Merchant Ships

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Incidentally, where in the editor do you tweak victory conditions?

Personally, I ignore the game's victory conditions, the players decide victory. Even auto victory can be handled by the players deciding it.

[Alfred]

Gentlemen,

I most definitely do not profess to have the detailed knowledge of the minutae of Japan's merchant fleet, as some of the contributors to this thread clearly have, but I really don't see why any fuss is being made.

This game is a big abstraction. I don't see how it could be otherwise. Personally I find JWE's solution of limiting the "ants" depicted in the game to be quite understandable, in fact desirable. So what if you dropped the threshold from 1000 GRT down to 400 GRT. Do you really think that would stop some from complaining that something has been left out. And what exactly is the benefit gained from extending the net from bulls ants down to Argentine fire ants ... more micromanageing plus the need to retest every other game design component to ensure nothing is broken by including more "ants". That is really going to go down well with the overwhelming majority of players who do not post in this sub forum and who are already overwhelmed with the existing game minutae.

Frankly I see not a skerrick of evidence adduced that JWE's solution restricts the viability of Japan in the game to less than the historical record.

Alfred

[Brady]

ORIGINAL: witpqs


As far as however easy it is perceived to be, that's a matter of victory conditions. A baseline scenario should be close to 'realistic', then mods take it from there (ala scenario #2).

Of course thats what were all realy talking about hear, realistic.

Presently the fealing is that its unrealistic for Japan to not be starved out at wars end.

I agree, if we sight history as an example.

Howeaver the why of that is whats interesting, The Japanese are using in game methods they did not use during the real war to thawrt the Allies in part preventing this.

More planes on ASW more Escorts actualy escorting exc. All things Japan could of done historicaly ,but the players doing.

Yet we are striving to make it so Japan cant do those things or at the very least make doing them irevelent in game terms.

Has anyone tested weather or not an actual campagine just like the one faught in WW2 would starve Japan? That is a game whear most ships are not escorted for the mid part of the war, very few planes are on ASW patrole and Japan totaly mismanages its Merchant fleat?

........................

Now on the flip side theirs an isue with the oveabundance of Allied suply and the fact its far to easy to mobalise and move Allied LCU's during the first 6 months to a year of the war, and an overabundance of shiping in general for allies, particulalry with regard again to the movement of troops.

As is normal for such isues aside from one posting, their as been no suport for this.

Obviously its not preceaved to be an isue by many, the reasion for that imo has less to do with fanboy'ism but more to do with a general lack of understanding of the whole picture, even down to very basic leveal of knowing what its like to play both sides of the game.

[witpqs]

I disagree with three things you said there. I do not believe the feeling is that Japan should be starved out by war's end. I do not believe that people are striving to make Japan's countermeasures irrelevant. I think you are ascribing false motives to other posters for their positions and/or suggestions.

Third, I do not believe it is too easy for the Allies to deploy troops during the first six months. The PP constraints alone are significant. Hindsight/scenario foreknowledge is both extremely significant and insurmountable. If the Allies are constrained even further during that period then there would be great ramifications to PBM's.

[JWE]

I will not take part in any discussion that includes Brady. Ever.

Accordingly, have fun, and good bye.

[Brady]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I disagree with three things you said there. I do not believe the feeling is that Japan should be starved out by war's end. I do not believe that people are striving to make Japan's countermeasures irrelevant. I think you are ascribing false motives to other posters for their positions and/or suggestions.

Third, I do not believe it is too easy for the Allies to deploy troops during the first six months. The PP constraints alone are significant. Hindsight/scenario foreknowledge is both extremely significant and insurmountable. If the Allies are constrained even further during that period then there would be great ramifications to PBM's.

I dont think their motives are false, I find them to be true beleavers.

Regarding the later point, this is a comon view, one I obviously disagree with, in part as its my opinion that the present situation is having dire consequences for PBEM games, one thats out of all preportion to the historical context.

