RHS EOS Questions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design



Message

1EyedJacks -> RHS EOS Questions (4/6/2008 8:08:51 PM)

I'm really starting to struggle with EOS as a Japanese player. Is anyone else experiencing difficulties with Supply issues in China and HI problems in the early stages of the war?

I've been sending supplies to China in large batches to try to override the "supply sumps" but I'm still experiencing difficulties in moving supplies where I want them. I've moved mass quantities of supplies from Japan to China by ship and have diverted a major portion of my transport aircraft. I've finally moved some HQ units to bases to try and pull supplies along with transports sending supplies to those same bases. I think one of the problems is that the sumps are between where I drop off the supplies by ship and the forward bases. I have to assume that if I fly supplies to a forward base but the supply levels remain roughly the same or drop that it is caused by the sumps - right?

I've also been - at least I feel - very miserly in my offensive operations in an effort to move supplies to where I want them and not have them drawn elsewhere...

And I am currently failing miserably to manage mi HI... All ship production has been cancelled except for 5 ships and I still cannot get the HI levels to raise. I thought that things would level out when all of those ships deployed to Bangkok but that does not seem to be the case. I have ramped up air production but nothing more than I've done while playing past mods as Japan - I've ramped up LBs by about 150 frames per month and fighters up by about the same. At this point I'm no longer building up factories for airframes but literally do not have the HI to bump up engine factories to meet airframe production levels.

I think I came into this with assumptions regarding Japanese production that have really bit me in the tail.

Any thoughts/suggestions from players playing the side of Japan on how best to manage production for Japan?



Nemo121 -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/6/2008 10:32:44 PM)

Supply sinks, because of their HUGE number of labour squads act to draw supply in a way that completely robs the front lines of supplies.

As to your HI questions.... Well its due to the "fixes" that have been put in re: Japanese production. IMO though things have just been over-complicated and while certain issues have been fixed new issues have been created.



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/7/2008 1:00:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I'm really starting to struggle with EOS as a Japanese player. Is anyone else experiencing difficulties with Supply issues in China and HI problems in the early stages of the war?



This is good to hear. RHS is first of all logistically oriented. Second - RHS set out to make China a tough nut to crack - and did MANY things to give the Japanese problems compared to CHS and stock - including grossly changing the terrain - adding numbers of land, air and even naval units - and creating a logistic foundation the ALLIES can exploit.

Nevertheless - there are ways to succeed - and I will describe them - as appropriate - point by point.



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/7/2008 1:04:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I'm really starting to struggle with EOS as a Japanese player. Is anyone else experiencing difficulties with Supply issues in China and HI problems in the early stages of the war?

I've been sending supplies to China in large batches to try to override the "supply sumps" but I'm still experiencing difficulties in moving supplies where I want them. I've moved mass quantities of supplies from Japan to China by ship and have diverted a major portion of my transport aircraft. I've finally moved some HQ units to bases to try and pull supplies along with transports sending supplies to those same bases. I think one of the problems is that the sumps are between where I drop off the supplies by ship and the forward bases. I have to assume that if I fly supplies to a forward base but the supply levels remain roughly the same or drop that it is caused by the sumps - right?



This is doing it the hard way - and pretty much doomed to failure. You need to work with the code gracefully - and not try to ignore what it wants you to do. In general - you need to pay attention to where you MAKE supplies IN CHINA itself - and even more than that - where supplies will FLOW using railroads and railroads. IN THAT CONTEXT you decide what to try, where - and where to SUPPLIMENT with supplies you bring in from outside? It is not possible - IRL or in RHS - to just say "I want to attack here - and presto - I get all the supplies I need for x divisions and y air units where it is convenient" - you have to EARN the right to go there - in a logistical sense first of all.

Principles:

Uno: supplies are made big time in R hexes - otherwise in hexes with a lot of HI - and you need to defend these - capture more of them - and base air units on them

Dos: supplies prefer to flow along rail lines - second to that roads - and only with 90 per cent per hex losses along trails - SO - consider where supplies are made in country and where they are landed - and how they will flow - always looking at the LOC. Fight for the LOC you want to have. ONCE IT IS CLEAR - supplies will flow where you want far more efficiently and automatically. [ALLIED players - YOU should ALWAYS block the LOC - and pay a high price to do so - he will then try to defend them - and that wastes most of his force - while your lost units reappear in 30 days even if you lose them]

Tres: You can pretend the Lower Yangtze is a coastline - and move supplies via it - but this is NOT better than getting the rail lines open -
similarly - you can move a HQ inland - and supplies will follow it - but this then HURTS Shanghai badly - and affects it as a major air base - port - ship repair center - shipbuilding center - etc. CAREFULLY consider how you deploy HQ for both range of effect AND logistical magnet purposes.



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/7/2008 1:12:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I'm really starting to struggle with EOS as a Japanese player. Is anyone else experiencing difficulties with Supply issues in China and HI problems in the early stages of the war?

I've been sending supplies to China in large batches to try to override the "supply sumps" but I'm still experiencing difficulties in moving supplies where I want them. I've moved mass quantities of supplies from Japan to China by ship and have diverted a major portion of my transport aircraft. I've finally moved some HQ units to bases to try and pull supplies along with transports sending supplies to those same bases. I think one of the problems is that the sumps are between where I drop off the supplies by ship and the forward bases. I have to assume that if I fly supplies to a forward base but the supply levels remain roughly the same or drop that it is caused by the sumps - right?

I've also been - at least I feel - very miserly in my offensive operations in an effort to move supplies to where I want them and not have them drawn elsewhere...



Wonderful. Allied players who wanted a tougher China take note - we succeeded. This was my design intent - and it is also historically correct. Many believe (I am not one of them) that China was not defeatable by Japan - but it should be hard - and mainly hard for logistical reasons.

FYI I find China TOO EASY to conquer - but not in the one case the Allies are aggressive. A normal Allied player who does not jump into the Japanese hexes and forward deploy his air power is too easy to beat even now: I just go to the trouble to clear the LOC - and the supplies let me do what I want.



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/7/2008 1:18:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I'm really starting to struggle with EOS as a Japanese player. Is anyone else experiencing difficulties with Supply issues in China and HI problems in the early stages of the war?

I've been sending supplies to China in large batches to try to override the "supply sumps" but I'm still experiencing difficulties in moving supplies where I want them. I've moved mass quantities of supplies from Japan to China by ship and have diverted a major portion of my transport aircraft. I've finally moved some HQ units to bases to try and pull supplies along with transports sending supplies to those same bases. I think one of the problems is that the sumps are between where I drop off the supplies by ship and the forward bases. I have to assume that if I fly supplies to a forward base but the supply levels remain roughly the same or drop that it is caused by the sumps - right?

