The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (Full Version)

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



Message

TulliusDetritus -> The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 2:08:05 PM)

Hello again everyone.

First of all, I assume every single historical AK, TK is on the game.

REALITY: when you start reading about the Pacific theatre, you quickly find out this concept: the lack of shipping.

GAME: you have zillions of ships at your disposal.

Let's be more concrete: what were these AKs and TKs doing exactly in the real thing? What went wrong (ie the game does not properly simulates this)?

Sid (El Cid and RHS) might be onto something? Example: transport TF unloads at Noumea and they do NOT leave empty (anathema or golden rule of naval traffic). They load resources etc etc?



obvert -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 2:33:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Hello again everyone.

First of all, I assume every single historical AK, TK is on the game.

REALITY: when you start reading about the Pacific theatre, you quickly find out this concept: the lack of shipping.

GAME: you have zillions of ships at your disposal.

Let's be more concrete: what were these AKs and TKs doing exactly in the real thing? What went wrong (ie the game does not properly simulates this)?

Sid (El Cid and RHS) might be onto something? Example: transport TF unloads at Noumea and they do NOT leave empty (anathema or golden rule of naval traffic). They load resources etc etc?


DBB has reduced cargo carrying ability for ships to try to alleviate this difference. In reading about it in Beans, Bullets and Black Oil there was a constant shortage of shipping. In reality it was often shortages of specific supplies, be that fresh foods or lubricating oils for engines. The game abstracts all of these, plus aviation fuel, into supply. This means that large standard CS convoys simply run the Pacific constantly topping up the pools in very big bases near the frontline. There was more back and forth and around in the era, but not always a need to fill up both sides. There isn't much to take from a lot of spots.

For Japan it makes a LOT of sense to fill up both ways because the stuff that runs the economy in Japan is in deficit there. So whether you take back resources, fuel, oil or supply, usually something can be hauled back on the way, making journeys more efficient. This doesn't seem to mean that the number of ships used historically would be needed though.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 4:53:54 PM)

My two Euro cents:

Port sizes in the game are often generously large and can be expanded too quickly. For example, I have read that Wellington harbour had only enough dock space to accommodate five medium-sized ships simultaneously, Noumea just two. In consequence, a backlog of ships waiting to unload developed during the 1942 South Pacific campaign. At Noumea, port facilities were pretty basic, lacking for example cranes for lifting PT boats and crated planes from ship decks, and some ships spent weeks at anchor used as floating warehouses, for lack of storage space ashore. And Noumea was one of the better developed places in the area.

In the game, a size-1 port can dock a 6000-tonner - that means two-thirds of the xAK classes - and load or unload it in 2.5 days. I would expect that size-1 is little better than a beach with a wharf, i.e. nothing more than a small fishing port - so the 6k size and the load speed seems high.


The availability of shipping is too high. All ships in the game start in pristine condition, zero system and engine damage. Sys and engine damage from cruising is largely kept in check by crew repairs, no periodic maintenance and upkeep required, no biofouling gradually reducing speed and requiring docking to clean the hull, very few breakdowns, accidents etc. Bad weather apparently does not slow ship speed. I bet many Allied merchant ships and tankers ships did not spent the entire war in the PTO, but ship withdrawals in the game are largely limited to warships.

On the Japanese side, the allocation of shipping to Army, Navy and "Civilian" use led to enormous inefficiency, because each service jealously guarded "their" hulls and did not permit loading of goods for the other services, even when destined for the same port. For example, an Army ships may make a trip only half-loaded with military supplies from Japan to Singers, and although the Navy also had something to ship to the same destination, the Navy had to / preferred to use one of his own ships. Both Army and Navy ships then returned empty to Japan - shipping resources was the responsibility of the Civilian shipping administration - while the administration had to send empty ships to Singers to pick up the resources. This practice continued into 1944 when shipping losses finally forced closer cooperation.



witpqs -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 5:12:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Hello again everyone.

First of all, I assume every single historical AK, TK is on the game.

