Some tricks for the engine

[Historiker]

that's what I've found out working on witw (war in the west):

1. Correct Building costs:
My system of changing the DUR for the production model is already widly in use. As the costs to pay are defined by the ship's DUR, one simply has to give ships in production a durability, that makes their price correct. The only thing necessary is, to let them upgrade immeadiatly after construction.
This way, one may allow the Japanese player to construct CVEs out of AKs. The CVEs (in the slot of an AE, AD, AV etc...) only have to have an extremely high durability as their conversion time is hardcoded.

2. Ship launching like IRL
IRL, ships often have been bombed while under construction. I remember a raid on Bremen, where several subs have been destroyed while under construction. This is impossible in witp. Even when Japan is bombed day by day, the ship will arrive exactly in time when the needed building points have been payed.
Moreover, a ship on it's lipway can't be simply be completed elsewhere when it's site of construction was overrun by the enemy. If it's not at least ready for launching and towed away after a hastily launch, it's lost. As long as the major spawn base is still in the hands of the constructor, the ship will simply arrive there - so in Aden instead of Bombay.
But you may do it differend:
Give the ship a high durability to even the shorter construction time. Then let the ship arrive with high sysdamage - and with 0 in all datafields except the Durability (and sysdamage [;)]).
The player then has the choice:
He can leave it where it's launched to await the full repair or he can "tow" it at extreme low speed and highly endangered by subs to another base. By giving each ship which uses this system (it's enough when you only use it with capital ships) an own class, you can manually desing for every single ship, how it's construction progress goes on. Give it the first AAA after 3 month, the medium artillery after 6, it's engine after 12 and the main armement and deck armour after 18 or 24 (just examples). By this way, you have the ship slowly being completed "on it's slipay" or "finishing pier" like IRL - and meanwhile it can be both bombed or captured (that is sucuttled). Finally, it may upgrade to it's usual "mother-"class.
Of course, this way, it doesn't cost building points any more, but you can even this by a higher durability until launching. This is as realistic or unrealistic as the possibility to produce naval points, armement points, etc. ahead to have these points converted to ships or weapons even when all factorys are destroyed.

3. Faster repairing of Oil- and Ressourcecenters (and industry, shipyards, etc.)
Who of you has never made the experience to capture the DEI oilfields - and most of them are destroyed? I once had only 3 points of 1200 left undamaged. To repair the oilfields would consequently take the rest of the game - while the Japanese Industry starves. I thought how to fix this.
"Where's a will, there's a way" is a byword in Germany. If you really want to have the hundreds of independ oilwells repaired faster, IRL, you would send more enineers to repair them, no? But in witp it's fixed: 1 point for 1000 supplies a day - and only if over 10.000. But don't make the mistake to send 100.000 at once to have at least 3 month of continuos repairing without the need to control it, because in this case the supplies will spoil.
So I invented a quite simple thing: You only have to split the ressource, oil, industry or whatever is in this slot over all free devices (in total 20). In this case, up to 20 points will be repaired per day! It will still take 1000 supplies each, so the allied player has no significant disadvantege (instead, he can burn supplies much easier now) - but you how have the realistic case of "sending more engineers".
I only split over 100 points, but the designer may do it as he wants. While a big factory may be destroyed totally within one strike - how would you effectifly (without defoliants) destroy the malayan rubber production? Bomb all trees?

4. Production of specific war material
It is possible - on map! This might especially be interesting for a mod like WiR, where historically, several soviet tank factories have been overrun. If you give a base i.e. 100 tanks, it has a vehicle factory with an output of 100 tanks per month! It works, you will recieve 100 tanks of this type per month - even as Japanese! It can even be bombed!

But be adviced: I have just found out this and some things aren't discovered, yet:
1. Can the factories be repaired again?
2. Does it cost HI for the Japanese - if yes, how much? (maybe as many as the load costs?)
3. Does the procution upgrade? While this is unimportant for the allies (their old material already still arrives in pool, so it makes no difference via reinforcement or produced on map), it may be really annoying for a Japanese to be forced spending HI for an obsolete and no longer used weapon.
So before using this: Please test it at lenght (and report).

5. New production or repair sites
I guess it's obvious and well known, but if you want to give the japanese player the choice to construct new repair yards (industry, shipyards, factorys, etc.), simply add this device to the base - but with a 0! I don't see a reason why the Japanese shouldn't be able to ship the machinery necessary to repair ships i.e. to rabaul or truk. This will make it easier for the Japs - but it's hard enough anyway, isn't it?

