Hardcore Japanese tester wanted...

[Ron Saueracker]

I've got this posted in the Opponents room but seeing as this is a design test I thought it might help posting here as well.

Anyone interested in testing a wee mod of the CHS using AB's extended map? I have some ideas and tweaks I'd like to check out.

Basically the CHS with WITP 1.60 build but...

Turn Allied DamCon off and adds enhanced durability to Allied warships (only) with each successive refit. Civilian merchants of all nations now have 50% of initial durability as well.

Has an A2A mod much like Nik's. People are requesting that something like Nik's mod be included so why not try it out with CHS production/rates? PDU ON as I want to see if the logistical changes make PDU less of a toy.

Logistics system has been severely altered. 90% of resources on island bases (ie DEI, Australia), India and Burma has been removed and replaced by oil. Only mainland souces remain as per CHS (Japanese Asian continental possesions, Japanese Home Islands, Russia, China, North America). The Middle East and Panama now have larger reource/oil output to compensate). Manila, Batavia and Soerabaja have small munufacuting capability as compensation as well. Panama has small repair yard capability to model Atlantic ports.Reason...to alleviate the 1.25:1 supply/resource dynamic which I believe is too plentiful and eliminates the need for manufacturing supply and shipping it to the front. Should slow the game down drastically and alleviate some of the massive base buildups.

Civilian merchants (AKs) have had their capacity reduced to 20% of CHS caps. Civilian Tankers have had their capacities cut 50%. Military AKAs, AOs, AEs and APs remain the same due to assumption that these are military specific. Reason...to model an abstract civilian economy (alleviates the generic supply model...beans are not bombs).

Device load costs have been doubled for Japanese and Chinese, tripled for Western nations (ie, more equipment, western units required more than the basics Japanese and Chinese units did...SPAM is bulkier than dried rice ) Russia unaltered as I was not going to activate them and they have no shipping as of yet.

Ship max speeds have been cut 10% as these were not utilized on a 24/7 basis as the game allows. This may have positive impact on many things, ability to bombard bases with shoot and scoot runs with impunity from tactical air assets for example.

Ship tower armour removed to make armoured ships more vulnerable to smaller weapons given they were not painted with armour, some areas were unarmoured. Given that tower armour is superfluous to the model I wanted to try this.

CVs benefitting from the 1982 ship damage model (looks alot like the Guadalcanal Campaign model for the Apple IIE) and having armoured decks because of the presence of armour over machinery spaces are now vulnerable. I cut the deck armour value for these ships by 50%.

The more familiar the Japanese player is the better as I want to see how this impacts the production model.

This also has the device modifications for ASW specific to CHS. Seeing as I can't access the members room the beta patches are not an option. They seem unstable as yet anyway.

[TheElf]

What do you mean by "something like Nik's A2A mod"?

[el cid again]

I believe in testing.

I also thought I was the most radical advocate of increasing the logistic burden. I was wrong, and I admit I am a piker compared to you. I think these changes are way to large, too large to contemplate testing. I am a hard core Japanese player who LOVES production by itself, and logistics as well - so for a different set I would volunteer. But 20% AKs? How would one ever mount out any sort of amphib op? Japanese AKs were DESIGNED to carry landing craft and become actual APAs (albiet miserable ones from a troop point of view- toilets hang over the side no less!) I don't see putting 5 times as many ships as it should take in a group.

I like small production centers for the allies - but they need to be lots of places you don't have them - Bangkok - Rangoon - India - Australia - and Hawaii.

I hate the idea of reducing ship speeds - this is utter nonsense. Ships don't cruise at full speed anyway, but it matters tactically. And ship speeds are ALREADY penalized 14% or so - because their speed is expressed in knots and Andrew's map is expressed in statute miles. Only an INCREASE (that is expressing ship speed in mph) would make those speeds match the hexes on the map - so a DECREASE really is an issue for me. On top of that, Andrew says errors get very big near the map edge - a terrible penalty for the Allies. Lets not make it worse.

