Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Base Construction

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Base Construction Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Base Construction - 10/29/2002 12:29:34 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, Up in the bug thread for UV I found a topic that started me thinking.

Base Construction. How large a base can engineers build without needing material from outside the base area. To build a small airfield all they need to do is remove trees, and level the runway. Field can not support large aircraft and bad weather would limit operations but they could build a "starter" airfield.

Port?? well engineers can only build a wood piers/docks and such without getting cranes and dry docks delievered the port will never amount to much. Also a port needs a lot of little vessels to operate (lighters, tugs, water barges, fuel barges, garbage barges).

So the idea I had was if a player wanted to build a base on say Rabaul he would need to go into his production and produce a "base counter" This would cost a certain amount of resource and require transport to location. Then the engineers at the site would need a certain amount of time to install the new base level.

Also this would allow players to destroy their own bases (install in reverse) possiblly allowing it to be relocated. Enemy action could destry a base level (requiring a new one to be brought down) and just captuting the location of a former large enemy base would not bequeath one to the enemy (they would need to transport and install their own new levels to repair)

Using pure supply points for construction works to a degree but I think specialized construction points would help define the logistics it a much clearer manner and "kill" several birds with one stone. Many players want to destroy their own bases to prevent capture. Captured bases repair automaticlly with supply meaning after the fighting what the troops do not eat can be used to repair the port/airfields??. "OK the C-rats contain Ham and potatoes, and a Crane and a hanger" I think construction needs it's own currency like supply and fuel. (a wise player would simply have transports with construction points on board prior to invading but this at least means he planned to repair a destroyed base)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Post #: 1
- 10/29/2002 4:26:18 AM   
Toro


Posts: 578
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US
Status: offline 		Mogami,

I concur, to a point. Let me take a couple issues:

Ports: a port is made up of several characteristics, some easier to prepare (or destroy) than others.

1. the shipping channel -- these are dredged, of course, and would have to be maintained (to your point of support boats). However, the only efficient method of quickly reducing the channel would be to sink a large ship in it (or two ships, or three...). Required for larger ports, and need to be maintained.

2. piers -- harder to destroy, and generally not done. Takes a lot of TNT to destroy a good concrete pier, and even then it's no guarantee. Required for larger ports (size 4?)

3. cranes -- agreed to you point; definitely required for larger ports, and fairly easy to eliminate. Required for larger ports (size 4 or so?).

4. warehouses, etc -- easy to construct, and destory. Required for all ports.

5. support ships -- tugs, fueling barges, pilot boats, torpedo net skiffs, force protection, dredgers, etc. All required for larger ports (say, size 3 or more, UV standards).

6. support vehicles -- trucks, pier trains, other cargo handling equipment. These would be considered automatically, I suppose, in base size construction (a larger port requires more equipment).

I like the idea of a "counter" being created, as that would represent the heavy equipment and vehicles required for a larger port, or increasing the size above size 3, for instance.

Destroying a port: some elements can't be easily destroyed. For instance, a dredged channel ain't easy to close. However, warehouses and cranes can be eliminated fairly easily. I think that self-destruction of a port should be viewed as a reduction in size instead of a removal, and this will require time -- I doubt a port could be easily reduced in a day, even two. Say, a self-destroyed port requires 2-3 days, such-n-such supplies, and can be reduced at a maximum to level 2, maybe 3?

AIRFIELDS
Agreed, small airfields can be created quickly, but large airfields take lots of time, and include much more equipment (much like ports; fueling trucks and storage, repair hangers and equipment, etc). As with ports, I think airfields can only be reduced, not destroyed.

Just my thoughts.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 2
- 10/29/2002 4:45:25 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Even a huge port can be rendered inoperational for months in a few hours. The most expedient way to accomplish the job, apart from blowing up every fuel storage facility, warehouse, crane, etc, is to sink some cruddy old container ship in the ship channel and along the pier by blasting out their hulls. If the things can't be refloated, the only alternative is *lots* of underwater torch-cutting (or detonating) and removal of the chunks.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 3
More thoughts - 10/29/2002 4:54:29 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, OK Toro I see your points, I was in my clumsy manner trying to grasp a new idea. I don't want to encumber the game engine since base building will be the major non combat action the players engage in. I am trying to think of a way to both make it easy and acurate. If bases have to be built in "layers" then I think sending both engineers and material (the "counters") will show this process. If an enemy sub sinks a "base counter" then the base has to wait for another to be dispatched rather then just opening a can of c-rats (converting general supply into a base) I don't think the game needs to actually get down to crane tonnage capacity , just demonstrate that the transports were carrying building material not ammo. More latter. I am sure we can find a resonable system. I think building bases in the home country and then transporting them and "installing" them is a place to start. (the building can stay put but those parts of a base that define it as an airfield or port are made up of resources
that can only be used for one purpose. Please excuse my poor verbalizing here. I hope some one with a better ability at explaining my idea can jump in.

