RE: Limited Stacking

RE: Limited Stacking (Full Version)

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

Message

JWE -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/23/2011 8:38:32 PM)
Given this thread has been seriously hijacked, it will be restarted elsewhere.

Nikademus -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/23/2011 9:01:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs To both Nik and Harry, I'm going to beg off of further Burma supply discussion in this thread because too far afield is a hijack. The point is that the changes in this mod should have further impact on the situation in Burma. Let's see what it brings. The situation in Burma is one of the motivations for experimenting with the stacking limits (??) so it's not a hijack. The thing about using the limits is it will incur (in theory) added supply and disruption penalties to large stacks of LCU's that try to move in on places like Burma despite the historical paucity (aka virtual absence short of air transport) of supply lines between India and Burma. And the Maginot line in Burma can still be done with the latest patches

JWE -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/23/2011 9:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus The situation in Burma is one of the motivations for experimenting with the stacking limits (??) so it's not a hijack. The thing about using the limits is it will incur (in theory) added supply and disruption penalties to large stacks of LCU's that try to move in on places like Burma despite the historical paucity (aka virtual absence short of air transport) of supply lines between India and Burma. And the Maginot line in Burma can still be done with the latest patches I do agree that is an excellent motivation and deserves to be cussed and discussed. That sort of discussion should continue and I encourage it. It really does help in determining SL numbers and is of great value. Only moving it because the original topic needs to represented somewhere. When the self-absorbed and self-important come around to pee in their little corners, it's time to move the OP. Hopefully, the discussion can continue by simply ignoring the s-a/s-i .. um .. person.

JeffroK -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/23/2011 10:37:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: herwin quote: ORIGINAL: Smeulders quote: ORIGINAL: herwin Does this help with the problem in Burma where it seems the Allied player can replicate Slim's dry season 1944-45 offensive during the monsoon season of 1942? I assume it also helps in China. These complaints keep popping up, but has anyone actually ever managed to do a large Burma invasion after the introduction of supply movement caps ? All the examples I know from the AAR forum are old games, started before the supply movement restrictions were patched in. The last upgrade of the beta for us was 14 August 2011. Smeulders is correct, those large scale invasions have not been demonstrated. It will be interesting to see what you do with yours, but in AE most IJ players have been able to cut off those early Allied offensives out of India by invading India. Andy Mac's AAR is recommended for a look at supply issues of large scale Allied offensives in Burma. And of course, these modifications should have a major effect on things there too. If so, what kept Japan from invading India in reality? The 1944 offensive died due to lack of supply. ? Sending 3 Divis to do 6 Divs work. ? ASSUMING the weak British and Indians would run away and leave enough supply for the conquering IJA ? Leaving a dolt like Mutaguchi in charge of troops ? Still believing that the IJA was invincible with its obsolete tactics and weapons. (And they still got disturbingly close)

herwin -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/24/2011 8:15:20 AM)
Sorry about the hijack. The situation in Burma was supply-limited at best, and during the monsoon, the war shut down. The terrain, while not untracked, was very difficult for motorised vehicles. The Ledo Road was notable for being all-weather and having a pipeline alongside. All supply had to be trucked or carried in--no bulk transfer--so the proposed stacking limits make a lot of sense.

JWE -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/24/2011 1:29:46 PM)
No worries Harry. This is good discussion material. Only moved the OP about implementation details. Really would like to know what people are finding. Burma/India looks like a good test area. Solomons/New Guinea should be another (although I haven't seen many mega-stacks roaming through the jungles out that way). Blackhorse is concerned this might make China too easy, now. We see the opposite in our games. Large offensives, by either side, tend to run out of steam more quickly. Our style of play is very different, so could use some input from people who play a more normal style.

