Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

logistic analysis

 
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 >> Tech Support >> logistic analysis Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
logistic analysis - 10/13/2005 11:49:32 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The pace of operations is too great re history. Thus the campaign in Malaya took exactly 100 days - yet in WITP it takes a couple of weeks at most. Hong Kong fell on Christmas day, but it falls in 2-5 days in WITP. The logistic situation when Singapore fell was so desperate that Yamashita was considering suspending operations, but in WITP the more of Malaya you take, the better off your supply situation becomes - so by the time Singapore falls you may be in very good shape and by no means forced to consider not attacking anything in sight.

The root of this problem seems to be in the supply point system. It may be it is too abstract. By lumping all forms of supply together, when you really get lumber and food from a place, you can convert it to the ammunition and avgas you need for military operations. I like that China and Malaya (and other places) produce things - because it is quite true - and much of the point of colonies was economic (although in the event they rarely were run profitably from the point of view of the colonial power). Yet there are wierd exceptions - mineral rich New Caledonia - the major source of antimony vital to world military powers (you need it to harden the lead in shot and for specialty steels) as well as many other metals - is given NO production value at all. Japan SHOULD not only want to take recources from New Caledonia, it SHOULD want to leave the mines in bad shape if the allies retake it - but no such strategy appears in WITP because it has NO resources at all.

I do not understand the system well enough to fix this problem yet - and I fear it might not be fixable without a significant change in code - more than just data may be needed to fix it. But clearly the pace of operations - even under the AI - is related to ahistorical logistics. SOME of that is the fuel problem - which I have figured out and which can be corrected by data entry.

Sid
Post #: 1
RE: logistic analysis - 10/14/2005 1:45:57 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Welcome to WITP !!!


_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 2
RE: logistic analysis - 10/14/2005 3:17:36 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Things should be slowed down through some mechanism. But I guess some people prefer the rapid IMO non-historical, non-plausable pace.

I would think it would be simple to for example:

1.) Cut ship transport capacities in half.
2.) Remove most rail hexes or at least disallow rail movement while in the ZOC of enemy units.
3.) Cause bombers to be 100% damaged upon transfer to any airfield below say level six. Then you cannot take a base and the next day operate 100 Betties from there.
4.) Any base with supply greater than 50,000 should lose 1% per day to wastage.

Lots of other ways to slow down the pace. But I don't see much interest.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 3
RE: logistic analysis - 10/14/2005 4:21:51 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Some people like too fast - some people want to slow it down - one issue is - not sure we can have both - maybe for somethings via scenarios - but I certainly wouldn't vote for 2 versions of the code ...



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 4
RE: logistic analysis - 10/14/2005 5:31:08 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

the campaign in Malaya took exactly 100 days - yet in WITP it takes a couple of weeks at most.


Try PBEM

But I agree with you about the supply situation. Try one of Pry's scenarios; they are much more challenging as far as supply is concerned.

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 10/14/2005 5:46:51 AM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 5
RE: logistic analysis - 10/14/2005 2:20:06 PM   
Moquia


Posts: 174
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses
[snip other good suggestions]

2.) Remove most rail hexes or at least disallow rail movement while in the ZOC of enemy units.



I like this idea a lot. Maybe we can convince Andrew Brown to make all railroads hidden roads in his next map update, like he did already in China.


_____________________________


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 6
RE: logistic analysis - 10/14/2005 2:53:03 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Rail in Japan and India might need to stay. Rail in China can mostly go - I haven't tried Andrew's latest map yet - but I'm using one version back and even in that version without the fictitious rail in Oz, the Allies are still basing main attack out of Darwin