The basic question simply is if I want a base on Lunga do I really build it on Lunga or do I first need to assemble the components and move it?

As for sinking ships in the channel. This will close a port to any force not able to clear it but if you have a "channel clearing/building' unit it is not that big a problem

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 4
trying to elaborate - 10/29/2002 7:39:22 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, OK I have thought about this long and hard today. The war in the Pacific is a struggle for bases. Whomever has the largest base in a particular area has the upper hand (provided he can bring combat units to it) The bulk of a players time will be spent building/repairing/enlarging bases. This being the case, I believe construction needs it's own system. Supply and fuel are fine for combat units. But the special nature of construction requires that rather then just having engineers and supply at a location and bases growing as a side effect. Players need to actually understand and commit to building them. Presently we have supply and fuel points that are consumed by ships aircraft and land combat units. Supply points are also used to build/repair bases. But there is no difference between what a unit eats, shoots, or uses to build with. I propose we add a new type of consumable point. The "construction" point. They can be moved, stockpiled, and consumed as other points but only to build or repair bases. I won't worry if they are used to build an airfield or a port (like supply can be used to feed ground units or arm an airstrike)
The main point being the impact on base status. bases could be destroyed by the enemy or by friendly engineers dismantling/demolishing a base and only by having engineers with construction points could they be repaired/built.
This would mean if the enemy damaged a base it would not just consume ordinary supply to repair. Certain basic levels of course could be built/repaired without such points but a maximum base could not be achived/maintained without them.
OK to use a few examples. Dec 7 1941 the Japanese player decides to build an airfield on Truk capable of level bombers, he also wants aport to repair ships.. and shore facilities to store fuel and supply. He must transport engineers to Truk assign tasks (build airfield, build port, build base) each level will cost a certain number of construction points and they must be loaded and transported to Truk.) As they arrive the engineer consume them based on the number of engineers. The USN launches a carrier strike on Truk and causes damage. The Japanese will need to A: consume stockpiled construction points or transport new ones to repair. Lower level bases can be built without construction points..

I would expect situations in the game to present times where ground units had no supply but did have construction points.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 5
- 10/29/2002 7:53:29 AM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline 		mdiehl, I'm not at all sure it is that easy to knock out a port. Can you site an example of such an event in WWII. German ports continued to function despite more massive bombing than ever occured in the Pacific.

Odd, the most important of these facilities doesn't seem to be discussed here. Dry docks are the real limitation. I think UV gets is completely backwards, with quickly and simply repaired flotation damage, when obviously the real event is exactly the opposite.

The atolls offer marvelous sheltered deep water harbors. Dredging is not required. Shore facilities, as pointed out, can be relatively easily constructed. Massive supply facilities can and were constructed by the U.S., relatively quickly even in primitive areas. Maintenance facilities could quickly take care of normal shipboard maintenance. On capital ships, very significant maintenance could be carried out with onboard facilities. Ashore, SIMA's could fix anything except major armor penetrations, such as destroyed gun turrets. The accumulation of systems damage aboard large ships is not realistic in the UV model. It is, however, realistic for destroyers and smaller vessels. Again, dry docks are the key.

The worlds largest floating drydock was built and transported to Agana Harbor, Guam. I'm not sure when this was done. It was destroyed by Typhoon Karen, November, 1962. This thing could drydock an Essex class carrier!

Penetration damage to Battleships and heavy cruisers could not be repaired anywhere but in the United States, primarily the U.S. Naval Yards at San Francisco and Seattle. Some were sent all the way back to the East Coast. Even Pearl Harbor lacked the armor handling capabilities necessary for this work. Months were involved.

Hopefully, WitP will reflect these realities.

