Ship Repairs - is it possible to "game" them?

[Alfred]

I don't really see why so much fuss is being made over this issue.  As both developers have pointed out, whatever is implemented is always going to be vulnerable to "gaming" from players who deliberately set out to find ways to maximise their position.  Furthermore any attempted "solutions" can have serious unintended ramifications in other areas.
 
What is missing in this thread is the big picture.  When that is taken into account I am much more relaxed than some of the posters appear to be.  Why?  Because the opportunity to adopt this approach is much more restricted than the impression which has been created.
 
1.  It can only be done where a shipyard exists (and at an even more restricted level with a very select bunch of tenders).  There just aren't that many shipyards in the game.
 
2.  A large shipyard, capable of taking those vessels whose tonnage precludes them sailing up rivers, is needed.  That immediately reduces considerably the useful candidates to shipyards sized 30 and above.
 
3.  Those useful shipyards invariably are co-located at very large ports with substantial infrastructure which often, without recourse to accessing the shipyard, can fix "major" damage.
 
4.  It increases substantially the amount of clicking and micromanagement for what is essentially a third order issue.
 
 
Normally I steer clear away from anything which involves recoding.  However as Don Bowen has volunteered his time, this might be an exception, although unintended consequences is a risk and one that will complicate the recoding.
 
The quick and easy recoding is to lose the accumulated repair points when switching between repair modes.  But this is not perfect.  My vote however goes for another solution, albeit one which substantially alters existing gameplay and therefore will not be liked by most players but has two points in its favour; (a) probably easier to code with less obvious opportunities to create adverse unintended consequences, and (b) more consistent with the design intent that fixing "major" damage requires use of a shipyard.  Therefore with no further delay I vote for:
 
 
 
Any vessel which has any major damage (and that invariably includes destroyed weapons showing up as "x red" in the estimates) can only use shipyard or tender generated repair points to fix both "normal" and "major" damage.
 
 
 
I told you you wouldn't like it but it cuts the Gordion knot.  Which of course brings us back to the more cost effective solution of either not engaging in this practice or understanding that in practical terms it will not be common.
 
Alfred
 

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I don't really see why so much fuss is being made over this issue.  As both developers have pointed out, whatever is implemented is always going to be vulnerable to "gaming" from players who deliberately set out to find ways to maximise their position.  Furthermore any attempted "solutions" can have serious unintended ramifications in other areas.

What is missing in this thread is the big picture.  When that is taken into account I am much more relaxed than some of the posters appear to be.  Why?  Because the opportunity to adopt this approach is much more restricted than the impression which has been created.

1.  It can only be done where a shipyard exists (and at an even more restricted level with a very select bunch of tenders).  There just aren't that many shipyards in the game.

2.  A large shipyard, capable of taking those vessels whose tonnage precludes them sailing up rivers, is needed.  That immediately reduces considerably the useful candidates to shipyards sized 30 and above.

3.  Those useful shipyards invariably are co-located at very large ports with substantial infrastructure which often, without recourse to accessing the shipyard, can fix "major" damage.

4.  It increases substantially the amount of clicking and micromanagement for what is essentially a third order issue.


Normally I steer clear away from anything which involves recoding.  However as Don Bowen has volunteered his time, this might be an exception, although unintended consequences is a risk and one that will complicate the recoding.

The quick and easy recoding is to lose the accumulated repair points when switching between repair modes.  But this is not perfect.  My vote however goes for another solution, albeit one which substantially alters existing gameplay and therefore will not be liked by most players but has two points in its favour; (a) probably easier to code with less obvious opportunities to create adverse unintended consequences, and (b) more consistent with the design intent that fixing "major" damage requires use of a shipyard.  Therefore with no further delay I vote for:



Any vessel which has any major damage (and that invariably includes destroyed weapons showing up as "x red" in the estimates) can only use shipyard or tender generated repair points to fix both "normal" and "major" damage.



I told you you wouldn't like it but it cuts the Gordion knot.  Which of course brings us back to the more cost effective solution of either not engaging in this practice or understanding that in practical terms it will not be common.

