How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (Full Version)

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



Message

InfiniteMonkey -> How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 3:37:25 AM)

One of the big complaints I hear about WitP:AE is the inclusion of Avgas in supply. As I looked into accurately modelling a wartime economy, I wanted to ask an opinion question: how much detail is enough?

For example, when it comes to oil, not all oil is created equally and not every refinery is either. There are six basic varieties of crude oil:

Light Sweet Crude
Light Sour Crude
Medium Sweet Crude
Medium Sour Crude
Heavy Sweet Crude
Heavy Sour Crude

but those names hide a lot of variability in the oil itself and the products that can be refined from them:

Liquified petroleum gases (LPG)
Avgas
Gasoline
Jet fuel
Kerosene
Diesel fuel
Petrochemical feedstocks
Lubricating oils and waxes
Home heating oil
Fuel oil
Asphalt

Beyond that, refineries themselves are very different - one of the reasons that the BPM plant in Palembang was so important to the Japanese effort was that the FCC / Alkylation facilities there allowed much greater yields of high octane gasoline (avgas). Copying the FCC / Alkylation facilities in a refinery in the Home islands allowed greater avgas production there.

In another direction, certain bases and the resources in them were far more important than might otherwise appear. For example, Nickel and Chromium are important alloying metals for making armor plate. Large Chromium sources in Masinloc (PI) and New Caledonia make them high priority targets for Japan if Chromium is segregated from Resources. Meanwhile, Nickel production in New Caledonia, Pomalaa (Celebes), and Burma make them high priority targets for Japan if Nickel is segregated. Bauxite (the ore Aluminum is derived from) makes Bintan, Johore, and Palau important... if Bauxite is segmented.

As it stands, resources, refineries, supply, fuel, and oil are all just a bit too vague to convey the impact a single location could have on the wartime economy, but how much is too much?



Mike Solli -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 9:19:16 AM)

As much as I love messing with the economy, WitP is, in fact, a war-game. I'm fine with things the way they are right now. If there were 6 types of oil and however many types of resources with differing production based on location, along with HI and refineries that needed varying types of each by location, and different HI points for different uses, well, you get the picture.

I'm good with things the way they are. They're showing us that resources were very important to the wartime economy, while oil was critical.

Heavy sour crude?! What lucky stiff got to taste the oil to categorize it. [:'(] [:D]



traskott -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 11:26:23 AM)

+1.

Supply/Fuel/Oil/Resources is enough for me. If u include water for pasta, I will play the game, sure, but only ONCE in my lifetime. After that, I will ask for retirement .[:D]



GetAssista -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 11:52:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
As much as I love messing with the economy, WitP is, in fact, a war-game. I'm fine with things the way they are right now. If there were 6 types of oil and however many types of resources with differing production based on location, along with HI and refineries that needed varying types of each by location, and different HI points for different uses, well, you get the picture.

+1
Let's think for a minute at which particular geographical point on the map specific devices or airframes came into this world during the war. Oil grades are peanuts compared to this [:)]



Anomander Rake -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 11:53:52 AM)

In WitP not existing really resource problem. So I will be happy if this things will be more complicate. Maybe 11 oil products is too much but many rare resources will be very good. Something like this:
Japanes industry system needs some rare resources, for example
- x "A" resource per turn (5%),
- 2x "B" resource per turn (8%),
- 4x "C" resource per turn (3%), etc...
Industry will be working without this resources but with percentage penalties for each of them (as in parentheses). For simplicity system would only take into account the rare resources supplied to Japan for all factories anywhere (maybe only for heavy industries).
Also Japanese factory needs some common resources, example 2-4 types with constant proportions and without anyone of them they won't work. Common resources should be delivered to proper factories.
Sorry if my English isn't good enogh.



Dili -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 11:59:26 AM)

I would only have added 2 things: military supply(most of it produced in Heavy Industry and just a smallish % in Light Industry) and coal.

Then would change LCU's and air units consumption adding fuel consumption per motor support and AFV numbers probably based on their weight.
And a low baseline fuel consumption per non motorized devices.

LCU's/ Air units/Ships would consume military supply to fight/rearm and normal supply to survive.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 1:35:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

+1.