I hope there was some new and useful for the other modders here!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

that's what I've found out working on witw (war in the west):

1. Correct Building costs:
My system of changing the DUR for the production model is already widly in use. As the costs to pay are defined by the ship's DUR, one simply has to give ships in production a durability, that makes their price correct. The only thing necessary is, to let them upgrade immeadiatly after construction.
This way, one may allow the Japanese player to construct CVEs out of AKs. The CVEs (in the slot of an AE, AD, AV etc...) only have to have an extremely high durability as their conversion time is hardcoded.

REPLY: I don't know if it is widely in use - but RHS has used it since you proposed it - and it works well

2. Ship launching like IRL
IRL, ships often have been bombed while under construction. I remember a raid on Bremen, where several subs have been destroyed while under construction. This is impossible in witp. Even when Japan is bombed day by day, the ship will arrive exactly in time when the needed building points have been payed.

REPLY: Not actually the case. If you bomb Japan in the right way - you can interfer with shipbuilding in several ways:
1. Kill (disable) naval shipyards or merchant shipyards - warships progress only when there are enough warship points and these appear to matter more if in the location the ship appears in

2. Kill (disable) heavy industry - merchant ships - same comment as warships above - and this is more critical - as there are never enough merchant shipyards to begin with - so some of the ships are going to be delayed

3. Kill (disable) resource centers - if resources are not high enough HI centers will not produce

4. Kill (disable) oil centers - same comment as 3 above.

5. Kill (disable) repair shipyards - if we use your system - ships must upgrade and to do that they need ship repair points from a repair shipyard. Reducing these delays or even prevents this from happening.

So bombers have considerable pontential to delay ship construction - indefinitely.


Moreover, a ship on it's lipway can't be simply be completed elsewhere when it's site of construction was overrun by the enemy. If it's not at least ready for launching and towed away after a hastily launch, it's lost. As long as the major spawn base is still in the hands of the constructor, the ship will simply arrive there - so in Aden instead of Bombay.
But you may do it differend:
Give the ship a high durability to even the shorter construction time. Then let the ship arrive with high sysdamage - and with 0 in all datafields except the Durability (and sysdamage [;)]).
The player then has the choice:
He can leave it where it's launched to await the full repair or he can "tow" it at extreme low speed and highly endangered by subs to another base. By giving each ship which uses this system (it's enough when you only use it with capital ships) an own class, you can manually desing for every single ship, how it's construction progress goes on. Give it the first AAA after 3 month, the medium artillery after 6, it's engine after 12 and the main armement and deck armour after 18 or 24 (just examples). By this way, you have the ship slowly being completed "on it's slipay" or "finishing pier" like IRL - and meanwhile it can be both bombed or captured (that is sucuttled). Finally, it may upgrade to it's usual "mother-"class.
Of course, this way, it doesn't cost building points any more, but you can even this by a higher durability until launching. This is as realistic or unrealistic as the possibility to produce naval points, armement points, etc. ahead to have these points converted to ships or weapons even when all factorys are destroyed.

REPLY: I don't understand exactly what you mean by 0 in all the datafields - but the problem here is technical: there are not enough slots for the Japanese to do this. It may be possible - with a lot of work - to get costs better. The objection I would expect - that such ships upgrade too fast - isn't true. If you use high slot numbers - the ship will complete very slowly indeed. I think this system has merit - at least to the extent there are slots antd time to do the data entry.


3. Faster repairing of Oil- and Ressourcecenters (and industry, shipyards, etc.)
Who of you has never made the experience to capture the DEI oilfields - and most of them are destroyed? I once had only 3 points of 1200 left undamaged. To repair the oilfields would consequently take the rest of the game - while the Japanese Industry starves. I thought how to fix this.
"Where's a will, there's a way" is a byword in Germany. If you really want to have the hundreds of independ oilwells repaired faster, IRL, you would send more enineers to repair them, no? But in witp it's fixed: 1 point for 1000 supplies a day - and only if over 10.000. But don't make the mistake to send 100.000 at once to have at least 3 month of continuos repairing without the need to control it, because in this case the supplies will spoil.
So I invented a quite simple thing: You only have to split the ressource, oil, industry or whatever is in this slot over all free devices (in total 20). In this case, up to 20 points will be repaired per day! It will still take 1000 supplies each, so the allied player has no significant disadvantege (instead, he can burn supplies much easier now) - but you how have the realistic case of "sending more engineers".
I only split over 100 points, but the designer may do it as he wants. While a big factory may be destroyed totally within one strike - how would you effectifly (without defoliants) destroy the malayan rubber production? Bomb all trees?

