Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well El Cid, in my game vs a human I was in excellent shape to make a strong landing in India ( with 10 divisions going to India and 5 to DEI... and from there to India as part of a 2nd wave) with all the requisite air ( several hundred Zeroes and bombers), naval ( 8+ CVLs and CVEs+ 5 or 6BBs and CAs and DDs in suitable numbers) as well as all the support forces ( base forces, construction Bns and assault engineers) with more than sufficient supplies to make it succesfull in about the 3rd week of January 42.

I think it is definitely doable to take India so long as you sacrifice in certain other areas ( Phillipines and the Pacific)



This seems like Twilight Zone science fiction nonsense to me: the Philippines are the vital center squares of the Chessboard - and also a major Allied base of operations right in the middle of the sea line of communications to the Oil from points south. Not to mention the vital raw materials on Luzon itself (including the largest copper mine in Asia). It was never a strategic option to ignore them. And Adm Yamamoto himself came to believe - in only two days of war - that the Pacific was much MORE important than the Japanese war plan had allowed it to be - that Japan SHOULD HAVE committed its forces to invade Hawaii right up front. Ignoring both seems to me to guarantee the early defeat of Japan.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

support squads will add 1/10th of their number ( not firepower) to the defending forces.

Sid,

Is this (the large number of support squads) what you are changing in relation to manpower (that you mention above)?

Manpower is a strange fictional beaste - code gets it from the weight of a device! So a static device with 9999 weight = 9999 men - apparently. We are changing ALL static devices to a real weight (or crew size) value. And not using the one static device that cannot change - the static facility squad - most of the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

El Cid,

War is about phasing.... If I choose to take now what cannot be taken later (India) and take later what can always be taken ( the Phillipines) then so be it.

REPLY: I do agree. I believe in power to the players, and the right to step on your own tail (or not, be brilliant when I think it is doomed to failure). And please, when you play me, don't invade the Philippines!

To condemn a valid strategic choice ( which runs great risks for the promise of great rewards) as "twilight zone science fiction nonsense" is extremely narrow-minded and ill-judged.

REPLY: Well - if you can think by passing the Philippines makes strategic sense - I can think it is strategic nonsense.
And I would love to test it in a game. I predict a short game!

As to your view that the 18,000 support squads won't be a problem... Hmm, they contain as much combat power as ALL Allied forces in India on December 7th 1941. So is it your official position that having up to 1800 AV defending a base will make NO difference to an attack on that base? Now THAT'S Twilight zone nonsense.

REPLY: Actually my view is that putting any significant number of squads in a major supply source hex is a problem.
I think you are missing the larger point: real combat units are going to be a lot tougher in this hex than the supply sink is. AI is not going to feed the supply sink first - it will split even between combat units and supply sink - and so you will feed units supplies that - in my intent - there would be no supplies for. The problem really IS the supply source - combined with any significant number of squads. A supply sink dividing by 10 and having no firepower is small potatoes compared to any real units - more so now in RHS that all support squads are divided by 5 in firepower.
All other mods, support squads have more firepower than many crew served weapons do! If this fix does not work, we have to consider breaking up the supply sources - not my first choice. On the other hand, I don't want to go all the way back to stock: you can take a gigantic region of thousands of sq miles with vast assets and industrial workers - with anything - even a submarine raiding party.


Hyperbole doesn't help here. The fact is that 1/10th of the support squads is added to the AV of the defence of the base the support squads are stationed at and THAT DOES UNBALANCE THE GAME. Simple.

REPLY: OK - maybe. I don't think we know that. But maybe. Does not the problem of putting combat units in a major supply source WITHOUT a sink unbalance it even more? Then you get ALL those free supplies feeding the units. Even if no units are present- you get free supplies every day - so there are a million points in India in - what- three months? That does not unbalance the game. I am addressing the excess supply. Maybe not perfectly. I do what can be done. You got a better idea - I will adopt it.


As to letting them rot.... Not really gonna be feasible since "letting them rot" means not taking the base for many months ( since it takes a lot of time for 18,000 squads to disable because of lack of supplies) and losing ALL of the resources which one would be gaining in that time.

REPLY: WOrse - they won't lack supplies sitting on a major supply source.


BTW how far away is 4.47? Since it looks like you aren't going to fix this problem I am thinking of removing the supply sinks in a mini-mod and playing that instead. Obviously though I can't do that until 4.47 is released.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

support squads will add 1/10th of their number ( not firepower) to the defending forces.