Supply/Fuel/Oil/Resources is enough for me. If u include water for pasta, I will play the game, sure, but only ONCE in my lifetime. After that, I will ask for retirement .[:D]


LOL [:D]. AE does not include the Campaign for North Africa, so no need for the "Italian Pasta Rule"*. Btw,that game was borked, since it did not take into account the increased water needs on the British side for brewing tea.

In AE, we may need a "Japanese Sake Rule", "US Torpedo Juice/Raisin Jack Rule", "Royal Navy Rum Rule", "British Army Gin Rule" etc. Not sure about the Australians - a "Whatever booze Rule"?


Seriously - I would love to try a PTO strategy game with fuel, gas, avgas, coal, iron, rare elements, food, medical supplies, military supplies, and different ammo types being treated individually - but only if the GUI would allow to give orders with much less clicks than in AE (like create a 15-ship CS convoy between to ports and auto-tailored to port sizes with four or five clicks, not 30+ clicks AE requires).

The one thing that may do some good to add in AE as it is, is avgas IMO. Let the JFBs build as many 3rd-generation planes as their HI can afford - it won't do the any good if they don't have enough avgas to use them (nor for pilot training).

*See https://warisboring.com/the-wretched-excess-of-the-campaign-for-north-africa/



witpqs -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 1:52:26 PM)

Mike nailed it.

Anomander Rake and Dili have interesting ideas but it the effect on play is very hard to predict and it could make things much more onerous.



Anomander Rake -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 2:10:52 PM)

quote:

Mike nailed it. Anomander Rake and Dili have interesting ideas but it the effect on play is very hard to predict and it could make things much more onerous.

This one with rare resources couldn't. Anyway for everything you just have to set up more automatic convoys.
This would require the involvement of a larger number of vessels, more sea lanes, more difficult to protect against submarines.
It's all good.
Probably also more peek into the WitPtracker ;-)



InfiniteMonkey -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 4:06:45 PM)

In my opinion, lack of complexity in the economic model is a problem for the game. Lack of complexity means lack of constraints. More constraints means more avenues of attack for Allied players while simultaneously opening up opportunities/creating weaknesses for the Japanese player. In WitP:AE, all strategic resources reduce to oil, fuel, resources and supply, so the Japanese economy is much less fragile and much more streamlined than it was historically. Japan's in game merchant marine overcapacity is a direct result of the lack of complexity in the economics and supply model. It is a commonly accepted fact that American economic might was a deciding factor in WW2, yet the economy is the most superficially modeled aspect of WitP:AE. I've been thinking a lot about what to do with a new WitP:AE-like game and I keep coming back to the idea that a lot of the solutions are rooted in the economic model. My question is how far is too far?

The simplest complexity/constraint example is that of AvGas. Not modeling Avgas means that the Japanese player is free to conduct sorties without restrictions by using supply. It also limits the Allied player's ability to attack advanced refineries that produce higher percentages of avgas. As the most popular example, it caused me to look into oil production and refining to figure out how to model it. Is limiting Japanese aircraft sorties important enough to model avgas?

Other constraint examples:
Engines with superchargers required high temperature steel alloys which required high temp alloy metals like Tungsten and Molybdenum. Lack of those materials meant no superchargers or superchargers more prone to failure. Sink a few AK loaded with tungsten and you limit the ability to produce reliable high-end engines. Is limiting construction of high performance fighters a sufficient reason to model Tungsten and Molybdenum mines?

Armor required nickel and chromium, but copper could be used as a less effective substitute. Get more Nickel and Chromium to Japan and you increase your production of armor steel, allowing more tanks and armored ships. Limit the Nickel and Chromium reaching Japan and you stall completion of tanks and armored ships. Sinking a few AK carrying Nickel Ore out of Pomalaa and Soroaka in Celebes has a direct effect upon the ability to build tanks and construct of heavier ships. Is the impact upon production of tanks and warships sufficient to model Chromium and Nickel mines?

Without Manganese, Japanese Steel production is either turned off or the quality lags. Is the impact upon production of steel sufficient to model Manganese mines?