REALITY: when you start reading about the Pacific theatre, you quickly find out this concept: the lack of shipping.

GAME: you have zillions of ships at your disposal.

Let's be more concrete: what were these AKs and TKs doing exactly in the real thing? What went wrong (ie the game does not properly simulates this)?

Sid (El Cid and RHS) might be onto something? Example: transport TF unloads at Noumea and they do NOT leave empty (anathema or golden rule of naval traffic). They load resources etc etc?


DBB has reduced cargo carrying ability for ships to try to alleviate this difference. In reading about it in Beans, Bullets and Black Oil there was a constant shortage of shipping. In reality it was often shortages of specific supplies, be that fresh foods or lubricating oils for engines. The game abstracts all of these, plus aviation fuel, into supply. This means that large standard CS convoys simply run the Pacific constantly topping up the pools in very big bases near the frontline. There was more back and forth and around in the era, but not always a need to fill up both sides. There isn't much to take from a lot of spots.

For Japan it makes a LOT of sense to fill up both ways because the stuff that runs the economy in Japan is in deficit there. So whether you take back resources, fuel, oil or supply, usually something can be hauled back on the way, making journeys more efficient. This doesn't seem to mean that the number of ships used historically would be needed though.

Clarifying, that's DBB scenario 28-C. -A and -B do not, AFAIK, reduce capacities.



Canoerebel -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 5:33:25 PM)

The pace of everything in the game is speeded up, so that the impact of inaccuracies in cargo space, carrying, loading and unloading is dampened or offset or even nullified.

Nearly all offensive capabilities are considerably enhanced. We shift bombers great distances; then, that same day, they fly powerful sorties at great range (as exemplified by the fabled Netties). Combat TFs and carriers take advantage of the free 24-hour movement feature in which merchant TFs continue to steam on their merry way on collision courses, or stay blithefully in port even while the monstrous behemoths approach, instead of veering course or weighing anchor and fleeing to a safer place (this issue can be mollified somewhat by TF settings). In most games, the Japanese air forces are much deeper than in real life, and the submarine forces far more effective. Both sides ignore political realities and do things that couldn't be done in real life (we head-honchos can tell the British to totally ignore India and shift all ships and men to the Pacific; or we can seamlessly coordinate the Imperial Navy and Army in ways that couldn't have happened in the real war).

The net result is that the game has many abstractions that seem to balance out pretty satisfactorily to players. We want Japan stronger so that the game is more balanced and will keep our IJ opponents engaged more deeply into the games. When players don't like certain aspects, they choose mods and/or house rules that make some aspects more palatable. And so there are mods dealing with cargo capacity.

In most games, ship losses are far higher than they were in real life, at least for the Allies. So the IJ player gets more satisfaction from sinking things, and more Victory Points, making the games more competitive from that standpoint.

I've never found cargo capacity to detract from my enjoyment of the game. I can see where slowing things down and making things more tedious could possibly detract from enjoyment. Until the magic 24-hour movement feature is eliminated (that'll never happen, unless we go to real time), we'd better provide more cargo ships that do more and do it more quickly.



witpqs -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 7:54:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The pace of everything in the game is speeded up, so that the impact of inaccuracies in cargo space, carrying, loading and unloading is dampened or offset or even nullified.

Nearly all offensive capabilities are considerably enhanced. We shift bombers great distances; then, that same day, they fly powerful sorties at great range (as exemplified by the fabled Netties). Combat TFs and carriers take advantage of the free 24-hour movement feature in which merchant TFs continue to steam on their merry way on collision courses, or stay blithefully in port even while the monstrous behemoths approach, instead of veering course or weighing anchor and fleeing to a safer place (this issue can be mollified somewhat by TF settings). In most games, the Japanese air forces are much deeper than in real life, and the submarine forces far more effective. Both sides ignore political realities and do things that couldn't be done in real life (we head-honchos can tell the British to totally ignore India and shift all ships and men to the Pacific; or we can seamlessly coordinate the Imperial Navy and Army in ways that couldn't have happened in the real war).