REPLY: I am finding it possible to capture resource centers wholly undamaged - and only rarely over half damaged. I WANT THEM DAMAGED - and will retain supply sinks to insure they are even when we don't need them any more to eat supplies (if that happens). In general we want more damage - and repair is too fast - so this idea will work - but isn't simulating the problem of waiting for parts, experts, name it. We should have more difficulty with repair than we do have..

4. Production of specific war material
It is possible - on map! This might especially be interesting for a mod like WiR, where historically, several soviet tank factories have been overrun. If you give a base i.e. 100 tanks, it has a vehicle factory with an output of 100 tanks per month! It works, you will recieve 100 tanks of this type per month - even as Japanese! It can even be bombed!

But be adviced: I have just found out this and some things aren't discovered, yet:
1. Can the factories be repaired again?
2. Does it cost HI for the Japanese - if yes, how much? (maybe as many as the load costs?)
3. Does the procution upgrade? While this is unimportant for the allies (their old material already still arrives in pool, so it makes no difference via reinforcement or produced on map), it may be really annoying for a Japanese to be forced spending HI for an obsolete and no longer used weapon.
So before using this: Please test it at lenght (and report).

REPLY: We do this in RHS. Allied facilities are on the map even when not required - and in some cases they can be captured. They do need HI points - and they will upgrade - but only if you say to what. In general, automotive factories are abstract - they don't produce one kind of tank - and tanks will produce - apparently in slot order. When they change hands some change type: naval shipyards and merchant shipyards always become repair shipyards, for example.

5. New production or repair sites
I guess it's obvious and well known, but if you want to give the japanese player the choice to construct new repair yards (industry, shipyards, factorys, etc.), simply add this device to the base - but with a 0! I don't see a reason why the Japanese shouldn't be able to ship the machinery necessary to repair ships i.e. to rabaul or truk. This will make it easier for the Japs - but it's hard enough anyway, isn't it?

I hope there was some new and useful for the other modders here!

REPLY: The big problem here is machine tools and industrial labor force. Japan is essentially cut off from importing new machine tools, makes almost none of its own, and places like Truk (with a native people called Trukese) lack the manpower skill base for factories. Nevertheless - this is a valid idea - and it is working in RHS in the form of you get a small plant with value of 1 (mostly) you can expand. The China Aircraft factory and the Royal Thai Aircraft factory are set to produce a type impossible for Japan - so it must covert to a Japanese type - and that sets it to 0. This works very ewll - except production builds too fast.

[Historiker]

I just wrote this to summarize my findings.
Whether it makes sense for one or not is the descicion of every mod designer. If you don't want it - don't use it! But at least anyone should know what's possible.

I'm not totally stupid! So I know well that bombing the industry and shipyards will hinder the completion of ships. Nevertheless, a ship still on the building list isn't affected in any way as long as the pool contains naval points. Moreover, the game doesn't care where they are produced. While the ship IRL is constructed in Sasebo, so in good bombrange from china, the used points may be produced in Tokyo - perhaps out of range. That's somewhat unrealistic, isn't it?

We do this in RHS. Allied facilities are on the map even when not required - and in some cases they can be captured. They do need HI points - and they will upgrade - but only if you say to what. In general, automotive factories are abstract - they don't produce one kind of tank - and tanks will produce - apparently in slot order. When they change hands some change type: naval shipyards and merchant shipyards always become repair shipyards, for example.

Is my english that bad that you only rarely understand me (which is also my impression even in our emails)?
Do you think I'm that stupid that I anounce proudly that I've found out that the Allies may also have vehicle and armement factories?
What I've ment is: You can give a base together with the 521 for industry, 519 for ressources etc. maybe a 350 for a specific tank! Add 200 Shermans (sic! no vehivle factory) to a base - and it will produce 200 Shermans per Month - and only Shermans! You can do the same with every device, no matter wheter it's a tank, a mortar or an artillery piece.
I've not seen this in any mod so far and I've looked into most of them.