Paul

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 6
- 10/29/2002 12:56:02 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		I think that Truk was reduced in a fairly short time due to massive air firepower, also, Cavite in Manila harbour was devestated after just a few raids in 1941. The ports/harbours that you will find in the Pacific Islands (not ports like Singapore, US West Coast, or Japanese Home Islands) were nowhere near as complex or protected as ports in Europe.

Realistically, ports themselves were not major targets, as the idea of capturing a port was more important then destroying them (other then the few examples). However, should either the US or Japan decided to target most Pacific Island ports for destruction they would have been destroyed in a fairly quick time, although requiring a lot of air resources.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 7
- 10/29/2002 1:08:03 PM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline 		Cherbourg - It was rendered unusable by the Germans. The point here is that you can wreck your own facilities much more easily than the enemy can via bombing. Also Singapore, the main items the Japanese made off with were the fortress guns, the port facilities were wrecked.

And, atolls all had that vulnerable entrance to the lagoon, which could be blocked. Now this was not something that the Japanese did to my knowledge, because then they would be cutting themselves off from supply, but if a more level headed command element was in place, they could have evacuated some islands and blocked the lagoon entrance as their last action.

I actually agree at about having base construction "points" although this makes things more complicated.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 8
- 10/29/2002 2:37:53 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I just checked the thread over in the UV bug forum. It sounds like Matrix has got something in the works so I am hopeful we will see a far more enhanced and dynamic handling of bases, particularily advanced bases such as Pearl, Singapore and the Home Islands where one can find highly developed port features, warehouses, and most importantly repair shops and drydock facilities.

If properly represented, they would present the players with key and very high value assets that will require protecting as they would be especially vulnerable to precision attacks from carriers or low level mass bombing raids (if within land based range of course)

repair of such high value targets would (or I should say, "should") be all the more vital given the slow nature of their repair. You certainly would not see engineers repairing heavy damage to permanent and advanced facilities in a day or a week as if they were airfields having their potholes filled in. The benefit of all this (besides realism), would be to help curb the operational pace of the games (a more common complaint of late over in UV) due to the simple fact that players would be ill advised to simply shuffle most or even all of their 1st line assets to the "front" lines in order to supercharge their offensives leaving such priority targets with little to no defences. airgroups would need to be retained to cover the possibility (however remote in the player's mind) that one's opponent might try a sucker punch.

Oddly enough, the AI in PacWar was well aware of this strategy, at least i should say the AI in the last mod. and actually did such a trick to me early in my last game played with it, attacking Pearl Harbor a 2nd time when it happened to be temporarily weak FG wise and with no naval assets on guard.

Of course because of PacWar's limitations, the "disaster" was limited to the ships in port, the port itself was unscaved and i "only" :) lost the services of one carrier and one battleship. Had the port infrastructure taken hard damage it would have thrown a greater spanner in the works in terms of my intermediate operational plans

I like your idea Mogami though admitedly, I must admit i'm not nearly as concerned with the option of having a Pacific version of the "Scorched Earth" policy as i am concerned that the effects of Port and airfield infrastructure damage should be made more dynamic and take longer to repair in ratio to the effectiveness and degree of attack. As others have pointed out....its one thing to repair a pockmarked airfield after attack....its quite another to repair more sophisitcated assets such as port facilites, airfield maintenance shops, fuel stores etc etc.

Right now, a few engineer units stacked can repair even 100% airfield services and 100% port damage in only a day or two or three, with enough stacked units its a single day.....even if its an enemy base that had just been taken! The only hit that really hurts right now is the Port supply hit....or the airfield supply hit.

There should be a greater effect too when such high levels are achieved......airfield services and runways at high to 100% should have little ability to launch aircraft, ports at 100% should have beach level unloading abilities and zero ability to assist in ship repair (limit them to 'at sea' repair except in terms of progressive flooding) and to modify a great idea over on the bug forum.....as damage closes in on 100%, adverse effects should be experienced on completion percentages for fortifications, port and airfield expansion....from slowing them up to actually seeing the completion %'s slide backwards to represent damage to works in progress.