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Moquia)
Post #: 7
RE: logistic analysis - 10/14/2005 3:34:23 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		IMHO the main problem concerning supplies is the fact that resources centers produce supplies. PI,Malaya,Burma,DEI and SRA are all self sufficient in supply . That's why most of jap players supply the whole western part of the map simply using Palembang,Kendari,Balikapan and Tarakan as supplies centers. I've managed to put more than 300k supplies from these places to Darwin in one of my pbem campaign, while in RL those ammos,food,weapons etc should all come from Japan!
So i think it would be a better solution to stop the resources centers from producing supplies and relies only on the HI+RES+OIL as supply producing system ( maybe we'd need in this optic to let the HI produce more supplies).
BUT, but...if we assume that Japan MUST have more supplies problem, the same can be said for the allies. SF and KARACHI are an infinite source of supplies....too much IMHO. The allies in Eastern India can have 1000k of supplies stocked by the end of March...that's simply unhistorical. In RL they had so many problems on that front that they couldn't even think about an offensive before mid-43...not our case as we know. in WITP you can counterinvade Burma from Bangladesh by mid 42

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 8
RE: logistic analysis - 10/14/2005 5:09:36 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		While I substantially agree for PBEM, we may break AI by doing this ( eliminate all supply generation by resource centers ). So if this were ever to happen, might have to be a "switch" ( enable/disable resource center supply generation ).

Also, in my most advanced PBEM ( Jun 43 ) I am finally having to import some supply into the area, but in this game the resource centers are more beat up. In a second PBEM, resource centers are less beat up and SRA is even supplying CENPAC !

As to too much Allied supply, CHS has been trying to deal with this - but there hasn't been enough time since last CHS release to determine effects - and again - what are effects on AI for substantially reducing Allied supply ? We may not know until we try and that takes time.

It has been proposed to have a version of the game that does not support AI - but my impression is there are too many people playing AI games - and that we cannot avoid to drop AI. Also, I find AI useful testing tool.





_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 9
RE: logistic analysis - 10/14/2005 8:26:33 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		Ahhh, there we go again. The left side of the "supply pendulum". Soon the right side of the "supply pendulum" will start up. The right side being "I dont have enough supply to fix stuff" or "I dont have enough supply to build stuff".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

I've managed to put more than 300k supplies from these places to Darwin in one of my pbem campaign, while in RL those ammos,food,weapons etc should all come from Japan!


300k supply would take 240k resource centers. There are a total of 5670 resource centers total in the SRA (counting Malaya).That is 42 days of full production assuming not 1 center was damaged when you captured it. Not 1 center was damaged by allied bombing. AND assuming that your troops, ships, and planes in the area didnt consume even 1 supply point. Now you didnt say how long of a period it took to move these 300,000 supplys to Darwin.

Supplies in the game represent food, bullets, gas, lightbulbs, coffee, bandages and anything else you can name except fuel oil. Some of these supplies are manufactured goods such as artillery shells and these of course would have to come from some sort of factory, and amazingly factories in the game make supplies. Some of these supplies grow on trees such as bananas. There are also cities, towns, villages, hamlets, ect that make stuff. Maybe not on a grand scale, but Mom and Pops tailor shoppe on the corner of some island and main street makes thread for repairing uniforms, this is supply also.

Please explain to me why you think rice can be only be made in Japan?

Now seems to me your REAL complaint is that they didnt break these 2 type of supplies into 2 or possibly more groups. No amount of tweeking in the game is going to accomplish this. Play the game the way it is or make your own. All the crying in the world isnt going to make this happen in this game.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/14/2005 10:28:36 PM >

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 10
RE: logistic analysis - 10/14/2005 8:48:11 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Soon the right side of the "supply pendulum" will start up. The right side being "I dont have enough supply to fix stuff" or "I dont have enough supply to build stuff".


This was the cry of commanders throughout the war! This would make the game much more realistic (as far as pace goes) if more frustrating.

The two sides continue to struggle over control of the pendulum...

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 11
RE: logistic analysis - 10/15/2005 12:53:44 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Rail in Japan and India might need to stay. Rail in China can mostly go -


It is true that rail in China was in pretty awful shape. Japan actually took the entire rail link to Viet Nam in 1945 - and it mattered not a whit - it was not functional - although it had long been a strategic goal. The rail link to Burma functioned for a year and a half - sort of - and it is not even present in the game! The rail in ALaska is wierd - it only goes from south of ANchorage to Fairbanks - but that is not how the game has it. I suspect the rail in Australia is equally fictional - my rail atlases show no such rail lines in the NOrth. The rail line in Viet Nam worked - and also in Thailand - but the Thai lines are mostly absent - and they do NOT connect to Viet nam as shown on the map. Wierd wierd wierd.


