RA 7.0 US Industry distribution

RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (Full Version)

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

Message

rjopel -> RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/2/2014 10:00:59 PM)
Currently playing RA 7.0 and have been looking at the US Heavy and Light Industry distribution. I am considered about the concentration of industry in the San Francisco and Los Angles areas. The mod has large concentrations in these two cities. Shouldn’t this industrial capacity be spread out into the neighboring hexes and cities rather than concentrated into these two cities. I specifically think the industries in San Francisco should be distributed out to include Alameda and Mare Island hexes as well as a new base in 218, 71 called San Jose. I the Los Angeles-San Diego area the Heavy and Light industreis should be distributed all the way from Santa Barbara to San Diego and out to Bakersfield. Finally concentrating all the refinery capacity in Los Angeles is wrong. There were numerous refineries all along the West Coast from Washington to San Diego that seen to be all rolled into one massive facility in LA. I don’t have much problem with the damage representing the ramp up of US industrial capacity but concentrating all these facilities into 2 or 3 locations hampers this buildup. The best example is the Refineries do you honestly believe it took the US until May 1945 to maximize its refinery capacity on the West Coast? Because that is how long it takes now. 1250 points of damage at 1 point per day is 3 years 5 months.

nashvillen -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/2/2014 11:42:14 PM)
I agree with rjopel. If the industries are going to start damaged, they need to be spread out like the west coast facilities were. Alameda and Mare Island should share 1/2 of what is in San Francisco. And, Port Hueneme, Santa Ana, Camp Pendleton, and San Diego should have a significant share of the industries in just LA. Also, isn't some of the industry in LA part of what comes from the Central and Eastern USA that was used for the West coast? Again, damaging it all arbitrarily to give a concept of a scenario better legs is not really a good test of your concept.

John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/3/2014 12:06:36 AM)
Isn't the entire American 'industry' just hypothetical/abstract anyway in AE? Like what was said above a good chunk represents the east coast and other areas of the country's production. What is the benefit to spreading everything out? Is it really the LENGTH of time it will take to repair (ramp up) the big items (say Oil and Hv Ind)? I just got done reading The First Team again and was constantly amazed at the fuel shortage in the South Pacific as late as the end of 1942. The American economy shouldn't truly be in mass production mode until 1943 when it began to bury everything in its path. Now--considering Japanese PDU 'on' possibility--it seems to me this happens a lot faster for the USA even in the damaged state they start at in RA and BTS. Most of those areas (probably 75-80%) are completely repaired and fully producing within 90-180 days. Seems pretty good to me... If there is a proposal here, I would love to read it. We are always open to differing ideas, concepts, and possibilities...

ny59giants -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/3/2014 12:17:14 AM)
In my current game of BTS, I've had to deal with just 50% damage, not the latest which was increased to 66%. I did notice that the Americans needed about 30 days for the supplies to start stockpiling. I haven't seen any issues with fuel. Even if you have an oil facility take over 3 years to repair, I don't really believe you will notice any changes. The Americans get so much supply and fuel just from the Eastern USA base daily that you cannot ship it all out. What I wanted to do was to slow down the Allies ability to ship stuff out at war's beginning. There may be a need to decrease the supplies daily at Eastern USA.

wdolson -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/3/2014 4:28:55 AM)
A lot of the west coast refineries that are there today were built after the war. The Chevron refinery in Richmond, CA was built over 100 years ago. I haven't found any information that any of the Puget Sound oil refineries that are there today were in operation during the war. I know some of them were built to handle the North Slope oil that didn't come online until the 1970s. Most of the west coast refining capacity was in the LA area at that time, though the game does lack the refinery in Richmond. Bill

rjopel -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/3/2014 7:34:34 PM)
There are 3 other Refineries in the Bay Area. The Rodeo Refinery, Martinez Refinery and the Golden Eagle Refinery with a current combined capacity of 430k BpD. All in the Martinez, CA area. Also a number of refineries in Bakersfield that aren't represented (probably conglomerated in LA).

rjopel -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/3/2014 7:36:51 PM)
Spreading them out and having them damaged would fulfill the same results especially if the repair cost for all together is fairly high. Forcing the Allies to make some choices in supply now and slow repairs or full repairs and low initial supplies but ramps up fairly quickly.