[vettim89]

I'm with Brady on this issue. I think we do not see Japan players facing economic starvation in late 1944 and 1945 is a product in part (perhaps a large part?) of the fact that most Japan players devote considerable assets to ASW from the start and better manage their MS fleet. In essence I don't think we truly know if the amount of MS allocated to Japan is too much, too little, or just right based on the historical model because no one plays a truly historical game. That is actually the point isn't it? To refight the war in the PTO without the glaring mistakes made by both sides?

I think where the economic model fails in that it is too abstracted. As has been pointed out, there is a point of burden on the player that would become impractical as far as depth of detail goes; that said just having a generic resource that represents every thing from food to coal to iron to rubber to trace elements like tin makes life far easier for the AE player than the RL Japanese economic ministers. Tin is a very good example as most of that came from the SRA. Most Japan players import little if any resources from that region because they have plenty closer to Japan. Situations like that one make the MS problem much easier to deal with as the Japan player in AE.

Lastly, I think xAK and TK are far too rugged. If you read the war patrol reports of USN subs, most merchant ships took one or tw0\o torpedoes and sunk on the spot (often witnessed by the firing boat). Similarly, one 500 lb bomb was a problem for even large xAK and two usually meant curtains. Some sources (USSBS) claim that the number one cause of Japanese merchant sinkings was bombs not torpedoes. I

[treespider]

I found my old spreadsheet and did some rough scrubbing of numbers...

Mr. Brown did a fine job and there appears to be the appropriate level of tension on the merchant fleet vis-a-vis imports.

I suppose one could alter Res. Centers and industry requirements but not sure if the ends would justify the means...as the appropriate import strain is present assuming the numbers I used are accurate... 7700 Light Industry and 6890 Heavy industry in the home islands...

Overall home island resource production is low compared to real life ... however tweaking those numbers would also require a tweak in resource consumption by industry to keep the appropriate level of resources needed to be imported...in the end not worth the effort...except possibly as a private experiment.

I'm afraid the culprits likely lie elsewhere...efficency of use, convoys, ASW effectiveness, layover and refitting times, port delays, supply consumption etc...

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I found my old spreadsheet and did some rough scrubbing of numbers...

Mr. Brown did a fine job and there appears to be the appropriate level of tension on the merchant fleet vis-a-vis imports.

I suppose one could alter Res. Centers and industry requirements but not sure if the ends would justify the means...as the appropriate import strain is present assuming the numbers I used are accurate... 7700 Light Industry and 6890 Heavy industry in the home islands...

Overall home island resource production is low compared to real life ... however tweaking those numbers would also require a tweak in resource consumption by industry to keep the appropriate level of resources needed to be imported...in the end not worth the effort...except possibly as a private experiment.

I'm afraid the culprits likely lie elsewhere...efficency of use, convoys, ASW effectiveness, layover and refitting times, port delays, supply consumption etc...

One problem with that is that most players on the Japan side turn off most if not all the LI in the Home Islands as the HI produces all the supply they need. There actually may be the root of the problem.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: treespider

I found my old spreadsheet and did some rough scrubbing of numbers...

Mr. Brown did a fine job and there appears to be the appropriate level of tension on the merchant fleet vis-a-vis imports.

I suppose one could alter Res. Centers and industry requirements but not sure if the ends would justify the means...as the appropriate import strain is present assuming the numbers I used are accurate... 7700 Light Industry and 6890 Heavy industry in the home islands...

Overall home island resource production is low compared to real life ... however tweaking those numbers would also require a tweak in resource consumption by industry to keep the appropriate level of resources needed to be imported...in the end not worth the effort...except possibly as a private experiment.

I'm afraid the culprits likely lie elsewhere...efficency of use, convoys, ASW effectiveness, layover and refitting times, port delays, supply consumption etc...

One problem with that is that most players on the Japan side turn off most if not all the LI in the Home Islands as the HI produces all the supply they need. There actually may be the root of the problem.

