Matrix Games Forums

Maybe just make the ships to grow in capacity when upgrading ?? Is that possible ?

Yes already done through 3 refits 4209,4309,4409,

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Will reduced speed make the AK's more vulnerable to sub and/or air attack? In real life the answer is yes, but how about in the game?

Would this be so bad?

depends.

A common tactic in the game is to create mega-convoys with tens of thousands of supply points and ship them to the front areas infrquently and via off the beaten path routes in order to avoid subs so it could be argued that slowing them would balance this tactic somewhat, but at the same time if the other player manages to put air and undersea assets in the right place it could lead to slaughter.

It might also too adversely affect the Japanese merchant marine during the later part of the war when US subs become numerous and more proficient.

Then there's the AI.

Perhaps slowing the Merchant marine across the board wouldn't be a bad thing....

As an example from real life....Convoy HG76 sailing from Gibraltar to England Dec 1941...their intended speed of advance 7.3 knots

how about reducing fuel capacity so that they need to depend on bases more to get from A to B? Right now most merchants can sail from SF to Aukland without refueling?

Course that might mess with the AI too.

I think the reduction in cargo capacity is the way to go. Reducing speed leads to the possible combat problems. Reducing Fuel is unrealistic. By reduc ing intial capacity not only does it reduce the allies buildup but it makes the game more realistic in that gathering the troop lift resources for an early counteroffensive more unlikely/unfeasable as was true to life.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think that reduced transport capacity is the way to go. Why restrict supply in USA when you can reduce the flow to overseas by restricting transport capacity. If later war increase is needed, why not have the AKs that arrive later have larger capcity ??

I like this approach, and it really does reflect the problems of the early war year logistical efforts, as well allowing for inceased effeciencies of transportation reflected in increased capacities.

Rereading some of the various histories of 1942 (Willmott, Morrison, etc.) another big logistical bottleneck was the shortage of tankers. But this is not reflected in the game, indeed if anything by February 42 the US is awash in tankers. At least for combat ships, I think that endurance and/or speed values need to be re-examined. For example below is a short deiscussion on some of the major factors:

Ship speed/fuel endurance

One of the most under modeled aspects of the game is the cruising speed/ endurance value for ships. It appears that “designed” rather than operational endurance is used, for peace instead of war. This essay is an attempt to rationalize fuel consumption in the game with the realities of war. Peace time and war time steaming and fuel consumption is affected by different sets of operational parameters. Peace time steaming is done at the most economical method available, thus overall speeds are slow and fuel economy is high, as well as maintenance failures are low due to less strain placed on machinery.

In war time steaming, however, there is less concerned about fuel economy and instead the priorities are survivability and attainment of mission goals. For survivability, this means that ships will steam with most boilers lit, even if they are not actually being used, to mediate effects of machinary casualty. Split plant operations will also be the norm, although this is also very inefficient. Average task force speeds, especially combat types, will be high (not low as some have suggested) due to the need, for instance, to limit the ability of submarines to effectively intercept. Relative cruising speeds are especially high in Carrier Task Forces, where unfavorable winds require the carriers to frequently steam at high speeds to aid in the launching and recovering of planes, a not to infrequent event. Carrier escorts likewise need to be at least as faster, and often faster, in order to maintain proper station.

Vessels were often forced to forgo regular refits and dry docking with a corresponding related loss of efficiency due to increased marine growth on hulls and machinery wear and tear not being properly addressed. In the following example of actual record from the HMS Vanguard illustrates this relationship (Ref 6):

Endurance out of refit (@15 kts): 8250 miles
Endurance 6 months temperate (@15 kts): 7150 miles - or a 14% reduction
Endurance 6 months tropical (@15kts): 5700 miles – or a 31% reduction
Two items of interest: First these figures are for a ship operating in peacetime. Second the difference between temperate and tropical waters.