The net result is that the game has many abstractions that seem to balance out pretty satisfactorily to players. We want Japan stronger so that the game is more balanced and will keep our IJ opponents engaged more deeply into the games. When players don't like certain aspects, they choose mods and/or house rules that make some aspects more palatable. And so there are mods dealing with cargo capacity.

In most games, ship losses are far higher than they were in real life, at least for the Allies. So the IJ player gets more satisfaction from sinking things, and more Victory Points, making the games more competitive from that standpoint.

I've never found cargo capacity to detract from my enjoyment of the game. I can see where slowing things down and making things more tedious could possibly detract from enjoyment. Until the magic 24-hour movement feature is eliminated (that'll never happen, unless we go to real time), we'd better provide more cargo ships that do more and do it more quickly.

I agree with most of that. One dissent is that AE (as opposed to prior WITP) introduced what you might call impulses into the naval movement phases, one (intended) effect of which is the much more realistic surface combat intercepts in AE. So the 24-hour TF movement thing as you aptly describe it is no more.

I've also found that the DBB-C variant reduction in various carrying capacities made a difference, and a good one, but certainly does not eliminate the total effects that you describe. It is a game-level simulation and all players have a great degree of hindsight to help them too, after all.



PaxMondo -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 8:41:13 PM)

I think the biggest impact is still the "benevolent dictator" effect. Meaning, players can plan and use the merchant marine far more effectively on both sides simply because they can see exactly where each ship is, plan for them to be where they need to be and ensure they get there. further, players use them far more harshly, use them as they do their combat naval ships. While there are plenty of real life examples where this was true, those examples were not the norm.

So the end is that the devs have all the right ships, their research was impeccable. however, the players do not use them accurately, and thus the apparent excess of capacity that did not really exist because they weren't put in all the high risk uses that players do every turn ...

Just my take on it. ....



rustysi -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 9:09:27 PM)

In addition I'd like to add that most cargo vessels didn't just simply pull up to a pier and dump all their contents as we do in the game. They delivered what they were supposed to, or what was needed and proceeded to their next destination. And so on...



witpqs -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 9:11:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

In addition I'd like to add that most cargo vessels didn't just simply pull up to a pier and dump all their contents as we do in the game. They delivered what they were supposed to, or what was needed and proceeded to their next destination. And so on...

Ah... another effect of the abstract nature of "supply" in-game that I didn't think of. [&o]



Yaab -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 9:18:17 PM)

I think the answer is easy:

a) Allied universal supply

b) fuel as cargo in xAKs.

c) halting HI.

ad a. US Army in Oz using Australian-made supplies; US carriers replacing torpedoes and bomber sorties in Sydney thanks to the robust Australian manufacturing; USN CAs and BBs replacing main battery ammo in Brisbane alongside the USN submarines loading new torpedoes --- not a single USN xAK loaded with US supplies used so far, the SF supply pile is sacred.

ad b) who needs tankers to haul fuel? I forgot, Bullwinkle had used them entirely off-map to do just that.

ad c) Let's halt Oz HI and save fuel. Great idea! But how in the RL the Australian army got its heavy equipment then? Australia made tons of heavy weapons in WWII as per Wikipedia. In the game, there is no penalty for halting her HI. With the HI halted, the Oz divisions should all fight commando-style without heavy weapons ( trucks, arty, AVF, AA etc). It the game, it is not going to happen.

So, park your surplus xAKs in the SF Bay and watch their exp go up.




rustysi -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 9:32:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

In addition I'd like to add that most cargo vessels didn't just simply pull up to a pier and dump all their contents as we do in the game. They delivered what they were supposed to, or what was needed and proceeded to their next destination. And so on...