Big B -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/3/2014 8:08:57 PM)
I'm not sure I agree with the implication here of shortage of supply and oil on the West Coast of the USA before 1943. In researching the Philippines Campaign I read "a large backlog of troops and approximately 1,100,000 tons of equipment destined for the Philippines had piled up in U.S. ports or depots by November 1941." I have also read both volumes of The First Team, and duly note the shortage of oil in the South Pacific Area in 1942 (keeping the old battleships not too active in theater at that time) - but I think this was because of available shipping - as was the case illustrated above in equipment earmarked for MacArthur in the Philippines - not shipping out before Dec 8th. Furthermore, reading of the above situation, it is clear that the US Navy would not allow shipping to distant areas without what it saw as adequate escorts. When you look up world wide oil production for 1940-1945, you will see that America (North America) produced over 2/3 of the world's oil even before the war. So I don't think lack of oil or supply was a problem for the Pacific Theater per say... I see a 'lack of shipping and escorts', and creating a vast network of base infrastructure to contain the supply and support vast fleets and military forces that was responsible for shortages in the Pacific Theater 1942... B my 2 C quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd I just got done reading The First Team again and was constantly amazed at the fuel shortage in the South Pacific as late as the end of 1942.

wdolson -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/3/2014 8:52:28 PM)
Tankers remained a precious commodity for the US throughout the war. When the war started, a significant number of tankers were shipping oil to England and a lot were lost in early 1942 as the u-boats moved into US coastal waters. Trying to take England out of the war by sinking a lot of tankers in US waters may have been one of the major reasons Hitler declared war on the US. US production capacity for oil was very high at the beginning of the war and California had a lot of it. The biggest oil field outside in Texas in the 1930s was the Midway Sunset field outside of Bakersfield. My sister is a petroleum geologist in Bakersfield, so I picked up a lot of the history through osmosis. I did find a few resources about refineries in California. During the war most of the refineries in the San Joaquin Valley were fairly small. Most of the remaining ones have been significantly expanded since. http://www.sjvgeology.org/old_stuff/sjv_refineries.html http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/petroleum/refinery_history.html Bill

btd64 -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/4/2014 11:49:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Big B I'm not sure I agree with the implication here of shortage of supply and oil on the West Coast of the USA before 1943. In researching the Philippines Campaign I read "a large backlog of troops and approximately 1,100,000 tons of equipment destined for the Philippines had piled up in U.S. ports or depots by November 1941." I have also read both volumes of The First Team, and duly note the shortage of oil in the South Pacific Area in 1942 (keeping the old battleships not too active in theater at that time) - but I think this was because of available shipping - as was the case illustrated above in equipment earmarked for MacArthur in the Philippines - not shipping out before Dec 8th. Furthermore, reading of the above situation, it is clear that the US Navy would not allow shipping to distant areas without what it saw as adequate escorts. When you look up world wide oil production for 1940-1945, you will see that America (North America) produced over 2/3 of the world's oil even before the war. So I don't think lack of oil or supply was a problem for the Pacific Theater per say... I see a 'lack of shipping and escorts', and creating a vast network of base infrastructure to contain the supply and support vast fleets and military forces that was responsible for shortages in the Pacific Theater 1942... B my 2 C I don't have time to look it up right know, (will be at work) but is it a "oil" thing or a "refinery" thing. You can have all the Oil you want, but if your refineries are not large enough, It's going to pile up. Also, I agree. Based on what I have read, Shipping and escorts was a problem....GP I do think BTS and other RA branded scenarios simulate this "OK" for what we can do with this game. But can we slow down oil flow to simulate this instead?