How is this intended to work? One of the big problems Japan had was supply (in the broad sense) delivery.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Lastly, I think xAK and TK are far too rugged. If you read the war patrol reports of USN subs, most merchant ships took one or tw0\o torpedoes and sunk on the spot (often witnessed by the firing boat). Similarly, one 500 lb bomb was a problem for even large xAK and two usually meant curtains. Some sources (USSBS) claim that the number one cause of Japanese merchant sinkings was bombs not torpedoes. I

in AE we made merchants more vulnerable to damage vs. stock. Often one good bomb hit or torpedo hit is enough to cripple if not sink it. However on the con side.....the expanded map and smaller scale hexes leaves ALOT more ocean for large TF's to hide in. In the Joe/Nik game we had little to no success finding these large convoys with our subs and vs. our own merchants....thats the one area where the Ozzers are not kicking our arses. Just not seeing alot of subs hitting merchants. Part of the reason is the "mega convoy" tactic......you can after all put up to 100 ships in a single transport TF.

Patrol option helps for subs but its alot of work to set up a good sub picket and unlike real life....there are no real navigational choke points where IJ traffic used to get from the SRA to Japan. (such as the one off the PI's for Japanese tankers discovered in 43.)

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I'm with Brady on this issue. I think we do not see Japan players facing economic starvation in late 1944 and 1945 is a product in part (perhaps a large part?) of the fact that most Japan players devote considerable assets to ASW from the start and better manage their MS fleet. In essence I don't think we truly know if the amount of MS allocated to Japan is too much, too little, or just right based on the historical model because no one plays a truly historical game. That is actually the point isn't it? To refight the war in the PTO without the glaring mistakes made by both sides?

I concur that the IJ player can and should alter from history to get a better outcome (which is why the earlier comments - not yours - about restricting the Allies even more to history in the first six months are incongruent). A realistic question is whether the stress due to the need to deliver resources on the IJ merchant fleet is sufficient in-game to mirror the strain on it IRL. I don't know the answer. Brady is saying, as I understand it, that the question is invalid because those posing just want the Allies to be able to easily shut down the IJ economy. I have not seen such motives and I think the question is valid.

I also find the question of current air ASW potential performance to be valid and germane, not because current Air ASW performance relieves strain on the IJ merchant fleet, but because I believe it to be beyond what was possible with the technology at hand. As the game is intended to mimic IRL doctrine, we could add that is a limiter as well. BTW, I am not at all in favor of limiting the IJ from using army bombers for ASW, or otherwise restricting the IJ player's flexibility in ASW. I have also pointed out, both here and every time that I have mentioned it, that I strongly suspect the error (in air ASW) is due to too great returns from high pilot skill and that the same is true for the ground attack, airfield attack, and naval attack missions (and that port attack seems OK and air to air I believe is OK). Clearly those other missions have varying effects, quite apart from allowing Allied subs to become unrealistically uber. At certain points in the game the naval attack issue favors the IJ player, at other times it favors the Allied player, although I think it favors the Allied player more. The ground attack and airfield attack issues overwhelmingly favor the Allied player for the great majority of the game. So, when there have been discussions about air ASW, I have always included the whole package. Meaning that I feel that in several of the air missions (the ones just listed, sorry if I forgot some) the contribution from pilot skill above about 70 should be adjusted to be one of fiercely diminishing returns.

As I suspect you feel from reading your last post, I do not know if there is some answer to the question of whether - IRL - the Allies could have shut down the IJ economy with, if you'll pardon me putting it this way for RL, "best play" on each side. I just don't know. It surely depends on when such "best play" would be considered to commence, and how far afield it would be considered to have happened.

And while it is valid to try and get the tools of exploration to be better and better (e.g.'s more accurate ASW potential, more accurate ship lists, more accurate burdens upon those ships, etc. etc.) I am sure we will never have an actual solution to the question. Only bigger opinions. [;)][:D]

I think where the economic model fails in that it is too abstracted. As has been pointed out, there is a point of burden on the player that would become impractical as far as depth of detail goes; that said just having a generic resource that represents every thing from food to coal to iron to rubber to trace elements like tin makes life far easier for the AE player than the RL Japanese economic ministers. Tin is a very good example as most of that came from the SRA. Most Japan players import little if any resources from that region because they have plenty closer to Japan. Situations like that one make the MS problem much easier to deal with as the Japan player in AE.