I've also been - at least I feel - very miserly in my offensive operations in an effort to move supplies to where I want them and not have them drawn elsewhere...

And I am currently failing miserably to manage mi HI... All ship production has been cancelled except for 5 ships and I still cannot get the HI levels to raise. I thought that things would level out when all of those ships deployed to Bangkok but that does not seem to be the case. I have ramped up air production but nothing more than I've done while playing past mods as Japan - I've ramped up LBs by about 150 frames per month and fighters up by about the same. At this point I'm no longer building up factories for airframes but literally do not have the HI to bump up engine factories to meet airframe production levels.

I think I came into this with assumptions regarding Japanese production that have really bit me in the tail.

Any thoughts/suggestions from players playing the side of Japan on how best to manage production for Japan?



There are several factors - and oddly the one I thought was the big deal - resources and oil in Japan - is NOT one of them early in the game. Only later - if you fail to import - will that bite you. Andrew and I made sure that there is no automatic importing via Tsushima - which code would do if we wrongly coded the hexes - but until the pools run out - this is not an issue.

What IS an issue is SUPPLIES. It takes SUPPLIES to build up anything - and default settings may be 'ON" for many things that eat them. ONLY build a port or fort or airfield where you need it priority one - and WAIT to build others until that is done. ONLY expand industry where it is priority one - and turn off expansion of everything else UNTIL that is done - AND supplies are in the black. I ship supplies out of Japan every day - but only because I don't eat them all locally.

What IS an issue for aircraft production is ENGINE production. If you let starting pools fall to zero - you get none at all. RHS uses engines rated by size - tricky but we got there - and so planes using similar engines in size terms must be fed those engines - or non will come off the line. Production of airframes is always less than the theoretical capacity of the lines - in the main limited by engines - but also by HI points. So watch HI consumers IN THE SAME hex as an aircraft or engine plant. Either turn them off - or monitor the situation closely. Ignore this - you can reduce plane production drastically - even to zero. Another issue is expansion: be modest: Japan can not increase bombers by 150 and fighters by 150 - that is to say 1800 of each or 3600 per year - in a brief period. Never mind you can do this in a mod without logistic foundations - you cannot in RHS. Allied charges the Japanese do this are made by those who never played Japan in RHS - they are looking at plant capacity rather than real production into the pools. You are lucky to get to 1000 planes actual monthly production in the first few months - and 1200 planes a month in mid 1942 - which is to say 14,400 planes annual rate after months of build up. If you play wisely you will REDUCE plane production at first - NOT producing obsolete planes while your factories change over to better types - and actual monthly production should fall into the 300s or 400s in December - climbing out of that at a modest pace - so you reach 1100 or 1200 by June.


If you find this challenging - try playing the Allies. They have a lot of economies to manage - and less player tools to use to manage them.
This is the opposite of what I usually say - usually I tell the Allies "play Japan if you want to have a challenge" - both sides have to learn how to manage logistics in several senses. And air transport is NOT a solution. It works for OPERATIONS of a modest scale, but NOT for the fundamental, large scale requirements of a large area. It is SHIPS that move the bulk - IRL and even today in the era of Jumbo jets. If there is a secret - it is "learn how NOT to need to move things at all - by working with what is there - and not trying to overburdon what is there UNLESS you are willing and able to move in ALL you need" - in the South Seas - with the exception of New Caledonia - you have NO major source of supply at all - and must always move in almost everything. China is easy compared to that - it makes a lot and it moves much of it for free - IF you get the lOC clear of enemy units.



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/7/2008 1:32:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Supply sinks, because of their HUGE number of labour squads act to draw supply in a way that completely robs the front lines of supplies.

As to your HI questions.... Well its due to the "fixes" that have been put in re: Japanese production. IMO though things have just been over-complicated and while certain issues have been fixed new issues have been created.


Supply sinks ONLY rob you of supplies that should NEVER have been generated in the first place. The problem is in your head - psychology: you see them so you want them. But they either are not there at all IRL - or they are only there for civilian use IRL - and you should not be able to use them "at the front". In fact - RHS has NOT succeeded in eating all of them for technical reasons:

a) The COMBAT impact of sinks was mitigated by making them smaller than ideally they should be -

b) The SLOT limits of WITP was mitigated by creating a lot fewer sinks than I would make if I was stict - a LOT fewer

c) To the extent there is damage to a sink - it "eats" less than it really would/should IRL - and a PLAYER can force this event by putting combat units IN a sink hex - code shares the supplies and damages both sink and combat units - but then the sink is eating a lower fraction than it shoud eat - and the combat untis are 'stealing" supplies they should never have gotten. this can be rationalized - a major industrial area will have things the military can steal and use - trucks - supplies of many kinds - even support from civilians - but the bottom line is that the sinks are NOT fully doing what I intended for them to do and are only doing part of the "eating" they should.

As for HI and other production issues: surely this charge is correct: RHS set out to make things more complicated - and to the extent you find that the case - it has succeeded. Also - a lack of human testing means there may be things that could be better done. Player feedback has changed a number of location codings and data values - and there might be more of this to come. The system IS working well now - better in some way than expected - more awkwardly in other respects - but functionally - IF you learn how to work with it. It is not just "order what you want without thought" though. And there are lots of traps built in- you are SUPPOSED to turn off lots of things - bide your time - make priorities. And this is just as IRL - lots of ships were planned that never completed - no one could build everythign everywhere and not run out of stuff - etc.



1EyedJacks -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/7/2008 6:05:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I'm really starting to struggle with EOS as a Japanese player. Is anyone else experiencing difficulties with Supply issues in China and HI problems in the early stages of the war?

I've been sending supplies to China in large batches to try to override the "supply sumps" but I'm still experiencing difficulties in moving supplies where I want them. I've moved mass quantities of supplies from Japan to China by ship and have diverted a major portion of my transport aircraft. I've finally moved some HQ units to bases to try and pull supplies along with transports sending supplies to those same bases. I think one of the problems is that the sumps are between where I drop off the supplies by ship and the forward bases. I have to assume that if I fly supplies to a forward base but the supply levels remain roughly the same or drop that it is caused by the sumps - right?

I've also been - at least I feel - very miserly in my offensive operations in an effort to move supplies to where I want them and not have them drawn elsewhere...

And I am currently failing miserably to manage mi HI... All ship production has been cancelled except for 5 ships and I still cannot get the HI levels to raise. I thought that things would level out when all of those ships deployed to Bangkok but that does not seem to be the case. I have ramped up air production but nothing more than I've done while playing past mods as Japan - I've ramped up LBs by about 150 frames per month and fighters up by about the same. At this point I'm no longer building up factories for airframes but literally do not have the HI to bump up engine factories to meet airframe production levels.

I think I came into this with assumptions regarding Japanese production that have really bit me in the tail.