I wrote this to summarize what I've found out. If a factory gets expanded to fast, you may permit expanding it or introduce a house rule. You may also limit the maximum size of the new repair shipyards to i.e. 5,10 or 25 - but at there should be the opportunity at least.

[Bogo Mil]

For RHS, I think the trick to build ships cheaper should be used more often - especially for those extremely expensive barge groups, but also for TKs/AOs. Build cost is durability squared x 10 construction points, that's 3 times that many HI points. One of the larger tankers costs as much as an aircraft carrier now...

[JeffroK]

Historiker,

1. Correct Building costs:
My system of changing the DUR for the production model is already widly in use. As the costs to pay are defined by the ship's DUR, one simply has to give ships in production a durability, that makes their price correct. The only thing necessary is, to let them upgrade immeadiatly after construction.
This way, one may allow the Japanese player to construct CVEs out of AKs. The CVEs (in the slot of an AE, AD, AV etc...) only have to have an extremely high durability as their conversion time is hardcoded.

To make this work do you set up the upgrade to arrive well before it can be built, say 7 Dec 41, so that when its built it immediately upgrades?

[JeffroK]

5. New production or repair sites
I guess it's obvious and well known, but if you want to give the japanese player the choice to construct new repair yards (industry, shipyards, factorys, etc.), simply add this device to the base - but with a 0! I don't see a reason why the Japanese shouldn't be able to ship the machinery necessary to repair ships i.e. to rabaul or truk. This will make it easier for the Japs - but it's hard enough anyway, isn't it?

This could be interesting in allowing the Industry in Australia, New Zealand & India to be rebuilt if occupied by the japanese. Even if at only a % of the original value.

Maybe Truk & Rabaul could support little more than Palm Oil plants, but it has possibilities elsewhere.

[Historiker]

In WiR, where actually implement this method, ships are arriving in late 44 which were already built in 41. Consequently, this ship will be built (in witp terms) with 1 durability. In the editor, I order it to upgrade to a shipclass with the correct data. But it's unimportant whether this class is available from 1/41 or 1/44 - it only must be available before the ship is finally "constructed".
I usually take the beginning month of the scenario.

This is the example for ships which were already built in the played scenario - or which get built outside of it (i.e. in Germany). If you just want correct building costs, you have to calculate them. To do this, I take a CL for comparison:
1. I compare the building time of my new ship with the CL IRL
2. I compare the needed workers
3. I compare the needed materials
(4. You may compare the needed slipway/drydock)

If you allow the player to upgrade AKs to CVEs in your scenario, you have to compare for 1. the time of a real AK to CVE with 180days. If the real converting took 540 days, the ingame process must be 3 times as expensive for point 1. As both 2 and 3 are the same, you then simply give the new converted CVE the triple durability than usual CVEs.
If you want to compare a new construction, you may take 1 to 3 as one third each, to keep it simple. An example:
Ship XY took IRL 1,25 as long to construct as a CL with dur 30)
It took 1.5 as much specially trained workers
But it only took 0.75 as much material (perhaps no armour, less guns).

The CL takes 9000 naval points to be completed (30x30x10)
The ship xy costs 12,5+15+.7,5 = 35(points 1to3)x35x10 = 12250

If ship xy gets converted within 180 days, it consequently must have a durability of 68,05 If it should have a durability of 30 in the game, you let it upgrade to a workable version (with a speed higher than 0) immeadiately after its conversion.
You may - of course - increase the durability for balancing reasons (even with a dur of 100, as a Japanese player I would take the 1000 merchant points per day to produce 2x10 CVEs for the first two years...), but that's a different story. Increasing it here also makes sense as two times the workers not always complete the work in half the time...



This only shows the idea. Anyone is invited to make this formula perfect by changing the percentage of 1-3 to each other. In theory, based on this idea, every ship has to be recalculated. Sid gives tankers a high durability for good reasons - but that makes them as expensive as carriers - which is nonsens IMO. If anyone ever has the mood to invest endless time, he might recalculate every "building durability" within the game on this bases.

[Historiker]

5. New production or repair sites
I guess it's obvious and well known, but if you want to give the japanese player the choice to construct new repair yards (industry, shipyards, factorys, etc.), simply add this device to the base - but with a 0! I don't see a reason why the Japanese shouldn't be able to ship the machinery necessary to repair ships i.e. to rabaul or truk. This will make it easier for the Japs - but it's hard enough anyway, isn't it?

This could be interesting in allowing the Industry in Australia, New Zealand & India to be rebuilt if occupied by the japanese. Even if at only a % of the original value.