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 12
RE: logistic analysis - 10/15/2005 12:55:48 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

So i think it would be a better solution to stop the resources centers from producing supplies and relies only on the HI+RES+OIL as supply producing system ( maybe we'd need in this optic to let the HI produce more supplies).


THis is very good. It is fair simulation. Move resources (and oil) to the HI and THAT produces the finished goods. ONLY to the extent the colonies have HI can they make supply points. Very good idea.

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 13
RE: logistic analysis - 10/15/2005 12:59:54 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

SF and KARACHI are an infinite source of supplies....too much IMHO. The allies in Eastern India can have 1000k of supplies stocked by the end of March...that's simply unhistorical.


Very correct. India underwent a famine because there was not enough shipping to feed it and the war effort. THis is a big deal in INdian politics and meant the colony MUST go free sooner than otherwise might have happened. The Brits had to send 160 battalions to India to prevent a wartime rebellion - Congress Party was all in prison no less - and it was a unified party INCLUDING Muslims then - for demanding promises re independence. Where are those 160 battalions? And why is there no risk of rebellion? This was fed in large measure during the war by SEVERE logistic problems - a crop failure and the refusal to allocate ships meant there must be widespread starvation. [Not the way history is usually taught in Western high school books]

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 14
RE: logistic analysis - 10/15/2005 2:39:43 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		el cid again,

Check out Andrew Brown's map.

http://www.bur.st/~akbrown/witp.html

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 15
RE: logistic analysis - 10/17/2005 12:49:09 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Please explain to me why you think rice can be only be made in Japan?


While the question was not addressed to me, I will answer it. The problem is not that local food and timber (and gravel or even cement) cannot be useful to occupation forces. The problem is that vacuum tubes, large caliber gun ammunition, refined aviation spirit, and lots of other things can NOT be produced by the local colonial economies on any scale. The game system converts the timber and food to WHATEVER you need it to be to support a major military unit - wether it be a tank unit or a naval vessel or an air unit. IF we must go with this abstract supply system, it is more true to say supply only comes from manufacturing centers than it is to say it comes from both them and resource centers. I recommended a system of fuel (INCLUDING avgas and vehicle fuels), ammunition and general supplies - but it was rejected in favor of the fuel (EXCLUDING avgas and vehicle fuels) and everything else. What would work with the present system is to remove resource centers from making supply points - but you could give some cities small amounts of heavy industry to reflect small local production. [The idea there is NO industry in Rangoon boggels the mind. Obviously whoever thinks that never visited the place, or studied it in the 1930s. There is also a shipyard at Wuhan - its 75th anniversary was this year - and I have yet to figure how to get ships there if I put it there? Ships can sail the Yangze as far as Wuhan. I DID fix the Columbia river error - sort of - by turning Fort Stevens into the Columbia River Ports. One can do a lot to reflect real local industry IF only it wasn't producing finished supply points at resource centers.]

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 16
RE: logistic analysis - 10/17/2005 12:55:18 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

The rail link to Burma functioned for a year and a half -


Actually, I didn't say this perfectly. The rail link to Burma is HALF in the game. What is shown is the RR about as it is today - to just short of the Two Pagadoas Pass. The rest of the route is now under water or otherwise demolished. But it WAS completed ALL THE WAY to Burma and then operated - and never actually shut down - by the Japanese. It didn't operate very efficiently however, for lots of reasons, including being under bomber attack (not sabatoge a la Bridge on the River Kwai), limited resources, and, putting it politely, a less than wholly motivated work force. Nevertheless, what IS on the map IS a big change from what really existed in 1941.

What I would like is some way to turn a trail into a road into a railroad. IF you invest in it.



(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 17
RE: logistic analysis - 10/17/2005 4:08:33 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
While the question was not addressed to me, I will answer it. The problem is not that local food and timber (and gravel or even cement) cannot be useful to occupation forces. The problem is that vacuum tubes, large caliber gun ammunition, refined aviation spirit, and lots of other things can NOT be produced by the local colonial economies on any scale. The game system converts the timber and food to WHATEVER you need it to be to support a major military unit - wether it be a tank unit or a naval vessel or an air unit. IF we must go with this abstract supply system, it is more true to say supply only comes from manufacturing centers than it is to say it comes from both them and resource centers.


