device weight compounded.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Dili
JWE is the "rearm cost" or round weight what makes a gun have that limitations? And if so is that available to change in editor? You state here that editor is still evolving: tm.asp?m=2066679&mpage=1&key=# the table shows at right some logistic/comsumption values, unclear if they can be changed or are device weight compounded.

As in WiTP-1, ammo rearm cost is 2 x Effect. As in WiTP-1, DCs, mines, and torps have rearm cost = loadcost. We have adjusted DC, mine and torp loadcosts to reflect (substantially) 2 x Effect (with some mathematical adjustments).

Loadcost and Effect are editor values and, as such, are adjustable. Each of these values are used in a multiplicity of different routines, so adjusting them for a personal preference, in one respect, will positively screw them up in the other 3 – 5 routines.

Unless you know exactly how everything affects everything, my suggestion is … don’t

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Dili
JWE is the "rearm cost" or round weight what makes a gun have that limitations? And if so is that available to change in editor? You state here that editor is still evolving: tm.asp?m=2066679&mpage=1&key=# the table shows at right some logistic/comsumption values, unclear if they can be changed or are device weight compounded.

As in WiTP-1, ammo rearm cost is 2 x Effect. As in WiTP-1, DCs, mines, and torps have rearm cost = loadcost. We have adjusted DC, mine and torp loadcosts to reflect (substantially) 2 x Effect (with some mathematical adjustments).

Loadcost and Effect are editor values and, as such, are adjustable. Each of these values are used in a multiplicity of different routines, so adjusting them for a personal preference, in one respect, will positively screw them up in the other 3 – 5 routines.

Unless you know exactly how everything affects everything, my suggestion is … don’t

Did I just hear someone say el cid again's name? [:D]

[JWE]

Please be more circumspect with your comments. We do not allow personal attacks, and I do not wish this thread to be locked.

Thank you. John

[Dili]

Thanks JWE.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Please be more circumspect with your comments. We do not allow personal attacks, and I do not wish this thread to be locked.

Thank you. John

My apologies JWE. I didn't mean it as an attack. As soon as I saw the comment about messing with numbers I thought of RHS. RHS is pretty radical in messing with parameters. I figure el cid will probably be tackling the formulas first thing when he gets hold of AE. But I'll shut up from here. [:o]

[witpqs]

Also, to be fair, he undertook to do some things that weren't supported - or at least directly supported - by the engine. That made some messing around to empirically discover some things about the underlying formulae pretty mandatory.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Also, to be fair, he undertook to do some things that weren't supported - or at least directly supported - by the engine. That made some messing around to empirically discover some things about the underlying formulae pretty mandatory.

I will say, El cid again has been a wealth of knowledge for the community. He's answered many of my WITP editor questions in the absence of an official response. And he knows what he's doing. I figure if anyone starts tackling with any radical departure from the stock game it will be el cid.

[DuckofTindalos]

Not in the AE threads, please.

[erstad]

Once it passes this first check, the supply cost, to rearm, is taken from the cargo capacity – so it’s a diminishing quantity and requires a trip to a base having supply to re-stock, as it were.

What keeps the tenders from loading "supply" at the local port and continuing to rearm ships? Or can the tenders only reload now at an appropriately sized port?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: erstad

Once it passes this first check, the supply cost, to rearm, is taken from the cargo capacity – so it’s a diminishing quantity and requires a trip to a base having supply to re-stock, as it were.

What keeps the tenders from loading "supply" at the local port and continuing to rearm ships? Or can the tenders only reload now at an appropriately sized port?

Nothing keeps tenders from loading "supply" at any port where they can load, and having it magically turn into ammo. Just like WITP, supply is a many splendored thing.

The primary use of tenders (and ammo ships) is to load supply at a big port and take it to a smaller port where the tender can use it to rearm ships. The tender is just a middleman in the ship-rearms-from-port-supply process.

The CAPACITY of the tender/ammo ship controls the size of the weapons that it can rearm, just like port size does.

[Local Yokel]

Not sure if I have got the wrong end of the stick, but as I see it having a suitable tender on hand is an abstraction of having the specialised personnel and equipment 'required' for ordnance replenishment. If that's so, and if the tender's presence is what gets you over the threshold, then it looks as though that replenishment is then 'channelled' through the tender until its cargo capacity has been exhausted or you choose to reload it. If you have sufficient supplies at the base where the tender is located, I assume you can reload it locally. Proper pre-deployment of supply to advanced bases may make a big difference.

Obviously there may have been significant changes made both to ammunition ships' capacities and to gun effect values, but if they are anything like those in my current CHS game then using tenders to replenish battleship main battery magazines is going to be particularly ticklish. E.g. the Kashino's, with 3000 capacity, would be good to service any of the 14"-armed Japanese BB's (effect X 2=2970), but only Mamiya will have capacity to replenish the Nagato's. The Yamato's will have to go back to the likes of Truk or a maxed-out Rabaul PLUS some Naval Support [X(]. Draw your own conclusions for what's required to replenish Allied BB main batteries.

I can well imagine what a pita it was deal with the auxiliaries' differing capabilities. I know little about the Sunosaki class, but the Ashizuri's were an interesting multi-capability ship class. Jentschura indicates that both classes were intended for avgas transport, so I would have been inclined to treat them as AE's, particularly if the Ashizuri's could be given the RAS capability intended for them. But I ain't complaining.

[Dili]

Kashino had 10000 t displacement so the 3000t was an witp of what cargo could transport. Kashino was build to transport Yamato Turrets which were a couple thousand tons maybe as supply ship it had ability to supply 18" rounds.