Don't know what you mean by the MS problem. I agree that more detail would just be too much. Additional detail with supplies would have to be highly automated, like supplies from certain places considered to contain certain things and the whole mess kept track of behind the scenes by the computer - is that even thinkable within the current game engine? I doubt it.

Lastly, I think xAK and TK are far too rugged. If you read the war patrol reports of USN subs, most merchant ships took one or tw0\o torpedoes and sunk on the spot (often witnessed by the firing boat). Similarly, one 500 lb bomb was a problem for even large xAK and two usually meant curtains. Some sources (USSBS) claim that the number one cause of Japanese merchant sinkings was bombs not torpedoes. I

I've read of cases of such toughness among Allied targets, don't know about Japanese targets. Maybe they need to make those cases of survival just be even more rare than they are presently?

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I'm with Brady on this issue. I think we do not see Japan players facing economic starvation in late 1944 and 1945 is a product in part (perhaps a large part?) of the fact that most Japan players devote considerable assets to ASW from the start and better manage their MS fleet. In essence I don't think we truly know if the amount of MS allocated to Japan is too much, too little, or just right based on the historical model because no one plays a truly historical game. That is actually the point isn't it? To refight the war in the PTO without the glaring mistakes made by both sides?

I concur that the IJ player can and should alter from history to get a better outcome (which is why the earlier comments - not yours - about restricting the Allies even more to history in the first six months are incongruent). A realistic question is whether the stress due to the need to deliver resources on the IJ merchant fleet is sufficient in-game to mirror the strain on it IRL. I don't know the answer. Brady is saying, as I understand it, that the question is invalid because those posing just want the Allies to be able to easily shut down the IJ economy. I have not seen such motives and I think the question is valid.

I also find the question of current air ASW potential performance to be valid and germane, not because current Air ASW performance relieves strain on the IJ merchant fleet, but because I believe it to be beyond what was possible with the technology at hand. As the game is intended to mimic IRL doctrine, we could add that is a limiter as well. BTW, I am not at all in favor of limiting the IJ from using army bombers for ASW, or otherwise restricting the IJ player's flexibility in ASW. I have also pointed out, both here and every time that I have mentioned it, that I strongly suspect the error (in air ASW) is due to too great returns from high pilot skill and that the same is true for the ground attack, airfield attack, and naval attack missions (and that port attack seems OK and air to air I believe is OK). Clearly those other missions have varying effects, quite apart from allowing Allied subs to become unrealistically uber. At certain points in the game the naval attack issue favors the IJ player, at other times it favors the Allied player, although I think it favors the Allied player more. The ground attack and airfield attack issues overwhelmingly favor the Allied player for the great majority of the game. So, when there have been discussions about air ASW, I have always included the whole package. Meaning that I feel that in several of the air missions (the ones just listed, sorry if I forgot some) the contribution from pilot skill above about 70 should be adjusted to be one of fiercely diminishing returns.

As I suspect you feel from reading your last post, I do not know if there is some answer to the question of whether - IRL - the Allies could have shut down the IJ economy with, if you'll pardon me putting it this way for RL, "best play" on each side. I just don't know. It surely depends on when such "best play" would be considered to commence, and how far afield it would be considered to have happened.

And while it is valid to try and get the tools of exploration to be better and better (e.g.'s more accurate ASW potential, more accurate ship lists, more accurate burdens upon those ships, etc. etc.) I am sure we will never have an actual solution to the question. Only bigger opinions. [;)][:D]

Excellant point and not having access to the code I cannot say how it is expressed. When I look at games whether it be games of chance, board games, or computer games, random events are usually determined by a linear equation or parabolic equation. In my opinion, linear equations have a place in war games but their use is limited. Armor penetration in say a micorarmor game (although we know that it really isn't linear). That said, a lot a war games use linear equations almost exclusively to determine results. I feel whenever a human element is involved, parabolic equations best express likely outcomes, i.e. a bell-shaped curve. Allowing for outlyers but the vast majority of results fall in the center of the range. What very few games use is hyperbolic curves which I think is a mistake. Here you can see fairly rapid improvement from poor to above average but very limited returns once you get to the high end.