Maybe Truk & Rabaul could support little more than Palm Oil plants, but it has possibilities elsewhere.

Yes, that's the idea.
In the mod I'm working on, I intend to give the japanese player the possibility to build repar shipyards at several strategic important bases with huge harbours. This may then be limited by House Rule. I.e. a repair shipyards in the Aleutians may only have the size of 10, Truck may have 50, Kwajalein and Palau 25 and Rabaul 40...

Something like this. It can also be limited by a house rule that it mustn't be expanded by more than 1-5 points per month...

[el cid again]

I think you are brilliant, nicht eine Dumbkopf.

It is possible there is something wrong with my command of English - but more likely it is the norm in communications: communications is hard and requires feedback to insure clarity. Being misunderstood should be expected - being perfectly understood is close to impossible - and back and forth is the recommended best mode of operation. I never get upset - and you should not either. IF I reply it is a sign of respect. I don't know what you know - so I try to be helpful insuring you know the basics. The idea of allied factories is not new - for example - although there is a convention they should not have them - I have broken that convention - and you have looked at scenarios with them: this illistrates that being aware of what is right there in front of us is not always the case - so clarification should never be an issue: if you know it already - fine; if not - you win; in no case are you hurt.

I like a good deal of your reasoning - but want to integrate it properly. I don't think the Allies need to change their ship system - they build the capital ships off the map anyway in most cases. If we limit it to Japan - there are not many capital ships to apply it to - and it has one advantage in addition to those you pointed out: the enemy does not know where the Shinano (or whatever) is going to be fitted out. Experimenting indicates there is a possibility of improving on existing conversion mechanisms - although for different reasons - we were already doing that with some vessels (notably RTN, Vichy and German). Working with these in play I find that it takes longer to repair than one might expect, that really high damage rates are a bad idea (they tend to sink the ship), but if one is moderate with damage - it works very well.

And I did NOT understand what you meant about Shermans as a production creature / device. It probably does work that way. Not that I think it is a good idea - it is an interesting discovery - and might be useful for some local production - say in Australia - for something historically done there IMHO. Good analysis.

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I just wrote this to summarize my findings.
Whether it makes sense for one or not is the descicion of every mod designer. If you don't want it - don't use it! But at least anyone should know what's possible.

I'm not totally stupid! So I know well that bombing the industry and shipyards will hinder the completion of ships. Nevertheless, a ship still on the building list isn't affected in any way as long as the pool contains naval points. Moreover, the game doesn't care where they are produced. While the ship IRL is constructed in Sasebo, so in good bombrange from china, the used points may be produced in Tokyo - perhaps out of range. That's somewhat unrealistic, isn't it?

We do this in RHS. Allied facilities are on the map even when not required - and in some cases they can be captured. They do need HI points - and they will upgrade - but only if you say to what. In general, automotive factories are abstract - they don't produce one kind of tank - and tanks will produce - apparently in slot order. When they change hands some change type: naval shipyards and merchant shipyards always become repair shipyards, for example.

Is my english that bad that you only rarely understand me (which is also my impression even in our emails)?
Do you think I'm that stupid that I anounce proudly that I've found out that the Allies may also have vehicle and armement factories?
What I've ment is: You can give a base together with the 521 for industry, 519 for ressources etc. maybe a 350 for a specific tank! Add 200 Shermans (sic! no vehivle factory) to a base - and it will produce 200 Shermans per Month - and only Shermans! You can do the same with every device, no matter wheter it's a tank, a mortar or an artillery piece.
I've not seen this in any mod so far and I've looked into most of them.


I wrote this to summarize what I've found out. If a factory gets expanded to fast, you may permit expanding it or introduce a house rule. You may also limit the maximum size of the new repair shipyards to i.e. 5,10 or 25 - but at there should be the opportunity at least.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

For RHS, I think the trick to build ships cheaper should be used more often - especially for those extremely expensive barge groups, but also for TKs/AOs. Build cost is durability squared x 10 construction points, that's 3 times that many HI points. One of the larger tankers costs as much as an aircraft carrier now...

We had to get rid of "building" as such for landing craft and similar groups - they were preventing regular ships from advancing on the build track. It is to Historiker's credit he identified the issue. We adopted several different mechanisms to mitigate it: we changed the number of shipyards - complete with industry to support them; we changed how some ships are built - using a conversion process described by Historiker; we removed others entirely from needing to be built - they appear "damaged" - although that turned out to be difficult to mange (a high damage value tends to sink the ship - so we had to cut back; on the other hand - the repair time took longer than theory says - so it was OK to do that).