Any thoughts/suggestions from players playing the side of Japan on how best to manage production for Japan?



There are several factors - and oddly the one I thought was the big deal - resources and oil in Japan - is NOT one of them early in the game. Only later - if you fail to import - will that bite you. Andrew and I made sure that there is no automatic importing via Tsushima - which code would do if we wrongly coded the hexes - but until the pools run out - this is not an issue.

What IS an issue is SUPPLIES. It takes SUPPLIES to build up anything - and default settings may be 'ON" for many things that eat them. ONLY build a port or fort or airfield where you need it priority one - and WAIT to build others until that is done. ONLY expand industry where it is priority one - and turn off expansion of everything else UNTIL that is done - AND supplies are in the black. I ship supplies out of Japan every day - but only because I don't eat them all locally.

What IS an issue for aircraft production is ENGINE production. If you let starting pools fall to zero - you get none at all. RHS uses engines rated by size - tricky but we got there - and so planes using similar engines in size terms must be fed those engines - or non will come off the line. Production of airframes is always less than the theoretical capacity of the lines - in the main limited by engines - but also by HI points. So watch HI consumers IN THE SAME hex as an aircraft or engine plant. Either turn them off - or monitor the situation closely. Ignore this - you can reduce plane production drastically - even to zero. Another issue is expansion: be modest: Japan can not increase bombers by 150 and fighters by 150 - that is to say 1800 of each or 3600 per year - in a brief period. Never mind you can do this in a mod without logistic foundations - you cannot in RHS. Allied charges the Japanese do this are made by those who never played Japan in RHS - they are looking at plant capacity rather than real production into the pools. You are lucky to get to 1000 planes actual monthly production in the first few months - and 1200 planes a month in mid 1942 - which is to say 14,400 planes annual rate after months of build up. If you play wisely you will REDUCE plane production at first - NOT producing obsolete planes while your factories change over to better types - and actual monthly production should fall into the 300s or 400s in December - climbing out of that at a modest pace - so you reach 1100 or 1200 by June.


If you find this challenging - try playing the Allies. They have a lot of economies to manage - and less player tools to use to manage them.
This is the opposite of what I usually say - usually I tell the Allies "play Japan if you want to have a challenge" - both sides have to learn how to manage logistics in several senses. And air transport is NOT a solution. It works for OPERATIONS of a modest scale, but NOT for the fundamental, large scale requirements of a large area. It is SHIPS that move the bulk - IRL and even today in the era of Jumbo jets. If there is a secret - it is "learn how NOT to need to move things at all - by working with what is there - and not trying to overburdon what is there UNLESS you are willing and able to move in ALL you need" - in the South Seas - with the exception of New Caledonia - you have NO major source of supply at all - and must always move in almost everything. China is easy compared to that - it makes a lot and it moves much of it for free - IF you get the lOC clear of enemy units.




I think part of the frustration is that I've read the Handbook and the revisions to it over the past few months but I really did not realize the actual effects of many of the changes your team has implemented until jumping into a game with GoodBoyLaddie.
How do I track how much the sinks are draining from my economy? Is there documentation on where all of the sinks are at for Japan and perhaps on where future "sink LCUs" will be deployed?

It seems to me that my air units are greatly reduced to what I'm used to from the stock game and other mods I've played. And production values are extremely low at the start of the war. But with the enhanced anti-aircraft that you believe is accurate for that time period, my losses have rapidly surpassed what I can produce with the slow buildup you recommend. I feel like I'm caught between a rock and a hard place...

In my current game I've halted all R&D per recommendations you offered. I've stopped air frames that are out of date and can be replaced with more current airframes that can be produced. I did this at the start of the game. I thought that when I killed all R&D and stopped production on many of the airframes that I don't plan to carry forward in my air campaign that I could bump up production and I assumed this would allow me to build additional frames for Zekes and Bettys.

My air losses are pretty high and I expect them to get worse as I lose the "zero bonus" and GoodBoyLaddie gains access to better fighters. AAA is my worst nightmare. Vals and Kates are slaughtered when used against bases. I wanted to use Bettys/Nells to attack GBLs bases and LCUs but they are slaughtered by AAA unless I keep them at high altitude - and if I run then at high altitude they are really not very effective.

I guess what I hear you saying is that I should modifiy my strategy to that of a slower-paced war?



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/7/2008 8:36:38 AM)

The problem is emphatically NOT supply sinks per se. That is, if we take every one out, you will still have the SAME problems. The first step in the cure is to recognize the disease itself - and blaming supply sinks for where supplies go is usually not the problem. When it is - it is always a managable problem - and it does not change the fundamentals.

There is NO listing of supply sinks per se - and most are so disguised you cannot recognize them at all. Only larger sinks are separate units - and these ARE a problem - in land combat. But NOT in supply. Even the biggest sinks really do not eat ENOUGH. In the future sinks well be more invisible still - because we will have no problem with resource centers making too many supplies - and because players will have controls over flow - hex by hex.



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/7/2008 8:41:11 AM)



It seems to me that my air units are greatly reduced to what I'm used to from the stock game and other mods I've played. And production values are extremely low at the start of the war. But with the enhanced anti-aircraft that you believe is accurate for that time period, my losses have rapidly surpassed what I can produce with the slow buildup you recommend. I feel like I'm caught between a rock and a hard place...

[/quote]

I am very glad to hear it. Not because this was my design intent, but because I feared the opposite charge. In fact your air groups are much more numerous, and the planes have much greater power in terms of range, bombload, etc. I feared that it would be too much. What I DID reduce was the POWER of the air groups - in the form of using a differnt way to rate bomb effects. Also we changed the nature of air power by making relative gunpower favor the cannon armed planes - RHS was the first to do that close to right - and MG only planes will seem less powerful in combat - because they are and should. But you will find there is no "nuclear bombing" nor "uber CAP" - and you must run closer to realistic numbers to get proper effects. Only naval search remains overpowered - and I don't know how to fix that. [There is a house rule I am experimenting with to try]



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/7/2008 8:42:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

In my current game I've halted all R&D per recommendations you offered. I've stopped air frames that are out of date and can be replaced with more current airframes that can be produced. I did this at the start of the game. I thought that when I killed all R&D and stopped production on many of the airframes that I don't plan to carry forward in my air campaign that I could bump up production and I assumed this would allow me to build additional frames for Zekes and Bettys.

My air losses are pretty high and I expect them to get worse as I lose the "zero bonus" and GoodBoyLaddie gains access to better fighters. AAA is my worst nightmare. Vals and Kates are slaughtered when used against bases. I wanted to use Bettys/Nells to attack GBLs bases and LCUs but they are slaughtered by AAA unless I keep them at high altitude - and if I run then at high altitude they are really not very effective.

