Matrix Games Forums

What is the best practice for same guns - like for example 40mm Bofors - that exist either in ships and LCU's.

Is the practice making the naval model separated from land model? Also considering production, load weight.

Unless there is a reason, use the same slot. Production is ONLY for LAND use - naval
units get weapons and upgrade them WITHOUT regard to it. If you need production, consider
only LAND needs. In fact I do this more than one way: many gunboats use "army weapons"
as such, mortars and light howitzers for example. They work as naval weapons - at least
kind of sort of - which all we need for improvised installations.

IRL PT 109 had an army 37MM AT gun mounted on the deck with ropes, wheels removed.

Note 'production' is ONLY for Japan. Allied devices NEVER produce because
the 'production system' is purely Japanese. Allied units get 'replacements.'
The manual says a dual device (used by both sides) will consider 'pools'
and 'replacements' as ALLIED ONLY - and if Japan needs one of these - it
will 'buy it' from the production system.

Nice that frees several slots in my list.

About "production" differences:
Thanks that was one of things that i wanted to ask.



Another one what is your advice if i want that a rare gun for the Axis is not produced too often? Say a gun that can only be produced 1 each month.

One alternative that i thought to have the so called convoys with devices -so i can make a convoy appear each six months with six guns- this can happen for Allies, are convoys available for Axis too?

Surprising that you are running short of device slots given how many there are, how many open slots there are in stock, and how many duplicates that can be removed to free up even more ...

I don't mix naval and land devices, even if they are the same barrel per the dev's practice in that regard. My rationale is simply that they represent not only the barrel but the mount. Obviously the mounts are considerably different.

YMMV.

Many low number slots are NOT used and are DUPLICATED above. You CAN use them to get more.
Some devices appear several times but are not used in all of them. Be careful - check units.

UNLESS you want to give the Axis a FREE weapon you MUST let the program 'buy' it.
IF you want to give em a weapon without expending an HI point, then say NO to build
and give it a replacement rate of 1.

ORIGINAL: Dili

Nice that frees several slots in my list.

About "production" differences:
Thanks that was one of things that i wanted to ask.



Another one what is your advice if i want that a rare gun for the Axis is not produced too often? Say a gun that can only be produced 1 each month.

One alternative that i thought to have the so called convoys with devices -so i can make a convoy appear each six months with six guns- this can happen for Allies, are convoys available for Axis too?

Just Bofors i had a more than 10 versions , one for Yugoslavs, 4 or 5 for British and Royal Navy, Hungarians, Germans, Romanians, US Army, US Navy.

PaxMondo how do you factor the mounts. As per el cid load coast don't matter for Naval guns so you can use the land mount value. Are you accounting for such things as powered mounts or radar/RPC controlled that are faster - so improved accuracy?


el cid my question is just how to make the game respect the historical production capacity of that kind of weapon. This is mostly for medium to heavy guns 150-300mm and AFVs like Tiger i have to send to Italy more or less the historical German quantities. In this case production it isn't important just have the devices arrive in historical period.

My question about convoys anyone knows?

Following stock practice, guns for ship use should have load values of 9999
and NEVER be used on land. Set "build = NO" because they are part of a ship only.

Land units use 'load cost' more than one way - it is weight of the weapon system
AND the number of men in the unit! Small guns should be given values = crew size.
Large guns should be given values = weight in tons (probably 2000 pound long tons).
Land guns can be set to build IF Axis - and they can get replacements IF Allied.

Rarely I let Axis have "free" replacement guns, planes, name it - WHEN there is a large
number in service and there are repair depots. For planes I let the replacement rate
= 1 % of the total historical build for that sub-type of aircraft. For the Allies,
as well, and only, I put a few major repair depots on the map: Lao Wing China, Bangalore
India, Karachi Pakistan, Sydney Australia and Melbourne Australia are examples. THESE
location have typically "factories" set to 1 replacement per month. Oh - yeah - there
is also an Allied aircraft depot and assembly point at Bandoeng, Java (historical). They
repair a few types and actually assemble Demons (some small number - maybe 3?)

Italy? I guess this is a European mod you work on. You can NOT make the game respect historical
builds - and probably should not anyway - IF you use Axis production system. For one thing,
it is going to build replacements for Axis using the production system whatever you do. And
in a fictional war, what is needed will change from history because (a) of different casualties
needing replacements and (b) different player strategies. You can control this in a few cases,
however:

1) You can NOT USE a weapon at all - in which case it never needs to build a replacement.

2) You can CONTROL Allied replacements - and must - because what you don't give them they will NEVER
get! But at least you control the number per month. You can change the rate per month by upgrading
to a different device number with a different quantity after a certain date you pick.

3) You can create overall limits for aircraft and engines by the number of factories you set up - and
by what you assign them to produce. A FUTURE factory will NOT produce a CURRENT plane UNTIL its assigned
aircraft is ready to start producing: at THAT point a player may assign ANY type able to produce on that date.
Note, however, players can reassign the factory to a different type (with a penalty of reduced numbers) -
and if they pick the very next plane that is going to come available - they can in theory set ALL factories
to that one type - and on that type's date - have TOTAL control of what factories build. That may permit
faster than historical expansion - unless you make a house rule to prevent it - or use AI - which will respect
waiting for the type you specified.