What I do like about your ideas is the concept of restricting resources. Game resources are misallocated anyway, and apparently meant to represent the maximum that can be extracted from any given point. They are not even persent where they should be (although Andrew is working on fixing that) - and they generate all those supplies - which is a problem. Reducing resources should reduce the local supply issue, and make it more important to move them from many places in something like the amount produced, and not build up huge inventories (which, in fact, are not built up - you stop producing if you fill the storage facilities).
This is a very creative band aid pending a proper fix in the code - and worthy of detail follow up.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

What do you mean by "something like Nik's A2A mod"?

Maneuver ratings, weapon accuracy, weapon device yield, armour ratings etc have been modified to make aircraft combat less butchshop chop like.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I believe in testing.

I also thought I was the most radical advocate of increasing the logistic burden. I was wrong, and I admit I am a piker compared to you. I think these changes are way to large, too large to contemplate testing. I am a hard core Japanese player who LOVES production by itself, and logistics as well - so for a different set I would volunteer. But 20% AKs? How would one ever mount out any sort of amphib op? Japanese AKs were DESIGNED to carry landing craft and become actual APAs (albiet miserable ones from a troop point of view- toilets hang over the side no less!) I don't see putting 5 times as many ships as it should take in a group.

I like small production centers for the allies - but they need to be lots of places you don't have them - Bangkok - Rangoon - India - Australia - and Hawaii.

I hate the idea of reducing ship speeds - this is utter nonsense. Ships don't cruise at full speed anyway, but it matters tactically. And ship speeds are ALREADY penalized 14% or so - because their speed is expressed in knots and Andrew's map is expressed in statute miles. Only an INCREASE (that is expressing ship speed in mph) would make those speeds match the hexes on the map - so a DECREASE really is an issue for me. On top of that, Andrew says errors get very big near the map edge - a terrible penalty for the Allies. Lets not make it worse.

What I do like about your ideas is the concept of restricting resources. Game resources are misallocated anyway, and apparently meant to represent the maximum that can be extracted from any given point. They are not even persent where they should be (although Andrew is working on fixing that) - and they generate all those supplies - which is a problem. Reducing resources should reduce the local supply issue, and make it more important to move them from many places in something like the amount produced, and not build up huge inventories (which, in fact, are not built up - you stop producing if you fill the storage facilities).
This is a very creative band aid pending a proper fix in the code - and worthy of detail follow up.

Well, I wanted to test the ideas and only large corrections tend to illustrate anything. I want to see if it is still a joke to fill Australia to the friggin brim and just a few months. See how it feels.

Cid, this game has really Fischer Priced alot of the history with its' interpretations, simplicity and sheer lack of insight and, what is the word I'm looking for....ah, research, so some things need to be end arounded.

But 20% AKs? How would one ever mount out any sort of amphib op?

As for AKs, what is ridiculous is having all these ships available for these massive amphib ops when they were off humping rice and tin and maintaining the civilian economies. Japan used ALOT of merchies for amphibious jobs. Take the early investment of Lae/Salamaua. Over a dozen merchies to move a base force and small combat unit.

I hate the idea of reducing ship speeds - this is utter nonsense. Ships don't cruise at full speed anyway, but it matters tactically. And ship speeds are ALREADY penalized 14% or so - because their speed is expressed in knots and Andrew's map is expressed in statute miles. Only an INCREASE (that is expressing ship speed in mph) would make those speeds match the hexes on the map - so a DECREASE really is an issue for me. On top of that, Andrew says errors get very big near the map edge - a terrible penalty for the Allies. Lets not make it worse.


I'm trying to determine what will curtail usage of bombardments as strategic bombers within a game which both designed it into being abused and is not going to do anything about it. As for a tactical model, well, I snicker. Everything is about maximum figures and guestimates in this...and surface combat is only missing sails and bullybeef. The aim here is to force the ships bombarding into exposing themselves to LBA as historically happenned.

Cutting the resources, well, this had to happen. Propping up the AI with this add water and stir instant jello supply has had such a bad effect upon PBEM.