Alfred

I agree. It requires a very specific set of variables to match up. Thy just so happen to be common after the Pearl Harbor strike. For the rest of the war...probably not so much, especially when factoring in the difficulty and time involved in saving ships from damage incurred a long distance from ports where this would be possible.

[FeurerKrieg]

I'm not so sure I see all these 'ramifications'. I agree the ship upgrade code would need to be tested, but in all other situations you would lose 1, maybe 2 days of repair time over the way the current system is. For that matter, you can easily see the repair points on a ship. So if it is about to roll over and fix a point of damage, just wait another day to switch to yard or pierside and you don't lose any repair progress.

While it is nice to play against people that won't do things they shouldn't, this is one of those things that it is impossible to verify someone is doing. If the fix was long and hard and complicated, I'd say forget it, but if it is an easy one, why not fix it?

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


I agree. It requires a very specific set of variables to match up. Thy just so happen to be common after the Pearl Harbor strike. For the rest of the war...probably not so much, especially when factoring in the difficulty and time involved in saving ships from damage incurred a long distance from ports where this would be possible.

The Japanese side has several large ship yards that are easy to get to, and some players expand some of them as well.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


I agree. It requires a very specific set of variables to match up. Thy just so happen to be common after the Pearl Harbor strike. For the rest of the war...probably not so much, especially when factoring in the difficulty and time involved in saving ships from damage incurred a long distance from ports where this would be possible.

The Japanese side has several large ship yards that are easy to get to, and some players expand some of them as well.

I disagree with this a bit. Outside of Japan, I think the only ports this would really apply to would be Manila (if you load it up with Nav Support), Singapore, and maybe Hong Kong. Think about where you'll be fighting and when that fighting will occur. The South Pacific? It's a long haul past Rabaul and Truk to get to Manila. You may as well send them all the way to Tokyo at that point. Granted, this applies at Tokyo also since it's a huge port with only a moderate shipyard.

My experience with Manila, even expanding it to Size 50, is that the Shipyard would be faster for this. Same with Singapore for everything but the biggest ships. And the big ships can't even get to Saigon.

I don't typically use Hong Kong for repairs.


And later, when these yards are closer to the fighting when you're fighting around the DEI or Noumea, they are easier to get to...but they're also vulnerable to raids or being attacked soon.

[Don Bowen]

If any change were to be made, I think a combination of function and ease would be:

On the first day that a ship is "in the shipyards", no repair would take place. Instead the ship would unload all fuel and ammo. It would be better to extend the "getting into the yards" time for a longer period, but that is a little more difficult (just a little, actually).

It would also be possible to put in a one-day delay on exiting the shipyards, even if the ship was fully repaired. This would NOT auto-refuel/rearm the ship.

I would not be in favor of discarding accumulated repair points in any circumstance.

The caution here is possible bugs in the code (no matter how simple) and, of course, unintended side affects. Also, does the community think such a change should be made?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


If any change were to be made, I think a combination of function and ease would be:

On the first day that a ship is "in the shipyards", no repair would take place. Instead the ship would unload all fuel and ammo. It would be better to extend the "getting into the yards" time for a longer period, but that is a little more difficult (just a little, actually).

It would also be possible to put in a one-day delay on exiting the shipyards, even if the ship was fully repaired. This would NOT auto-refuel/rearm the ship.

I would not be in favor of discarding accumulated repair points in any circumstance.

The caution here is possible bugs in the code (no matter how simple) and, of course, unintended side affects. Also, does the community think such a change should be made?

I like the 1-day delay on repairs when entering a yard, sort of. If anything.

I don't like the unloading fuel/ammo, for the reasons you mentioned in your previous post.

But it's not up to me!

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


I agree. It requires a very specific set of variables to match up. Thy just so happen to be common after the Pearl Harbor strike. For the rest of the war...probably not so much, especially when factoring in the difficulty and time involved in saving ships from damage incurred a long distance from ports where this would be possible.