Ah... another effect of the abstract nature of "supply" in-game that I didn't think of. [&o]


Just think Mister Roberts. Great movie, sad ending.



rustysi -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 9:39:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I think the answer is easy:

a) Allied universal supply

b) fuel as cargo in xAKs.

c) halting HI.

ad a. US Army in Oz using Australian-made supplies; US carriers replacing torpedoes and bomber sorties in Sydney thanks to the robust Australian manufacturing; USN CAs and BBs replacing main battery ammo in Brisbane alongside the USN submarines loading new torpedoes --- not a single USN xAK loaded with US supplies used so far, the SF supply pile is sacred.

ad b) who needs tankers to haul fuel? I forgot, Bullwinkle had used them entirely off-map to do just that.

ad c) Let's halt Oz HI and save fuel. Great idea! But how in the RL the Australian army got its heavy equipment then? Australia made tons of heavy weapons in WWII as per Wikipedia. In the game, there is no penalty for halting her HI. With the HI halted, the Oz divisions should all fight commando-style without heavy weapons ( trucks, arty, AVF, AA etc). It the game, it is not going to happen.

So, park your surplus xAKs in the SF Bay and watch their exp go up.


Here's an example. In the Java Sea area the U.S. had an AD called Black Hawk. When all her destroyer torps were expended the U.S. destroyers were pretty much done in the region. And Yaab I get your point, but the game has many abstractions and it works both ways.

Japan takes a base and presto change-o the next day the factory there produces supply for Japan. So what's the solution? Just accept and have fun.[:D]

Edit:I'll go even further. All those AKE's that I convert and send to the nether reaches of the Empire can simply pull into a place like Balikpapan load 'supply' and voila 14 and 16 inch shells. Don't say that too loud around AFB's, you'll give 'em an aneurysm.[:D]





US87891 -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 9:54:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Let's be more concrete: what were these AKs and TKs doing exactly in the real thing? What went wrong (ie the game does not properly simulates this)?

Real thing? Well much happened that the game does not handle well, and much happened that the game does not handle at all. The supply burn for building forts and ports and airbases should be anywhere from 20 to 100 times higher. But one big missing piece is automagic building into pools and taking replacements/upgrades therefrom, in a place 2000 miles away, without shipping anything. Another big missing piece is that about 57% of US deadweight merchant cargo, in the Pacific, was cargo that didn’t belong to the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines. Presumably one should get rid of about 57% of US xAK ships as unnecessary. IJ and other Allied mileages will specify differently, but the analysis will be the same.

[image]local://upfiles/37114/C853F054F5B34A5790D289BD1BD8BA7D.jpg[/image]



rustysi -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 10:06:45 PM)

One other thing, lets all keep in mind (reality vs game as in the thread title) its a game, not a simulation. This has been said many times and is still true. I think we tend to lose sight of this as the 'game' is just that good.[&o][&o][&o]



Canoerebel -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 10:18:47 PM)

24-hour movement is a feature of AE too, despite the changes from WitP. We recognize it, allow for it, and know that it's part of the game. It works both ways and there's no good way to eliminate it without resorting to real time or instituting true pulses, which would interrupt the game repeatedly.

Here's an example from my current game with John III. In late 1943, the Allies held Sabang, Sumatra, with a heavily traveled LOC running back to Ceylon. KB was sighted west (south, true) of Sumatra, near Benkoelen, about 21 hexes south of Sabang. The Allies also had several nearby islands housing PBY search squadrons, so KB was under constant surveillance.

In a real time situation, a move by KB towards the Sabang-to-Ceylon supply line would have been picked up immediately and intensely monitored, except in heavy weather, but let's assume clear weather for the purposes of this example. The warning of KB's move would begin immediately, about 800 miles out, at Benkolen, allowing for a lot of time to issue orders and for ships to take evasive action (or to stand down from evasive action if KB stopped). In the game, no such orders could be entered for 24 hours, so KB could steam right into the heart of that busy LOC. At flank speed, KB had an effective 24-hour strike radius of about 26 hexes or 1300 miles (18 hexes of naval movement plus 8 hexes of strike aircraft range). Thus KB posed a 24-hour threat more than halfway from Sabang to Ceylon.