I am playing test games to measure if we have enough of this sort of thing - and so far I am not having trouble on either side.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Historiker,

1. Correct Building costs:
My system of changing the DUR for the production model is already widly in use. As the costs to pay are defined by the ship's DUR, one simply has to give ships in production a durability, that makes their price correct. The only thing necessary is, to let them upgrade immeadiatly after construction.
This way, one may allow the Japanese player to construct CVEs out of AKs. The CVEs (in the slot of an AE, AD, AV etc...) only have to have an extremely high durability as their conversion time is hardcoded.

To make this work do you set up the upgrade to arrive well before it can be built, say 7 Dec 41, so that when its built it immediately upgrades?

You can set it to arrive at any date. And "immediate upgrade" is a variable thing. It is much more likely to upgrade fast at a major shipyard in a major port with lots of HI and supplies. It is much less likely to upgrade if there are lots of other ships needing upgrades, few supplies, little or no HI, and little or no repair shipyards. I am having trouble getting the RTN big gunboats to upgrade ever - but since RTN was not entirely under command - this is OK. One factor seems to be that the higher the class slot - the less likely it is to upgrade - or build - and vice versa - lower the slot - the sooner. The concept does work - but is more likely to work with cheaper vessels - lower slot vessels - in well supported locations in terms of supplies and industry and port size - and it is subject to the die rolls of WITP - it isn't exactly "instant" - although it can be. All the RTN submarines convert over in a couple of weeks - but never all together up front for example.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

5. New production or repair sites
I guess it's obvious and well known, but if you want to give the japanese player the choice to construct new repair yards (industry, shipyards, factorys, etc.), simply add this device to the base - but with a 0! I don't see a reason why the Japanese shouldn't be able to ship the machinery necessary to repair ships i.e. to rabaul or truk. This will make it easier for the Japs - but it's hard enough anyway, isn't it?

This could be interesting in allowing the Industry in Australia, New Zealand & India to be rebuilt if occupied by the japanese. Even if at only a % of the original value.

Maybe Truk & Rabaul could support little more than Palm Oil plants, but it has possibilities elsewhere.

I think industry should be where it was. I think its size should be the size it was (to the extent we can figure out what part applies to the WITP type economy). And I have added small (sometimes not small) industries at dozens of locations. I also borrowed an idea from Andrew Brown - that supplies represent "light industry" - or food. Thus Kodiak Alaska produces supply points - representing the vast food production of that place - which includes canneries - but no HI - because it does not make heavy industrial things. I also borrowed and expanded the idea that rubber can be represented by oil - tiny oil production rates represent rubber plantations. This concept of expanding industry applies to nations on both sides - not just the Allies - and it makes the "logistic desert" of the vast ocean areas more significantly a desert. Notable exceptions are Indian Ocean's Christmas Island and Nauru Island - guano producers of significance - and New Caledonia - a vast mineral producer - also a cattle producer. India, China, Manchuria, Siberia, New Zealand, Thailand and non major cities in Ausralia are candidates for some industry.

[el cid again]

There is an inconsistency in WITP code:

an ALLIED ship with speed 0 will appear and even move;
a JAPANESE ship with speed 0 will never appear at all - so I use speed 1 for these instead

There are other ways to figure what a ship cost should be. Whatever you do - apply it consistently to all classes of all ships of both sides. I make auxiliaries cost more than true merchants, and tankers more than auxiliaries. Warships also vary - an escort might be built to merchantile standards or warship standards - and that affects its cost. A CVE or CVL converted from a merchantman (and rarely a CV) is cheaper than a armored CV or CVL - per unit of size. More speed also should impact cost: the HP requirements go up as a power function rather than a linear one. One can have a lot of fun with this - and spend years entering the resultant data.

ORIGINAL: Historiker

In WiR, where actually implement this method, ships are arriving in late 44 which were already built in 41. Consequently, this ship will be built (in witp terms) with 1 durability. In the editor, I order it to upgrade to a shipclass with the correct data. But it's unimportant whether this class is available from 1/41 or 1/44 - it only must be available before the ship is finally "constructed".
I usually take the beginning month of the scenario.