Without Phosphate, agricultural (food) output declines. That decline affects troops (disablement due to disease, malnutrition and starvation) and the underlying economy (sickness among workers, loss of skilled output). Should the lack of Phosphates affect production of foods/efficiency of production/performance of troops in combat?

Without Bauxite, you get no aluminum. Without Aluminum, you get no planes. Yet most of Japan's Bauxite came from Bintan (off Singapore), Johore, and Palau. In game, the Resource
needs of Japan are almost met from existing conquests. There is no economic necessity to capture any of those locations or transport resources specifically from them. Historically, Japan could not have produced a fraction of their aircraft without securing and exploiting those 3 locations. Is the effect of the Aluminum upon aircraft production sufficient to model bauxite mines?



Lokasenna -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 4:10:34 PM)

The avenues of attack for the Allied player are, while not infinite, rather numerous - and to me they depend more on base size capability than on whether or not I can bomb Palembang from it (for example).



Yaab -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 4:58:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget


quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

+1.

Supply/Fuel/Oil/Resources is enough for me. If u include water for pasta, I will play the game, sure, but only ONCE in my lifetime. After that, I will ask for retirement .[:D]


LOL [:D]. AE does not include the Campaign for North Africa, so no need for the "Italian Pasta Rule"*. Btw,that game was borked, since it did not take into account the increased water needs on the British side for brewing tea.

In AE, we may need a "Japanese Sake Rule", "US Torpedo Juice/Raisin Jack Rule", "Royal Navy Rum Rule", "British Army Gin Rule" etc. Not sure about the Australians - a "Whatever booze Rule"?


Seriously - I would love to try a PTO strategy game with fuel, gas, avgas, coal, iron, rare elements, food, medical supplies, military supplies, and different ammo types being treated individually - but only if the GUI would allow to give orders with much less clicks than in AE (like create a 15-ship CS convoy between to ports and auto-tailored to port sizes with four or five clicks, not 30+ clicks AE requires).

The one thing that may do some good to add in AE as it is, is avgas IMO. Let the JFBs build as many 3rd-generation planes as their HI can afford - it won't do the any good if they don't have enough avgas to use them (nor for pilot training).

*See https://warisboring.com/the-wretched-excess-of-the-campaign-for-north-africa/


Aren't the tea and rum lumped into the Gunfire rule?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_(drink)



Mike Solli -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 8:26:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

+1.

Supply/Fuel/Oil/Resources is enough for me. If u include water for pasta, I will play the game, sure, but only ONCE in my lifetime. After that, I will ask for retirement .[:D]


Sounds like another Campaign for North Africa fan. [:D]



Mike Solli -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/14/2017 8:29:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

quote:

Mike nailed it. Anomander Rake and Dili have interesting ideas but it the effect on play is very hard to predict and it could make things much more onerous.

This one with rare resources couldn't. Anyway for everything you just have to set up more automatic convoys.
This would require the involvement of a larger number of vessels, more sea lanes, more difficult to protect against submarines.
It's all good.
Probably also more peek into the WitPtracker ;-)


You trust automatic convoys? Never have, never will. [:-]



PaxMondo -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/15/2017 11:53:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

quote:

Mike nailed it. Anomander Rake and Dili have interesting ideas but it the effect on play is very hard to predict and it could make things much more onerous.

This one with rare resources couldn't. Anyway for everything you just have to set up more automatic convoys.
This would require the involvement of a larger number of vessels, more sea lanes, more difficult to protect against submarines.
It's all good.
Probably also more peek into the WitPtracker ;-)


You trust automatic convoys? Never have, never will. [:-]

+1

IF I ever played the allies again, where I have tons of excess ships, then in the backwaters area I might test it out again. That would be a test, but trust? HAH! NEVER!
[:D][:D][:D]



PaxMondo -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/15/2017 12:01:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Mike nailed it.

Anomander Rake and Dili have interesting ideas but it the effect on play is very hard to predict and it could make things much more onerous.

+1

Further, let's look at what you are trying to do. So rare earth elements: these were in short supply for the Axis overall the entire war. They didn't own nor conquer enough mines to nearly supply their economies, yet what they actually obtained and used was several times what they actually owned.
So, you now need to put into the game blockade running, black market trading, and simple treason (several rare earths are traceable, after the war the US found many components built with materials from the US. Nice, right?)