Adjusting TF threat status might (or might not) dampen the impact, but only partially and unreliably. Setting Death Star or a merchant TF to a low threat level might (or might not) prompt it to retire in the face of the approaching enemy. But even the retirement might only be a few hexes, leaving the Allied TF in a bad position the following day.

Twenty-four hour movements is one of the biggest abstractions of the game. As long as it exists - and it always will, I think - other abstractions of a lesser nature will pale in comparison. The fact that too many ships can unload at Noumea in one day? Big deal, given the possibility that KB might pounce from Munda in a single turn and sink those ships.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/1/2017 10:49:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891
[image]local://upfiles/37114/C853F054F5B34A5790D289BD1BD8BA7D.jpg[/image]


I guess that is exactly what I was looking for [:)] The 60% of the cargo capacity is literally not present, because you don't need to load anything (in the end, what Sid was / is correctly trying to address, as these numbers suggest).



Yaab -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/2/2017 5:41:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Hello again everyone.

First of all, I assume every single historical AK, TK is on the game.

REALITY: when you start reading about the Pacific theatre, you quickly find out this concept: the lack of shipping.

GAME: you have zillions of ships at your disposal.

Let's be more concrete: what were these AKs and TKs doing exactly in the real thing? What went wrong (ie the game does not properly simulates this)?

Sid (El Cid and RHS) might be onto something? Example: transport TF unloads at Noumea and they do NOT leave empty (anathema or golden rule of naval traffic). They load resources etc etc?


Well, the only place it somewhat works in RHS is India-UK. Load the resources in India, ship them off-map to the UK for their conversion into supply and then ship the supply back to India. Unfortunately, Sid upped res/LI centers everywhere on the map so you do not need to ship anything ever in RHS. Until the res/LI/HI imbalance in addressed in RHS, the RHS will still have tons of surplus shipping just like any other iteration of WiTP:AE.



Yaab -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/2/2017 5:58:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I think the answer is easy:

a) Allied universal supply

b) fuel as cargo in xAKs.

c) halting HI.

ad a. US Army in Oz using Australian-made supplies; US carriers replacing torpedoes and bomber sorties in Sydney thanks to the robust Australian manufacturing; USN CAs and BBs replacing main battery ammo in Brisbane alongside the USN submarines loading new torpedoes --- not a single USN xAK loaded with US supplies used so far, the SF supply pile is sacred.

ad b) who needs tankers to haul fuel? I forgot, Bullwinkle had used them entirely off-map to do just that.

ad c) Let's halt Oz HI and save fuel. Great idea! But how in the RL the Australian army got its heavy equipment then? Australia made tons of heavy weapons in WWII as per Wikipedia. In the game, there is no penalty for halting her HI. With the HI halted, the Oz divisions should all fight commando-style without heavy weapons ( trucks, arty, AVF, AA etc). It the game, it is not going to happen.

So, park your surplus xAKs in the SF Bay and watch their exp go up.


Here's an example. In the Java Sea area the U.S. had an AD called Black Hawk. When all her destroyer torps were expended the U.S. destroyers were pretty much done in the region. And Yaab I get your point, but the game has many abstractions and it works both ways.

Japan takes a base and presto change-o the next day the factory there produces supply for Japan. So what's the solution? Just accept and have fun.[:D]

Edit:I'll go even further. All those AKE's that I convert and send to the nether reaches of the Empire can simply pull into a place like Balikpapan load 'supply' and voila 14 and 16 inch shells. Don't say that too loud around AFB's, you'll give 'em an aneurysm.[:D]





This game could have been so much more.

AD Black Hawk is a good example. At start, I want this ship to hide in some DEI dot-base, out of the prying eyes of Jap subs and patrol aircraft. I want to top-up this AD with US-made supply. My nearest source of US supply is Pearl Harbor ( I could rob the PI for some US supply, but it makes no sense). I have really few worthy xAKs in PH to haul this supply. Actually, PI screams for this supply as well. So I create a small convoy (2 x DD, 1 x big AK) to rendez-vous with AD. But where should they meet? So I pick up a small DEI base to be my temporary base for US supply in DEI, where the AD can be reloaded, and DDs can be replenished. My whole presence in DEI hinges on saving the AD from sinking and having a stash of US supply hidden somewhere. Consider what happens in the AD is sunk. The supply will be there, but port facilities will be to small to replenish the DDs and I have to evacuate the shhips to Oz or bring another AD or AK into the fray.