This is the example for ships which were already built in the played scenario - or which get built outside of it (i.e. in Germany). If you just want correct building costs, you have to calculate them. To do this, I take a CL for comparison:
1. I compare the building time of my new ship with the CL IRL
2. I compare the needed workers
3. I compare the needed materials
(4. You may compare the needed slipway/drydock)

If you allow the player to upgrade AKs to CVEs in your scenario, you have to compare for 1. the time of a real AK to CVE with 180days. If the real converting took 540 days, the ingame process must be 3 times as expensive for point 1. As both 2 and 3 are the same, you then simply give the new converted CVE the triple durability than usual CVEs.
If you want to compare a new construction, you may take 1 to 3 as one third each, to keep it simple. An example:
Ship XY took IRL 1,25 as long to construct as a CL with dur 30)
It took 1.5 as much specially trained workers
But it only took 0.75 as much material (perhaps no armour, less guns).

The CL takes 9000 naval points to be completed (30x30x10)
The ship xy costs 12,5+15+.7,5 = 35(points 1to3)x35x10 = 12250

If ship xy gets converted within 180 days, it consequently must have a durability of 68,05 If it should have a durability of 30 in the game, you let it upgrade to a workable version (with a speed higher than 0) immeadiately after its conversion.
You may - of course - increase the durability for balancing reasons (even with a dur of 100, as a Japanese player I would take the 1000 merchant points per day to produce 2x10 CVEs for the first two years...), but that's a different story. Increasing it here also makes sense as two times the workers not always complete the work in half the time...



This only shows the idea. Anyone is invited to make this formula perfect by changing the percentage of 1-3 to each other. In theory, based on this idea, every ship has to be recalculated. Sid gives tankers a high durability for good reasons - but that makes them as expensive as carriers - which is nonsens IMO. If anyone ever has the mood to invest endless time, he might recalculate every "building durability" within the game on this bases.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

5. New production or repair sites
I guess it's obvious and well known, but if you want to give the japanese player the choice to construct new repair yards (industry, shipyards, factorys, etc.), simply add this device to the base - but with a 0! I don't see a reason why the Japanese shouldn't be able to ship the machinery necessary to repair ships i.e. to rabaul or truk. This will make it easier for the Japs - but it's hard enough anyway, isn't it?

This could be interesting in allowing the Industry in Australia, New Zealand & India to be rebuilt if occupied by the japanese. Even if at only a % of the original value.

Maybe Truk & Rabaul could support little more than Palm Oil plants, but it has possibilities elsewhere.

Yes, that's the idea.
In the mod I'm working on, I intend to give the japanese player the possibility to build repar shipyards at several strategic important bases with huge harbours. This may then be limited by House Rule. I.e. a repair shipyards in the Aleutians may only have the size of 10, Truck may have 50, Kwajalein and Palau 25 and Rabaul 40...

Something like this. It can also be limited by a house rule that it mustn't be expanded by more than 1-5 points per month...

It is difficult to imagine a shipyard in the Aleutians. There is no work force - at all really (there were eight villages - all evacuated - with less than 1000 population - including babies). There is no local heavy industry. Who would want to build a shipyard forward at risk to enemy attack? And where would you build it? There is a good medium draft port on the Alaskan mainland - but after that there is nothing suitable for even medium work - and the cost of hauling the stuff in would be beyond what might be contemplated in wartime. There is a deep water port at Whittier - but it fits only two ships - and moving mountains is not very practical. One might build Anchorage into a significant port - but it was really an anchorage then - and creating a channel for real ships seems an unlikely proposition. Neither Anchorage nor Whittier are in the Aleutians - nor is Bethel (the good medium port) or Nome - which I think also was an anchorage for anything more than a small vessel. There is a small port site on the Alaska Penninsula - there is Cold Bay - there is Adak - and none were ever considered for even a small shipyard. I am not entirely sure I understand why one would want one either?

But IF you want something - consider this: IJN had Mobile Repairs Sections. These are even in RHS. They are represented by tug and barge art. They are very slow moving AR that turn a small port into a bigger one for repair purposes. Now the farthest forward of these I know of went to Soerabaja - which had proper shipyard workers and facilities - and it even built/modified ships. This was done at Hong Kong. This was done at Bako. So it can be done - but should be at real ports of significcance. But if you want to - you can move such a unit to any port - and if Level 3 - it can go into the port - and it will make it a significant repair point.

[JeffroK]

Historiker,

Another trick to look at and try.