[Ron Saueracker]

I am a hard core Japanese player who LOVES production by itself, and logistics as well - so for a different set I would volunteer.

What set? I really believe in the large differences like the AKs because the whole idea is to determine whether it feels right. If it's too low after six months it goes up. Got to find the limits and even the CHS capacity reductions and map resource/oil centre alterations have had little impact in determining anything other than the logistics model is still whacko. Need to find what is too little. I'm just not a big fan of tweaks, and there have been many with the coverline..."so and so will no longer be as bloody" or what have you.

I'd like to try your A2A speed modifications.

[el cid again]

I have been thinking about your proposals. I have some ideas:

1) There are places that supplies can be generated legitimately. Palembang and Soerabaja are oil refineries. And Indonesians were really cooperative with Japan. [All the Japanese oil experts were lost in a ship sinking - but production was 100% in a few months because natives fixed the plants! Japan really armed them and they never left the field until independence was won.] And at Balikpapan the crude is so light it can be used as ship fuel WITHOUT refining. Another point that supplies make sense in addition to resource points. Analysis will reveal others. So one thing we could do is move resource points to places where the current system makes some sense.

2) Resource centers are based on analysis - but that analysis lets players get 100% of theoretical capacity - something not done in ANY year even in peacetime with cooperation of owning companies in the West. It is justified to reduce all recoursed by a factor of 2 - it keeps the proportion found by research - but it prevents unrealistic accumulations.

3) Ship cargo capacities are based on 100 cubic foot gross tons - a tax concept. But iron ore, coal, ammunition, and many other things moved by these ships are very dense. We could reduce all cargo capacities by a factor - either half - or a different factor for different kinds of ships - to reflect the typical difference between grt and deadweight.

4) A big issue is loading and unloading rates at minor ports. Adopt a house rule on this. You agree not to unload (this is a brainstorm, not a final figure) more than 10 times the port level ships at a time (in terms of dock loading - this does not apply to amphib ops over the beach - which is restricted and which does not permit resources to be moved or efficient movement of supply).

I think other rules like this might make a set that would achieve your purpose INSIDE the research of the system.

[Aawulf]

Device load costs have been doubled for Japanese and Chinese, tripled for Western nations (ie, more equipment, western units required more than the basics Japanese and Chinese units did...SPAM is bulkier than dried rice ) Russia unaltered as I was not going to activate them and they have no shipping as of yet.

Device load costs affect more than the logistics in transporting the units. By doubling the load cost of a device, we increase the carrying capacity required for transport, decrease the supplies and support required per man unit for support of the device and doubles the strength of infantry units.

To accomplish the effect of doubling the support and supplies required by an Allied infantry unit, one would actually make the load cost half that of the similar Japanese infantry unit. The trick to it is that Allied units would require twice as many infantry "squads" in a division, the number of support squads needed would double and the supplies consumed would increase.

The primary reason for this is that the combat system treats each load cost unit as a set of boots.

This system would be a powerful tool except for the fatal flaw that we have only a single slot for the generic support unit rather than support unit slots that could be edited for the forces being represented. Because there is but one generic support unit, it would be impossible to historically reflect the secondary manpower when we tinker with the load costs and number of squads as I assume the current OOB's do now. At most, we can use the motorized support slot as a second standard support to help distinguish the logistical support needed by the different forces in the theatre.

If this is a bit illogical sounding and confusing, then you read it right.

[frank1970]

Have I read right? yYou doubled the loadcost and reduced transport capacity? How many squads do you get on a AK right now?

[Ron Saueracker]

Aawulf...I'm completely baffled now, say again when off the mushrooms.[&:]

From the manual..."§ The unit’s Load Cost, which is used against a transport unit’s capacity when the unit is moved, measured in terms of AP, AK, and LST type ships (showing the total amount of Capacity this one unit will need in order to be transported). If the load cost is listed as Static, the unit cannot be loaded."

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Frank

Have I read right? yYou doubled the loadcost and reduced transport capacity? How many squads do you get on a AK right now?

