Logic of new naval model?

[ShadoWarrior]

Is it normal that the IC and manpower cost of a radar attachment varies from ship to ship, even though the effects do not vary likewise? (And for the record, I'm talking about radar, not capital radar.) IC costs vary from 0.1 to 0.8, and manpower from 0.1 to 0.2, and there does not appear to be a consistency between age of the design and IC cost. Though, generally, older designs cost more ICs to install a radar, that isn't always true. For example: the CL-3 is 0.3, the CL-4 & 6 are 0.2, and for the CL-7 it is 0.3.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

ARM "works" with CORE but we did no development other than the most rudimentary conversion. So AFAIK those values are from Vanilla.

mm

 

[unmerged(14164)]

Actually wrong about the GER and Japanese. Both developed very nice landing craft. The GER just didn't have them ready in time for Norway or Sealion. Ended up using them in the East and for river transport. But they definitely had purpose built landing craft.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were mainly concerned with AI performance during the critical first years. From what I understand Germany invaded Norway and thought about invading Britain without specialized landing craft. They mostly made do with converted civilian crafts and sturdy barges.

The first few models of transport should represent this cheaper type of craft. Then, later in the war, Germany is free to research their historic transports and build the more expensive models.

I stand corrected about the Japanese (my main source: http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/vessel.htm). All told the IJA produced about 10,000 landing craft, which could could transport 100,000 tons of equipment. Remarkably, this is about the same tonnage as the U.S. produced.

It gets interesting, however, when we look at the cost associated with maintaining adequate transport capacity (from http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html).

As a result, while the IJN used 14% of its construction budget for escorts and transports in 1941, the percentage shot up to 54.3% in 1944.

A 200 IC Japan in 1944 has 120 IC dedicated to production (13% for consumer goods, 12% for repairs, 15% for supplies, the rest, 60%, for new construction). This means Japan was spending 65 IC on just making up its transport and escort losses.

Using a linear increase in production devoted to transports from 1941 to 1945 and an average economy of 180 IC, a rough calculation would put construction costs at around 75,000 IC days.

They built 4 million new tons, so if each transport flotilla represents 250,000 tons, that means 16 flotilla divisions. This gives us a figure of 4700 IC per flotilla--10.5 IC for 450 days. Note that this is after all the benefits Japan gets from tech and sliders.

Also, there is a transport in the CORE division list with zero transport capacity. This screams confusion--for both the player and the AI!

 

[ShadoWarrior]

Naval Fire Support doctrine is listed as enabling Shore Bombardment. Yet without having this researched yet, my Overview screen (as Germany) shows a 105% value for this (instead of the expected red 'no'). Is this WAD?

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

Really nice reference showing the Japanese landing vessels. Re: Germany, I agree that in 1940 everything was pretty much improvised. It's just that they eventually did develop proper landing craft as well. Just too late for actual use in Sea Lion.

JAP Costs: I see some holes in the logic here. The big one is equating JAP and the IJN. ITRW there was a lot of effort going into land and air units as well and this needs to be considered. Also the increase in production wasn't close to linear:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Transportcapability: This value is not working and all TP units can carry one Division no matter what this says. But if it did work the results would be WAD. This model is a single "transport" type vessel converted for raiding operations. Will normally only show up in game for a player.

Shore Bombardment: This may be hard coded as I don't know why it is foing this.

mm

 

[unmerged(14164)]

JAP Costs: I see some holes in the logic here. The big one is equating JAP and the IJN. ITRW there was a lot of effort going into land and air units as well and this needs to be considered. Also the increase in production wasn't close to linear.

Sure; I should have underlined "rough" when I described my calculations.

Your point about Japan producing other items during this time-frame is well taken. They did produce 8-10k planes per year--taking into account that 20-40% of production went to non-combat craft. On the other hand, their production of tanks, artillery and other war materials was abysmal.

I'm under the impression that most of their army was in place by 1941 and that much of the new army production was earmarked for making up losses rather than forming new divisions. For that matter, I bet a large portion of the planes were used in this way as well.

So, say these additional factors decreased the IC spent on transports by 33%--we are still left with 3,100 IC flotillas. This is a big difference from the 500 IC or so Japan spends to mass produce converted merchant vessels.

You were concerned that Japan would lose some transports and have to spend a great deal of their production building new ones. By 1943/44 I believe the IJN was doing just that.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

No, I'm not concerned by JAP needing to spend IC on TP/Convoys/Escorts. What I am concerned about is them runnning out of TP completely and then failing to actually complete any replacements due to the way the AI does not produce things in a timely manner. This in turn basically neuters the AI. Using the Convoy/TP conversion seems like a nice work around for this. But that's going to be at least a 0.35 project and maybe 0.40 depending on the flow of things.

mm

 

[Captain Frakas]

The only way to get units to finish when you want them to, past about the first 6 mths of the game, is to do them by event, essentially.

Have you tried to play with the gearing bonus ?

 

[HistoryMan]

Have you tried to play with the gearing bonus ?

Am not sure what you mean here - the problem I was replying to is that if you have (say) a French battleship under construction in 1936 that isn't due to finish until 1940 (hello, Richelieu), then it is virtually impossible to get it to finish then except by setting it up via event.

If you look at how an "under development" unit is shown in the INC files, then the problem is that it doesn't show it as being x% complete, say, it just lists a finish date. The new "dynamic" shifting of sliders & tech effects means that moving your hawk setting will change that finish date, as will techs immediately they are completed. The potential interactions between all these things means it is virtually impossible to get units that start this way to finish at about the right date for anything past the first 6 mths or so (where you have a pretty limited possibility for changing things).

Tim