The Japanese side has several large ship yards that are easy to get to, and some players expand some of them as well.

I disagree with this a bit. Outside of Japan, I think the only ports this would really apply to would be Manila (if you load it up with Nav Support), Singapore, and maybe Hong Kong. Think about where you'll be fighting and when that fighting will occur. The South Pacific? It's a long haul past Rabaul and Truk to get to Manila. You may as well send them all the way to Tokyo at that point. Granted, this applies at Tokyo also since it's a huge port with only a moderate shipyard.

My experience with Manila, even expanding it to Size 50, is that the Shipyard would be faster for this. Same with Singapore for everything but the biggest ships. And the big ships can't even get to Saigon.

I don't typically use Hong Kong for repairs.


And later, when these yards are closer to the fighting when you're fighting around the DEI or Noumea, they are easier to get to...but they're also vulnerable to raids or being attacked soon.

I suppose you could be right, but I already have 5 or 6 ports with ships in them that could benefit from this process. Is that alot? I don't know, but given that they are all large ships I'm sure my opponent would rather them spend and extra couple months in the yards if possible. Also, the fast that a lot of them are in Japan seems to matter little. Once the non-major float is fixed, I usually send ships back to Japan to finish up repairs.

At first I was thinking the unloading would be problematic, but on second thought - and maybe this is an unintended consequence - it would be a way to start unloading all the fuel and ammo in the late war for Japan. Just move all ships through shipyard and they get fully unloaded, then just take them out and don't reload them. This was a feature I was already thinking it would be nice to have.

Anyway - I'd be fine without that 'feature'. Adding a 1 day delay seems like it would fix things.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


If any change were to be made, I think a combination of function and ease would be:

On the first day that a ship is "in the shipyards", no repair would take place. Instead the ship would unload all fuel and ammo. It would be better to extend the "getting into the yards" time for a longer period, but that is a little more difficult (just a little, actually).

It would also be possible to put in a one-day delay on exiting the shipyards, even if the ship was fully repaired. This would NOT auto-refuel/rearm the ship.

I would not be in favor of discarding accumulated repair points in any circumstance.

The caution here is possible bugs in the code (no matter how simple) and, of course, unintended side affects. Also, does the community think such a change should be made?

Any change that enhances the game's realism is welcome

[rustysi]

OK, I was gonna just say leave it, but its not up to only me. From the few responses here it seems a one day delay would solve the issue. If its easy enough so be it. I was under the mistaken impression that it was there anyway but I see now that's just for the readiness state. I don't move them once they're in the yard. Fix what I can pierside and put 'em in the yard for the rest.

Oh, and here's a blooper. BB in Nagasaki in the yard (torped by Yankee dog CL[:D]) two xAK coming in set to upgrade (to AK's) go into the yard. Next time I check repair time went from approx. 70 days to 100. WTF. Oops, doughhead get the AK's pierside. Right back to 65 days (I check things like that about every ten days). Guess I lost a few days of repair time. Lessons learned.[:'(]

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


If any change were to be made, I think a combination of function and ease would be:

On the first day that a ship is "in the shipyards", no repair would take place. Instead the ship would unload all fuel and ammo. It would be better to extend the "getting into the yards" time for a longer period, but that is a little more difficult (just a little, actually).

It would also be possible to put in a one-day delay on exiting the shipyards, even if the ship was fully repaired. This would NOT auto-refuel/rearm the ship.

I would not be in favor of discarding accumulated repair points in any circumstance.

The caution here is possible bugs in the code (no matter how simple) and, of course, unintended side affects. Also, does the community think such a change should be made?

I like the idea of a change.

Would the ship auto-load fuel after coming out of the yard or could you keep it empty? A toggle for unloading ship fuel would also be useful when you need fuel in a place and want to take it out of bunkers, for example to run HI late.

[jmalter]

I am against making a change, primarily b/c of the 'law of unintended consequences'. I see no reason to block a player's ability to make the best possible use of any available ship-repair capabilities.