I guess what I hear you saying is that I should modifiy my strategy to that of a slower-paced war?


It is difficult to understand the details of your game without seeing it. But in principle your ideas were sound - and you may have gone too far. You should not shut down R&D - and in fact that is the wrong way to put it.

What you are shutting down is plant expansion for planes still in R&D - so when they are ready to start production it will ramp up - and so those plants will not suck 1000 supply points every time every one of them incriments early in the war. Your zeros and bettys and other planes SHOULD BE still expanding production. I am not having a lot of trouble doing this. What you need to do is watch the supply field of each location - and keep it in the black - or you will NEVER expand anything. Do what it takes - I only load ships thusly:

if Tokyo has 40,000 tons of supply - I insure ships loading have a capacity of LESS than that -

I do NOT expand shipyards or vehicle production - or even fortification level - early in the game - at Tokyo - as every one of them steals 1000 points every time it goes up one level. I USE those supplies to send to units overseas - or to expand the few things I want to expand. But I am always expanding something.

Your observations about AA are correct. I am an anti-air warfare guy - and I made it as close to right as this system allows. It is true - you can avoid AA by flying high - and that means you hit less. This is STILL true - IRL - and it is a problem I want you to face. You have other options - hit the airfield with battleships - hit it all at once with overwhelming force and kill the AA as well as the runway - take it with land units - or use airpower in the traditional game way - and take your losses - directly in proportion to the altitude you pick. Here bear in mind that I added THOUSANDS of MMG and HMG - and these NEVER shoot over 4000 feet (2000 feet for MMG) - so if you fly below that you WILL take it on the chin. Medium AA guns shoot to 13000 feet for the Axis and 14,000 feet for the Allies (mostly - that is the worst and normal case) - while heavies fire about 22,600 feet or more. The raid on Clark AAF IRL came in at 25,000 feet. This is why the losses were not excessive. I see your AA observations as an indication things work as intended and as they should - not as a problem.


Hint/Tip: Watch your morale. YOU control your hit rate. NEVER attack with low morale - and you will take down that pesky airfield. NEVER attack with too few bombers either. Hit it from two or three different bases - so bad weather will not stop the attack - and all of them strong enough to take it down. Then keep it down - watch the airfield damage level and your morale - and you may be able to fly higher just to get enough to keep it down at minimal cost.



Nemo121 -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/7/2008 10:05:31 AM)

Sid,

I didn't say "use supplies", I said "draw supplies". The problem exists when you don't read what someone else says but instead launch into a diatribe. Supply sinks because of their huge number of labour squads up the supplies required for their hex a huge amount. The end result of this is that, for example, a base hex which in a previous game had a fort unit which required 500 tons to remain in the hex to be supplied now requires 50,000 tons to remain supplied. Yes, it eats much of that supply and thus acts as a supply sink etc etc etc.

The problem is that when supplies are scarce the FIRST place which runs out is the front lines as the supply sinks hoard supply. End result, even forgetting about the supplies they eat per month as designed in order to balance the increased resources they also rob the front line units of supply as they maintainfull supply in preference to front-line units. This causes significant problems in supplying units for offensive action in areas in which supply is marginal as the supply sinks sit with 50,000 or more tons of supply in the green while forward-deployed units are in the red and nothing I've ever read you say leads me to believe this is your design intent.

The great pity is that I know you will just keep harping on about psychology or "working as intended" ( maybe but maybe the intent is flawed and hasn't been thought through ) and pointing out all manner of great logistical things I don't realise as opposed to actually getting down to the nuts and bolts. Then, since I and others eventually go "there's no point talking because he never takes on board what we say" you'll declare that since no-one is pointing out flaws that's a sign there are no flaws.

Its all very disappointing.



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/7/2008 5:20:05 PM)

I see the use of negative terminology such as "diatribe" as a problem in its own right. I did read what was said - and I replied in terms of how things actually work. There is something of a tendency of AI to look at everything in a hex and create a "request" - and this is a factor in terms of where supplies are sent - so your loose usage of the word "draw" is slightly related to what happens. But it is wholly incorrect to see this as a problem generated by supply sinks as such - and it is misleading in the extreme to ONLY talk about the "draw" of supply sinks when EVERY unit "draws" all the time.

Instead of "launching into a diatribe" I attempted to provide explanations of how things work. Your attitude - you "know" they don't work - prevents you from reading what was said with understanding. Yet in fact I am able to play multiple games and not have problems managing even the few cases where very large sinks tend to create a large request (or draw in your usage).

The problem described in this thread - as I said - would STILL be present if there were no supply sinks whatever. Supplies will NOT flow in China for Japan because the LOC are not controlled by Japan. As soon as they are controlled, they will flow. The details of the flow are not entirely under player control - playes control where they put units that create requests - and they control where they put HQ - but these measures only create "votes" which are then implemented by automatic code routines - not exactly in the way we would do if it were manual. This whole system will be better in AE - where there are player controls that influence dot hexes willingness to give up or attract supplies.

Your terminology is not well formed - and it is clear you do are painting with a broad brush - when in fact you should be complaining only about the rare and unusual large supply sinks. Your usage implies all supplies are huge - and this is false. It may be - however - an indication that most sinks are working close to perfectly - if you are unaware of them as a problem to such an extent you do not know they exist - and think the big ones are the only ones. But it is false propaganda to tar them all equally. In my view - which is very techincally oriented since I know all the forms they take - is that the small ones work perfectly in terms of eating supplies but have slightly too much combat impact - since they are not poorly led nor planned. It is as if small sinks are in locations with well organized civil defenses. On the other hand, the largest of sinks are - proportionately - less of a combat problem - since they ARE badly led and planned and a few other things - but we notice them more due to the peculiar way squad count is used in land combat (it seems to matter more than firepower does). At the same time - very large sinks tend to be less efficient at eating supplies than small ones are - and they are much more easily disabled to a significant degree IF the owning player bothers to defend the sink hex as if it were an important economic site (which, of course, it is, and which, of course, he should). To the extent such a sink is co located with strong and/or numerous combat units - it will shrink more than I want it to - more than it should do - and more supplies will go to combat units than really should be the case. In spite of this mechanic, there is a view that one should not put units in sink hexes - a view that is backwards in terms of how things really work.

You are correct about my design intent. I lack the power to rewrite code - although it does appear we have gone from "WITP will not be supported any more" to "there will be a new version" and this latter DOES have different code re resource centers and also some hex supply flow player controls - none of this was somethign I could do. Understanding what happens in terms of supply or combat is very difficult - this program is undocumented in a technical sense - it is a evolutionary product that no programmer anywhere understands in a techncial sense - and the number of variables is so large even a test engineer (which I am) has a hard time isolating exactly what happens. Much of what players think is based on perception and assumption - and while these are not always wrong - they often are not completely right. There are undesireable impacts of supply sinks - and the tendency of a large one to create a "request" (in WITP software terms) is one of secondary importance (the impact of squad count is much more of a problem in my view). Every constructive suggestion ever made to address both of these issues has been implemented - and if any more are made we can implement them as well.