King George V class also displays this, where the effect is instead seen in SHP:
SHP for 24kts clean: 66000 SHP
SHP for 24kts 6 months in tropical waters: 99000 SHP - 33% increase in required SHP

Not much modders can do to simulate this, but it does illustrate a missed opportunity of requiring mandatory refits or have the have the vessels suffer increasing poorer fuel economy and slower max speeds. Maybe this could have be done as a permanent systems damage that only a refit at a size 8 or more port or by a dry-dock (including floating drydocks) can remove (got to haul the ships out of the water to really clean that marine gowth off).

Another factor relating to reduction in endurance was as the war progressed increasing amounts of equipment were added to most vessels, often with little compensation to mediate any adverse effect. This equipment ranged from increased anti-aircraft weapons to electronics such as radar, along with the resulting increase in ammunition, manpower, and supplies. These additions added significant weight further eroding max speed and fuel economy.

Thus, although the game is fun to play and a decent combat simulator on an operational level, as a good logistical model if falls short. Ships (primarily combat)move too slow, do not suffer from prolonged absence of proper refits (indeed, ship repairs are much too fast and the current "refit" is a joke in the short amount of time it takes to be implemented), and have too high of an endurance. Included below is a graph further illustrating this.


Partial Reference List
1. Ballantine, Duncan S. U.S. Naval Logistics in the Second World War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1949.
2. Carter, Adm. Wordall Reed, Ret. Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office; 1953.
3. Friedman, Norman. U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History. Raven, Alan and Baker, A. D. III, Illistrated by. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institue Press; 1985.
4. ---. U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design history. Baker, A. D. III and Raven, Alan, Ship Plans by. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press; 1984.
5. ---. U.S.Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History. Baker, A. D. III, Profile Drawings by . Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press; 1982.
6. Raven, Alan and Roberts, John. British Battleships of World War Two. Third Impression ed. Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press; 1981.
7. Wilmott, H. P. Empires in Balance. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press; 1982.

Refits
this package is now available for 4 or 5 players willing to test and report
(PM me your E-mail - note it is 7meg file)
Note although based on CHS 1.02 it is not as yet part of CHS. I have just sent to some CHS members for comment
Resulting from comments in this thread and another the following has been done
(attached note in pakage zip file)

Hi guys this package contains Scenario 158 (Russians Activated for test reasons)
I took 2 suggestions from the tread "Questions regarding supply levels USA"
1. reduction of capacity 1941 to 42 increasing through refits 42,43,44
2. speed reduction of all AK's 1941 increasing through refits 42,43,44

I use these sugestions to test out completely Aawulf's new Excel database
Editor utility (more on that later)

Scenario 158 is the current scenario 155 CHS 1.02 with soviet ships and OOB added
To test out the Excell sheet I did a extensive clean up of the data base
grouping some like ships closing up large gaps in slots and created 3 refit
groups for all AK's 420900,430900,440900 and used the following reductions
in 41 ak's capacity 2000-3000 35% reduction (rounded)
capacity 3001-4999 45% reduction (rounded)
all AK's over 5000 were brought back to 5000 so as to not upset the AK upgrade section
also ak's speed was reduced by 4 knot cruise and top speed
42 refit
ak's below 5000 were given a 70% increase of the end result 41 reduction
above 5000 were given a 30% increase
increase of 2 knots all Ak's
43 refit
AK's below 5000 were given a 85% increase of the end result 41 reduction
above 5000 were given a 40% increase
all AK's now back to original speeds
44 refit
AK's below 5000 were given a 90% increase of the end result 41 reduction
above 5000 were given a 50% increase
no change to speeds

The end result of these changes will need testing to see what end result is
It is not at present a part of the CHS scenario as it has not been paste dby the group
as a whole

Included in package is the scenario
all art required for rusian ships and air
+ 2 what if art that happen to be part of this scenario I am playing
will work with both 3.2 of Andrews Maps standard and extended and should work with version 4

Further note on Excell editor
this is an excellent tool for the normal modder
easy to use - mostley cut and past
and the best part NO MORE HAVING TO RESET SHIPS TO CLASS'S after changing something
in the ship class set - just resync ships to class save back to DAT file
all done in 2 mins - saves hours of work

credits
Alaskan Warrior capacity sugestion
Subchaser Soviet OOB info
the 2 or 3 players who suggested speed reduction
in advance
some testers
Aawulf for utility

where this will lead to I do not now I just put it together but without testing we will never know - if do not want russians activated you know what to do.