Sid,

Is this (the large number of support squads) what you are changing in relation to manpower (that you mention above)?

Manpower is a strange fictional beaste - code gets it from the weight of a device! So a static device with 9999 weight = 9999 men - apparently. We are changing ALL static devices to a real weight (or crew size) value. And not using the one static device that cannot change - the static facility squad - most of the time.

This is probably not a good thing for guns that were truely CD. For instance, a pedestal mounted 6" CD Gun will be spiked and the breech removed if a retreat is called for. Ditto for any other true CD weapon. Exception do of course exist, such as the 155mm Gun/Panama Mount system or maybe rail mounted guns. If a device is not 9999 then it can potentially retreat. i do not see this happening to 16" CD Guns.

quote:

I think you are missing the larger point: real combat units are going to be a lot tougher in this hex than the supply sink is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


As to what I would do "better"... Well I don't know a perfect solution but I will try to create something better than the current system cause the supply sink solution is deeply flawed IMO. Basically my current thinking revolves around disabling a lot of the resource points so that only a little "free supply" gets created at these places while sufficient resources are made ( JUST) to feed the factories in nearby areas. Later, if the Japanese capture them they can expand resource production at a cost of 1000 tons of supply per resource point improved.

If I follow you- you are proposing not to produce the right amount of resources. Only what is needed for local industry. N othing for export.

Which simulates nothing - and gives ships no job in terms of resource transport.

It may solve your combat problem - but it does not give any strategic meaning to resources - so it becomes whatever kind of game ignores the fundamentals of strategy.

Also, you are only allowing Japan to repair back this reduced amount of resources - not what it needs to be to represent full production.

Note that RHS resources are running 1/3 to 1/2 of actual - and half the AKs are missing to transport them - because the particular industrial model will only eat about half the resources it should relative to the oil it eats. So we are simulating on a major fraction of the resources - but not glutting the system with so many they would not be used - reducing the meaning of capturing a point. But reducing them from this point further means you are NOT going to be able to supply industry in the correct ratio - not DISTANT (vice local) industry - the entire point of resources IMHO.
It isn't local industry Japan wanted to feed. It isn't local industry colonial powers were feeding either.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/24/2006 6:39:25 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Theoretically it is an imperfect solution but in terms of gameplay I expect it to work relatively well since it is focussed on the EFFECT in-game as opposed to what the books say should be there.


If you do not relate resources to what the books say should be there - you are not modeling.
You are creating a fictional planet. And you are forgetting the point of sea transport of such resources:
they are needed some other place - and wether or not they get there can be contested - so it matters.

I note that at 4.46 level AI is not having trouble taking ANY of the points you worry about. I have found some things that I missed (unconverted supply sinks)

AND I have found ALLIED DEFENSES ARE TOO STRONG never mind supply sinks. Too many cooks - we have duplicated units and rediculous numbers of guns - etc. And of course all the support units were always too powerful in terms of firepower. I hope you like 4.47 - having addressed these matters in detail. It is a lot of work - but it may turn out to be better than 4.46 - which seems to have been a good enough fix.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


2. Putting a DISABLED factory in a lot of bases in DEI, Malaysia etc so that the Japanese can follow the strategy of building up small HI centres closer to the sources of oil and resource. I think this is logical.

You lost me: why disable factories in Malaysia?

First - there are not too many factories there.

Second - they are not damaged.

Disabled factories and resources in the USA make sense - to permit growth over time. Even in Australia this makes sense. But they are fixed by the ALLIES - not the Japanese. The OWNER is going to fix them. I do not follow this at all - putting non-existent factories in damaged states - to use resources you have removed - if they get fixed?
They won't be fixed, mostly.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


3. Removal of R&D factories throughout Japan and their replacement by 1 x DISABLED A6M2 factories. Thus Jap players can do R&D but must pay the full cost for it ( as opposed to getting a lot for free as occurs in the current game). I found Mogami's arguments on this to be persuasive.

Bad idea. You asked for an AI version of the scenario. AI is unable to do anything you don't set it up for up front.
Japan will NEVER get ANY new planes.