You can create more than 1 base in a hex.

Just reading Morison's Aleutians, Gilberts & Marshalls. The US invaded the Kwajalein atoll in 2 basically independent attacks, 4th Marine Div on Roi/Namur & 7th Infantry Div on Kwajalein. These could have been run as 2 seperate attacks.

I was fiddling with the Kwajalein Atoll, consisting of 2 major islands and lots of little ones. I was able to create a Roi/Namur base & Kwajalein base (copied and pasted the Kwajalein base)

This allowed transfer of aircraft & directing a TF to the new base.

Navigating to the 2nd base was a bit fiddly, but possible.

I can only think of a few situations to use this (maybe with AE 40 mile hexes there may be a few more ) but in your WITW rework you may see the need for more than 1 base in a 60 mile hex. (I havent tried opposite sides!)

[el cid again]

I wanted a separate base for Fort Drum - but failed to make it work properly.

How do you get a ground assault to work on one or the other - your control? Or a defense for that matter?

How do you navigate to the one you want?

[JeffroK]

It takes a bit of clicking around, some screens offer choice, sometimes you click on the "left" "right" arrows next to the base name on the display on the bottom of the screen and access the LCU's from there
 
You can fly units there, you can send TF's there. I created bases on both sides and it seemed OK.
 
I hadnt tried land combat as I assumed it would be used for the bigger atolls (Engebi/Eniwetok deserve it as well). Ialso think Corregidor needs it own base rather than falling with Bataan.
 
While it looks possible it might melt down under pressure [:D]

[el cid again]

My concern was logistics. As supplies draw down, all units in a hex share and starve together, losing squads. Worse, which squads go is statistical - there is an equal chance per slot. If I have a 14 inch CD gun in small numbers (e.g. 4 at Fort Drum) - they will become 100 per cent disabled long before the infantry does. This is backwards: IRL the guns were undamaged - until spiked at the surrender. Worse - it was disclosed about 1981 that Fort Drum might not have surrendered - if it had food. A player does not have the option of stocking it and having it survive - closing Manila Bay without defending Bataan. Also - I would like Fort Drum not to be malarial.

There is ONE slot which DOES NOT share supplies (2125). Must be hard code. I use it for the Fort Drum CD Fort - to help it last longer with big guns (instead of becoming ineffective as the engine makes happen). It was originally used by stock for the Hawaii base force or something like that.

[Bogo Mil]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
You can set it to arrive at any date. And "immediate upgrade" is a variable thing. It is much more likely to upgrade fast at a major shipyard in a major port with lots of HI and supplies. It is much less likely to upgrade if there are lots of other ships needing upgrades, few supplies, little or no HI, and little or no repair shipyards. I am having trouble getting the RTN big gunboats to upgrade ever

I have never seen a ship not upgrading. The ship must be disbanded in port, and there must be a repair shipyard. I think any size will do, I know size 10 is large enough to upgrade CA. The sys damage must be very low. How low is low enough depends on the class - the larger the ship, the lower the sys damage must be. If I turned on upgrade to a ship without sys damage, it always upgraded immediately - even if the port is cramped with dozens of repairing vessels. I never saw anything else.

You can give new ships 99 sys damage. If they don't have floatation or fires, they will not sink. If they have floatation, it may get out of control with 99 sys - even a ship which starts at 20 float damage might sink. Just don't add any float damage.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

My concern was logistics. As supplies draw down, all units in a hex share and starve together, losing squads. Worse, which squads go is statistical - there is an equal chance per slot. If I have a 14 inch CD gun in small numbers (e.g. 4 at Fort Drum) - they will become 100 per cent disabled long before the infantry does. This is backwards: IRL the guns were undamaged - until spiked at the surrender. Worse - it was disclosed about 1981 that Fort Drum might not have surrendered - if it had food. A player does not have the option of stocking it and having it survive - closing Manila Bay without defending Bataan. Also - I would like Fort Drum not to be malarial.

There is ONE slot which DOES NOT share supplies (2125). Must be hard code. I use it for the Fort Drum CD Fort - to help it last longer with big guns (instead of becoming ineffective as the engine makes happen). It was originally used by stock for the Hawaii base force or something like that.

Yep, the supplies swim across the lagoon to the 2nd base[:(]

While it may be acceptable in some cases, I assume there would be times you didnt want it to happen. (Assuming its not going to share with the enemy)