Point being, if you try to go much beyond where Gary and the devs went, you start to open a very complex can of worms and is that really the game you want to play?



DRF99 -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/15/2017 12:24:40 PM)

The only thing I would have liked to see would be to differentiate industrial/manufacturing supply from war materials supply.

Industrial/manufacturing supply would be what you ship back to armaments factories. This would be the equivalent of the supply used to produce aircraft, ships, etc.

War materials supply would be the tanks, guns, ammunition, food and water for soldiers; the stuff that enables them to fight. This would only be produced at a few places and would have to be shipped to the front.

I would severely restrict the ability of captured factories to produce any war materials. So if the IJA captured Sydney, they could not start producing Japanese tanks, guns, ammunition, the next day, or ever. Having to ship war materials to the front, rather than living off the land would greatly reduce the ability of both sides to over expand.



Anomander Rake -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/15/2017 1:24:41 PM)

quote:

You trust automatic convoys? Never have, never will.

I meant about manually set auto convoys (CS), they are realiable. After Pacific War game I never try real Nagoya (or Osaka?)auto convoy system.
quote:

Point being, if you try to go much beyond where Gary and the devs went, you start to open a very complex can of worms and is that really the game you want to play?

Anyway more complicated economic system will be good for reality and he wouldn't have to destroy playability.
Maybe something like this what I proposed in the first post.
The division into food and military supplies would obviously also be needed.



Lecivius -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/15/2017 1:36:41 PM)

Let me get this right. You guys want to take a game, with a learning cliff, and make it MORE complicated? [sm=crazy.gif]



DD696 -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/15/2017 1:45:13 PM)

More detail is good, however more detail than the AI can handle is bad. The current game struggles and generally fails with just oil, fuel, resources and supplies, which is why without AndyMac's economic nudges from playing on hard/very hard the AI game withers, unless the player has modified the scenario to improve the situation for the AI. Even then, player monitoring and intervention is required else some part of the economy craps out on you.

Bottom line - if the AI can handle it, do it.



Anomander Rake -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/15/2017 1:55:04 PM)

Dealing with economics on a war background gives me a lot of fun. So, yes I would be pleased when the game would be more economically developed.
Also I have a lot of fun to play Japan side but I know that economic system gives this side much advantages reliation to reality. I don't like this.



InfiniteMonkey -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/15/2017 2:22:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Let me get this right. You guys want to take a game, with a learning cliff, and make it MORE complicated? [sm=crazy.gif]

Yes and No. My goal is not complication. My goal is to have the events in the game and the reality of the world in 1941 govern what Japan is allowed to do and what it is not. And this is not about WitP:AE. It is a conversation about the weaknesses of the WitP:AE economic model as I think about a new Pacific war game.



Dili -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/15/2017 2:52:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

+1.

Supply/Fuel/Oil/Resources is enough for me. If u include water for pasta, I will play the game, sure, but only ONCE in my lifetime. After that, I will ask for retirement .[:D]


Sounds like another Campaign for North Africa fan. [:D]


No, LCU's and Air units don't consume fuel so any WITP N.Africa simulation has that problem to deal with. Only having industry in North Africa that can be somewhat simulated.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/15/2017 4:44:01 PM)

OTOH - with more varieties of stuff to ship around, it might be necessary to allow ships to load more than one variety at the same time (for example food and military supplies). Complicates programming, increases potential for bugs and issues etc.



Alfred -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/16/2017 4:34:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Let me get this right. You guys want to take a game, with a learning cliff, and make it MORE complicated? [sm=crazy.gif]

Yes and No. My goal is not complication. My goal is to have the events in the game and the reality of the world in 1941 govern what Japan is allowed to do and what it is not. And this is not about WitP:AE. It is a conversation about the weaknesses of the WitP:AE economic model as I think about a new Pacific war game.


Too much detail for too little benefit. It won't appeal to the average wargamer.