Cobra Aus

ORIGINAL: treespider

Perhaps slowing the Merchant marine across the board wouldn't be a bad thing....

As an example from real life....Convoy HG76 sailing from Gibraltar to England Dec 1941...their intended speed of advance 7.3 knots

In the Atlantic they had 'slow' and 'fast' convoys. I'm sure the one you cite is an example of a slow convoy. They grouped ships with similar speeds together to make up the fast & slow convoys.

In the Pacific, I do not know. Maybe they made an effort to deploy the slower vessels to the Atlantic because of the much greater distances in the Pacific.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

how about reducing fuel capacity so that they need to depend on bases more to get from A to B? Right now most merchants can sail from SF to Aukland without refueling?

Course that might mess with the AI too.

I am concerned that reducing the speed would be too radical in its effects. I also think that reducing the fuel capacity would be too radical (Australia really could be cut off, not just made more difficult to supply, etc.).

I'd prefer a different solution if an acceptable one can be found.

I extracted the following from this website...
http://www.qmfound.com/qmcpacific.htm

Long supply lines. The huge size of the Pacific Theater, which had to be subdivided into three separate spheres – the South Pacific, Central Pacific, and Southwest Pacific commands, respectively – made for unprecedented long lines of communication. Roughly 3,000 miles separated the New York port of embarkation, the Quartermaster Corps’ main shipping center on the East coast, from England and France. Yet more than twice that amount of ocean (6,200 miles) lay between San Francisco on the West coast, and Brisbane, Australia, where most Quartermaster supplies in the Southwest Pacific were sent and received. Instead of the 55 to 60 days it usually took for a supply ship to go from New York to Liverpool, the trip from San Francisco to Brisbane often lasted four or five months – nearly two to three times longer. [X(]When items had to be moved from point to point within theater, the journey could be extended to upwards of 8,000 miles.

Such long lines of communication placed a heavy premium on reliable shipping. Yet a persistent worldwide shipping shortage that lasted for much of the war meant that Quartermasters had to compete for precious cargo space with other service branches. Shipping delays also led to more deterioration and mass spoilage. At the same time long supply lines increased the chances of accidents and enemy interdiction.

How long does the trip take in game? I have yet to check...

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

how about reducing fuel capacity so that they need to depend on bases more to get from A to B? Right now most merchants can sail from SF to Aukland without refueling?

Course that might mess with the AI too.

I am concerned that reducing the speed would be too radical in its effects. I also think that reducing the fuel capacity would be too radical (Australia really could be cut off, not just made more difficult to supply, etc.).

I'd prefer a different solution if an acceptable one can be found.

What we need is a way to waypoint system that would allow convoys/vessels to be routed to ports for refueling. The AI has this capability.... And yea, if you look at speeds the Liberty's had a max of like 11kts, the Victory's were not much faster. Like anyother vessel the faster they go the worse their endurance is. This seems to be modeled in the game as far as I can tell.

Here is an update on the AI/AI game I have been running to test Andrew's theory that supply alterations have impacted the latewar logistical map.

Daily supply values:
San Francisco: 12500/12500
Karachi: 3750/2250.

