Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface
If someone knows the weight of a 90mm shell, caould they work out how many were used please?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

With respect Alfred - Your points 1-4 are not correct.


I am correct. Do a forum search on "supply consumption" and you will find many posts from me on the subject in many different threads. Usually I attach a link back to a dev. A good example is this thread
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3538438&mpage=2&key=supply%2Cconsumption�

and post #57 which has the hyper link.

The monthly supply usage figures exclude actual supply used in combat actions.


No, they are included. Go back to my post or to the above thread or any of the other posts thrown up with a forum search.

I've seen this many times.


And you keep on misinterpreting it every time.


Take sieges like Manilla and Singers as examples. Under constant bombardment an infantry units monthly 'supplies required' are roughly doubled.


That depends on the number of shots, how many units were involved in combat, what else was happening to the units. An increase in the estimated supply requirement figure is to be expected.


When an assault goes in the supplies stored at a base take a sudden leap down even though individual LCU monthly 'supplies required' figures don't change.

And your point is?

Of course the supply held at those besieged bases, where no supply is being imported and almost certainly no raw materials are available to produce supply locally, will decrease when the automatic distribution of supplies to the besieged LCUs occurs.

Why would the individual LCU monthly supplies required figure change if the same type of activity/conditions continue.[/I]



From the last assault on Clark field I saw a 3000t drop. The only reasonable explanation is that the massive amounts of supplies used are being consumed by the actual fighting.


The supply held at the Clark Field depot would have gone down anyway even with no assault. The drop would probably have been less with no combat but when supply distribution occurs, it tries to fill up the organic supply held by each LCU. All LCU, even those located at Salt Lake City in rest mode, still consume supplies.

So your[/I] "The only reasonable explanation" is in fact just wrong and not at all reasonable.


Now whether it is tracked per gun or as a unit is irrelevant.


Of course it is relevant because we are dealing with abstractions in this game. You get only supply which covers .303 bullets, water, food, grenades, 90mm shells, HE, AP, concrete, steel, avgas, you name it, it is all covered by the supply abstraction. Which is why it is "tracked" at the unit level, not by individual devices. And by the unit level, we include everything in the unit. Who says the Bofors are not firing at the enemy aircraft. A LCU which is attacked and does not return fire is still considered by the game code to be in combat and therefore will "fire" at least one shot. Go look up my posts where I have explained this with supporting dev evidence.

Either way the supplies that are being used in combat actions are in addition to the 'supplies required' figure.

Once again you keep repeating this fallacy. As already stated by me in this thread and in this reply, the supplies required figure takes into account what occurred.


I've always thought it a bit unfair that the usage of the unit doubles when in combat and then it also uses additional supplies to actually fight with, but there it is.


Wrong.


Bottom line is, yes - supplies required figure is inflated by some figure up to 100% by combat, as you say. But my central point: 260-ish tons of additional supplies were used by the unit because it was firing at aircraft and at that altitude only the 4x90mm guns could be firing - is correct.


No you are wrong on the 260ish tons of additional supplies. I have told you what the incremental increase was. Nor was it only the 4x90mm guns firing; the entire unit was in combat.

Should you want to support your assertions (which seems to be that the 'supplies required' figure governs actual consumption) you might want to address 2 points.

1. how much total supply should the unit have consumed on the day in question?


If not in combat, I gave you the figure in my post. If in combat, I gave you the incremental figure resulting from the particular combat. Tomorrow that incremental figure might be different as it depends on number of shots fired.

But rather than me just repeating myself ad nauseum, you are the one who said my points 1-4 were wrong. So the onus is on you to demonstrate how exactly my points were in error.


2. Where did the additional 260 tons of supplies go?


I've explained that the 260 tons is not correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I'm not sure I agree with that argument.

Flak doesn't just shoot bombers down, it also damages them and disrupts their bombing effort.
One can't simply equate numbers of bombers shot down to the effectiveness of the flak.

This is similar to the misperception many players have about night fighters being worthless because they rarely shoot anything down.
Every interception that disrupts the bombing effort and prevent hits is a successful interception.

Success isn't always measured in terms of the number of enemy planes downed.

Every flak shot that disrupts a bombing attempt preventing a hit is a success without ever having to shoot down a bomber.

I certainly could be wrong, but my experience seems to indicate that each airbase supply hit results in 1000 lost supply not 100.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Units may also give supplies to other needy units in the same hex. Aren't the Chinese LCUs shelled by the Japs in the same hex? Maybe they snatch the supplies from the BF? AFAIK, there are two supply phases in a turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface


... However, with the typical quantities of supplies available in China there is no way that (even with all your points) using AA to defend against airaids is a net supply gain. This is why I think something is out of whack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface


... However, with the typical quantities of supplies available in China there is no way that (even with all your points) using AA to defend against airaids is a net supply gain. This is why I think something is out of whack.