The much bigger bang for the buck is gained by


  • introducing avgas as a specific commodity needed for airplane sorties. This can simply be abstracted as fuel so that both ships and aircraft consume fuel and supply to rearm
  • opening up the play to the type of logistical operational difficulties which plagued both sides. Hence having no cooperation between the IJA and IJN eg no mixing of aircraft flown by other in the raid, no IJA fighters LRCAPing IJN task forces. On the Allied side no rearming of USN ships from British ports which would not stock American ordnance. Rearming of a USN ship only from an American port or an American tender located at a British port
  • all the different mineral types you have mentioned must unnecessarily introduce clutter to the production process. It is the use made of industrial product which really matters. Hence rather than all these different mineral types, just add concrete (a byproduct of Heavy Industry rather than supply) as a requirement to build base infrastructure and infrastructure repairs (and building of factories for Japan too)


Alfred



Hoplosternum -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/16/2017 1:27:28 PM)

I don't think I would make changes to the Industry / Production model. It is a war game after all and I think it would just create a few extra crucial hexes like Palembang. Ones the Japanese must take and must heavily defend or they die/are really restricted X months later if these are smashed when their stocks run low.

But I think splitting out certain things from supply would have enhanced (but also complicated) the game. Both sides already have to carry or push supply and fuel to most bases in the game so it is not that much of an overhead, but the current system is a bit too flexible for me operationally for both sides. I wouldn't try and model the items down to each shell, bomb and fuel type but I think for certain key war materials you could track them separately.

AvGas (as Alfred suggests) is one I would split out, and heavy ship ordinance (say shells over 8"), definitely heavy air ordinance (Torpedoes and bombs over 250KG - your standard 500lb and 250KGs you can get out of ordinary supply but if you want the big ship killers that is tracked separately) and possibly ship/sub torpedoes. That is just four extra categories. OK the big ship shells all magically become the correct size you need but at least you needed to plan where you need your big ship shells to be.

So instead of as now if you sail your battleships to a port that is large enough the 16" shells are all magically there to support repeated bombardment runs etc. you have to actually preposition stock piles. Also at the moment you can fly in hundreds of planes and a few av support units and operate the bulk of your airforce from an area on the map thousands of miles from where they were a few days before.

You could have the ordinance get converted from supplies but only at certain home ports (Continental USA, Japanese home islands, Aden - i.e. from the UK, Cape Town maybe). Maybe allow AvGas from a slightly larger group. Make these things fairly expensive supply wise (and cargo wise) and then players won't just put some of each everywhere.

Considering we all have to micro manage individual pilots and their training programmes (!) throughout the war I don't think this would have been too much extra detail. We all have to plan the supply needs for every sector for the whole war anyway so adding a bit extra here when that extra is a meaningful strategic decision should be OK?

As for the AI I would be happy for it to ignore this and just use current rules or simply cheat (Av support can convert X supply into Y AvGas etc.).




Dili -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/16/2017 5:12:15 PM)

It could have be done like with aircraft torpedoes except not detailed in numbers. A USN port authority deployed in Goa for example makes possible that cruisers receive 6-8" rounds. BB artillery maybe need the port authority plus an USN Naval Command.



inqistor -> RE: How much detail in economy/logistics is too much? (11/16/2017 5:30:41 PM)

First thing, I would do, is to make whole resource transportation system abstract. You would just add ships to area pools, together with escorts, subs, and raiders. That would at least allow AMCs chance for survival longer, than a week. Then if you have source of Unobtanium in Bora-Bora, you can use it, as long as path to Japan is clear. Without manually sending one single AKL to get it (and forgetting, that you sent it, 10 turns later).

The main problem is not absence of fuel for vehicles, but not including it in overall usage. 4Es should use at least 3 times as much supply, as they currently are. Does transferring plane from one base to another use supply? What about bulldozers? Those monsters drink as much gas, as tank, and I suspect, that Engineering Unit with Vehicles actually uses less supply, that one with comparable number of Engineer Squads.

And food. There was fraking famine in Bengal during war! Eisenhower wasn't in a hurry, to liberate Paris, because then he would have to feed whole city. And in-game, you actually gains enemy supply, when you win city hex from enemy. Just imagine, how much more supply you would need, if every liberated city would suddenly needed to be feed immediately.

And last important thing - wounded/sick/prisoners. You need to get them to safety to recover. Now, you just leave unit at rest, and two weeks later it is ready for another invasion.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875