4) You have no problems with Allied ship production - just tell the data base when each appears?
But for the Axis, any FUTURE ship WILL cost production points - which is unfortunate but structural.
Less a problem in Europe - virtually all the ships appearing there are build there - Japanese
submarines being the rare exceptions. Maybe also a returning German sub or raider out of area
at game start. Never mind where it came from, it will be BUILT if it appears after game start!

ORIGINAL: Dili

Just Bofors i had a more than 10 versions , one for Yugoslavs, 4 or 5 for British and Royal Navy, Hungarians, Germans, Romanians, US Army, US Navy.

PaxMondo how do you factor the mounts. As per el cid load coast don't matter for Naval guns so you can use the land mount value. Are you accounting for such things as powered mounts or radar/RPC controlled that are faster - so improved accuracy?


el cid my question is just how to make the game respect the historical production capacity of that kind of weapon. This is mostly for medium to heavy guns 150-300mm and AFVs like Tiger i have to send to Italy more or less the historical German quantities. In this case production it isn't important just have the devices arrive in historical period.

My question about convoys anyone knows?

Not sure i understand el cid you said first in an earlier post that you compounded ship and land devices in your mod :

Unless there is a reason, use the same slot. Production is ONLY for LAND use - naval
units get weapons and upgrade them WITHOUT regard to it. If you need production, consider
only LAND needs.

So you got rid of devices for ship only if you can compound both in a slot.


Yes. I am making a Mediterranean Mod, so the stuff that came from Germany can't change much. I think i can't allow more than 5% difference either way. There are also stuff that is are historical limited since it is captured pieces from Soviets and elsewhere.

ORIGINAL: Dili

PaxMondo how do you factor the mounts. As per el cid load coast don't matter for Naval guns so you can use the land mount value. Are you accounting for such things as powered mounts or radar/RPC controlled that are faster - so improved accuracy?

EX: In some cases the auto feed was part of the mount on a naval gun which may not have been part of the CD installation ... you may wish to adjust ROF ...

Your problem is unique so it needs different solutions than we use in PTO.

One option is NOT TO USE the production system except where you are forced to use it:

LCU replacements will be automatic and will use HI, Ordnance plants, vehicle plants, etc.

Aircraft and engines are different - you COULD IGNORE the factory system and do it all
with replacements - that would give you control. But in that case the Allies can't bomb
those factories, and HI becomes less attractive to bomb. I don't like it - but it gives
you control. If it is a short scenario it might be a good option. Strategic bombing
was of Germany, in the main, so you don't need to let the Allies do it, probably.

I have figured out the last technical problems with the map support files (pwzlink.dat,
pwzone.dat, pwhexe.dat) AND I now have new editors for all of them - which I am testing
for the programmer. So I can help you understand the map system.

ORIGINAL: Dili

Not sure i understand el cid you said first in an earlier post that you compounded ship and land devices in your mod :

Unless there is a reason, use the same slot. Production is ONLY for LAND use - naval
units get weapons and upgrade them WITHOUT regard to it. If you need production, consider
only LAND needs.

So you got rid of devices for ship only if you can compound both in a slot.


Yes. I am making a Mediterranean Mod, so the stuff that came from Germany can't change much. I think i can't allow more than 5% difference either way. There are also stuff that is are historical limited since it is captured pieces from Soviets and elsewhere.

Yes that is what i thought paxmondo.

el cid
Most HI is for Italian production, Allies for example have much less HI in the scenario, most stuff appear from convoy. Also since LCU and air units don't consume fuel i will have to have HI in Libya to force tanker supply voyages from Italy to Libya.


I really appreciate that offer concerning the map.

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yes that is what i thought paxmondo.

el cid
Most HI is for Italian production, Allies for example have much less HI in the scenario, most stuff appear from convoy. Also since LCU and air units don't consume fuel i will have to have HI in Libya to force tanker supply voyages from Italy to Libya.


I really appreciate that offer concerning the map.

I do not think HI in Libya is either realistic or needed. One never needs to 'force' tankers to sail.
And since there is no need for oil in Libya, just ships fuel, one only needs to send the tankers required
to refuel ships there. That might be almost zero - since the med is so narrow - most ships can cross it
and return at least once without refueling. But a patrol craft might need some fuel.

As for the Allied HI, it is simply chrome - it has NO function apart from being a good producer of supplies.
In fact, that is another reason NOT to put HI in Libya: it will make supply locally and that means one
need not send ships with supplies - which I think is an important aspect of the situation. Libya is a long
line of coastal ports with little interior development and lousy road communications except along the coast.
The campaign tended to be a fight up and down that coastal road - with flanking maneuvers made with a view
to cutting the enemy LOC.

One of the issues in North African warfare was lack of fuel for the Axis land and air units. This is something that the game as is don't simulate well since neither LCU and air units consume fuel.