Further - I doubt you understood Mogami correctly. While there is a problem - conversion of lines can be wrong if it isn't the sort of line that would convert - it is small potatoes. The system requires severe investment to develop these planes - and at 4.46 level I reviewed it all so - the farther out - the more development required. [A 1945 factory begins at 1 plus 29 disabled for single engine, 1 plus 14 disabled for two engine, and 1 plus 7 disabled for four engine].
Indeed - you are not only killing options for human players - you are helping them produce more planes! Investing in all that R&D is a bad strategy - mostly - and significantly REDUCES plane production. SELECTIVE unhalting R&D lines may pay occasional dividends - and is fun to attempt. These are in the game for sound reason (I don't like em either but figured it out - whoever did this was quite right). Even as it is, Japan will only get a FEW planes of later types - never very many - and nothing like you think it will (the number of lines is not the number produced per month - lots of variables - including location - looks like some lines NEVER produce - otherwise only if the the economy is really booming might they).

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


E.g. 365 resources would produce about 500 tons of supply per day or 180,000 per year. Over 3 years that is 540,000 tons of supply. If we assume this is a supply sink area which is set up so that no supplies are produced in RHS ( 0 supply over 3 years) then we can see that so long as we ensure that over the 3 years the cost in repair PLUS shortfall in production is 540,000 tons then we have the exact same situation as in RHS except we no longer need these hugely unbalancing supply sinks. Do I think it is perfect? No but it is greatly superior to supply sinks without a single combat troop present massing 3000 AV.

E.g. with 0 resources (365 disabled) on Turn 1 the shortfall in production in Year 1, assuming repair of 1 resource point per day, would be about 90,0000 tons of supply with another 365,000 tons having been spent on repair. So we start off with a debt of 455,0000 tons of supply. Years 2 and 3 would each see a surplus of 180,000 tons and no need for supply to be spent on further repairs ( we are ignoring the effects of allied bombing as we're just running a really simple statistical model here to compare supply output over the course of the war using two different methods of representing/limiting its production). End result over the course of 3 years disabling 0 resources and assuming 1 point of resources are repaired per day we would end up with a debt of 95,000 relative to RHS supply production.

It is anything but the same thing.

First, resources stockpiled in an area are never less than 5 times daily production, and sometimes much more. At ports where they collect for shipping they are always 10 days and often 30 days and sometimes 60 days production.
The normal natural state of the economy is a lot of already produced supply in the area. [I mean resources, supplies, fuel and oil - whatever is produced]. These already produced things are something that can be moved (by AI using rail and road, by players or AI using ships) - before Japan ever gets there. And - to the extent not moved or consumed locally or destroyed in combat - siezed by Japan. This is a lot of what should drive strategy and operations - and take it out - you miss the point of the ops.

Second, these facilities are not damaged - unless they are - in which case RHS has them damaged. Making them damaged penalizes the OWNER - the Allied player - first of all. What if Japan never invades India? [They won't if they are wise - and you will search long to find a game that is an exception - human or AI]. Why penalize the Allies?
Why make the point of taking the centers less than it is? Taking them from a defense is going to damage many - but UNLESS AND UNTIL that happens they are not damaged - and do their job for their (Allied) owners. You cannot know where the Japanese will go - and distorting what is there should affect where they even want to go. No longer to real world economics prevail - it is some strange alternate world - but that is the world of the game - so strategy must follow its implications (to be wise).

Compromises are always necessary in modding. But the correct starting point is with the right numbers - then do what you need to do to deal with issues that arise. Not attempting to worry about what makes sense in the real world ultimately turns a game into a variation of Risk.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

[
What, pray tell, is this other method you've come across. It might be interesting to consider as all I'm interested in is a fix which gets rids of these ridiculously over-powered supply sinks which shred elite combat formations left, right and centre.

quote:

It isn't local industry Japan wanted to feed. It isn't local industry colonial powers were feeding either.

quote:

I note that at 4.46 level AI is not having trouble taking ANY of the points you worry about

quote:

AND I have found ALLIED DEFENSES ARE TOO STRONG never mind supply sinks

quote:

They won't be fixed, mostly.

quote:

You asked for an AI version of the scenario.

quote:

the number of lines is not the number produced per month - lots of variables - including location - looks like some lines NEVER produce - otherwise only if the the economy is really booming might they

quote:

I doubt you understood Mogami correctly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Nemo, if I`m correct you are playing an older version, RHS 4.4x onwards the supply sink AV was divided approx by 5.

18,000 firepower points are the same points that one Japanese Division + 1 Bde can muster. Hardly inconquerable.

RHS is experimental, and is evolving pretty fast, things are tried, and discarded if dont work as intended.

I think that the supply sinks are an step foward. So try the next iteration of RHS, because IMHO you are beating a dead horse, because this is already corrected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

El Cid,



2.

quote:

It isn't local industry Japan wanted to feed. It isn't local industry colonial powers were feeding either.