Symon -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/4/2014 3:13:48 PM)
Trying to match game capabilities to historical actuals is an exercise in frustration, as I am sure you well know. There’s two things that have always really bothered me. One of those can be alleviated; the other is “alas …” The biggie, that can’t be changed is, of course, that motor fuel/av gas is expressed as supply and not as a separate fuel item. Woof ! meps ! groin ! piss, rope and horse !! So one of the sausage extrusion nozzles is always ‘open’. The other is allowing cargo ships to load ‘fuel’. Even at the reduced rate, this is a most rancid piece of weasel feces. There ain’t enough barrels in manufacture (in the whole world) to allow for this nonsensical practice. We use a hard and fast HR. Fuel or Oil transport MUST be done solely by TKs or AOs. Know that the typical gamer will ignore this, but it is an option. There’s no way to force righteousness and attempts to do so may come back to bite you in the butt. There is no solution to this, only workarounds. My 2c is keep your ‘damage’ thing and forget about trying to make it better. The more you squeeze the balloon, the more it expands out of the openings: that is, until you squeeze too hard and it bursts. And then what ya got? Hate to be negative, butt … [sm=fighting0056.gif] Ciao. JWE

Big B -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/4/2014 3:33:02 PM)
I have never been one for house rules - generally, but yours below makes sense ...and would probably solve the situation. Too bad it can't be hard coded... quote: ORIGINAL: Symon Trying to match game capabilities to historical actuals is an exercise in frustration, as I am sure you well know. There’s two things that have always really bothered me. One of those can be alleviated; the other is “alas …” The biggie, that can’t be changed is, of course, that motor fuel/av gas is expressed as supply and not as a separate fuel item. Woof ! meps ! groin ! piss, rope and horse !! So one of the sausage extrusion nozzles is always ‘open’. The other is allowing cargo ships to load ‘fuel’. Even at the reduced rate, this is a most rancid piece of weasel feces. There ain’t enough barrels in manufacture (in the whole world) to allow for this nonsensical practice. We use a hard and fast HR. Fuel or Oil transport MUST be done solely by TKs or AOs. Know that the typical gamer will ignore this, but it is an option. There’s no way to force righteousness and attempts to do so may come back to bite you in the butt. There is no solution to this, only workarounds. My 2c is keep your ‘damage’ thing and forget about trying to make it better. The more you squeeze the balloon, the more it expands out of the openings: that is, until you squeeze too hard and it bursts. And then what ya got? Hate to be negative, butt … [sm=fighting0056.gif] Ciao. JWE

btd64 -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/4/2014 7:31:42 PM)
+1 for Symon's proposed house rule. I have in the pastused xAK's for this purpose against the AI. Not in a PBEM. Mostly because it wasn't necessary. I have always treated TK's like gold. Even when a small one get sunk, it hurts. On the other hand, when I sink a IJN Tanker, any size, I feel it is a victory....GP edit; So there is no way to make a change to the code that would prevent xAK's and AK's, or any ship that is not a AO or TK from picking up fuel? If not, how about reducing the fuel handling capability of xAK's and AK's to 10% or lower. That way it would not even be economical to use them....GP EDIT: There are xAK's with fuel capacities that only load that capacity of fuel. xAK's can't load troops. Is it possible to setup the xAK's that don't have the inherit fuel capacity to say not be able to load fuel like the xAK's can't load troops? Just spit balling....GP

nashvillen -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/4/2014 8:18:15 PM)
If you can code a xAK for 50% fuel capacity why can't you code it to 0%?

Big B -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/4/2014 9:38:52 PM)
Well, realism is what's wanted. And in reality millions of gallons of gas were moved in barrels by freighters. So eliminating that capability is not realistic nor desirable.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/4/2014 11:07:42 PM)
Light, fluid "propellants" like gasoline, petrol, diesel, avgas and the like were moved in barrels. These "propellants" are treated as "supplies" in the game, so moving them with AKs is ok. But high-viscosity fuel oil ("bunker oil") which must be heated before it can be pumped? Hard to imagine this stuff was shipped in barrels. Edit: Brainfart deleted.

