Supply bug, DaBabes C with SL (no Carny yet!) (Full Version)

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



Message

sjohnson -> Supply bug, DaBabes C with SL (no Carny yet!) (9/8/2012 3:47:32 PM)

Is this working as designed?

This is Dababes C with stacking limits, mid-Feb 42

I have a force of 4-5 divs on Luzon. See attached screenshot for Feb 9. It is now Feb 15, one attack has been launched, and supply levels have sunk by 70,000 tons in 6 days in all of Luzon and many units now have 0 supplies.

The SL for clark field is 40,000; units created an overstack to attack - about 68,000 troops at peak for 2-4 days.

More details to follow.



[image]local://upfiles/27533/D2045318A3324BDE99075DA1069B2843.gif[/image]



sjohnson -> RE: Supply bug, DaBabes C with SL (no Carny yet!) (9/8/2012 3:50:09 PM)

And the supply totals for Luzon for the various turns are as follows:

Feb 9 - bases 63,954; units 13,611 - total of 77,565
feb 11 - bases 27,010; units 14,779 - total of 41,789
feb 13 - bases 5,055; units 11,358 - total of 16,413
feb 15 - bases 4,169; units 2,837 - total of 7,006

I would guess some extra supplies would have been used in the overstack of 30,000 troops (75%) but 70,000 tons in 6 days with only one battle anywhere on the island seems high? Is this right?

Feb 11 units at clark attached.

[image]local://upfiles/27533/2AA9C72B2B06489486975B00A9111087.jpg[/image]



sjohnson -> RE: Supply bug, DaBabes C with SL (no Carny yet!) (9/8/2012 3:50:47 PM)

And here is feb 13 clark units



[image]local://upfiles/27533/B746948187CD4562BC9B399AD6DA2EB1.gif[/image]



sjohnson -> RE: Supply bug, DaBabes C with SL (no Carny yet!) (9/8/2012 3:51:24 PM)

And Feb 15 units at clark, note the overstack is now relieved.



[image]local://upfiles/27533/5056DC0C89E44E0192291E4B02DFD1DC.gif[/image]



sjohnson -> RE: Supply bug, DaBabes C with SL (no Carny yet!) (9/8/2012 3:52:25 PM)

And here is the feb 9 battle at clark field. We got clobbered despite having 70+ leaders and looked like plenty of supply in all of the units.



[image]local://upfiles/27533/0CEF5067C9E54543AE4ACCE61B3D9981.jpg[/image]



sjohnson -> RE: Supply bug, DaBabes C with SL (no Carny yet!) (9/8/2012 3:58:15 PM)

I should note - I'm not complaining about the combat result; the defender had terrain mod x3; fort lvl to achieve 2.00 x on AV so things seem about right on the defender AV.



geofflambert -> RE: Supply bug, DaBabes C with SL (no Carny yet!) (9/8/2012 4:06:48 PM)

Thanks for posting. I've been thinking about starting to play version C, I'll be watching the responses to your problem closely.



witpqs -> RE: Supply bug, DaBabes C with SL (no Carny yet!) (9/8/2012 8:28:33 PM)

This has nothing to do with any scenario.

The game has always had stacking limits that apply to island bases.

Since a certain patch the game also has the capability to use what are called "optional stacking limits". They are defined in the three files that make up the pwhex data. There is one of those files for use with the standard ("stock") map, and at least one version available for the extended map (such as the one used in conjunction with some of the Babes scenarios). In other words, you can play the stock "Scenario 1" with optional stacking limits if you want to.

No matter what scenario you are playing, and no matter which pwhex data you are using or on which map you are using it, the game treats the stacking limits the same. When you violate stacking limits there is a penalty in lost supply imposed at that hex (whether it be a base or otherwise) and the units in that hex. The greater the percentage of over stacking, the greater the penalty.

In the example you gave above you are way over stacked in that hex. The penalty will be severe. That is not a bug, that is how the game is intended to work.

Without the optional stacking limits, there are only stacking limits for most island bases (even some of them are set to "unlimited"). Using the optional stacking limits applies stacking limits to each and every land hex on the map. The optional stacking limits absolutely, positively change the land aspect of the game very dramatically. That is what you are seeing. As for the details of each screen shot you gave, you jumped from Feb 13 to Feb 15 - I suppose you are doing 2-day turns, then? On the 13th there was still massive over stacking, on the 15th there wasn't. That leads me to surmise that the last of the supplies were drained by the over stacking penalty on the 14th, plus whatever supplies were used during the 2-day turn (movement, repairing squads, combat, etc.).

It's not a bug, you just have to account for it in your land combat play. Yes, it is more difficult! [:)]



sjohnson -> RE: Supply bug, DaBabes C with SL (no Carny yet!) (9/8/2012 8:43:02 PM)

Yep, I agree it is not related to DBB or any mod set. Thanks for the confirmation though. It is definitely a game mechanic.

I question the game mechanic though if it is actually working correctly - eg please see my post in the main thread. It appears to be multiplying consumption by 30X.

Now, if this is the way the designers intended, no problem - but it does seem a little unusual that in the example posted in my other thread you will see a very small (1,200 man) overstack on the atoll causing the supply consumption to immediately jump 30X plus the additional %overstack. I've run the numbers now in about 5 test cases set up in a small scenario and get the same magnitude of result repeatedly.

And yes, I do like it being more difficult and I believe it to be realistic to require more supplies for the overstack; but I think there is a mis-calc somewhere.



witpqs -> RE: Supply bug, DaBabes C with SL (no Carny yet!) (9/8/2012 8:58:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sjohnson

Yep, I agree it is not related to DBB or any mod set. Thanks for the confirmation though. It is definitely a game mechanic.

I question the game mechanic though if it is actually working correctly - eg please see my post in the main thread. It appears to be multiplying consumption by 30X.

Now, if this is the way the designers intended, no problem - but it does seem a little unusual that in the example posted in my other thread you will see a very small (1,200 man) overstack on the atoll causing the supply consumption to immediately jump 30X plus the additional %overstack. I've run the numbers now in about 5 test cases set up in a small scenario and get the same magnitude of result repeatedly.

And yes, I do like it being more difficult and I believe it to be realistic to require more supplies for the overstack; but I think there is a mis-calc somewhere.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but in your other thread you wrote (boldface emphasis mine):
quote:

I just set up a small scenario and created an overstack on an island - in this case Fukue-Jima, stacking limit of 25,000 troops under DaBabes Scen 28 C with stacking limits.

In this case, for grins I placed 5 US late war divisions - ~71,000 troops; set the airfield to lvl 6 and the port to lvl 3 and placed 90,000 supplies on the hex.

Just an FYI - the units consumed 26,000 supplies/day or right at 30X their ordinary daily consumption for this overstack. Seems somewhat extreme, but, so others don't get caught by surprise the effect of overstack is dramatic. Fail to pay attention at your own risk.


That makes stacking of 284%, which is over stacking of 184%, or 46,000 troops above the 25,000 stacking limit. Where are you getting that "...very small (1,200 man) overstack on the atoll causing the supply consumption to immediately jump 30X plus the additional %overstack." example from? In your other thread I see a huge over stack of 46,000 surplus over a limit of 25,000, not a "very small (1,200 man) overstack".



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625