Well, you may think Japan only wanted to feed industry in the home islands. I may feel it is reasonable that they could take a view of expanding HI in "the empire" ( where the empire would include DEI, New Guinea etc). Either view is possible and reasonable.


You are missing something the size of an elephant: it is the major industrial centers of Japan which need the resources - not minor local industries. The entire basis of the WITP economic model is that "you move resources to the industry, and they make the supplies." Unfortunately, WITP broke its own model - and I hate the excess supplies as much as you do - but still - you can't fix something by guaranteeing to break it. Kill the resources - you defeat the entire economic foundation of the game - and give ships nothing to do but load invasion troops (which, I gather, is what you want to do with them).

I believe your attitude is too pessimistic and negative: I have invested massive amounts of time - probably prematurely before testing was done of the existing system - to correct this issue. I think you should try 4.47 before you conclude that dividing firepower by 80% and squad counts by 90% - and a few other measures - won't address this adequately. I also suspect that even if we have a perfect solution, you are going to be upset that a major economic area is not able to be captured by a squad - a la stock. Even IF Matrix gives us the ability to program the "daily supply" field with negative numbers - I would STILL put in elements of the supply sinks - to contest the ground and destroy the resources/factories - if there is no formal military defense. This is better modeling than just "pick up the hex for free." I will release 4.47 today - I am testing to find eratta. A preliminary report on human vs AI as Japan - and my own AI vs AI long term test - have 4.46 radically better behaved than any previous mod of any sort.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

El Cid,

Hmm, I note that when you spoke about these points falling you spoke of them falling after many months of being besieged, sometimes by only 1 or 2 tiny Japanese units. There you aren't talking about history either. I'm sure a supply sink will fall if co-location of Japanese forces reduces resource and supply production to nil but it will take weeks and months for this to work, which is not historically realistic. The Japanese did NOT have to wait for 1 or 2 months outside of Kuala Lumpur to wait for a horde of peasants to starve themselves to death before they could attack with 5 divisions with any chance of success.


Something must be wrong with my composition skills: Major elements should not be interpreted as "tiny units".
And I actually did talk about history. Bataan fell in exactly the way AI likes to proceed. At one time Mac had two oversize corps bottled up by the 65th Brigade - alone - for weeks. He never sent out a patrol or once went to
the front with field glasses himself. [He was called "dugout Doug" for cause by his own men]. Now I do not expect a game to reproduce history in every sense in every action - but I am impressed it has a mechanism that works even
against a very large force. It is worth remembering - and using - if the occasion fits. Enter the hex - you cut off their supply from that hex itself. I regard that as good programming. WITP is not polished - but it has a solid core.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

El Cid,

4.

quote:

AND I have found ALLIED DEFENSES ARE TOO STRONG never mind supply sinks

That may be. On the other hand I'm not too bothered by whether or not there should be an 80 AV Bde or a 40 AV Bn guarding some dutch base in the DEI. I have enough force to defeat either, although, obviously, I applaud the attempt to make things more historically correct. What I am bothered about is the fact that, on occasion, this 40 or 80 AV unit is co-located with a horde of peasants who generate 2000 or 3000 AV so that the issue of whether the defending combat troops should muster 40 or 80 AV is irrelevant as they, instead of massing 100% of the combat power at the base, mass only 1 or 2% of the combat power. That's the bigger problem than whether they should be 40 or 80 AV.

Also I think the firepower of ALL field hand, coolie, support etc etc squads should be reduced to ZERO. I know that in the version that caused the most problem they were 3 or 5 respectively and now they have mostly been reduced to 0... I think that now they should be ALL reduced to zero... A firepower of 1 multiplied by 18,000 squads ( as happens at some of the Indian bases) is still completely devastating to an attacking unit.


My approach is minimalist: assume whoever did WITP and CHS got a working system for some good reason - and change only what we have to change as much as we have to change it. I did not imagine that support squads in general were too powerful - but I see this is the case. No one before EVER modified them from a firepower of 5 (never mind that the vast majority of crew served weapons by number count are less than that). I have reduced support squads of all kinds to 1 - and the former coolie (now labor squads - to be politically correct) squads are
indeed zero. The larger supply sinks generally use the labor squad instead of the field hand squad - and I mean for the field hands to be tougher - or they would just be labor squads. They mattered on New Guinea - read your history.
I think we need to try this set of changes - it is a massive combination - involving some modifiers - and other things which may help - not just numbers and values. Come back after trying 4.47 - which I hope to release today after testing for gross errors - and tell me you still cannot take things. One player at 4.46 level reports better behavior than ever seen before in important respects.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

El Cid,

6.

quote:

You asked for an AI version of the scenario.