Big B -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/5/2014 12:19:31 AM)
Totally agree [8D] quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget Light, fluid "propellants" like gasoline, petrol, diesel, avgas and the like were moved in barrels. These "propellants" are treated as "supplies" in the game, so moving them with AKs with a 50% volume/weight penalty is ok. But high-viscosity fuel oil ("bunker oil") which must be heated before it can be pumped? Hard to imagine this stuff was shipped in barrels.

wdolson -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/5/2014 12:53:31 AM)
There is also the quantity needed. One 55 gal drum of lubricating oil is probably going to last a while at most bases. At minimum a day or two at a very busy airfield. A 55 gal drum of av gas can get at least one fighter airborne for one mission. A transport plane full of barrels of av gas can keep a fighter squadron operating at least on a shoe string basis. How many 55 gal barrels of bunker sea would you need to fill up the bunkers of even a destroyer? Some of the pre-war US destroyers had a capacity of 180,000 gallons, but the Fletchers used 142,000 gallons. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/Fuel-DD.html That's 2545 55 gallon barrels. That's just for filling the bunkers on one destroyer! Many ships smaller than destroyers ran on different fuels. PT boats ran on AV gas and some DEs ran on diesel. Whether transporting bunker fuel in barrels was possible or not, it was very impractical. Bill

Big B -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/5/2014 1:22:01 AM)
Right, ...what John said above seems right - there's no practical way to separate all this. [:(] quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson There is also the quantity needed. One 55 gal drum of lubricating oil is probably going to last a while at most bases. At minimum a day or two at a very busy airfield. A 55 gal drum of av gas can get at least one fighter airborne for one mission. A transport plane full of barrels of av gas can keep a fighter squadron operating at least on a shoe string basis. How many 55 gal barrels of bunker sea would you need to fill up the bunkers of even a destroyer? Some of the pre-war US destroyers had a capacity of 180,000 gallons, but the Fletchers used 142,000 gallons. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/Fuel-DD.html That's 2545 55 gallon barrels. That's just for filling the bunkers on one destroyer! Many ships smaller than destroyers ran on different fuels. PT boats ran on AV gas and some DEs ran on diesel. Whether transporting bunker fuel in barrels was possible or not, it was very impractical. Bill

btd64 -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/5/2014 1:56:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Big B there's no practical way to separate all this. [:(] Yup.[:(]....GP If we went from supplies and fuel, To AV, gas for vehicles, diesel, supplies, etc, with all of that broken out, more people would stop playing "this ridiculous vampire of a game".[:D][:D][:D] Except me.[:'(]....GP

Yaab -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/9/2014 7:16:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Symon Trying to match game capabilities to historical actuals is an exercise in frustration, as I am sure you well know. There’s two things that have always really bothered me. One of those can be alleviated; the other is “alas …” The biggie, that can’t be changed is, of course, that motor fuel/av gas is expressed as supply and not as a separate fuel item. Woof ! meps ! groin ! piss, rope and horse !! So one of the sausage extrusion nozzles is always ‘open’. The other is allowing cargo ships to load ‘fuel’. Even at the reduced rate, this is a most rancid piece of weasel feces. There ain’t enough barrels in manufacture (in the whole world) to allow for this nonsensical practice. We use a hard and fast HR. Fuel or Oil transport MUST be done solely by TKs or AOs. Know that the typical gamer will ignore this, but it is an option. There’s no way to force righteousness and attempts to do so may come back to bite you in the butt. There is no solution to this, only workarounds. My 2c is keep your ‘damage’ thing and forget about trying to make it better. The more you squeeze the balloon, the more it expands out of the openings: that is, until you squeeze too hard and it bursts. And then what ya got? Hate to be negative, butt … [sm=fighting0056.gif] Ciao. JWE Symon, very interesting info. I tried to check how many barrels were needed to move the fuel loaded on a TK. I went here http://www.usmm.org/tankers.html and it says that 141,200 barrels would be used to carry the fuel loaded on a T2-SE-A1 tanker ( gamewise this TK class carries 14,054 fuel points). So in order to move 1000 fuel points by an xAK you would need 10,000 barrels, as 1 fuel point needs 10 barrels.