You are missing externalities. Such as the cost in supply to Japan in sending the 109 Sallies plus escorting fighters. Then there is the supply cost to replace lost aircraft.

Now whether you "think something is out of whack" is a different question which deals with game design decisions and has nothing to do with bugs. If something is WAD, just because you dislike the design, does not make it a bug.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Particularly here where you badly miscalculate the actual supply consumption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

You guys can argue and speculate till you are blue in the face over how the algorithm is being used for supply consumption.

The bottom line is if you were able to remove the AA devices to save the supply consumption of their fire you are going to suffer a far greater supply consumption by airbase supply hits.

After all, airbase supply hits are the unrealistic mechanism every JFB exploits to rob China of its meager supply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I'm not sure I agree with that argument.

Flak doesn't just shoot bombers down, it also damages them and disrupts their bombing effort.
One can't simply equate numbers of bombers shot down to the effectiveness of the flak.

This is similar to the misperception many players have about night fighters being worthless because they rarely shoot anything down.
Every interception that disrupts the bombing effort and prevent hits is a successful interception.

Success isn't always measured in terms of the number of enemy planes downed.

Every flak shot that disrupts a bombing attempt preventing a hit is a success without ever having to shoot down a bomber.

I certainly could be wrong, but my experience seems to indicate that each airbase supply hit results in 1000 lost supply not 100.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I'm not sure I agree with that argument.

Flak doesn't just shoot bombers down, it also damages them and disrupts their bombing effort.
One can't simply equate numbers of bombers shot down to the effectiveness of the flak.

This is similar to the misperception many players have about night fighters being worthless because they rarely shoot anything down.
Every interception that disrupts the bombing effort and prevent hits is a successful interception.

Success isn't always measured in terms of the number of enemy planes downed.

Every flak shot that disrupts a bombing attempt preventing a hit is a success without ever having to shoot down a bomber.

I certainly could be wrong, but my experience seems to indicate that each airbase supply hit results in 1000 lost supply not 100.

I agree with most of these points.

The function of air defenses, either AA or CAP, is first disruption and second destruction of the bombers. AE is all about a "supply war." The second the incoming raid was launched the Japan player was debited the full supply cost of the raid, results of it TBD. Every bomber that turns back, doesn't drop, or drops wide is a net loss to Japan. That's what you get for the "investment" in the AA supply consumed. In the long run--not just at Sian in the early game--Japan loses the supply race. The Japan player has to constantly weigh consumption now versus consumption later. As an Allied player it's VERY hard in the early months to remember this. All you see is multiple kicks to the groin. But it's happening.

So far I haven't seen anybody mention VPs either. AE is an abstraction built on VPs. If Japan loses three bombers in this attack the Allies get VPs. They are permanent VPs; Japan can't recapture them. For blowing up supplies he gets no VPs.

Finally, to the OP, two points.

1. You will lose arguing with Alfred over the numbers. You just will. You seem to have missed the core part of his proof, which is the base forces are in combat, not just firing AA. They consume more than AA ammo when in combat.

2. Looking at the device list, why did you move or leave base forces in Sian if not for the AA? You have engineers in Construction Rgts. You have Support in the dozens of HQs the Chinese get. I don't think you've said you're flying at Sian and thus don't need AV support. If you think the AA is too much, put the base forces in Move mode. Or take them elsewhere, like Chungking, with organic supply generation. Regardless, their supply consumption is not a bug. It is what it is. You can't order one set of devices to stand down and get the rest of the device goodies in the LCU. Either on or off. Your choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Hi Bullwinkle

It's true that there are some marginal benefits to contesting a bombing with AA - VP's for shooting down aircraft, reduction in air unit effectiveness by eliminating experienced pilots etc.

There are more than this. HI consumed on engines and airframes to replace the lost planes is HI not used on building something else or available in the Last Days. There is a finite amount of HI Japan can theoretically produce in the days available to play in the engine design. It's a ceiling. Most Japan players never get there, but it's there. Supply to construct the replacement planes and engines is consumed. Supply to expand those factories if losses are unsustainable. Fuel that has to be transported to the HI production points to build the HI to build the engines and airframes. Fuel transported costs ship system damage and opens them to potential attack and loss and more VPs for you. Defending against those attacks costs ASW air and surface consumables, supply and fuel and pilots and ops losses. Fuel used to build HI to produce replacement planes and engines isn't there for fleet operations. Expanding fuel and oil to meet fuel demands costs a LOT of supply. And so on. It's a waterfall of downstream opportunity costs if you shoot down bombers over Sian today.