I think where the economic model fails in that it is too abstracted. As has been pointed out, there is a point of burden on the player that would become impractical as far as depth of detail goes; that said just having a generic resource that represents every thing from food to coal to iron to rubber to trace elements like tin makes life far easier for the AE player than the RL Japanese economic ministers. Tin is a very good example as most of that came from the SRA. Most Japan players import little if any resources from that region because they have plenty closer to Japan. Situations like that one make the MS problem much easier to deal with as the Japan player in AE.

Don't know what you mean by the MS problem. I agree that more detail would just be too much. Additional detail with supplies would have to be highly automated, like supplies from certain places considered to contain certain things and the whole mess kept track of behind the scenes by the computer - is that even thinkable within the current game engine? I doubt it.

By "MS problem" I meant assesing how way the game is addressing the Japanese Merchant SHipping (MS - the original WiTP board game used MS for all merchant shipping and I find myself onfdly attached to the term)

Lastly, I think xAK and TK are far too rugged. If you read the war patrol reports of USN subs, most merchant ships took one or tw0\o torpedoes and sunk on the spot (often witnessed by the firing boat). Similarly, one 500 lb bomb was a problem for even large xAK and two usually meant curtains. Some sources (USSBS) claim that the number one cause of Japanese merchant sinkings was bombs not torpedoes. I

I've read of cases of such toughness among Allied targets, don't know about Japanese targets. Maybe they need to make those cases of survival just be even more rare than they are presently?

I guess I just don't feel like a Bismark Sea scenario is possible in AE. Yes you could rough up a convoy with LBA but absolutely anihilating it? Don't think you would see that often in game.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Lastly, I think xAK and TK are far too rugged. If you read the war patrol reports of USN subs, most merchant ships took one or tw0\o torpedoes and sunk on the spot (often witnessed by the firing boat). Similarly, one 500 lb bomb was a problem for even large xAK and two usually meant curtains. Some sources (USSBS) claim that the number one cause of Japanese merchant sinkings was bombs not torpedoes. I

in AE we made merchants more vulnerable to damage vs. stock. Often one good bomb hit or torpedo hit is enough to cripple if not sink it. However on the con side.....the expanded map and smaller scale hexes leaves ALOT more ocean for large TF's to hide in. In the Joe/Nik game we had little to no success finding these large convoys with our subs and vs. our own merchants....thats the one area where the Ozzers are not kicking our arses. Just not seeing alot of subs hitting merchants. Part of the reason is the "mega convoy" tactic......you can after all put up to 100 ships in a single transport TF.

Patrol option helps for subs but its alot of work to set up a good sub picket and unlike real life....there are no real navigational choke points where IJ traffic used to get from the SRA to Japan. (such as the one off the PI's for Japanese tankers discovered in 43.)

I agree I've seen the issue, but that was the advantage of convoy tactics--even a large convoy was a small dot in a big ocean. I spend a lot of effort setting up my USN submarine patrol lines. (I suppose they're my favorite part of the Navy aside from the USMC.) They're a good deal more effective covering choke points in restricted waters.

[herwin]

Let's see what I can remember tonight from the WWII OR studies on pilot skill.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Let's see what I can remember tonight from the WWII OR studies on pilot skill.

Bear in mind I am not saying pilot skill should not matter. It should matter a lot, but it can't make the outcomes exceed the capability of the technologies involved.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The allied situation can be addressed by restricting many more LCU's at game start, and reducing supply levels, tweaking merchant availability. Personally i would also remove the ability to insta-divert historical reinforcements to new objectives, such as Singapore reinforcements and the sending home of Aussie divisions for home defense.