tanksone -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/16/2014 3:31:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Symon Trying to match game capabilities to historical actuals is an exercise in frustration, as I am sure you well know. There’s two things that have always really bothered me. One of those can be alleviated; the other is “alas …” The biggie, that can’t be changed is, of course, that motor fuel/av gas is expressed as supply and not as a separate fuel item. Woof ! meps ! groin ! piss, rope and horse !! So one of the sausage extrusion nozzles is always ‘open’. The other is allowing cargo ships to load ‘fuel’. Even at the reduced rate, this is a most rancid piece of weasel feces. There ain’t enough barrels in manufacture (in the whole world) to allow for this nonsensical practice. We use a hard and fast HR. Fuel or Oil transport MUST be done solely by TKs or AOs. Know that the typical gamer will ignore this, but it is an option. There’s no way to force righteousness and attempts to do so may come back to bite you in the butt. There is no solution to this, only workarounds. My 2c is keep your ‘damage’ thing and forget about trying to make it better. The more you squeeze the balloon, the more it expands out of the openings: that is, until you squeeze too hard and it bursts. And then what ya got? Hate to be negative, butt … [sm=fighting0056.gif] Ciao. JWE Symon, I take it that this HR will only work with any of the Babes mods. Is there a way to stop say the VC2 Victory/EC2 Liberty cargo ships from loading fuel? +1 on the HR btw. [sm=00000436.gif]

btd64 -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/16/2014 3:43:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: General Patton +1 for Symon's proposed house rule. I have in the pastused xAK's for this purpose against the AI. Not in a PBEM. Mostly because it wasn't necessary. I have always treated TK's like gold. Even when a small one get sunk, it hurts. On the other hand, when I sink a IJN Tanker, any size, I feel it is a victory....GP edit; So there is no way to make a change to the code that would prevent xAK's and AK's, or any ship that is not a AO or TK from picking up fuel? If not, how about reducing the fuel handling capability of xAK's and AK's to 10% or lower. That way it would not even be economical to use them....GP EDIT; There are xAK's with fuel capacities that only load that capacity of fuel. xAK's can't load troops. Is it possible to setup the xAK's that don't have the inherit fuel capacity to say not be able to load fuel like the xAK's can't load troops? Just spit balling....GP

witpqs -> RE: RA 7.0 US Industry distribution (11/16/2014 4:46:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tanksone quote: ORIGINAL: Symon Trying to match game capabilities to historical actuals is an exercise in frustration, as I am sure you well know. There’s two things that have always really bothered me. One of those can be alleviated; the other is “alas …” The biggie, that can’t be changed is, of course, that motor fuel/av gas is expressed as supply and not as a separate fuel item. Woof ! meps ! groin ! piss, rope and horse !! So one of the sausage extrusion nozzles is always ‘open’. The other is allowing cargo ships to load ‘fuel’. Even at the reduced rate, this is a most rancid piece of weasel feces. There ain’t enough barrels in manufacture (in the whole world) to allow for this nonsensical practice. We use a hard and fast HR. Fuel or Oil transport MUST be done solely by TKs or AOs. Know that the typical gamer will ignore this, but it is an option. There’s no way to force righteousness and attempts to do so may come back to bite you in the butt. There is no solution to this, only workarounds. My 2c is keep your ‘damage’ thing and forget about trying to make it better. The more you squeeze the balloon, the more it expands out of the openings: that is, until you squeeze too hard and it bursts. And then what ya got? Hate to be negative, butt … [sm=fighting0056.gif] Ciao. JWE Symon, I take it that this HR will only work with any of the Babes mods. Is there a way to stop say the VC2 Victory/EC2 Liberty cargo ships from loading fuel? +1 on the HR btw. [sm=00000436.gif] I think the point with those ships is that they had small tanks installed for fuel/oil/etc.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.265625