But since the game has no device to track the supply by its country of origin, we are left with this universal supply powergaming which simplifies greatly the tactical aspects of units deployment. Actually, I wish there was an option in the main game screen for "Realistic supply" ON/ OFF.



witpqs -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/2/2017 9:08:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

24-hour movement is a feature of AE too, despite the changes from WitP. We recognize it, allow for it, and know that it's part of the game. It works both ways and there's no good way to eliminate it without resorting to real time or instituting true pulses, which would interrupt the game repeatedly.

Here's an example from my current game with John III. In late 1943, the Allies held Sabang, Sumatra, with a heavily traveled LOC running back to Ceylon. KB was sighted west (south, true) of Sumatra, near Benkoelen, about 21 hexes south of Sabang. The Allies also had several nearby islands housing PBY search squadrons, so KB was under constant surveillance.

In a real time situation, a move by KB towards the Sabang-to-Ceylon supply line would have been picked up immediately and intensely monitored, except in heavy weather, but let's assume clear weather for the purposes of this example. The warning of KB's move would begin immediately, about 800 miles out, at Benkolen, allowing for a lot of time to issue orders and for ships to take evasive action (or to stand down from evasive action if KB stopped). In the game, no such orders could be entered for 24 hours, so KB could steam right into the heart of that busy LOC. At flank speed, KB had an effective 24-hour strike radius of about 26 hexes or 1300 miles (18 hexes of naval movement plus 8 hexes of strike aircraft range). Thus KB posed a 24-hour threat more than halfway from Sabang to Ceylon.

Adjusting TF threat status might (or might not) dampen the impact, but only partially and unreliably. Setting Death Star or a merchant TF to a low threat level might (or might not) prompt it to retire in the face of the approaching enemy. But even the retirement might only be a few hexes, leaving the Allied TF in a bad position the following day.

Twenty-four hour movements is one of the biggest abstractions of the game. As long as it exists - and it always will, I think - other abstractions of a lesser nature will pale in comparison. The fact that too many ships can unload at Noumea in one day? Big deal, given the possibility that KB might pounce from Munda in a single turn and sink those ships.

Yes - but (helpfully) the surface combat aspects of the 24 hour movement have been done away with.

Another example of 24 hour naval movement is bombardment TF. While they can be attacked by night assigned air groups (witnessed this a number of times in my recent PBM), night attacks are meager and the TFs are immune to day attacks during their two phases of movement. Only at the end can they be attacked by daytime missions, not on the way in or the way out.



John 3rd -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/2/2017 6:12:34 PM)

WISH that applied to Bombardment TFs in Dan's game and mine!



witpqs -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/2/2017 6:43:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

WISH that applied to Bombardment TFs in Dan's game and mine!


Me too! The night air attacks, on the rare occasions they happen are more like a few buzzing flies and don't seem to slow down the ships. And the day attacks can't reach them because they are already out of range! [:D]



rustysi -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/2/2017 10:35:01 PM)

quote:

This game could have been so much more.


Yaab, I have to disagree. Given the game engine and the amount of coding involved to accomplish everything at a reasonable price IMHO this is as good as it gets.



olorin42 -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/3/2017 11:23:42 AM)

I know the US delivered lend lease to Vladivostok by flagging the ships as Soviet so they were not attacked. I wonder how much of that excess capacity would be used in that way if the Allies had to allocate ships for that purpose (or just make them sit idle).



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/3/2017 12:32:37 PM)

Exactly what I was thinking when I saw Matt's stats. Close to 50% (about 8 Mio tons) of the lend-lease supplied to the Soviets went via Vladivostok. I have seen claims that over 900 Soviet-flaged ships went back and forth between Vladivostok and North America. The Western Allies supplied more than 120 merchant ships to the Soviets. No idea if those hulls are in the game or not, I have just found a list with names to compare.