Finally, i am also hoping that WitP will improve on the ability of air attacks to actually affect the one thing that defines the entire purpose of an airbase in the first place......the aircraft themselves. Right now in UV only shore bombardment (heavy shore bombardment, i.e, CA+) can effectively inhibit or even cripple air assets on the ground.....radar or no radar.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 9
- 10/29/2002 9:50:40 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Thanks Ranger 75. Cherbourg was the primary example that I had in mind for self-destruction of a port.

Cavite was the one I had in mind for a service facility wrecked by hostile action early in the war, although IIRC the shipping channel was not blocked. Singapore was partially blocked by Cwealth sabotage, as was Soerbaja. In the late war, several Japanese ports were rendered inoperational by carrier strikes even though their shipping channels were not blocked. IIRC, Truk was not blocked, although most fo the damage was to ships in the lagoon (Truk lagoon is rather huge, so despite thirty or so hulks on the bottom there's still room to manneuver). I wonder if Rabaul could have been bottled up by a hulk?

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 10
- 10/30/2002 10:01:36 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		I like this idea, also for the Americans only would be ServRons. These acted like large ports just behind the front lines. They could service most minor to moderated damage and of course could be moved. They also provided supply to whatever type of TF/TG in the area.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 11
- 10/30/2002 5:11:06 PM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		I love the base counter idea.

I have racked my brain over the base issue for quite a while as a side product of my procrastination from my uni assignments and I think I might have a proposal. Or at least something that somebody might be able to refine further.

Ok. We agree that the modelling should be simple, yet realistic. We need a way to abstract bases by assigning them a value that governs their ability to load/unload ships and to repair them. What so far has not been modelled, is the different requirements the different ships have. For example in UV, you can replenish 6 CV + escorts TF overnight in a size 1 base if it has the fuel. Not too realistic really.

I illustrate my idea for bases with following example of a fictional base prospect called the Island:

The Island 2 (0)

The first figure 2 indicates what is the natural value of the shipping channel leading to the expected port location. For example a CV would require at least size 5 island, otherwise the shipping channel would have to be dredged, which takes a lot of time and (maybe) special units.

The latter figure (0) indicates the built infrastructure and (0) obviously means there is nothing –yet. Size one would be a crappy wood pier and size 5 would be something able to cater the needs of one aircraft carrier, but not more than that.

We start our building on the Island: After few weeks we have gone up to 2 (2), so we now we have a sufficient pier to handle heavy non-amphibious equipment, such a trucks and tractors, which size one pier is not capable of.

Now we have a small problem. We want to move in some heavy equipment, but the shipping channel size 2 is too small for the biggest APs, so we have to dredge it to size 3.

Get in some equipment and get to it. After god knows how long, you can improve the shipping channels by maybe three points, but no further. So eventually our island could develop to size 5 (5) and be able to unload/load and fuel up to 10 capital ships including one CV (–provided there is the equipment to do this).

Any more ships than that, the unloading or refuelling services would take significantly longer, because one set of ships have to refuel and leave the port to make way for the others. Only size 7 ports (which are rare) could cater several capital ships simultaneously.

So the figures are independent, indicating two different things. Obviously you could also develop a base that has size 5 shipping channel but no pier, or size 5 pier, accessible only for small ships. Anyway the main point is that shipping channel and piers are separate entities governing three things: 1) The max size of the ships that can dock (Channel, Pier), 2) the max amount of ships in dock at one time (channel, pier) and the max fuel and ammo storage capacity the base has (Pier)

This might require that ships are assigned “load values” similar to land units, so that you can dock three DD for price of one CV and so on and so on…
Now that we have the values to indicate superstructure value of our base, we need to indicate operational value of the base. This means how quickly it can load and unload and how quickly it can repair ships (and what type and how many).

This is what the base counter is for. The size of the base counter determines what sort of operational facilities the base will have, such as loading cranes and equipment to run dry dock. All this paraphernalia could be displayed in similar method to units:

Loading cranes x 4
Dry dock crap x 10
Trucks x 20
Tugs x 1
Naval Engineers x 300
Support x 200
Prostitutes x 2
Sheep x 398
Lions x 1

By representing these items as an unit, they could be targeted and destroyed normally by air-raids and bombardments. The base damage number, then, (47%) would indicate the damage to the superstructure, i.e. pier, storage tanks and stored supply.

If one wants to destroy the base completely all these three things would have to be destroyed separately –althougt all objectives could be achieved in one very successful and lucky strike.