Nope. I asked for the exact opposite of that. I asked for a PBEM-only version in which all the work-arounds to aid the AI ( static facility squads etc etc) could be removed and their governing be left up to a couple of simple human house rules.


OK - I have you confused with someone else on that. But you are confused about the reason for the static facility squads. And - whatever the reasons - it is moot - I just removed virtually all of them. [Chinese guerilla regiments retain one each - sometimes.]

7.

quote:

the number of lines is not the number produced per month - lots of variables - including location - looks like some lines NEVER produce - otherwise only if the the economy is really booming might they

Details?

REPLY: It appears that if you have a line at certain places - Osaka and Tokyo - and second best hexes next to them -
and third best in an isolated but strong local economy (e.g. Manchukuo - see Harbin) - your lines will produce pretty well - unless you demand too much - and they will still produce some. Other locations seem unable ever to expand a "damaged" line - or do so only very rarely. Still others NEVER produce anything at all - and I am an economic nit picker that tracks every location every day. I took a few out altogether. I am not sure if some may produce in certain spectacular conditions of supply/HI surpluss?


8.

quote:

I doubt you understood Mogami correctly

He was quite clear. I understood him well and also understand precisely what I am trying to achieve by this change to rd production.



One other thing I was wondering for an RHS variant:


Would it be possible to give the Japanese a ship defined as an AG which is actually a PT such that the Japanese "create barges" command will, from mid-44 onward, create both transport barges and PT boats. This would give the Japanese some counter to Allied bombardment and invasion TFs on a local level and would, I think, be interesting...

REPLY: Are you aware Japan failed to make PT boats in any quantity? It managed barely one a month - and the later ones were unable to reach high speed at all. Only one yard was up to building them - and then they were not given any engines. Takashi Hara (Japanese Destroyer Captain is his biography) - author of the torpedo doctrine - was put in charge of the PT boat school late in the war - and he was dismayed they could not build any worth using. I do not think it is right for Japanese PT boats to respawn. RHS is stretching history to say you get one a month of reasonable speed - probably possible if enough priority was given - but that may itself be wishful thinking!


4.4.6 AI vs AI... Still fighting over the supply sinks in the SRA in mid-43 eh? And you don't see this as a problem?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

BlitzK,

Well, I'm the one who first pointed out the supply sink problem so I think I have a pretty good handle on it. As to my current comments, they are coming from 4.46 so this is definitely not beating a dead horse.

As to your point about the firepower of those 18,000 support squads having being divided by 5 recently... Correct. OTOH if you look at what I identified as the problem I never spoke of their firepower as being the deal-breaker ( it was too high and was divided by a factor of 5 in a previous version of RHS) BUT the problem is that those 18,000 support squads give an AV of 1,800. Since the utterly simplistic ground model simply compares defending AV to attacking AV 18,0000 support squads require 1,800 attacking infantry squads for equivalency. THAT requires more than 5 Japanese divisions even forgetting about urban hexes and fortifications and IS a deal-breaker.

Let's look at Karachi. It starts the game with ground combat units with an AV of 140. It is an urban hex so, immediately that AV gets boosted to 420, fair enough. However it also has over 18,000 support squads, generating 1,800 AV which, when modified for an urban hex, give 5,400 AV. So, even if the Allied player completely evacuated Karachi leaving JUST the field hands and support troops as a garrison they would require a minimum of 16 Japanese divisions to match that AV. That's extremely short-sighted design and IS a problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

No, it isn't. It is an in-game example and thus valid in a discussion of mod issues. It just isn't an example you want to address.

There are, if you want to be pedantic about it, innumerable 6,000, 9000, 12000 support squad-supply sinks out there. Each of which requires vastly increased Japanese forces to take. E.g Batavia, Toboali, Palembang, Kuala Lumpur, Asansol and so on. Each has between 6000 and 12000 support squads. Given that most of these are in swamp or forest hexes a 6,000 support squad supply sink will require 1,800 Japanese squads to achieve 1:1 odds in an attack. 1,800 squads is well over 5 infantry divisions. Still a crazy level of force committment and one for which there is no support in the historical literature.