Skyros -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/3/2017 3:25:35 PM)

One easy step would be to change all the free supply generated off map to LI and force the allies to ship on map Resources to feed the new LI centers. This would require a diversion of aks and akls to feed the supply source. The same could be done for on map center in CONUS.



Yaab -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/3/2017 4:01:02 PM)

Don't know if CONUSA had any resources deficit in RL, but India resources could definitely go to South Africa and UK for supply production.



cardas -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/3/2017 4:42:13 PM)

That's simply not a realistic proposition considering how many resource are needed for a single supply point. You'd have to ship in 156 fully loaded EC2 Liberty Cargo ships full of resources every day to feed the equivalent LI of the free supply generation you get from the Easter USA base. Not convinced yet?

Let's then add the travel time of, say, Karachi to Aden (according to the extended map distance) which would already bring you up to requiring 2028 ships to handle all those resources. That's already more merchant shipping, xAKs and xAKLs of any type, than what you will ever have in total using the stock scenario 1. You should then furthermore consider the extra time needed to load and unload all of these ships along with the actual cargo handling/docking capacity of the ports involved. Ultimately it'd mean you would require even more than 2028 Liberty ships to handle all of this.

Even feeding the equivalent LI of the much lower supply generation found in the United Kingdom base would require 156 Liberty ships (with the travel time Karachi -> Aden included, loading time&port capacity not considered) in constant use. You'd also do well to remember that all of this shipping is vulnerable to Japanese attacks if it's on-map. The base(s) with the resources could be captured unless there are special rules/map restrictions/defence forces that protects them.

You may consider the current total supply production on the Allied side to be excessive and that reducing the total would only be a good thing. Then add some LI and require resource shipping to make up for some of shortfall in supply generation. It's not realistic to force an Allied player to rely entirely on that resource shipping for their supply generation though.



Yaab -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/3/2017 4:55:47 PM)

Eastern USA is out of the question as USA was, I guess, self-sufficent. On the other hand, UK and Cape Town ( South Africa) could be stripped of its auto-generated supply so resources could be shipped there from India. What do you do with all this surplus Commonwealth merchant shipping when resources and supplies ping-pong freely across the Indian railway system? Why did the Brits have their Empire in the first place, if they do not need to ship anything from thier colonies? You would think the industrial revolution happened in South Africa and India, and not the UK.



szmike -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/3/2017 5:20:51 PM)

It would be easier to take everything from US than hauling resources.



cardas -> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) (4/3/2017 7:32:43 PM)

Yep, you only ship resources because you have no other choice, as in you'd face a supply deficit otherwise and you have fuel to spare. Let's try to put into perspective;

Let's say Soerabaja had a huge quantity of LI and Timor (Koepang) had a huge quantity of resources. It would still be more efficient to ship supplies all the way from Los Angels to Soerabaja instead of shipping resources from Timor to Soerabaja. I'm not talking about a direct Soerabaja <=> Los Angels route either, nope, I'm talking about a Soerabaja <=> Brisbane <=> Tahiti <=> Los Angels route! That's how extremely inefficient resources are.

Just to note: in this example you could of course ship the resources to the eastern tip of Java (Banjoewangi) and let the overland route move resources into Soerabaja. At that point hauling resources would start to win out in the efficiency calculations. There are some others considerations such as ship endurance which comes into effect as well and the fact you'd start getting supplies faster with the shorter resource route to Timor. So in this specific example you'd use short ranged xAKLs to move the resources around, ships that would be liabilites on the Los Angeles route anyway. As Java has local fuel production the fuel efficiency wouldn't really matter either. But I'm getting sidetracked...

The overall point is clear. If you have a choice and the time then shipping supplies long distances is more efficient than even relatively short resource routes. It's almost humorous how worthless resources are in the game if you use ships to move them around for anything but extremely short jaunts.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.703125