An attack on the Island base of 5 (5) could yield a following result:

Port damage 51% (fuel tank and a warehouse explosion, 1000 Fuel and 1000 Supply lost, the max amount of storage reduced before repairs are completed)

Ground Casualties
Loading crane x 1
Truck x 5
Naval Engineers x 3
Sheep x 397

AP Imaginary Mary 3 hits, sunk


If port (pier) damage goes over 100% the base remains 100% damaged and loses one point in value: So the base would go from 5 (5) to 5 to (4). However base can never be degrade more than certain amount. For example size (5) base cannot go below (2) and size (10) cannot go below (4).

The shipping lane size 5 could also be degraded to a certain extent.

This could happen in two different ways: One would be through scuttling your ships while they are docked, or when docked ships are sunk by the enemy action. If ship is sunk by enemy action there is a chance that it causes some‘damage’ to the shipping lane and scuttling your own would cause the maximum damage as it is presumed you position the ship so that it is optimal in blocking the route.

The size value of the ship would indicate the harm caused, i.e. scuttle Essex at size 5 shipping lane and be sure that enemy wont be using that lane for a while. As opposed to scuttling a barge at size10 shipping lane and congratulating yourself on a job well done…

Well I certainly got into this. I hope I didn’t bore you with my ramblings.
Although I am aware that Matrix has already coded some new system and its unlikely that anything we post here really makes the difference in such a big issue as this, it is still nice to spend some time postulating these things. Makes the time go faster while we wait :D

So, what do you guys think?

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 12
- 10/30/2002 8:59:27 PM   
don gato

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 10/30/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Piiska
[B]I love the base counter idea.


Loading cranes x 4
Dry dock crap x 10
Trucks x 20
Tugs x 1
Naval Engineers x 300
Support x 200
Prostitutes x 2
Sheep x 398
Lions x 1

[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, with 500 men to serve, those two prostitutes would have to work hard! Worse even when a capital ship docks and 3000+ sex-starved men are released!!
:eek:

Maybe that's why you included the sheep . . .
:D :D

Jokes aside, the japs actually had travelling brothels visiting their fighting men on the isles.
If I am not wrong it was even considered an honor for the japanese prostitutes to serve the soldiers.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 13
- 10/30/2002 10:36:25 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		"Comfort women" remain an unaknowledged war crime (among those for whom servitude was involuntary) and despite dubious Japanese claims about the "honor" instilled and the volunteer basis of participation, none of them have been compensated for their "military service." None of those who died as incidental casualties of Allied air strikes or combat are listed on the Yak shrine.

In a nutshell, the "honor" is one of those post-war ad-hoc dissembling Japanese Ethnic Nationalist fictions fabricated largely to sweep the issue under the rug.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 14
- 10/31/2002 12:46:41 AM   
jnier


Posts: 402
Joined: 2/18/2002
Status: offline 		Check out this screenshot for WitP.

[URL=http://www.matrixgames.com/games/warinthepacific/images/screenshots/WITPShot0009.jpg]Screenshot[/URL]

It seems to indicate that bases will have "Repair Shipyards." So a player's ability to repair ships will be more than a function of port size.

Sounds like a step in the right direction. Hopefully this mechanic will allow WitP to model some of things discussed on this thread.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 15
- 10/31/2002 3:51:46 AM   
angus

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Brussels
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad
[B]I like this idea, also for the Americans only would be ServRons. These acted like large ports just behind the front lines. They could service most minor to moderated damage and of course could be moved. They also provided supply to whatever type of TF/TG in the area. [/B][/QUOTE]

I thought we were getting depot ships and repair ships (and hopefully floating docks as well) in WitP ? Maybe we'll get net tenders and so on as well to defend our new bases ? A lot of Mog's excellent points about building forward bases from spam and bullets (I'm guessing he doesn't have a problem so much with the likes of Brisbane, Truk, Rabaul or Kavieng as all the little bases that spring up in UV) would be addressed if you needed these ships to make an anchorage into a real base. After all building a dry-dock on an atoll isn't something that's very practical, same for cranes. And you can't do much in the way of repairs without a dry-dock or a big crane.

