More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/5/2015 9:30:38 PM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

There's been posts on this for years but I need to ask again. Here's the situation:

1) I've been pulling from Fusan/Shanghai since day 1. I haven't maxed out airfields or forts yet for either.
2) I've opened the road from Singers to Fusan.
3) I was pulling from Cam Ranh to Hong Kong. Fuel was flowing from Singers to Cam. From Hong Kong to Shanghai.
4) Now Fuel is stopped at Singers and Camh. Almost none is moving past that.
5) I've amassed tons of ships at Shanghai to increase demand
6) It's been weeks since the Singers/Shanghai road has been open and good to go. Nada happening.

I'm almost going to have to pull from Cam and give up on anything else. This more art than science logistics system is giving me fits right now.

Post #: 1

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/6/2015 1:41:48 AM

leehunt27@bloomberg.net

Posts: 533
Joined: 9/6/2004
Status: offline

regarding #5- is your Home port for those task forces set to Shanghai? i believe that matters as well.

Also have you pressed "W" to make sure you own all the right hexes along the way? No paras or Chinese guerillas sneaking TNT on to your railways?

_____________________________

John 21:25

(in reply to vicberg)

Post #: 2

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/6/2015 1:58:33 AM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

Haven't checked W key yet. Good idea.

Yes, at least 120+ ships set to Shanghai as home port or disbanded there.

I did get a jump of 16k of fuel this last turn into Shanghai. From 0 to 16k. I'll see if this is now a consistent thing or another 1 day jump followed by nothing for days upon days.

(in reply to leehunt27@bloomberg.net)

Post #: 3

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/6/2015 2:11:58 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

The best foundations of the magical highway are based on natural demand factors, not artificial. You are too dependent on artificial demand factors. You also have not mentioned what you may have done at other bases to deflect the flow away from the magical highway.

Read this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3700490&mpage=1&key=magic%2Chighway&#3701853

and definitely do not overlook the linked thread I provided therein which details how "fuel required" for a base is determined.

Alfred

(in reply to vicberg)

Post #: 4

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/6/2015 2:23:57 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Pax Mondo and Alfred are the experts here. Alfred has chimed in, but read closely whatever Pax has written about it too. Searches by user name and keywords should yield up a lot of threads especially in AARs.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/6/2015 3:24:51 AM >

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 5

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/6/2015 11:27:18 AM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

Thanks Lowpe.

Alfred, I ran across your thread already searching for this and already started putting it into motion. I've shifted lots of shipping to Shanghai (and Fusan already has a lot). Increasing Air Bases at Shanghai and Fusan. I've removed shipping from Singers and Cam and Hong Kong. So as far as I can tell, there isn't anything distracting the flow. I am seeing now increased fuel to Shanghai. The 16k looks to have showed up again this turn. More shipping is being transferred and we'll see how this works.

Thanks!

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 6

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/8/2015 1:13:42 PM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

The fuel isn't moving. Singers continues to accumulate though I never pulled from that Port. Looking at the thread Alfred sent me, I think that when I pulled from Cam and dumped into Hong Kong, though the fuel moved from Hong Kong to Shanghai, the resource AI is now set and doesn't seem to be adjusting, at least from Singers. It's May. It's been around 2 months since the magic road was opened and nothing is happening and I've created about as much natural demand as I can for Shanghai. I'm going to try PA next and see if that will work before fully giving up.

So, it's getting to the point where I'm going to have to give up and pull from Cam and dump into Hong Kong (and hope the fuel doesn't flow backwards) or straight into the Home Islands. Sigh.

< Message edited by vicberg -- 8/8/2015 2:28:48 PM >

(in reply to vicberg)

Post #: 7

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/8/2015 2:27:19 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

I think your problem is that you pulled from intermediate places before you had your pipeline setup. I start pulling from Fusan on Dec 7 and I never pull from any other port in Asia ever. Fusan is not a natural sink compared to other ports, so to get it there requires a very careful touch. You should be able to Port Arthur to work though. If you have built up/repaired Singers, you will likely never get it to pull from Singers. You will have to ship it to Hanoi at least ... if you have built up repaired Saigon, it may very well flow back to Singers. Sorry. Once the resource AI gets set, it will likely stay how it is.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to vicberg)

Post #: 8

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/8/2015 2:38:38 PM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

It's flowing from Singers to Cam just fine. That's going to have to be my spot now.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 9

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/8/2015 4:31:54 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

It's flowing from Singers to Cam just fine. That's going to have to be my spot now.

You might have said that in your AAR for OpSec reasons!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to vicberg)

Post #: 10

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/8/2015 4:36:35 PM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

It's flowing from Singers to Cam just fine. That's going to have to be my spot now.

You might have said that in your AAR for OpSec reasons!

Yep, now I know where to put my subs.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 11

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/8/2015 7:31:51 PM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

Oops

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 12

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/8/2015 7:38:33 PM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

Or maybe the fuel is flowing fine and I'm just saying this for mis-information? Yes, that's the ticket.

(in reply to vicberg)

Post #: 13

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/11/2015 12:52:53 PM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

With all due respect to the game and the people supporting it, this AI resource model has it backwards. The true demand should be where the resources/fuel/oil are getting pulled from and the temporary demand should be where you happen to have ships based for the time being.

This is war and things changes. If the AI resource model gets locked into a single approach, that's incredibly limiting (and unrealistic) and if the only way around it is to use a single approach and never vary it from the beginning of the game, that's also limiting (and unrealistic).

I'd suggest one of two changes (or both).
- Have a Fuel/Oil/Resource Requested option just like supplies requested to give more granular control
- Reverse the "artificial" and "permanent" demand calculations. Give precedence to "artificial" demand over "permanent" since that's really the true demand from a port.

< Message edited by vicberg -- 8/11/2015 1:55:33 PM >

(in reply to vicberg)

Post #: 14

RE: More on Fuel/Oil/Resource Flow - 8/11/2015 5:24:40 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

With all due respect to the game and the people supporting it, this AI resource model has it backwards. The true demand should be where the resources/fuel/oil are getting pulled from and the temporary demand should be where you happen to have ships based for the time being.

Not what is taught in any economics class. Demand is, must be and can only be, from a location which has a need for something. Which is how it is run in AE. In AE the temporary demand component is where the ships are based so your point is what?

This is war and things changes. If the AI resource model gets locked into a single approach, that's incredibly limiting (and unrealistic) and if the only way around it is to use a single approach and never vary it from the beginning of the game, that's also limiting (and unrealistic).

It doesn't necessarily get locked into a single approach. But if you build up infrastructure inappropriately without due regard for how the magical highway is set up, then it does become difficult to create the magical highway because it is impossible to dismantle infrastructure in AE.

I'd suggest one of two changes (or both).
- Have a Fuel/Oil/Resource Requested option just like supplies requested to give more granular control

Not going to happen ever. Not only is michaelm no longer dropping by, it wouldn't solve your problem. Where would your raw material supply source be. Too many already complain that AE is really Quartermaster in the Pacific and your suggestion would make logistics much, much more difficult.

- Reverse the "artificial" and "permanent" demand calculations. Give precedence to "artificial" demand over "permanent" since that's really the true demand from a port.

Why, what would that achieve other than ensuring that industrial production would never come close to 100% capacity utilisation. There is no preference as it is between "artificial" and "permanent" demand. If there were to be a preference, it would have to be in favour of "permanent" as that is known, with 100% certainty, demand for raw materials in order to run industrial production at 100% capacity utilisation.