There are two different aspects with your (Nemo) view which are not helpful: it is you who are not listening about what really is managable - and it is you who are not offering practical ("nuts and bolts" ) ways to make it better. I have spent a lot of time thinking about and implementing changes to supply sinks - and they are now substantially cured of all problems to the point that most of them are never noticed as such. We also have cured one case of a really big one (Kuala Lumpur) completely - by breaking it into parts - and only slot limits prevent this from being done for every such case. If you have another solution - I am all ears - and not in the least unwilling to listen. Being closed minded is not my problem - it is your problem since you do not consider that I mean what I said and that I understand what I said. This thread is about supply problems in China - a place that wholly lacks gigantic supply sinks - and these are NOT related to them. Alleging otherwise does not make it so - and believing I must be wrong does not make that so either. I am running four active campaigns in China vs humans - and the only one with problems is the only one with an aggressive Allied player jumping on my LOC and also one of my supply generateing hexes. If I can manage to do things faster than should be possible - the difficulties are not excessive - and I am wondering if we need to do more to make China hard (because I find it somewhat too easy - I make big progress in just a week).



goodboyladdie -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/8/2008 9:58:42 AM)

I agreed with Nemo, but did not speak up because you get stroppy when you think people are piling on. They do not work. They have just killed our game. You do have a tendency to not answer questions directly until forced into it and it is frustrating for people seeking your help. You are a great man and I would even go so far to mention genius. I love your work. Your diligence is a true inspiration and I would love to know how you maintain such an enormous volume of quality work in all areas, but listening is not one your strong points, my friend.

Where do we get your mod Nemo? What map is it on? Edit Found it. Thank you very much Mifune. [:)]



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/8/2008 9:52:31 PM)

Is stroppy a word? In what language? What does it mean?

As for listening - there is a great deal that would not be so if the charge were true. Facts should speak for themselves. I estimate that - of the things RHS has changed from CHS or stock - more ideas came from others than from myself - or possibly about an equal number of ideas. I estimate that - of the eratta detected and fixed - most of it was reported by players and fixed because I listened to them. Many were inherited - but regardless - we still fixed them.

There is at present a call for any eratta or problem - large or small - to include in a courtesy update (of entirely minor things because we know of NO major issues). If you have a problem - it would be addressed if posted.

I am pleased with the report in this thread - I wanted people used to WITP as it was to find it hard to conquer China- and while I do not find it quite hard enough - I think we made major progress down that road. Now that I am playing I must say I am also am moderately pleased that supply sinks are only slightly more of a combat problem than they should be. Since we consistently conquer areas way ahead of schedule - having to slow down for a few points is something of a workaround/fix - in my opinion. The sinks are substantially working in a logistic sense - but not quite big enough to entirely achieve my goal - which is to force importing of supplies on a realistic basis. I find that it is not necessary to import supplies to Malaya until you approach Singapore - or rather that the importing is done for you by rail line - so that the combination of local supply and automatic supply out of Thailand is most of what you need (unless you land a very large force). I probably should make the supply sinks bigger - but I have not yet got a sense of how much so? It remains true that sinks are an unfortunate necessity - and that only their secondary roles (destruction of resources and industry, support for civil air units, intelligence in hex) will cause any need for small ones once the resource/supply problem is addressed by code (in AE - not in WITP unforunately).

It is likely a lot of what is "wrong" is a matter of perception. I am a loggie doggie - that is army slang for logistics oriented - and few gamers like that. [James F Dunnigan once wrote "no one would play a logistics game" - but I would] For me - nothing makes sense if you don't have to think about resources, supply - and where they are/should be? This is not the way gamers think of military operations - but there is a saying "professionals talk logistics". However - there is no such thing as a perfect simulation. There is no such thing as a perfect mod compromise - and it can be fairly said the whole matter of supply sinks and the reason I invented them is frustrating - no matter what your point of view. They do not work as well as I wish they did - and they take excessive effort to create and use valuable and rare slots. It is also not possible for a complex compromise to please everyone to the same degree - precisely because people have different priorities about what is more important?

It is actually impossible to do everything. Just because I do not always take every suggestion does not mean I did not think about it. Note also that more than a few times I have rejected an idea - and allowed myself to be persuaded (if not actually overruled) when this was not accepted by several people. Sometimes I did not understand what was said - but eventually it was rephrased so I did. Sometimes I just give in and do it the popular way (if I had my way ALL commands would be unrestricted - but the Forum rejected that - and we compromised with ferries and other half measures). [We COULD simply not use restricted commands = no restricted commands - or we could severely limit what a restricted command was (e.g. only New Zealand).

I do not respond well to general criticism - it has no hook I can use to fix something - particularly false criticism: whatever you believe, I listen a great deal and use the CONSTRUCTIVE things whenever possible. I give priority to what is better - shamelessly throwing away my own work in favor of someone elses - based only on it being slightly better. IF you have a CONSTRUCTIVE suggestion - or a problem you think I might be able to fix you have no idea how to fix - put a box around the problem. Do not be abstract and attack ideas - define the problem as you understand it - as specifically as you can. One of my strong points is a very thick skin - I don't get upset - I don't care if I was wrong about this or that - and I don't prefer my own work over someone elses - I am a scientist - and my goal is the best product - whatever that means.
But there is no way I can relate to a word that is not even a word. It has no bite nor value for me - it is what we call a linguistic null. It is not much better to say "I agree with Nemo" when he was just irrational - he missed the point entirely - and launched into a general attack on a concept that is not even the issue. How can you agree with that?

I did notice some compliments in your post - they mainly serve to make me wonder what was your point after all? But thanks I guess. I am indeed a tireless worker - I do not sleep (like my hero Edison) and I do not watch TV or other things people spend time on) - and I am moderately intelligent. But - as Edison said ' Genius is 10 per cent inspiraition and 90 per cent persperation" - most of what I do is just homework and detail investigation until it is plain as day. I also don't seem to be profit motivated - I will do any project because it needs to be done - paid or not - even those that I am not (yet) qualified to do. If you are nice I will do a lot of work - just because you asked. And that isn't possibe for a person who does not listen.



1EyedJacks -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/9/2008 6:57:13 AM)

Hi all,

It wasn't my intent to start problems with this thread - I was just looking for general recomendations/guidlines in the China theatre as I've dumped a lot of supplies in the area, tried to use tactics similiar to what I'm familiar with in Stock/CHS/Iron Storm, and was not getting the results I was expecting.

I was in truth hoping for a process to study how the sinks work and select a method for moving supplies where *I* wanted them.