Shark7 -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/24/2011 3:51:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE No worries Harry. This is good discussion material. Only moved the OP about implementation details. Really would like to know what people are finding. Burma/India looks like a good test area. Solomons/New Guinea should be another (although I haven't seen many mega-stacks roaming through the jungles out that way). Blackhorse is concerned this might make China too easy, now. We see the opposite in our games. Large offensives, by either side, tend to run out of steam more quickly. Our style of play is very different, so could use some input from people who play a more normal style. I guess I'd need to know what you consider a more normal style? I tend to have minimal operations in China, so maybe I am more normal.

herwin -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/24/2011 3:56:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE No worries Harry. This is good discussion material. Only moved the OP about implementation details. Really would like to know what people are finding. Burma/India looks like a good test area. Solomons/New Guinea should be another (although I haven't seen many mega-stacks roaming through the jungles out that way). Blackhorse is concerned this might make China too easy, now. We see the opposite in our games. Large offensives, by either side, tend to run out of steam more quickly. Our style of play is very different, so could use some input from people who play a more normal style. I'd need to kick off a new game to explore these issues. It would take about six months to a year of game time (about a year of playing, I suspect) to really get a feeling for the effects.

herwin -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/24/2011 3:58:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: JWE No worries Harry. This is good discussion material. Only moved the OP about implementation details. Really would like to know what people are finding. Burma/India looks like a good test area. Solomons/New Guinea should be another (although I haven't seen many mega-stacks roaming through the jungles out that way). Blackhorse is concerned this might make China too easy, now. We see the opposite in our games. Large offensives, by either side, tend to run out of steam more quickly. Our style of play is very different, so could use some input from people who play a more normal style. I guess I'd need to know what you consider a more normal style? I tend to have minimal operations in China, so maybe I am more normal. It's hard to say, but I suspect normal Japanese operations try to take Chunking within one or two game years.

JWE -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/24/2011 5:51:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 I guess I'd need to know what you consider a more normal style? I tend to have minimal operations in China, so maybe I am more normal. Normal is just regular game-play. We do CPX style, with an umpire.

witpqs -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/24/2011 6:33:53 PM)
You've described what you do before, but what does CPX stand for? (I googled with no joy.)

JWE -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/24/2011 7:04:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs You've described what you do before, but what does CPX stand for? (I googled with no joy.) A bit OT, but briefly; it stands for Command Post eXercise. 2 sides with an umpire. We adapt the technique for AE so that Side A moves and sends a raw file to the umpire along with a brief description of what's going on. The umpire may or may not monkey with the file, depending. Umpire then saves and sends to Side B. Side B then moves and sends a raw file to the umpire along with a brief description of what's going on. The umpire may or may not monkey with that file, depending. The umpire then sends the final file to A and B for them to run and see what happened. This is a quick explanation. If people want to learn more, please start a new thread. It's actually a quite exciting way to play AE.

JeffroK -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/24/2011 11:09:58 PM)
I've done TEWTS and miniatures like this, be nice to the umpire man!!

Andrew Brown -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/26/2011 6:24:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Also think bases are best tweaked on a case by case. Stubs will work, and perhaps are necessary, to get the multipliers set up right, but certain bases will nevertheless need the base limits (BL) set manually. Lots of work, but still. Using a bit of data manipulation in Excel I can change the values to account for base data fairly easily, and I currently think this might be the best approach. It would result in higher stacking values for most bases on the map, with the non-base hexes all retaining their original, "low" values. Small bases would not give a significant bonus, but large bases would. My current thinking is that the bonus could be set to something like 5,000 points per point of port and airfield levels. So, for example, a base with port 5 and airfield 5 would provide a bonus of 50,000. As mentioned, these values would not change during the game, even if ports and/or airfields are built up, but I can live with that. Andrew

witpqs -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/26/2011 7:00:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Also think bases are best tweaked on a case by case. Stubs will work, and perhaps are necessary, to get the multipliers set up right, but certain bases will nevertheless need the base limits (BL) set manually. Lots of work, but still. Using a bit of data manipulation in Excel I can change the values to account for base data fairly easily, and I currently think this might be the best approach. It would result in higher stacking values for most bases on the map, with the non-base hexes all retaining their original, "low" values. Small bases would not give a significant bonus, but large bases would. My current thinking is that the bonus could be set to something like 5,000 points per point of port and airfield levels. So, for example, a base with port 5 and airfield 5 would provide a bonus of 50,000. As mentioned, these values would not change during the game, even if ports and/or airfields are built up, but I can live with that. Andrew That sounds like something you might query Michael on, as it changing in-game with base building is a really good idea if he can make it happen.

Shark7 -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/26/2011 3:49:13 PM)
I'm just curious is this is something the end user can do, or does it require access to the code?