To me, 'shipyard' repair does not necessarily refer only to available dry-dock tonnage capacity, but could likely include other factors such as available pier length w/ railroad capability, heavy-lift cranes, nearby warehousing, highly-skilled dockyard workers & competent administrators.

So unless devs can assure us that a hex's 'shipyard size' is based solely on its available dry-dock or graving-dock capacity (realizing that most off-map locations represent more than one shipyard), I see the current 'ease of change' from pierside to repair-ship to shipyard implementation more in terms of assigning repairs between different teams of workers/equipment, which each have different but well-defined capabilities.

Charging a time-constraint or unload/reload penalty against a ship entering a shipyard might sound like a useful idea to prevent 'gamey' abuse, but historically, the post-Coral Sea Yorktown entered dry-dock directly upon its return to Pearl, no doubt due to extensive radio comms.

In this proposed change, where's the corollary penalty for clearing a dry-dock by booting ship(s) out of 'shipyard' situation? Won't that add at least another day to the process of clearing the shipyard for a new arrival?

IMO this is a problem for which any implemented solution will degrade game-play and add very little to increased 'realism'.

[oldman45]

I see what your saying jmalter, but lets take my situation, it never occurred to me to switch ships between a dock to the pier because of my experience with dry docks. Instead I always did it the other way by not sending ships to the dock until most or all of the system damage is repaired. I don't want to see code changes due to what you point out as possible unintended consequences but on the other hand I don't like the idea of somebody gaming the system to get ships back into the fleet at roughly half the time.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I see what your saying jmalter, but lets take my situation, it never occurred to me to switch ships between a dock to the pier because of my experience with dry docks. Instead I always did it the other way by not sending ships to the dock until most or all of the system damage is repaired. I don't want to see code changes due to what you point out as possible unintended consequences but on the other hand I don't like the idea of somebody gaming the system to get ships back into the fleet at roughly half the time.

+1

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I see what your saying jmalter, but lets take my situation, it never occurred to me to switch ships between a dock to the pier because of my experience with dry docks. Instead I always did it the other way by not sending ships to the dock until most or all of the system damage is repaired. I don't want to see code changes due to what you point out as possible unintended consequences but on the other hand I don't like the idea of somebody gaming the system to get ships back into the fleet at roughly half the time.

+1

On the other, other hand... it's not nation-specific; that is, either player can do it.


In the interest of providing more data:

I'm not sure if it's about half the time. I'm going off of Shipyard estimates only. I suppose I could set up a sandbox of it, but that would discount dynamic factors that might occur in a real game, such as suddenly needing the shipyard for "actual" ships in need of repairs (like CAs, DDs).

In my last test case, the estimated repair times didn't decrease significantly on each ship despite doing this "trick" - for two ships, the estimates still only went down by a day. Still, I'd say that religious attention to this would probably result in 20-33% off the estimated shipyard repair time if one were to just slip the ship into the yard and leave it there, so maybe 15% or so off overall (since System frequently repairs faster at pier side than major damage in other areas).

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I see what your saying jmalter, but lets take my situation, it never occurred to me to switch ships between a dock to the pier because of my experience with dry docks. Instead I always did it the other way by not sending ships to the dock until most or all of the system damage is repaired. I don't want to see code changes due to what you point out as possible unintended consequences but on the other hand I don't like the idea of somebody gaming the system to get ships back into the fleet at roughly half the time.

+1

On the other, other hand... it's not nation-specific; that is, either player can do it.


In the interest of providing more data:

I'm not sure if it's about half the time. I'm going off of Shipyard estimates only. I suppose I could set up a sandbox of it, but that would discount dynamic factors that might occur in a real game, such as suddenly needing the shipyard for "actual" ships in need of repairs (like CAs, DDs).

In my last test case, the estimated repair times didn't decrease significantly on each ship despite doing this "trick" - for two ships, the estimates still only went down by a day. Still, I'd say that religious attention to this would probably result in 20-33% off the estimated shipyard repair time if one were to just slip the ship into the yard and leave it there, so maybe 15% or so off overall (since System frequently repairs faster at pier side than major damage in other areas).