Perhaps because there are *so* many changes in RHS compared to what I've played B4 in mods or stock that I found that I'd jumped into something beyond my comfort zone.

I think that a few tutorials on the changes might make this mod easier to learn for other players.

Many of the changes you've installed in this mod are very interesting and seem to me to be, at least on paper, very well thought out (such as your gun calculations for aircraft).

AAA seems excessive to me - especially at the start of the war. If there was some way to create a "sliding scale" for AAA based on the year this might gradually move AAA to the standards you believe are true. From my perspective, at the start of the war, there was probably little training and less ammo to spend in training. It seems to me that AAA would start out in December of 41 as very inaccurate but that, as the war picks up and training/experience increase, the AAA accuracy ratings would build up. Just a thought...

The reduced legs on shipping do create more of a challenge but this is nothing that cannot be figured out - at least from my experience.

The sinks... They were definitely a suprise to me - and when I physically moved supplies from point C to point A only to see supplies sucked back from point A to point B I had a most unhappy feeling and some very negative thought regarding the matter. If you can come up with some specific documentation on how to solve this challenge in your RHS documentation I believe other players would greatly appreciate it. I still think that if I move supplies to a location to start/maintain ground operations then by-gawd those supplies should damned well stay there <grin>. GBL was doing a good job of being aggressive in China. It seemed to me that in a few of the 4ward bases tht I was trying to defend that I could never get the supplies I wanted to get out of the red. And LCUs move slower when they have low supplies so it was hard to move units up to reinforce some of the 4ward bases. The only thing I could think of to do would have been to drop para-units but my fear was that I'd never get my supply situation in hand at the base and the para-units would just get routed with the rest of the LCUs.

Production and HI issues also caused me heartburn but I was probably at least partially the cause of it by trying to perform moves and set my production similiar to my experience with past mods. I found this to be quite different from stock/CHS/Iron Storm.

There are many very cool things in this mod too though. the air units that are available in this mod look like they provide Japan to expand and then perfom a creditable defense as things begin to collapse on Japan - probably around late 1943 or early 1944.

I hated the multi-units like the PT boats (pt47-48-49 as an example). I understand why you did this (lack of slots) but I simply did not like it.

The map and river combat are also very cool. I think your ideas on multiple PWhex files - very interesting and original too. I like the thought of winter/summer weather effects on the map.

You were mentioning that you thought you might reduce the DC rates as subs seemed too easy to kill. From my experience it seemed like I was sinking a *lot* of allied shipping. It seemed to me that my subs took more damage when attacked by those 3-ships-in-1-slot units but that's just an observation - nothing scientific about that at all <grin>.

I've done 3 restarts with GBL using RHS mods. We knew going in that RHS was bleeding-edge and I expected to get cut some. I'm glad you are able to gleen something from my concerns to help you determine how you are progressing towards the goals you hope to achieve with this mod.

I would again encourage more documentation and some tutorials.



goodboyladdie -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/9/2008 9:33:22 AM)

I too think that if you wrote a fuller explanation of how sinks work it would help. As they have the potential to really screw the Jap player over, a location list and a suggested timetable of conquest would probably help too. If, as seems likely, you will always retain them, then please, please, please tell us more about them.




Texas D -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/9/2008 12:01:50 PM)

The only thing that actualy hurts Japan is the time table in my oppinion. I have no problems getting supplies to flow once the LOC is cleared. I try to keep main forces near the railways also :)



ny59giants -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/9/2008 3:34:41 PM)

In my brief game against Dice using EEO we have decided to move back those Japanese supply sink reinforcements 60 days to help prevent them showing up in Tokyo. I threw out having some supply sinks coming out as reinforcements vs. at start, but he doesn't feel they are that much of a problem. Thus, we are doing a restart with only this small modification.

I would also recommend more information on the supply sink issue as they seem to be a sticking point for many players.



goodboyladdie -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/9/2008 3:38:11 PM)

And a definition of stroppy from a quick Google search, just to prove you do not look when it does not suit you:

adj. Chiefly British., -pi·er, -pi·est.
Easily offended or annoyed; ill-tempered or belligerent.

[Perhaps alteration of OBSTREPEROUS.]

[;)]



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/11/2008 12:27:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi all,

It wasn't my intent to start problems with this thread - I was just looking for general recomendations/guidlines in the China theatre as I've dumped a lot of supplies in the area, tried to use tactics similiar to what I'm familiar with in Stock/CHS/Iron Storm, and was not getting the results I was expecting.

I would again encourage more documentation and some tutorials.


I am out of time today - but I intend to create a China thread along these lines. Now I am playing multiple human games - and get to see different human strategies against me - I will describe what works - and what might work. [I fear future Allied players may be much harder to beat - but that is life] I am having far too easy a time of it in China in general - and why that is so - and how to prevent it from being so - are useful topics to describe in some detail. I have to think of ( or borrow from someone ) a good name for the thread.



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/11/2008 12:29:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

And a definition of stroppy from a quick Google search, just to prove you do not look when it does not suit you:

adj. Chiefly British., -pi·er, -pi·est.
Easily offended or annoyed; ill-tempered or belligerent.

[Perhaps alteration of OBSTREPEROUS.]

[;)]


Thanks - it does sound British. And no - I don't look up things in google - never occurred to me it might be a linguistic reference.
I look in things like the OED - being trained long ago - in an era before the web (my child asks if I knew Queen Elizebeth I or II? Or if I wore blue or grey in the US Civil War - - so apparently I am really old indeed).



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/11/2008 12:35:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

In my brief game against Dice using EEO we have decided to move back those Japanese supply sink reinforcements 60 days to help prevent them showing up in Tokyo. I threw out having some supply sinks coming out as reinforcements vs. at start, but he doesn't feel they are that much of a problem. Thus, we are doing a restart with only this small modification.

I would also recommend more information on the supply sink issue as they seem to be a sticking point for many players.


I don't think supply sinks are an issue in China. In fact, to the extent there are "sucking" effects they probably work to the ADVANTAGE of players in China. But that requires one to think in terms of working with the system.

But in general I am not aware of ANY supply sink probems of PLAYERS - as opposed to theorists. The last report was about Kuala Lumpur - and it was broken up. If there is a CURRENT sink that is a problem ANYWHERE - please start a thread or otherwise advise me about it.

For example - if Japanese sinks show up too soon - we will delay them. I may be taking places too fast - and the sinks need to show up a conservative but reasonable period AFTER the place is taken. So far I have NEVER seen a sink show up in Tokyo- I always take the place sooner.



goodboyladdie -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/11/2008 9:30:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

And a definition of stroppy from a quick Google search, just to prove you do not look when it does not suit you:

adj. Chiefly British., -pi·er, -pi·est.
Easily offended or annoyed; ill-tempered or belligerent.