I guess you didnt read the part where I said: " Now seems to me your REAL complaint is that they didnt break these 2 type of supplies into 2 or possibly more groups." It was the very next line after the one you quoted. A little UNDER 50% of the Jap supplies in the game come from the supplies generated at resource centers. I read somewhere once that the amount of supplies for a US soldier in WWII was something like 26 tons of supplies per month IIRC. Jap supply/troop wasnt near this high (about 6 tons/month?), and I would estimate that number is so low because nearly 1/2 of the Jap supplies were indeed food and/or "local commodities" which would be adequately represented by the current game system.

Now I have to admit, from the few posts you have made thus far you seem to be a "there wasnt a rice paddy in this hex" type of guy. 99% of us arent. The game isnt history. I dare you to find one thing about this game that actually does reflect history. I serously dont understand your nit-picking. Dont get me wrong, not ment as a personal attack, just an observation.

quote:


I recommended


Recommend all you want, isnt going to happen. Design your own game, produce it, and see how easy it is to impliment all you recommend.

Go back and read the forum. Hardly a week goes by that someone doesnt make a comment about some aspect of the supply system. It isnt perfect. We all know and understand that. The question isnt "does this part of the game work right". If you are going to pick 1 aspect of the game and put it under a microscope, then of course it doesnt work right. The question is "does the game work as a whole". And by and large, yes it does.

"Baseball is a game. Games are ment to be fun" - Tom Selleck from "Mister Baseball". Play the game or dont.

WitP is a game. Games are ment to be fun - Yamato hugger

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 18
RE: logistic analysis - 10/17/2005 4:44:01 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
What would work with the present system is to remove resource centers from making supply points - but you could give some cities small amounts of heavy industry to reflect small local production. [The idea there is NO industry in Rangoon boggels the mind.

One can do a lot to reflect real local industry IF only it wasn't producing finished supply points at resource centers.]


Industry centers in the game not only make supplies, but HI points as well. The proposal you submit would "break" this aspect of the game. Industry centers in the game require oil. Not all manufacturing plants do. The plan as you submit would require an increace in oil production to offset these "non-historical" oil costs that you would add to the Jap player.

Resource centers in the game can be bombed and destroyed to prevent them from producing supplies. I guess I dont understand what it is you are complaining about. Seems to me the current system reflects reality better than your proposed system.

Edit: seems to me the supplies generated at resource centers are the "local industry" that you claim isnt there.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/17/2005 4:49:11 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 19
RE: logistic analysis - 10/17/2005 5:02:51 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

The Brits had to send 160 battalions to India to prevent a wartime rebellion


Where did you get this figure. It's plain wrong - apart from the fact that the UK did not possess that many battalions to simply send them to India. It's possible to backtrack the location of every Indian (and British stationed in India) battalion for the whole war. There was never such a massive effort during the war. For most of the duration of the war there were about 40-45 battalions stationed on the NW border (in what is now Pakistan), but this was due to general unrest among the border tribes and not a result of WW2 (that is, the unrest in that area started much earlier). Sometimes there was not even a single British battalion stationed there (only Indian, Gurkha, and Nepalese troops). There were some uprisings that required massive military committments to subdue in 1942 (in Sind), but those rebellions were subdued by May 1943. And there was an uprising in Delhi that was ended by Gurkha paratroopres in 1943. But most Indian/British formations were used for coastal defense, only some battalions were used for internal security duties in Bengal in 1942.

quote:

- Congress Party was all in prison no less - and it was a unified party INCLUDING Muslims then - for demanding promises re independence.


There was major dissent between the Muslim and Hindu factions, and this eventually resulted in the creation of Pakistan.

quote:

Where are those 160 battalions? And why is there no risk of rebellion?