Alot less.[:)] They are now really only useful as cargo lift. Maybe I have gone too far but having ships with their actual capacities down to the ton, treating all supply as generic and then having no civilian supply economy and having all ships in the OOB with no withdrawl requirement sort of "distorts" the issue I think.

[el cid again]

Alot less. They are now really only useful as cargo lift. Maybe I have gone too far but having ships with their actual capacities down to the ton, treating all supply as generic and then having no civilian supply economy and having all ships in the OOB with no withdrawl requirement sort of "distorts" the issue I think.

It does go too far. The AK is the workhorse, and was the heart of military operations for Japan. In fact, Japan allocated its passenger ships to support the economy and forced troops to use AKs! It is not simulation to totally turn that on its head.

On the other hand, your basic sense that logistics are the heart of operations is valid. This game won't ever be right until the code changes. But we can make it better. But better won't happen by falsifying the data itself. We need to keep it clean for several reasons, including ease of setting it back when we DO get code changes. Allocating half of tonnage to support the civil economy is pretty realistic - and a lot better than happened.

[el cid again]

Can we create "units" that function to simulate the civil economy in the far east? Units with no military value to speak of that eat supply points?
We could put these in major cities, for example. Granted it takes slots - but would it help?

Also, maybe we could modify real units - say base forces in Japan or something - to make them eat huge amounts of supply????? THEN we don't even need slots, and the civil economy must be fed or there are no supplies. Do this as well in any place you think there are too many supplies - just eat them in the supply sink.

Sid

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Can we create "units" that function to simulate the civil economy in the far east? Units with no military value to speak of that eat supply points?
We could put these in major cities, for example. Granted it takes slots - but would it help?

Also, maybe we could modify real units - say base forces in Japan or something - to make them eat huge amounts of supply????? THEN we don't even need slots, and the civil economy must be fed or there are no supplies. Do this as well in any place you think there are too many supplies - just eat them in the supply sink.

Sid

Interesting idea. Manpower should have a major supply demand. I'm just concerned about the earlier quote regarding loadcost/supply and support demand and combat strength. Where did he come up with this. Manual says it is strictly related to transport capacities.

[jwilkerson]

A while back someone tallied up the shipping in CHS ( probably Don ) I don't have that data at my finger tips but here is the RL data ...

As of 8 Dec 41, japanese merchant vessel distribution was


IJA 519 ships 2,160,500 grt

IJN 482 ships 1,740,200 grt


Civil 1,528 ships 2,436,300 grt


Total 2,529 ships 6,337,000 grt



Note total allocated to military use was 3,900,700

And as a comparision as of Aug 1942 the numbers are


IJA 1,382,900 grt

IJN 1,771,500 grt

Civil 3,112,400 grt

Total 6,266,800 grt


The pre-war plan was that at least 3,000,000 grt would be retained constantly for civil use.

this data is from Atsushi Oi who served ( among other war time duties ) in the Grand Escort Command HQ ) Chapter 12, The Japanese Navy in World War II. But it relies heavily in the above cases on USBSS "The War Against Japanese Transportation 1941-45" and the History of the Maritime Commission of Japan, 1947.

[Mike Scholl]

Also indicates that the AVERAGE GRT tonnage of a Japanese Merchant Vessel was quite small (2500 GRT) The game seems to show them much larger than this, which might account fro some of the massive surplus of Japanese shipping.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

A while back someone tallied up the shipping in CHS ( probably Don ) I don't have that data at my finger tips but here is the RL data ...

As of 8 Dec 41, japanese merchant vessel distribution was


IJA 519 ships 2,160,500 grt

IJN 482 ships 1,740,200 grt


Civil 1,528 ships 2,436,300 grt


Total 2,529 ships 6,337,000 grt



Note total allocated to military use was 3,900,700

And as a comparision as of Aug 1942 the numbers are


IJA 1,382,900 grt

IJN 1,771,500 grt

Civil 3,112,400 grt

Total 6,266,800 grt


The pre-war plan was that at least 3,000,000 grt would be retained constantly for civil use.

this data is from Atsushi Oi who served ( among other war time duties ) in the Grand Escort Command HQ ) Chapter 12, The Japanese Navy in World War II. But it relies heavily in the above cases on USBSS "The War Against Japanese Transportation 1941-45" and the History of the Maritime Commission of Japan, 1947.