[Perhaps alteration of OBSTREPEROUS.]

[;)]


Thanks - it does sound British. And no - I don't look up things in google - never occurred to me it might be a linguistic reference.
I look in things like the OED - being trained long ago - in an era before the web (my child asks if I knew Queen Elizebeth I or II? Or if I wore blue or grey in the US Civil War - - so apparently I am really old indeed).


[:D][:D] How old is the child in question?



goodboyladdie -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/11/2008 9:39:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

In my brief game against Dice using EEO we have decided to move back those Japanese supply sink reinforcements 60 days to help prevent them showing up in Tokyo. I threw out having some supply sinks coming out as reinforcements vs. at start, but he doesn't feel they are that much of a problem. Thus, we are doing a restart with only this small modification.

I would also recommend more information on the supply sink issue as they seem to be a sticking point for many players.


I don't think supply sinks are an issue in China. In fact, to the extent there are "sucking" effects they probably work to the ADVANTAGE of players in China. But that requires one to think in terms of working with the system.

But in general I am not aware of ANY supply sink probems of PLAYERS - as opposed to theorists. The last report was about Kuala Lumpur - and it was broken up. If there is a CURRENT sink that is a problem ANYWHERE - please start a thread or otherwise advise me about it.

For example - if Japanese sinks show up too soon - we will delay them. I may be taking places too fast - and the sinks need to show up a conservative but reasonable period AFTER the place is taken. So far I have NEVER seen a sink show up in Tokyo- I always take the place sooner.


The trouble is most of us are learning the mod by trial and error, whereas you are intimately familiar with what is under the hood. It's a lot of time to invest only to have to keep restarting. I am curious about the CONUS sinks. The US ramp up of production in the early war was continual. In fact it started well before 1941 as US industry geared up to meet the demands of the US build up AND European rearmament. Is the point of them to stop the Allied player shipping out supplies to the front? The choice I always found I had was to supply the frontlines and switch off elements of my ramp up or send very little forward and allow the historical ramp up to continue. Surely the fact that many of the big ramp up builds take up to three years is enough of a drain on supply?



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/11/2008 10:39:10 PM)

That is a fair comment - so I will try to write a primer.

The US uses a suggestion from the Forum I like very much: it was fixed, but in RHS it "grows" -
however

the code is not clever enough to start things turned on or off - I cannot set locations for what is building/repairing - YOU have to do it.

Your options are correct -but there is a middle road - and as in life - moderation is the course of wisdom:

IF a thing (say resources) has over a thousand disabled - it MUST be set to repair = yes OR the US economy will never reach full size.
SO I set such a thing to yes.

IF a thing has a few hundred (or less) disabled - it can wait to grow until AFTER all those resources (and HI) are grown - you have a lot more to build from - and LATER IN THE WAR you turn them on.

There is a code trick in this area: whatever a location needs, it is 60 000 more than it really needs. This means you run in the pink a lot - but you CAN load that 60,000. Don't let the pink panic you.




goodboyladdie -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/12/2008 12:10:28 AM)

Before the last game ended after almost a month I had pink in San Diego, Utah and San Francisco (50-60,000 tons in each) and was red everywhere else, ie under 7,000 tons (except New Orleans and three or four Canadian bases). I had not been too generous sending stuff out either. I was looking at trying to assemble at least 100,000 tons for a Pearl Harbor reinforcement/resupply and had to switch off HI and all the various shipyards across CONUS to try to do this. This was wrong in my opinion. I know I have been spoilt by stock and CHS and all the other mods I have played, but all the aircraft orders/plans and shipbuilding for the next 3-4 years was already planned, with necessary building/upgrades/changes of use underway. It's the one place on the map where it should not be that tight, as the creation of the Arsenal of Freedom was well underway and the US was equipped to supply in increasing volume. As it was I was looking at a very heavy investment in supply for up to three years. I did not need the supply sinks to force me to learn to manage supply/balance priorities.



grumbler -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/12/2008 12:32:41 AM)

I am just getting into RHS (playing the Allies against the AI using scenario 76, the Japan-AI-optimized version of the EOS scenario) and I like a lot of what has been done in RHS.  My problem is that the AI is not conquering territory nearly fast enough, and nothing like what it does in stock or CHS.

For instance, it is mid-March, and the AI has moved about 65,000 troops into the Singapore hex, but has nowhere near the strength to take it, even though they have been there for a month.  I made the Japanese side temporarily human-controlled to try to figure out what was happening, and found no additional troops prepping for Singapore (in fact, the AI was pulling troop out of Malaya and sending them back to IndoChina) and nothing prepping for anywhere in the DEI except Tarakan (which the Japanese took early and then stalled at).

Is this scenario simply broken?  That would be perfectly understandable, but I would like to try to play some AI games before some human games, just so I and my usual opponent can run a head-to-head PBEM game without being bitten by the dreaded repeated-restart bug.  I am even willing to work on the AI Japan scenario to fix it, if I can figure out what if anything is broken.

Love the mod otherwise, and look forward to playing it HTH when we figure it out.





el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/13/2008 12:36:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Before the last game ended after almost a month I had pink in San Diego, Utah and San Francisco (50-60,000 tons in each) and was red everywhere else, ie under 7,000 tons (except New Orleans and three or four Canadian bases). I had not been too generous sending stuff out either. I was looking at trying to assemble at least 100,000 tons for a Pearl Harbor reinforcement/resupply and had to switch off HI and all the various shipyards across CONUS to try to do this. This was wrong in my opinion. I know I have been spoilt by stock and CHS and all the other mods I have played, but all the aircraft orders/plans and shipbuilding for the next 3-4 years was already planned, with necessary building/upgrades/changes of use underway. It's the one place on the map where it should not be that tight, as the creation of the Arsenal of Freedom was well underway and the US was equipped to supply in increasing volume. As it was I was looking at a very heavy investment in supply for up to three years. I did not need the supply sinks to force me to learn to manage supply/balance priorities.


The basic problem is we are not doing a clean design from scratch - and code has peculiar variations just for the US/Canadian West Coast area. In fact - it appears that land units do not move properly on the extreme map edge at all - and I have not found a workaround for this either. In supply terms - the pinkness does not have the same meaning it has in other places:

1) Normally - a location is in the pink IF it has less than twice the supplies it needs for a month

2) US West coast is in the pink if it has less than 60000 plus twice the supplies it needs for a month

That means that you can safely use the supplies. The code does this as a way to "suck" supplies out of "United States" etc.

Someone in the Forum asked for a complication - and it is a great idea - but it IS a complication: he (AK dreemer? WITPQS?) wanted supplies to grow over time. He suggested using damaged centers to make this happen. It works - BUT it is NOT automatic. I have no way to turn off anything - the player must manage it. And every time anything grows one level it eats 1000 supply points. S0 if it has a huge damaged level - 1000 or so - turn it on - and it grows for 3 years. If NOT - turn it off - and it can be turned on later when you are in the black there.