Hi Lokasenna,

I hear what you're saying, but I myself fell there's enough micro-management in the game already. I probable wouldn't do it myself and if my opponent did I'd be at a disadvantage. Its like when guys here start talking about beans and bullets for supply, I cringe. I for one don't want to start counting cartridges and c-rat cans. Same for ship repairs. In/out of yard every other day or so? I rarely check once they're in a repair state. The ops report will tells me when I need to interact again. You know 'No additional repairs possible..... using currently assigned resources at... '.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Hi Lokasenna,

I hear what you're saying, but I myself fell there's enough micro-management in the game already. I probable wouldn't do it myself and if my opponent did I'd be at a disadvantage. Its like when guys here start talking about beans and bullets for supply, I cringe. I for one don't want to start counting cartridges and c-rat cans. Same for ship repairs. In/out of yard every other day or so? I rarely check once they're in a repair state. The ops report will tells me when I need to interact again. You know 'No additional repairs possible..... using currently assigned resources at... '.

Completely understandable. I will say though that when I started my recent game with JockMeister a few years ago, my attitude was pretty much similar to yours.

After getting a game into 45 I'd have to say I feel a bit differently. If you're playing the Japanese side of things, the 'bullets and supply' issues will rear their head at some point, and when they do you'll probably get a lot more interested in how you suddenly have nothing left to fly the shiny new planes you have or to even fill out the zillion divisions you get late.

Maybe you don't play the Japanese, or you might never get there, but I'm glad I got to see it as it really changed how I think about the game.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Hi Lokasenna,

I hear what you're saying, but I myself fell there's enough micro-management in the game already. I probable wouldn't do it myself and if my opponent did I'd be at a disadvantage. Its like when guys here start talking about beans and bullets for supply, I cringe. I for one don't want to start counting cartridges and c-rat cans. Same for ship repairs. In/out of yard every other day or so? I rarely check once they're in a repair state. The ops report will tells me when I need to interact again. You know 'No additional repairs possible..... using currently assigned resources at... '.

Completely understandable. I will say though that when I started my recent game with JockMeister a few years ago, my attitude was pretty much similar to yours.

After getting a game into 45 I'd have to say I feel a bit differently. If you're playing the Japanese side of things, the 'bullets and supply' issues will rear their head at some point, and when they do you'll probably get a lot more interested in how you suddenly have nothing left to fly the shiny new planes you have or to even fill out the zillion divisions you get late.

Maybe you don't play the Japanese, or you might never get there, but I'm glad I got to see it as it really changed how I think about the game.

Yeah, I realize there are ups/downs, plus/minus for every aspect. That's in RL too. Right now I'm concentrating on Japan as I feel the production side is most difficult to learn. On my third attempt. Each one I concentrate on different aspect. I figure I've got 2-3 more runs before I'll tackle a couple of Allied runs. I'm hoping Allies will be easier to learn. Then it'll be off to PBEM. Oh, and as Japan I'd be dissappointed if I wasn't running out of everything by spring '45.

[FeurerKrieg]

But what if you had fought a spectacular campaign for three years, would you still feel that you should be running out of everything in Spring 45? I think the game needs to have some reward for saving supply and/or fighting well.

If you want the 'end of war' experience, play the downfall scenario.

[wdolson]

The inevitable fall of Japan is the reason the game has victory points. It's the reality of the situation. Japan was a regional power that took on a global power which had the will to see things through to the end. In 1940 the US had 50% of the entire planet's manufacturing capability. More than that by 1945.

The victory conditions are set so the Japanese have a balanced chance to win on points. They can't win by knockout. If they could, people would be howling about lack of realism.

When making a historical game there have to be considerations of how realistic vs playability vs balance. Games like Axis vs Allies and Risk are high on playability and balance, but low on realism. this game is high on realism, reasonable on playability, and makes up for the balance issues with victory points.

Bill