See above...

quote:

This was fed in large measure during the war by SEVERE logistic problems - a crop failure and the refusal to allocate ships meant there must be widespread starvation. [Not the way history is usually taught in Western high school books]


While this statement is true for the most part (famine), it was simply not necessary to employ military formations to deal with the problems coming with this. There were sizeable police formations that were able to deal with it (army formations were only used when they were in the area).

Supplies in the game only represent "military" supplies and shipping to India is not represented (or only by automatic supply generated at Karachi and Bombay).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 20
RE: logistic analysis - 10/17/2005 5:15:39 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		India had an army of 1 million. It was the 4th largest army in the world at the time. I am guessing that when he said "160 bns" (which would be nearly 20 divisions) he was actually refering to Indian army units which had British leaders. And yes, there is no way the Brits sent 40 brigades to India.

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 21
RE: logistic analysis - 10/18/2005 1:19:05 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

India had an army of 1 million. It was the 4th largest army in the world at the time. I am guessing that when he said "160 bns" (which would be nearly 20 divisions) he was actually refering to Indian army units which had British leaders. And yes, there is no way the Brits sent 40 brigades to India.


Actually, probably they did. This is NOT how history is usually taught in the west, but see The Atlas of Revolutions, and especially Total War by Calvocoressi et al (there being three or four authors, depending on the edition). They were not necessairily in the form of brigades, and for occupation duty independent battalions might be better form. In the British system, you get a "regiment" which may have several different battalions, in several different places. Also, it is not clear to me these must mean white British units. The Ghurkhas certainly were trusted, and there were many others in a less elite category but still regarded as reliable troops. The point is that a major amount of war potential was tied down to keep India from declaring independence and going neutral, trading with Japan. India is just now starting to deal with this issue - Bose was made a national hero just in the last administrion - and a few books with material on the two different Indian National Armies have come out in the last few years. [Did you know that Bose actually administered part of Indian territory during WWII? Japan transferred the Andaman islands to Insian nationalist rule. But we don't usually talk about that - or the Burmese regiment that defected to Japan.]


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 22
RE: logistic analysis - 10/18/2005 2:22:47 AM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		el cid I strongly suggest you download the CHS scenario and Andrew Brown's map. All the problems you are mentioning have been known about for ages. Using the newer modded stuff will act as a much better starting point for your analysis. Not perfect, but much better ...

BTW all these discussions would better be placed in the Scenario Design/Editor forum. Support is just supposed to be for bugs.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 23
RE: logistic analysis - 10/18/2005 2:27:52 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Actually, probably they did.


Name the units please and the source you used. Thanks.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 24
RE: logistic analysis - 10/18/2005 2:47:31 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

el cid I strongly suggest you download the CHS scenario and Andrew Brown's map. All the problems you are mentioning have been known about for ages. Using the newer modded stuff will act as a much better starting point for your analysis. Not perfect, but much better ...


As you say there is still a lot of stuff that could be improved, both on my map and in CHS, as well as my own scenario conversions. Especially for the Japanese side. I would be very interested to see any good information on CD units in Japan, for example.


_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 25
RE: logistic analysis - 10/18/2005 11:45:30 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I guess you didnt read the part where I said: " Now seems to me your REAL complaint is that they didnt break these 2 type of supplies into 2 or possibly more groups." It was the very next line after the one you quoted. A little UNDER 50% of the Jap supplies in the game come from the supplies generated at resource centers. I read somewhere once that the amount of supplies for a US soldier in WWII was something like 26 tons of supplies per month IIRC. Jap supply/troop wasnt near this high (about 6 tons/month?), and I would estimate that number is so low because nearly 1/2 of the Jap supplies were indeed food and/or "local commodities" which would be adequately represented by the current game system.



In WWII, the German amry, somwhat of a cross between largely motorized Western armies and the generally unmotorized Soviet army, required an average of 28 pounds per day per man. [That would be 840 pounds per man per month, or less than half a ton. Something is wrong with your data.] Some 40% was ammunition, 38% was fuel, and the remainder rations and spares. That is to say, the amount which could be supplied by a local colonial economy was less than one fifth of the requirement, probably on the order of one tenth.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 26
RE: logistic analysis - 10/18/2005 11:58:27 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		n l
quote:

Go back and read the forum. Hardly a week goes by that someone doesnt make a comment about some aspect of the supply system. It isnt perfect. We all know and understand that. The question isnt "does this part of the game work right". If you are going to pick 1 aspect of the game and put it under a microscope, then of course it doesnt work right. The question is "does the game work as a whole". And by and large, yes it does.