IF you follow my suggestions - this works great. Over time the supplies and fuel and HI and so on will grow to as much as 3 or 4 times initial levels. Further - the amount you "lose" paying for future growth shrinks - so late in the war you get to use almost all of it.

Note that plane and ship and unit production are NOT affected (as they would be on the other side) - these things just happen for free for the Allies. HI centers more or less matter because they make supplies and fuel - not because they make HI points - for the Allies (unless HI points are used for something). But supplies and fuel DO matter. The RHS system lets them grow - you neither must start with horribly too much - nor do you get no growth - but you do have to learn how to manage it.

One thing that matters is local production from HI centers: look at HI, resources and supply (say at Seattle). If you do NOT have TWICE the oil you do HI - there is NO production by the factories. It is the opposite in New Orleans - you will be resource short so badly that you only produce one day in three. The idea is this: IF you EXPORT resources (I want you to do that from Australia - New Zealand - New Caledonia and India - but you can do it from the US West Coast) to New Orleans you can TRIPLE local production. Similarly, if you import oil from NEI or New Orleans to US West Coast points like Seattle - you will cause local production to occur every day. This forces you to use ships for long haul transport between Australia and New Orleans - or rear area between US West coast and Gulf Coast - justifying the extra ships you got in Level 7 for exactly such cargo. YOU decide if they carry military cargo or economic cargo - or both (one in one direction - the other in the reverse direction)? But you do NOT get the production if you don't move the oil and resources where it is needed.

Note that Australia and New Zealand and India need oil - and If you send it THEY will produce from local HI plants. One player even sent oil to Manila (which starts with it in storage) - and he will NEVER lose Luzon - because it generates local resources and supplies (some of them from HI at Manila).

Note that vast amounts of supply (fuel, oil, resources) appear at the map edge - no where more than in the US West coast area (which includes New Orleans, Colon Panama, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Cagary Alberta Canada). You get thousands of them per day per location- although you don't get every one at every location. This represents off map production entering the map area. We also turned Spokane and Boise into ports - in spite of not being on water - because AI sends more to them that way - and they become useful air bases and so on. What this means is that if there is NO local production at all a vast amount of supply appears in this area: it is just not vast compared to what you need - particularly later in the war. The supply situation must be managed - and involves loading cargo every day - deciding where to turn things on or off every few days - etc. If done well you can export all the time and you will grow the economy hundreds of per cent. If done without regard for what works (sending resources to New Orleans works - sending oil to Seattle works) - you not only won't export much from several locations - you won't grow either. This is realistic. There were requirements for shipping for the US economy. And the Allies did a good job of sending ships with wholly different cargos on different legs of their voyages (Japan did badly - mostly ships went empty half the time). The Allies also did a lot of "triangle routing" - troops on one leg - resources on the next leg - and supplies or fuel on the final leg. You are allowed to do such things - greatly increasing your shipping efficiency - and resulting in more of what you need where you need it. The trade offs of this ship at that speed over that distance for such and such a cargo set - are all yours to manage.



el cid again -> RE: RHS EOS Questions (4/13/2008 1:03:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: grumbler

I am just getting into RHS (playing the Allies against the AI using scenario 76, the Japan-AI-optimized version of the EOS scenario) and I like a lot of what has been done in RHS.  My problem is that the AI is not conquering territory nearly fast enough, and nothing like what it does in stock or CHS.

REPLY: There is a variation of AIO attempting to help address this: it is MAIO - Modified AIO. AIO was a simple modification of EOS - and it is "AI oriented" only in that it gets rid of things AI cannot use (e.g. active Russians and interior river systems) - and in that it gives AI more pieces on the board to play with (or better pieces). It uses a strategy (Central Pacific offensive) that AI does not implement well. MAIO changes this to a different one slightly more effective with AI. I do not know why AI might be slower than stock is when it has more stuff to play with? AI is slot oriented - and mostly the stuff is the same in the same slots.

For instance, it is mid-March, and the AI has moved about 65,000 troops into the Singapore hex, but has nowhere near the strength to take it, even though they have been there for a month.  I made the Japanese side temporarily human-controlled to try to figure out what was happening, and found no additional troops prepping for Singapore (in fact, the AI was pulling troop out of Malaya and sending them back to IndoChina) and nothing prepping for anywhere in the DEI except Tarakan (which the Japanese took early and then stalled at).

REPLY: This is easier to understand. AI has a simple "strategy" - "enter the hex, kill local production, starve the enemy for months, then attack with fresh troops" - and this is exactly the same in stock too. It may be the Allies are stronger for some reason - but that is how AI takes everything of any size. More likely the Japanese are weaker logistically - I took out half the AKs - and AI is a horrible shipping manager. It wastes 5/6 of ship capacity doing stupid things: running empty, running almost empty, running with no fuel at 1 hex per day, going where it is not needed.

Is this scenario simply broken?  That would be perfectly understandable, but I would like to try to play some AI games before some human games, just so I and my usual opponent can run a head-to-head PBEM game without being bitten by the dreaded repeated-restart bug.  I am even willing to work on the AI Japan scenario to fix it, if I can figure out what if anything is broken.

Love the mod otherwise, and look forward to playing it HTH when we figure it out.






In a fundamental sense AI is busted - period. All mods. One member says "AI is an idiot" and that may put it best.

RHS is NOT designed for AI play - it is a PBEM mod - but AI scenarios were finally offered because:

1) Players want to practice (like you do) in a less embarassing situation than vs humans before trying a real game

2) Some features of RHS really do not get along with AI - and only a different scenario let us take those things out

3) Many only play AI - however bad it is - and we give them the best we can.

AI is misnamed. It is not "intelligent" - it does not "learn" in the sense computer AI normally does learn. While I do not
make RHS for AI - when I learn something about how things work that can be done to help AI - I do put it in the AI
scenarios. The problem is mainly that the things badly managed - not managed at all really - are vast -
and the things I can do only work for a short time - typically one turn.

I tried to offer an AI update service - which if used would let me get data to have Dave write a routine that would do the update in a few minutes in a utility program - but only one person sent one turn - and it would take many hundreds to generate the data needed - and we
might not be able to make such a utility in the end in any case.

I find AI games are best when I "play" the AI side a bit - "helping" it out.

For the record from Aug 1944 an AI game becomes a disaster: ALL Japanese air units will convert to kamakazes by the end of November - which is not only historical nonsense - it is the end of effective Japanese power. There can be no fighters, recon, transports, ASW patrol, name it - and that ends the game as a contest. Japan collapses.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.328125