Angus

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 16
- 11/1/2002 3:29:43 AM   
Toro


Posts: 578
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Piiska
[B]The first figure 2 indicates what is the natural value of the shipping channel leading to the expected port location. For example a CV would require at least size 5 island, otherwise the shipping channel would have to be dredged, which takes a lot of time and (maybe) special units.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I think you're on to something, but note that just because a port is "size 2" and might require "5" to handle a CV probably isn't too accurate. The ship can always anchor out. However, there would be penalties for this: outside the torpedo net, slower resupply times (have to get the crates onto a port barge and to the CV, etc), weather stops resupply (hard to handle small craft in very choppy water), etc.

On another note, dredging probably wouldn't take any longer than getting the port size up, but would require special vessels (dredging barge).

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 17
base construction - 11/1/2002 4:04:24 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, I admit I do the following. I make a TF with transports.
I load a land combat unit (Nav Gar) and an engineer. The remaining space is used for supply. Then I move and capture every enemy dot (not occupied base) In location I would like a base I leave the engineer but the Nav Gar unit captures 3-5 bases before I send it back to Truk to rest and replace it with another TF with a Nav Gar and eng. By late July 42 (I only play scen 17)(well I play others but only scen 17 requires me to build bases not already begun) I have most of the "dots" under my control and bases built to level 2 airfield and port in a chain easy for barges to follow) sending an AP full of supply to the current location once in while allows the process to proceed.

I do not consider this "gamey" I consider it logical. However it might be too easy. What ever supply my Nave Gar does not require to capture a "dot" is used by the engineer to build the bases. I am certain I would still do something along these lines if I had to deal with "construction"points. However it would require more transports. (the non micro managers would not like this)

The real unasked question is "What level of detail do we want"?

If players really want the AI to perform the so called "micro management" tasks then my question is what do they want reserved for themselves? Deciding what ships go into a TF? What the mission might be? Commanding officer? Hardly sounds like the game needs a player if that is the level of input. Just on turn one Japan:"kill allies" Allies:Kill Japan.

I am into the daily mechanics of the war. I don't really care if victory is hopeless for Japan as long as the mechanics work and I am able to direct the daily business. (I don't think the "large" plans matter as much as how they are executed.)

That said, (and this is two bottles of "Rose Du Soleil" talking)
I am more interested in a game that shows why certain defeat was certain rather the a game that insures certain defeat.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 18
Road construction - 11/8/2002 9:47:35 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, More ideas rolling around in my head.



Construction in the China/Burma/India theaters. (and other areas)

Using a routine similar to the one that plots ship course between bases (or to other hexes) I would like to have a system for the building of roads/rail roads.

The player would pull down the construction menu by clicking an engineer unit capable of such construction and select "build road/railroad" then where a TF gets it's destination the player would select the "to" hex (the starting hex would be the one the unit was occupying). Where a TF's route is now highlighted in yellow the computer would highlight the future road/railroad path. The unit would move after completing work in each hex (supply/construction points would need to be delivered as work progressed. ) Extra engineer units could be added to job (by using something like the "follow" command or once a construction job had been ordered moving engineer units to any of the hexes highlighted. There are several major engineering jobs that were of impact to conduct of the war and I feel they must have a system of duplicating. (Burma road and RR's ) Late war offensives relied on these engineering projects. Also I would rather like bridges and tunnels to be among the things that could be targeted by the enemy. (you could close/limit supply down a road by destroying a bridge/tunnel)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 19
- 11/8/2002 9:55:23 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		This reminds me a lot of Operational Art of War, in its use of bridges crossing rivers being very important stop areas. Blowing up bridges (something I did a lot in the Korean Campaign) really slows your opponent down. Even in the original Civilization game you could use bombers to pillage enemy territory.

However, individual bridges/tunnels may be asking too much from a game that models a few Continents, but possibly attacking a hex's transportation value (i.e., attacking a road hex) could result in damage that has to be repaired by engineer units. Since a hex could contain numerous bridges and/or tunnels, attacking a single road/rail hex could cause a slowdown on supply and/or troop movement. However, this sould be balanced as to require A LOT of air power, as it did, especially in overgrown areas, just so those with air power cannot easily wipe out transportation routes.

So, possibly each 'hex' has a supply/transportation value, which can be directly attacked by LBA/Carrier air craft, and repaired or improved by construction engineers?