Logistics are the heart of military operations in general. They also are the heart of the grand strategy of Japan, which was to establish an autarky. It was probably possible to do that, but they didn't come close. By not addressing logistics realistically, it becomes impossible to engage in any meaningful operational strategy.

Actually, the Uncommon Valor system on which WITP is based has a remarkable system. It may be the best air combat model of all time. It is also very unusual for an air-naval system insofar as it gives land units - even small ones - a vital role - one it is fatal to ignore. This is a rather fine vehicle for teaching integrated military and strategic concepts. I fail utterly to see the point of trying to get right the very names of unit commanders and fighter pilots, and track every last .30 cal hit, theater wide, and then ignore something vital like logistics. Until I give the designers a fair chance to correct it, I refuse to assume they will not. If they won't, I will, or I will join others who will. It is silly to play the game with such false elements as a bad map - when it is such a fine concept. Just fix the incorrect elements.

As for "there wasn't a rice paddy in that hex" - if you don't worry about that you cannot see WHY Yamashita was a genius and MacArthur a fool. The present map of Luzon does not make apparent what is obvious if you but go look around. Defending Bataan was insane, and defending Baguio something that could have lasted many years. Just because of things like where the rice paddys were, and where the malaria and dengue fever were not. To which add mountains to make defense very feasible. And the map of Japan gives the impression Mt Fuji is a flat plain, when it is the highest in the country. You would never guess where the highest mountains are (measured from base to peak) from this map - they are on Formosa - right where that fine road system is if you believe the map.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 27
RE: logistic analysis - 10/18/2005 12:09:38 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Industry centers in the game not only make supplies, but HI points as well. The proposal you submit would "break" this aspect of the game. Industry centers in the game require oil. Not all manufacturing plants do. The plan as you submit would require an increace in oil production to offset these "non-historical" oil costs that you would add to the Jap player.


First of all, virtually all manufacturing plants do require oil. The most critical kind of oil is lubricants, and they are the thing you get least of when you refine oil. You must refine a lot of oil to get a little lubricant, but without it, you have virtually no industrial activity at all. Second, I didn't require an increase in oil production. I just want to turn off supply point production at resource centers. I understand about HI points and left them alone as well.

The ORIGINAL War In The Pacific (the SPI mechanical one) at least differentiated between "Northern" and "Southern" resource points. In this version, it is hard to see why Japan had to "strike south" at all? Why not just go into China, Manchuria, Korea and even Russia and live off the resource points from them? Liddle Hart lists 26 critical resources for war, and one of these is concentrated (well over 90%) on New Caledonia - yet it is not a resource center at all. I am not sure why you play games - but if you don't want resources where they were representing something close to what they meant - play an abstract game with an abstract map. No point pretending it is New Caledonia if it has nothing to produce. Not very much point taking it either - not unless the position is worth something to you. The largest copper mine in Asia is on Luzon - in a hex with no recource points at all. Oops - there is that rice paddy again.

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 28
RE: logistic analysis - 10/18/2005 4:08:21 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

The ORIGINAL War In The Pacific (the SPI mechanical one) at least differentiated between "Northern" and "Southern" resource points. In this version, it is hard to see why Japan had to "strike south" at all? Why not just go into China, Manchuria, Korea and even Russia and live off the resource points from them?


Because if you do that you will all but run out of oil in about 6 months. Once that happens your production of HI will slow to a trickle, which means practically no more aircraft engines or airframes (no more airplanes), practically no more armaments or vehicle points (no more LCUs or replacements), practically no more naval or merchant shipbuilding points (no more warships or merchies). For IJ with no oil coming in from the SRA, the game would quickly slow to a crawl. Mercifully, it would not last nearly as long as it might otherwise.

Think of Oil and Resources as Southern and Northern resource points.