Supply situation as of 7/44

(Supply/fuel)

Supply generators

Karachi: 723942/999352
San Francisco: 833640/731126

Hotspot/forward bases by theater

Southeast Asia

Akyab: 803238/998916
Pagen: 9080*/1
Mandalay: 1019/1
Myitkyina: 7354/1

SouthPacific

Noumea: 204725/2129
Luganaville: 66359/10793

SouthWest Pacific

Port Morosby: 19201/26017
Gili Gili: 9819/12797
Buna: 89375/0
Brisbane: 81094/12373

Central Pacific

Pearl Harbor: 233274/34163
Kwajalein: 162892/58813
Eniwetok: 3827*/38115
Guam: 40797/6
Tinian: 76706/23738


* - indicates supply shortage (orange warning indicator)
** - indicates severe supply shortage (red warning indicator)

Summary

I am not seeing that the supply reductions for the production centers combined with the supply capacity reduction for merchants is causing a logistical windfall in the late war period for the AI. Supply is plentiful for the Allies and adequate supply dumps exist in the forward most areas where combat is occuring. Coincidently enough, Eniwetok is in the oranage in late 44 as with Andrew's test but the base is a minor node for the AI, having a supply requirement of only 2000 points and no assault value'd LCU's present.

In this game the Allied AI chose to advance on Japan in the Pacific along a cingular track (Central Pacific), SWpac area offensive appears to have stopped at Buna with all the nearby Japanese bases (including Rabaul) isolated by the massive Allied air superiority present at Buna. (all bases in the New Britian/Solomons area are almost out of supply)

SoPac stayed on the defensive for the game, the AI content to hold and supply Luganaville and Noumea.

Southeast Asia theater active with most of Burma back in Allied hands. Japan still holds Rangoon but all other bases in central/north Burma taken.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Here is an update on the AI/AI game I have been running to test Andrew's theory that supply alterations have impacted the latewar logistical map.

Let me know how far the Allies get by the end of 1945.

In my stock AI vs AI test, they were on the mainland of Japan in force.

In my CHS AI vs AI test, they never got past Eniwetok, which was in the red supply-wise.

I will be interested to see what happens in your test.

the AI already is past Eniwetok, and has assaulted and taken Guam and Tinian.

I can keep running the test if you like but I dont see anything radical changing. if the Allied offensive 'stalls' at this point i would sooner blame it on an AI quirk vs a logistical emergency since there is plenty of it lying around. The Allied AI managed to lose an Essex so far along with all six pre-war carriers but they've sunk a decent number of Japanese carriers. Heavy BB and CA losses both sides.

(side note to Pry.....Japanese pilot pool was exhausted by 43 when i first began checking it.....still exhausted in 44)

serious AI wierdness in SE Asia....i think Mandalay has changed hands 3-4 times because whenever the Allied AI takes it it then leaves it undefended allowing bypassed Japan LCU's to march back in. A long narrow thrust bypassing Rangoon was apparantly defeated but the Allied AI surged back and is now holding all of Burma save for Rangoon.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

the AI already is past Eniwetok, and has assaulted and taken Guam and Tinian.

Interesting. Obviously a lot more testing needs to be done, which I don't have the time for right now. if anyone else want to try a test please do so.

In the meantime I will experiment with adding late war supply for the USA anyway - there is no reason not to do so, as it doesn't matter if the USA has too much supply late in the war, while it does matter if they don't have enough.

ORIGINAL: treespider

Long supply lines. The huge size of the Pacific Theater, which had to be subdivided into three separate spheres – the South Pacific, Central Pacific, and Southwest Pacific commands, respectively – made for unprecedented long lines of communication. Roughly 3,000 miles separated the New York port of embarkation, the Quartermaster Corps’ main shipping center on the East coast, from England and France. Yet more than twice that amount of ocean (6,200 miles) lay between San Francisco on the West coast, and Brisbane, Australia, where most Quartermaster supplies in the Southwest Pacific were sent and received. Instead of the 55 to 60 days it usually took for a supply ship to go from New York to Liverpool, the trip from San Francisco to Brisbane often lasted four or five months – nearly two to three times longer. [X(]When items had to be moved from point to point within theater, the journey could be extended to upwards of 8,000 miles.

quote]

How long does the trip take in game? I have yet to check...

