RE: Supplies in AE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Shark7 -> RE: Supplies in AE (6/21/2009 3:54:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

This thread has actually been very helpful. As a " new " Japanese player I have been slowly learning the ins and outs. And it sure seemed to me that I had a lot of AK's that I wasn't quite sure what to do with.  While I am very much anticipating AE, I have to admit that I am really enjoying continuing to learn WiTP.


The only problem with that huge fleet and the need to actually use them is having to set up all those convoys. I have a feeling turn 1 just went from 8 hours to about 20 to enter orders. Hmmmm.....



treespider -> RE: Supplies in AE (6/21/2009 5:05:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Why didn't you just cut the Japanese merchant marine pool in half and focus only on those supplies needed to keep the military portion of their economy running?


So you cut the merchant marine in half...then what do you do with all of the Allied assets devoted to sinking that merchant marine?

EDIT: Another problem you have is that 2/3+ of the Japanese merchant marine was loaned to the Army and Navy for a short while at the beginning of the war to sustain offensive operations before it was sent back to the civilian side for resource hauls...if you cut the merchant marine in half you now deny the Japanese their historic capabilities.

quote:

The Allies aren't forced to provide supplies to their bases in Oz and the US to keep their civilian economies functioning, after all.  ISTM that by providing nearly all the Japanese merchant marine you're providing JFB's the opportunity to let their civilians starve in order to greatly expand their
offensive capabilities.


Except for the fact that the civilians are part of the military economy ...you fail to feed the civilians ...then the military factories shut down. Japan was far from self-sufficient.

EDIT : This is abstracted by the increased resource requirements for Heavy Industry and Light Industry all of which can be changed in the editor ... so if you want to go back to stock ratios you can.





jwilkerson -> RE: Supplies in AE (6/21/2009 5:34:52 PM)

In stock, the Japanese have something resembling their historic merchant lift capability - but do not have all the historical things to do with that lift. In AE, we have given them a more historically accurate lift capability and more historically accurate things to do with that lift. Hence the "extra shipping" that we compain about in stock, is reduced in AE.







JWE -> RE: Supplies in AE (6/21/2009 6:14:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

In stock, the Japanese have something resembling their historic merchant lift capability - but do not have all the historical things to do with that lift. In AE, we have given them a more historically accurate lift capability and more historically accurate things to do with that lift. Hence the "extra shipping" that we compain about in stock, is reduced in AE.

How true. If I may;

In CHS (and stock is not significantly different), there were 1492 total Japanese AP/AK types. In AE, there are 1526 total Japanese xAK/xAP types. The number of hulls (i.e., targets) has not changed appreciably, but their total carrying capacity has been substantially reduced, to historical levels.

In stock/CHS, even the Small AKs had significant capacity ~ 2000 tons. In AE, these are represented by a new type, an xAKL (light cargo ship), which have capacities in the 500 to 1700 ton range, with the majority at the lower end of the range. Of the 1526 ships, 504 are xAKLs.

You could think of this as a reduction of the nominally capable Japanese merchie fleet by 32%, from 1492 to 1022, with some fairly useful local craft hanging around at the margins. The number of merchie target hulls haven’t changed, just their utility and their carrying capacity.

This allowed a synthesis between production I/O and transport. This also allowed a tension between transport and ops. Also allowed a tension between ops conversion imperitives. You have 1 ship with 4 configuration choices: which do you choose?



herwin -> RE: Supplies in AE (6/21/2009 6:58:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

In stock, the Japanese have something resembling their historic merchant lift capability - but do not have all the historical things to do with that lift. In AE, we have given them a more historically accurate lift capability and more historically accurate things to do with that lift. Hence the "extra shipping" that we compain about in stock, is reduced in AE.

How true. If I may;

In CHS (and stock is not significantly different), there were 1492 total Japanese AP/AK types. In AE, there are 1526 total Japanese xAK/xAP types. The number of hulls (i.e., targets) has not changed appreciably, but their total carrying capacity has been substantially reduced, to historical levels.

In stock/CHS, even the Small AKs had significant capacity ~ 2000 tons. In AE, these are represented by a new type, an xAKL (light cargo ship), which have capacities in the 500 to 1700 ton range, with the majority at the lower end of the range. Of the 1526 ships, 504 are xAKLs.

You could think of this as a reduction of the nominally capable Japanese merchie fleet by 32%, from 1492 to 1022, with some fairly useful local craft hanging around at the margins. The number of merchie target hulls haven’t changed, just their utility and their carrying capacity.

This allowed a synthesis between production I/O and transport. This also allowed a tension between transport and ops. Also allowed a tension between ops conversion imperitives. You have 1 ship with 4 configuration choices: which do you choose?



Reminds me of the designer's notes for Totaler Krieg--Emrich was trying to put the players (on each side) on the horns of the same dilemmas that the leaders had been on. Gotta love it!