JWE -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/26/2011 7:02:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown Using a bit of data manipulation in Excel I can change the values to account for base data fairly easily, and I currently think this might be the best approach. It would result in higher stacking values for most bases on the map, with the non-base hexes all retaining their original, "low" values. Small bases would not give a significant bonus, but large bases would. Andrew Um, not sure this is a good idea. Am sending you a pm as to why. In the meantime, please do not do the base account thing till we discuss this. You may, of course, do what you wish, but don't think this is good and I'll explain why off-line. Ciao. John

Andrew Brown -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/26/2011 11:29:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Also think bases are best tweaked on a case by case. Stubs will work, and perhaps are necessary, to get the multipliers set up right, but certain bases will nevertheless need the base limits (BL) set manually. Lots of work, but still. Using a bit of data manipulation in Excel I can change the values to account for base data fairly easily, and I currently think this might be the best approach. It would result in higher stacking values for most bases on the map, with the non-base hexes all retaining their original, "low" values. Small bases would not give a significant bonus, but large bases would. My current thinking is that the bonus could be set to something like 5,000 points per point of port and airfield levels. So, for example, a base with port 5 and airfield 5 would provide a bonus of 50,000. As mentioned, these values would not change during the game, even if ports and/or airfields are built up, but I can live with that. Andrew That sounds like something you might query Michael on, as it changing in-game with base building is a really good idea if he can make it happen. It sounds good in theory, but that would involve manipulating the map data values (which is where stacking limits are stored) during the course of a game, which is not a trivial task. So I don't think this is on the table right now or in the forseeable future... Andrew

witpqs -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/26/2011 11:42:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Also think bases are best tweaked on a case by case. Stubs will work, and perhaps are necessary, to get the multipliers set up right, but certain bases will nevertheless need the base limits (BL) set manually. Lots of work, but still. Using a bit of data manipulation in Excel I can change the values to account for base data fairly easily, and I currently think this might be the best approach. It would result in higher stacking values for most bases on the map, with the non-base hexes all retaining their original, "low" values. Small bases would not give a significant bonus, but large bases would. My current thinking is that the bonus could be set to something like 5,000 points per point of port and airfield levels. So, for example, a base with port 5 and airfield 5 would provide a bonus of 50,000. As mentioned, these values would not change during the game, even if ports and/or airfields are built up, but I can live with that. Andrew That sounds like something you might query Michael on, as it changing in-game with base building is a really good idea if he can make it happen. It sounds good in theory, but that would involve manipulating the map data values (which is where stacking limits are stored) during the course of a game, which is not a trivial task. So I don't think this is on the table right now or in the forseeable future... Andrew I understand, but give him a chance to say that. He's already blasted through stuff I had previously thought was too much for the patch.

JWE -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/27/2011 4:51:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I understand, but give him a chance to say that. He's already blasted through stuff I had previously thought was too much for the patch. There's a lot of things that are going on, my friend, to define even the basic paradigm of this. Soon as it's set and understood, if there are any code hooks necessary, we'll be sure to ask for them. Right now, ya'll might be grasping michaelm by the tail and having him wag a dog of indeterminate scope and quantity. Not goodnik. Let's get the dog defined first. [;)]

bk19@mweb.co.za -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/27/2011 6:08:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Let's get the dog defined first. [;)] It ain't a dog yet.... it's not much more than a new born puppy ah reckons!!

witpqs -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/27/2011 9:44:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I understand, but give him a chance to say that. He's already blasted through stuff I had previously thought was too much for the patch. There's a lot of things that are going on, my friend, to define even the basic paradigm of this. Soon as it's set and understood, if there are any code hooks necessary, we'll be sure to ask for them. Right now, ya'll might be grasping michaelm by the tail and having him wag a dog of indeterminate scope and quantity. Not goodnik. Let's get the dog defined first. [;)] Understood - I just meant don't count him out without asking 'cause he is full of surprises (the good kind, not a 4th green cup full of pee!!! [:D] He has good aim, that pooch.)

Andy Mac -> RE: Limited Stacking (9/27/2011 9:48:43 PM)
I agree with JWE define first code second - this is not straight forward if for no other reason than it cannot be an exe fix as it cannnot apply to core scens without buggering up the AI so it has to be something for Babes (or other modders) so its not an easy thing to do so need to define carefully 1st then ask michael to work his magic

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9221191