Spider. Those numbers can't be right. Even a 6 knot convoy covers more than 150 miles a day---or 20 days for the 3,000 from New York to Liverpool. Add in 5 additional days for the distance lost to "zig-zaging" and it's still less than a month. The 55-60 days quoted MUST BE for the "round-trip" from New York to Liverpool to New York again. Same in the Pacific (though "zig-zagging" was much less because Japanese subs weren't nearly as active against merchantmen as the U-Boats). The 4-5 months MUST BE for the round trip.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: treespider

Long supply lines. The huge size of the Pacific Theater, which had to be subdivided into three separate spheres – the South Pacific, Central Pacific, and Southwest Pacific commands, respectively – made for unprecedented long lines of communication. Roughly 3,000 miles separated the New York port of embarkation, the Quartermaster Corps’ main shipping center on the East coast, from England and France. Yet more than twice that amount of ocean (6,200 miles) lay between San Francisco on the West coast, and Brisbane, Australia, where most Quartermaster supplies in the Southwest Pacific were sent and received. Instead of the 55 to 60 days it usually took for a supply ship to go from New York to Liverpool, the trip from San Francisco to Brisbane often lasted four or five months – nearly two to three times longer. [X(]When items had to be moved from point to point within theater, the journey could be extended to upwards of 8,000 miles.

quote]

How long does the trip take in game? I have yet to check...

Spider. Those numbers can't be right. Even a 6 knot convoy covers more than 150 miles a day---or 20 days for the 3,000 from New York to Liverpool. Add in 5 additional days for the distance lost to "zig-zaging" and it's still less than a month. The 55-60 days quoted MUST BE for the "round-trip" from New York to Liverpool to New York again. Same in the Pacific (though "zig-zagging" was much less because Japanese subs weren't nearly as active against merchantmen as the U-Boats). The 4-5 months MUST BE for the round trip.

Perhaps they are refering to time to load the ship, muster the convoy, sail the route, form up at port to unload and actually unload and then sort through the contents of the vessel.... I was just quoting a website refence quarter masters....

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: treespider




Spider. Those numbers can't be right. Even a 6 knot convoy covers more than 150 miles a day---or 20 days for the 3,000 from New York to Liverpool. Add in 5 additional days for the distance lost to "zig-zaging" and it's still less than a month. The 55-60 days quoted MUST BE for the "round-trip" from New York to Liverpool to New York again. Same in the Pacific (though "zig-zagging" was much less because Japanese subs weren't nearly as active against merchantmen as the U-Boats). The 4-5 months MUST BE for the round trip.

Perhaps they are refering to time to load the ship, muster the convoy, sail the route, form up at port to unload and actually unload and then sort through the contents of the vessel.... I was just quoting a website refence quarter masters....

Hmmm...
A real world example would be TF 6814 left New York and Jan 23, 1942, destination Melbourne. She arrived at Melbourne on Feb 20, 1942. Twenty-nine days, counting a day fefueling/resupply at Balboa.

New York to Balboa ~ 2000nm
Balboa to Melbourne ~ 7800nm
total ~ 9800 nm /28 days travel = 15kts average speed

A 7kt convoy would have taken about 58 days...

Melbourne to San Francisco using the Great Circle Route is 6829nm, or about 40 days steaming at 7kts or 26 days at 11 kts. For those of use unfamiliar with the term Great Circle Route, the Great Circle Routes are the most direct routes between two points on a globe. Giving a 10 day turn around , it would take 90 days to complete a round trip voyage at 7, or 66 days a 11. Add occassional refitting, maintanence, etc. and I can very well see why most AK's probably made only 3 trips a year.

Richard

I started an AI/AI game today. I used WitP 1.602 and CHS 1.02 with no mods. I'll see what it does after running tonight.