JWE -> RE: Supplies in AE (6/21/2009 7:52:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Reminds me of the designer's notes for Totaler Krieg--Emrich was trying to put the players (on each side) on the horns of the same dilemmas that the leaders had been on. Gotta love it!

Yes. This particular dilemma was one of the main impetus' as to how the production/logistics system was structured. The production system works within its own arena. The naval transportation system, likewise, works within its own arena. Similarly, the ability to operationally convert merchant hulls to naval requirements works within its own arena.

The intersections between and among these arenas, is what makes life interesting. You have the ability to convert merchant hulls to naval auxiliaries, but only a select few classes of ships. You have the ability to convert merchant hulls to operational assault transponts, but only within a select fewer number classes of ships.

You will have enough hulls, with enough capacity, to satisfy the production engine. But if they are converted (navalized), your operations might get an infusion, but your production will correspondingly suffer. It can be done, and the system is set up to allow "limited" type to type conversions, so today's merchant fleet look, might be a bit different tomorrow.

Thoughtful, careful, allocation of extremely thin shipping resources, will be rewarded in AE.



Andrew Brown -> RE: Supplies in AE (6/22/2009 12:25:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
The Allies aren't forced to provide supplies to their bases in Oz and the US to keep their civilian economies functioning, after all.


Just to answer this particular point - this is only partially true. The Allies do indeed have to supply their on-map bases with resources to keep their industry going, but not their "off-map" bases. So for, say, the industry in Australia to keep functioning (both HI and LI), the Australian bases need to be provided with just as many resources as the Japanese ones. Another major difference, of course, is that Japan is so deficient in natural resources, meaning that nearly all of the resources required need to be shipped from other places. Most of the Allied areas are rich in resources so the shipping requirements are not of the same scale. To continue looking at Australia - what it lacks is oil and fuel, so the Allies need to ship in the fuel required to keep the HI factories running.

In short, the Light Industry devices (LI) are a crude representation of the civilian economies in AE.

Andrew



Alfred -> RE: Supplies in AE (6/22/2009 3:54:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
The Allies aren't forced to provide supplies to their bases in Oz and the US to keep their civilian economies functioning, after all.


Just to answer this particular point - this is only partially true. The Allies do indeed have to supply their on-map bases with resources to keep their industry going, but not their "off-map" bases. So for, say, the industry in Australia to keep functioning (both HI and LI), the Australian bases need to be provided with just as many resources as the Japanese ones. Another major difference, of course, is that Japan is so deficient in natural resources, meaning that nearly all of the resources required need to be shipped from other places. Most of the Allied areas are rich in resources so the shipping requirements are not of the same scale. To continue looking at Australia - what it lacks is oil and fuel, so the Allies need to ship in the fuel required to keep the HI factories running.

In short, the Light Industry devices (LI) are a crude representation of the civilian economies in AE.

Andrew


Andrew,

The inference I draw from the above underlined and italicised (highlighted by me) is that in AE, unlike stock WITP, it is now important for the Allies to actually maximise their on map local production. Now it appears that the Allies can not rely upon simply shipping in from the USA, presumably because doing so will expose a shortage of shipping and lead to local starvation.

Is this interpretation correct or have I misunderstood the situation?

Alfred



ny59giants -> RE: Supplies in AE (6/22/2009 4:14:07 AM)

Some players may not like RHS, but you quickly learn as an Allied player that you have to move Resources and Oil around to get you economy up and running during the first six months (along with deciding what economic assets have to be prioritized for repairs). You cannot just pull up to the peer in San Fran and say, "fill her up." [:D]



Andrew Brown -> RE: Supplies in AE (6/22/2009 5:19:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Andrew,

The inference I draw from the above underlined and italicised (highlighted by me) is that in AE, unlike stock WITP, it is now important for the Allies to actually maximise their on map local production. Now it appears that the Allies can not rely upon simply shipping in from the USA, presumably because doing so will expose a shortage of shipping and lead to local starvation.

Is this interpretation correct or have I misunderstood the situation?

Alfred


I think you are reading too much into my answer.

The Allies do get a lot of supplies generated off-map in AE, which is equivalent to the map edge supply sources that the Allies get in stock (Karachi, USA). So they do not have to rely on their on-map production to the same extent as the Japanese. That hasn't changed. I was just pointing out that the on-map part of the Allied economy does work the same way for the Allies as for the Japanese, for the generation of supplies (not for production - the Allies continue to use an abstract production system in AE). So, for example, in Australia, the factories still need to be fed with resources and fuel, for the maximum amount of supply points to be generated there. For the Allies it makes sense to generate supply points locally in Australia, and India, as much as possible, to reduce the need to ship it in from the map edges. This will free up shipping for other uses.

Andrew



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125