However, there is explanation for the loss of 261t of supplies from a unit in 1 day (plus the 10t it should have used), then those peripheral benefits are drops in the ocean. The Ocean being not having supply for LCU's to defend China.

Again, you keep saying "should be." Did you notice there are 40 squads of infantry in that base force you posted? They fought; the LCU was in combat. Same with the other devices. Just because they were only bombed and not ground attacked doesn't mean they didn't fight and consume. Does China have enough supply to defend for very long? No. Welcome to AE. This has been noted for five years. Various tweeks and solutions have been tried in various mods. All are problematic in different ways.

To address the suggestions you have for me.

1. Alfred has posted a method for how supply usage should work. This method does not account for a unit losing 271t in a day. Once supply is with a unit it is virtually impossible for it to be transferred elsewhere (there are a few circumstances, but the don't apply here). So something is happening that Alfred's model doesn't account for.

If you believe that and truly believe you have a bug then the Tech forum is the place to post. Alfred can't see code. He derives a lot from what he sees, and he is in contact with various devs off-line, but he's not the coder. But from looking at the threads he posted and his arguments I don't see a bug. But you won't get an answer on that here.

2. The issue has only become clear once units were outside a well supplied base. If in a base then they pull supplies daily so actual usage by unit for one day is camouflaged. Having seen what is happening, believe me, I won't be letting my AA units anywhere near any enemy planes.........Whether that is a sensible situation for the game is another issue.

What to do with the non-infantry LCUs in China has always been a conundrum to me too. I've usually just huddled everything in Chungking and said "come and get me", relying on the resurrection rule and Level 7 forts. In my PBEM with Lokasenna Chungking still stands in March 1943 with Level 5 forts, despite at this point many thousands of bomber sorties and maybe 7-10 ground attacks which have cost Japan hundreds of thousands of casualties. Is it "real" warfare? No. But it's the models.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Hi Bullwinkle

Just to review what Alfred has said:

The BF unit shown has 179 ready devices and 4 unready devices. This means it's estimated monthly supply requirement would be around 180 supply points if not engaged in any combat or building activity. IOW if totally inactive. That it's two screenshots show an estimated monthly supply requirement of about 290 supply points means that its activity is imposing an estimated additional 110 monthly supply points.

No, you can't get away with saying "about 290 supply points." Look again. The first is 290. The second is (red) 288. Note too that no losses of any kind occurred to this unit. No replacements, no nothing. You don't indicate if you're base building with it, but regardless, four supply points (and it's points, not tons or tonnes) changed day to day. As Alfred pointed out, and the link in the last post in the thread he cited shows by actual words from a developer, that 288 is the result of an inter-day 30-day recalculation based on activity on April 7th. Mostly likely firing of AA, but not necessarily only that, especially if you're building too.

But the actual supply on the second day (30) is the net result of all activity of the LCU the previous day when it was in combat, not at rest (290/30). All devices used. Plus randoms for all I know. And as for the 30 figure, where in the phase execution was that screenshot taken? Start of turn? End of turn? Beginning of next day? A shot from April 9th would be helpful.

2. The BF combat related additional supply cost is not being expended only by the 4 heavy AA guns which are capable of reaching the enemy aircraft flying at 10k. On a LCU, there is no tracking of supply consumption by individual devices. The tracking is at the LCU level. Units engaged in combat may fire up to 10 shots. Each shot increases the supply requirement by 10%. Hence a LCU which fires all 10 shots will increase it's supply consumption by 100%. If it fired only 2 shots, the increased supply consumption would be 20%.


So a base unit with 180 devices uses 6 t of supplies per day - according to Alfred.

If it fights it can use up to another 6 t - according to his model. In fact it increased monthly useage for the unit to 292t - about 10 t per day.

180 at rest. Your unit wasn't at rest previously since 292/30 =/ 6. Good. And the second number dropped to 288. Not 10, but close. But, again, not only the AA expended "shots." Everything fought, including the infantry. As I interpret BigJ62 (a dev) in the linked thread Alfred posted.

So according to Alfred it should have gone from 301 t to 291 t the next day. Not down to 30t as it has. I had used the Alfred method in post 3 when calculating the extra usage as 261t rather than the full 271t that was used.

The crux of the whole thing is how does it go to 30 from 301. I suspect the answer is in the point in the turn where supply is re-calced versus where you took the screenshot. If that's not the case I'd post in Tech.

As noted in first post, I brought it here to see if there is a reasonable explanation, before bothering Michael with it on the bug forum