The idea of HI in North Africa is to make the player send fuel there in TK ships. Otherwise thee isn't much use for tankers crossing the Med like in IRL except to feed the small number of ships that support the 3 main harbors. Destroyer level.

I completely agree with your position about land unit and aircraft fuel being modeled as supplies.
I recommended, instead, a model using resources, oil, POL and supplies where POL was all forms
of fuel and oil based industrial chemicals and it is needed by LCU, air units, ships and industry.
This was rejected as too much work.

Fuel is in fact not fuel at all - it is "ship fuel" as it were.

In your mod perhaps you do not need oil at all? I think you do - but only to feed industry in Italy -
and that might really matter. But you don't need it to be delivered by tankers, probably. You should
get it from the map edge, from Romania I assume, along a rail line. I cannot think of a seaborne LOC
for oil for Italy - but I will check. I found in PTO when I went looking for oilfields I found them.
There may be some.

ORIGINAL: Dili

One of the issues in North African warfare was lack of fuel for the Axis land and air units. This is something that the game as is don't simulate well since neither LCU and air units consume fuel.

The idea of HI in North Africa is to make the player send fuel there in TK ships. Otherwise thee isn't much use for tankers crossing the Med like in IRL except to feed the small number of ships that support the 3 main harbors. Destroyer level.

ORIGINAL: Dili

What is the best practice for same guns - like for example 40mm Bofors - that exist either in ships and LCU's.

Is the practice making the naval model separated from land model? Also considering production, load weight.

You want to keep land weapons and naval weapons separate because land and naval combat calculates differently. Having the same device and data will cause anomalous results in one or the other.

There is a reason for the device secondary data fields in Witpload. They address the data differences necessary for differentiating between anti ship and anti air calculations during naval combat. The same applies between naval and land. There are no secondary fields that differentiate between naval and land combat. You must have separate devices with their own particular data if you want to maintain accuracy and consistency.

Matt

I generally agree - except that one cannot prevent either type from being used in the other type of combat.
Thus, if land weapons in a land unit happen to be present when a naval landing occurs, they will attempt
(die rolls for detection permitting) to attack the naval units offshore as well as they absolutely will
perform a bombardment attack on the land unit landed - using the very same devices. Testing indicates some
variations of this happen without being reported, others are reported as line reports but without separate
combat reports or displays, and sometimes one can only prove the attack because of damage to the naval units
which didn't report a combat at all. This is a remarkable program, but somewhat oversimplified to model
the most complicated form of military operations in history. The attempt to segregate devices into land
mounted and sea mounted was logical, but not consistently implemented by the combat resolution routines.
In fact, there are numbers of variations in the data set - probably due to (a) lack of documented policy
or rules for device creation and (b) a large number of different people creating devices over time. It also
appears that some characteristics may have been modified over time: for example at some point anti-aircraft
and dual purpose weapons gained an undocumented anti-aircraft range DIFFERENT from the "range" field for the
device. [That range is equal to the ceiling of the device, divided by 3000, because ceiling is in feet and
range is in thousands of yards.] Why such definitions are not in the editor manual are unclear, but one reason
might be they came into existence after it was written.

Consider a ship mounted weapon: it may well end up firing on a land unit, or bombarding a land target. What
about the use of Army weapons on ships? Is one to create a separate device for every mortar, howitzer, machine
gun, name it, mounted on a single gunboat? These weapons do appear to work fine on minor riverine craft (where
they are most often found), and on river booms - which are a very special case of almost static 'naval vessels'
which move only in an operational sense - but not in a useful tactical sense. Defining them as naval units means
they get the default one hex per day minimum movement - which is about right - and yet they are essentially static
in naval combat.

There are limited numbers of devices, and the attempt to model an entirely different theater is outside the design
concept for the game program itself. What is modeled in any mod often requires compromises and trade offs.
As a rule, land units will use land devices in land combat. Yet every single one of them may end up being fired
at a naval unit. And vice versa.

@el cid:Italian oil came from Italy proper very small production- i am unsure yet how to model coal if resource or oil - from Albania - so very short sea trip- and from Romania like you said plus from Germany. There was a trade of tankers from Black Sea to Italy to get Romanian oil since land supply appear not enough(or too expensive) and sometimes was blocked. Some of those tankers were blocked in Black Sea until Greece was taken by Axis.

@Matt i understand that and i have been checking my devices with DaBabes which i have read seems to have been made a further effort and i am not seeing much difference, for example between Bofors, or between 40cm 3YT CD naval gun so for land and 40cm 3YT naval gun for ships. Now if we go to Army wps vs Naval gun i know that the accuracy is differently modeled, but seems to have been a conscientious decision to put all CD guns as Naval gun and not as Army weapon.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I generally agree -

I do not much care whether you 'generally' agree or not. The game code works as it works irrespective of (mostly false) internet historical factoids.

When people are looking for information regarding the game, please refrain from confusing them with paragraphs of irrelevancies. Either you know how the game works, or you don't.

If you don't, better to say so and have people who do know help you.

Matt