There is also the "inland water route traffic" to consider which is not vulnerable to interdiction and loss. What would be a reasonble estimate of this overall tonnage/capacity? Being abstract I have no idea but it is there.

Remember, I'm just trying to find the limits here. Up to now we have seen millions of supply accumulated during a few months in bases like Darwin and small little atolls that can magically combine the generous port and airfield cap limits to equal 10, that magic number that automatically turns each base into a fully developed base with unlimited warehousing. Japan can actually outproduce Allied industry (ie aircraft replacement rates) with an industry that was not quite 10% of the USAs industrial output in Depression racked 1937. I'm not even sure this will "break it".

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Can we create "units" that function to simulate the civil economy in the far east? Units with no military value to speak of that eat supply points?
We could put these in major cities, for example. Granted it takes slots - but would it help?

Also, maybe we could modify real units - say base forces in Japan or something - to make them eat huge amounts of supply????? THEN we don't even need slots, and the civil economy must be fed or there are no supplies. Do this as well in any place you think there are too many supplies - just eat them in the supply sink.

Sid

This is an interesting notion. Maybe put a WORKER unit in hexes with industrial potential. Size the units demands based on the amount of industry present---and if the unit isn't "fed", production goes down accordingly. It's at least some representation of civilian needs, and it acts as a "sump" for supply.

[jwilkerson]

Per p180 TM-E 30-480 1 Oct 1944 the estimated average tons per man required to move a Japanese Division over a long haul when efficient loading is used is about 5 gross tons per man. In contrant "light loading" as used in combat operations required 9 gross tons per man ...

So the gross tons in the first ( efficient loading ) case is 125,000 whereas the gross tons in the second case would be


125,000 * ( 9/5 ) = 225,000 ...


Now in the game ( CHS 1.06 anyway ) an typical full strength Japanese Division ( 447 squad variety ) weights in at about 140,000 AK tons, which I assume to be grts ... so this is a little higher than the 125,000 long haul loading but a good bit short of the 225,000 combat loading. So a guess would be that the designers were trying to hit an average, so that over the course of the war if 4 times out of 5 when you moved a division, you were not making a combat move and 1/5 of the time you were, then the games loading of 140,000 would be about right, on average. Of course it might be nice if the game could tell the difference between a combat load and a non-combat load, but it cannnot currently. However, that being said, my rule of thumb is to use at least double the amount of shipping indicated by the load clost anyway. This is to insure that the unit actually loads, to minimize effects of casualties and to facilitate more rapid unloading ( the reason for a light load anyway ) so inadvertantly I am spending 225,000 of shipping when doing almost any move of a division - at least the way I have been playing !

[el cid again]

The pre-war plan was that at least 3,000,000 grt would be retained constantly for civil use.

this data is from Atsushi Oi who served ( among other war time duties ) in the Grand Escort Command HQ ) Chapter 12, The Japanese Navy in World War II. But it relies heavily in the above cases on USBSS "The War Against Japanese Transportation 1941-45" and the History of the Maritime Commission of Japan, 1947.

See The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War Two (Parillo). This data is true but also false - the plan was not achieved. Japan never diverted back to the civil economy anything close to its needs or the plan. Further, you cannot really separate the civil economy and the military one - in that resources to industry really support both. And there is also "free" electrical power (hydro power) in Korea I don't know how to simulate sans code changes (reduced oil requirement?). Japan never gave more than 1.8 million tons to the civil economy, and a huge fraction of that was the wrong kind of ships (passenger vessels). Japan begins the war with just under 6 million tons AND it captures tonnage - and gains from the use of local craft in a sense we cannot simulate (unless we give "free" coastal transport of resources in code sans enemy units).