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 10/18/2005 4:10:49 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 29
RE: logistic analysis - 10/18/2005 4:39:00 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
In WWII, the German amry, somwhat of a cross between largely motorized Western armies and the generally unmotorized Soviet army, required an average of 28 pounds per day per man. [That would be 840 pounds per man per month, or less than half a ton. Something is wrong with your data.]


Not a thing wrong with my data. Just depends on how you analize the data. The 26 tons/man per month figured in all support. Artillery support, aircraft bombs to support him, ect. In other words, all aspect of supplies. Which is what you are trying to figure, no? All supplies going to an area, right? Makes your data on how much supplies a man carried seem kind of worthless, doesnt it?

quote:


As for "there wasn't a rice paddy in that hex" - if you don't worry about that you cannot see WHY Yamashita was a genius and MacArthur a fool. The present map of Luzon does not make apparent what is obvious if you but go look around. Defending Bataan was insane, and defending Baguio something that could have lasted many years. Just because of things like where the rice paddys were, and where the malaria and dengue fever were not. To which add mountains to make defense very feasible.


Well, Im certainly not going to defend Dugout Doug, but as to the logic of Defending Bataan: It is by far the most logical place to defend. If you assume 2 things: 1) You arent going to fight to the death. American thinking is to have everyone in the army walk away alive. 2) You will have reinforcements comming within a reasonably short period of time. All the supplies were stored here and fortifications dug here based on that. Yamashita defending the area had no forts at all, knew he had no prayer of getting reinforcements, and could also assume he was fighting to the last man. And all his delay tactics and running off into the mountains didnt slow the allied offensive, so to what end was he a "genius"? At least defending Bataan denied Manila to them for a few months. At least Doug did a better job than the boys in Singapore did. Japs capture the cities water supply, threated to poison it and the troops surrender rather than have hundreds of thousands of civil dead. Oh, there is Yamashita again, no?

Defending Bataan denied the use of Manila harbor, and threated Clark field until reinforcements could arrive in a few months. Defending Baguio doesnt threaten a thing except Lingayen. And what good is that when Manila is in enemy hands?

As for the present map. I have said time and time again it is a game. It is not history. And again I will say it: I defy you to find 1 thing about this game that does represent history. Guess you missed that point, eh?

BTW. Yamashita was executed as a war criminal in Feb 46. Real genius.

quote:


First of all, virtually all manufacturing plants do require oil. The most critical kind of oil is lubricants, and they are the thing you get least of when you refine oil. You must refine a lot of oil to get a little lubricant, but without it, you have virtually no industrial activity at all. Second, I didn't require an increase in oil production. I just want to turn off supply point production at resource centers. I understand about HI points and left them alone as well.


I already said it once:
quote:


Design your own game, produce it, and see how easy it is to impliment all you recommend.


You want to track every single aspect of supply? Plot out all the coal mines, going to need coal. Then tin. Going to need that. Iron ore next. Make sure you have enough iron for your ships, and tanks, and rifles. How much iron ore does it take to smelt it down to 1 tonne of steel plate for a Yamato class BB? How much steel is used making repairs to ships? Better include that stuff also, or someone will nit-pick you apart on that as well. Various chemicals next. Got to have gunpowder. Paper mills next. Dont forget have to have paper. Silk? Have to have that. Rubber of course, have to have that shipped where it can be used for tires.

Now was that 714 million tonnes of rice used for military use only, or did they feed some civilians with it too? I know, lets include every person in the world. Makes the supply thing easier, and makes it better for tracking kills when you firebomb a city. Did that person just NE of Saigon have a ho-ho or a ding-dong with dinner? Have to keep the supplies right. God knows what would happen if 1 thing was out of order. Where does it stop?

You have to draw a line and say "this is it". Doesnt really matter what you do, it will never be enough for some people until it gets to the point where it is too much. The current system is too much for some people.

quote:


WitP is a game. Games are ment to be fun - Yamato hugger


Sure is easy to sit in the cheap seats and whine, isnt it?

Oh, where is your info on these 160 battalions the Brits sent to India? Havent seen that yet either.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/18/2005 8:50:30 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Tech Support >> logistic analysis Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
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

1.563