Aside from disagreeing with these points, I don't understand what you are getting at here. How is this related to the strain on the IJ merchant fleet to bring resources to Japan?

Brady mentioned some issues on the Allied side....i gave my thoughts on it......and if i have time will probably employ it in a mod. Issue is the same....there's historical situations, and then there's how the game reprsesents....usually abstractly, these situations.

Interesting thread, and also interesting in a good way that issues of this depth are still being batted around going on two years into the cycle.

One issue I havne't seen mentioned here (may have missed it) that greatly, and I mean hugely, impacts the game's economic attack results versus history is the actual submarine attack code. Air ASW, Super-Es, etc. are all a factor, but to me the single biggest variable affecting the inability to starve out Japan is in the single-ship nature of submairne attacks.

Reading patrol-by-patrol and attack-by-attack accounts of the USN sub war tells us that hundreds of attacks on Japanese formations resulted in multiple ships being sunk or damaged from one detection--approach--attack--retirement cycle. Especially in the last year of the submarine effective war, while there were sitll targets worth a fish, radar, experience, finally reliable engines, and better torpedoes resluted in successful multi-target attacks even on escorted formations. (There is a lot of talk that the Japanese didn't escort a majority of their merchants. To that I say baloney, but that's a different subject.)

Occassionally in the game I will see a second attack run on the same single ship by the same boat in both AM and PM phases. I assume that's a function of Op points and CO's stats. But the game never allows a sub to sink 2-4 ships in the same phase in the same TF, and that happened all the time. So even if Japanese ASW is historical (and I've run into some Super-Es, even in very deep water, in 1944-45) the number of possible ASW response cycles is too high per unit Japanese ship sunk when the max sunk per attack is one.

The Allies get a LOT of ahistorical advantages. Overall the system is balanced fine for me. Playing the AI, I have managed to put the AI out of armament and vehicle points, even when it still had HI stocks. I've managed to get the xAK totals down to the low single digits, and sink every XAP in the Japanese fleet. Just not with subs in the ratios seen historically.

To me, worrying about the number of 400--ton pee-wees misses the point that the sub war is skewed away from history in atttacks on large merchants. Which is OK in the total balance. Which is where I always seem to end up in these threads. You can't tug on one side of the rug without the whole thing coming apart.

[vettim89]

Another issue that is built into the code is that ships only use fuel and supply for ammo. We all know that ships use hundreds of tons of consumables that are neither ammo nor fuel. Food, clothing, medical supplies, spare parts, paint, etc, etc, etc are all used in varying quantities. Without that being part of the the logistics tail, we are missing a lot. Of note, that is far bigger of an issue for the Allies late war than the Japanese.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Brady

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Brady

Personaly I cant posably imagine implementing anything that would make the game any easer for the Allies at this point.

Aside from some obvious TOE eror.

Brady, just due to wording I'm not understanding. Do you mean that the game is as easy as it gets for the Allies, or that anything worth implementing is a huge undertaking/would have undesired consequences? Not arguing, just asking.

Yes (Both)

I don't want to alienate you Brady but why not just play Chess or STRATEGO where everything is exactly balanced except for the first move advantage.

This is a game of history and should remain true to that end. The Japanese will lose in the end unless the victory conditions are amended NOT THE HISTORICAL FACTS. That is the bottom line. As is, I see shorter scenarios as your salvation and not campaign games.

Buck

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: herwin

El Cid got into this during RHS development. If you can come up a realistic model of the Japanese war economy, publish it! It will be original and significant work. You will probably need somewhere around a million individual commodity types. The input-output matrix will be enormous, although most entries will be zero. Soviet economists specialised in this sort of work, and their planning was still insufficiently detailed and needed local tweaking. You could do major aggregation, but you will probably need to consider a few hundred specific imports and exports. Imagine the data gathering required!

That's what the game tries to model with resources, oil, supply and fuel.

In other words, don't go there. Those of us with some background in econometric modelling are stunned by the achievement. It's a dancing bear, but what an impressive dancing bear!

Yes, and while many adamantly disagree he (ElCid)was on the right track.