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 20
More - 11/8/2002 10:00:12 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, Without getting too carried away. I think routines that automaticly move supply down a road/railroad should graphicly represent such movement and allow it to be a target for enemy inderdiction (air mission inderdiction could be a choice. Bombers would fly to hex and bomb road/railroad damaging them and if any supply was in hex destroy a portion. Fighter sweeps would also be good at this-(I want to catch a train)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 21
- 11/8/2002 10:02:37 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		I like the production idea Mogami but it's hard to see how it works at the map scale. Any given hex might have a large number of bridges, depending on where in the PTO it is located.

I'd like to see all forms of construction contingent upon the size of the engineering unit *and* its degree of mechanization and industrial sophistication.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 22
Size/number of bridges - 11/8/2002 10:08:45 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings. For any one hex the program would generate a "bridge" factor. This would incorperate the number of rivers size of rivers and give a "bridge value" This would detirmine how much supply required to build/repair a bridge and how much damage they could absorb before being closed to traffic.
So many small bridges or 1 large bridge. It is still an abstract system but it does account for natural barriers. (tunnels would use a like method)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 23
- 11/8/2002 10:17:45 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Simple, but elegant. A very interesting suggestion. And it leads to other neat ideas. There could be an airstrike vulnerability associated with your bridge.road.rail factors. A one road track with lots of bridges would be more vulnerable than a spiderweb of hard-packed roads with no bridges.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 24
Re: Size/number of bridges - 11/8/2002 10:21:10 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Greetings. For any one hex the program would generate a "bridge" factor. This would incorperate the number of rivers size of rivers and give a "bridge value" This would detirmine how much supply required to build/repair a bridge and how much damage they could absorb before being closed to traffic.
So many small bridges or 1 large bridge. It is still an abstract system but it does account for natural barriers. (tunnels would use a like method) [/B][/QUOTE]

If you check my post above, it follows a similar 'proposal'. However, in almost any road/rail hex you will find places of possible obstruction (bridges, tunnels [which are very difficult to knock out]). I don't feel that this value needs to vary from hex to hex. There may be some major rivers to cross in one hex, while others have only smaller rivers, but I think this individual inclusion of 'each hex being special' may be too much micro-inclusion. Giving every hex an 'equal' transport factor will probably be the best/easiest way in going about this.

A hex may have a 0-100% rating, which 100 is most efficient, 0 is that the road/rail offers nothing to the transfer of supply/troops. Most will start fairly high, and the rating will directly coincide with the abililty to move troops/supply accross. If it is at 80%, then troops move at 80% of their regular road/rail speed, and 80% of the supplies get through.

An argument might be "if a bridge is knocked out, then shouldn't transportation be 0?". Yes, and no. All militaries had sufficient engineering ability to create 'temporary' crossings (pontoon bridges, ferry boats, etc...) which will not be quite as efficient as the bridge, but still allow for supply/troops to move. In rear areas, these emergency crossings can be completed by troops with minimal skill, and assume that 'rail guards', or 'local small garrisons' not modeled in the game are the ones who keep this maintenance up. When a region gets to '0', that means that all modes of transportation (including pontoon bridges, ferry boats) have been destroyed, requiring more then 'local' forces to reconstruct.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 25
Brain pool - 11/8/2002 10:40:03 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, thats what I like about threads where each poster can feed off the prior and enlarge an Idea (it's why I post in the first place)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 26
Re: Brain pool - 11/8/2002 10:45:39 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, thats what I like about threads where each poster can feed off the prior and enlarge an Idea (it's why I post in the first place) [/B][/QUOTE]

Exactly. I could see the addition of certain 'special' hexes, where a major river is crossed, that the destruction of one bridge will severely hamper supply/troop movement, but I see that to be more the exception then the rule. This might give both the air attacker and AA defender a better idea where to attack/defend, where the 'weak links' of the transportation system are.

To expand on one of my posts above, do you think it is possible to destroy transportation in a hex so that it is down to 0? Should this represent transportation along the special road/rail or all transportation?

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 27
Base damage - 11/8/2002 10:52:11 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi I can see rail traffic to zero (but then the rail right-of -way would allow wheeled traffic to pass.) And I agree a blown bridge should only reduce traffic not stop it totally. (there might even be a "ford" or "ferry" hex value)


With items that had no prior system in a game how involved does the programmer need to go before such items are included in a logical and workable manner?

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 28
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Base Construction Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.234