quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Folks, I've long wondered why the game, in its many variations, redos and add-ons, has never attempted to place barriers to the most obvious of national "cross decking" so to speak. For example, a Dutch sub can pull into Colombo or San Fransisco and get Dutch torpedoes, as if they were "off the shelf" stocked and waiting to be loaded. This is also true of many national aircraft operating from another country's aircraft CVs or bases. In many instances it was simply not possible due to differing A/C characteristics (including not fitting in elevators!). Is there any mod to this game that tries to redress even a few aspects of this game-play? This is certainly a critical concept in the opening months of the war for the Allies who have a host of various ships from various countries operating together and from some unanticipated ports of call. The US torpedo shortage in the first few months was acute (thanks to the loss of the Philippine stockpile). Yet in the game, torpedo reloads are "everywhere"! Also larger caliber gun ammo, etc. I know this would be a coding nightmare, but I was wondering if anyone has tried to tackle it? How many of you have house rules that restrict certain egregious supply absurdities (such as a sub tender can only resupply subs from its OWN navy)? I'm not sure how this would be done (and obviously some kind of an "honor" system must be used), but it was one aspect of the war that seems to be totally ignored for the game play.... but at the cost of realism. Of course I applaud the game and its detail (as I've been playing it for years), but it could have paid a bit more attention to this obvious concern. It most certainly was a historical problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The cleanest approach would be a completely new engine.  That is not a starter.

That leaves us with the existing game engine.  With sufficient effort it could be modified - less effort than a completely new engine but would not eliminate totally the basic interchangeability of the existing game design.

With sufficient development resources I would modify the existing game engine along these lines which I privately raised with Bullwinkle58 some 7 years ago.  What follows is a very abridged summary of what I discussed then.

I would introduce the concept of currency into the game.  Currency would be a new industrial production (like resources, oil, manpower etc) based on the respective GDP.  The simplest approach would be to make it related to manpower centres.  The game world would be divided into 3 currency blocs; the American dollar, pound sterling and the yen.  Each bloc would maintain its own global currency pool.  The yen bloc includes the existing IJA and IJN nationalities, the $USD bloc includes the existing USA, USN, USMC, Philippines, French and Chinese nationalities, the sterling bloc includes the existing British Empire nationalities and the Dutch.  This roughly equates to the historical division of logistical maintenance which occurred.

The existing game logistics would be retained but the additional layer of currency cost would be attached.  Thus when purchasing replacement aircraft not only would you need to have available onsite the existing requisite supply cost for the airframes but also sufficient currency in the global bank, sterling if purchasing a British airframe (or Dutch/Australian/Canadian etc), yen if purchasing for the IJA or IJN.

Production of supply, manpower, oil (representative of GDP) would generate currency.  When surplus Australian supply is sent off to American bases this export would be purchased by the Americans spending $USD at a fixed exchange rate to sterling thus the $USD global bank would decrease and the sterling global bank would increase.  When fuel was imported into Australia from the West Coast, sterling would be spent and $USD earned respectively.

No longer would it be feasible to simply rely on American logistics.  British Empire industry would need to be kept in full production and exports generated to pay for logistics.  A too hasty Sir Robin would too quickly give up production capacity and impede the purchase of devices for LCUs, airframes, rearming ships (currency based on ship nationality) etc at a time when the global bank would be low on the relevant currency.  Conversely Japan would need to widen its horizons as to the necessary industrial capacity which should be targeted in its expansion phase.

Of course the idea is more complicated and nuanced but the above should indicate the potential.

Alfred  

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I missed that whole conversation 7 years ago, thanks for taking the time to encapsulate it for us. What you suggest certainly could be an indirect macro approach to the concerns I've raised. Yet, as you indicate, it is complicated.

I would still be interested in players sharing what HRs or other impositions/constraints they have used to bring more logistical realism into the game short of a total rework of the system. In other words, what short term fixes have worked?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The cleanest approach would be a completely new engine.  That is not a starter.

That leaves us with the existing game engine.  With sufficient effort it could be modified - less effort than a completely new engine but would not eliminate totally the basic interchangeability of the existing game design.

With sufficient development resources I would modify the existing game engine along these lines which I privately raised with Bullwinkle58 some 7 years ago.  What follows is a very abridged summary of what I discussed then.

I would introduce the concept of currency into the game.  Currency would be a new industrial production (like resources, oil, manpower etc) based on the respective GDP.  The simplest approach would be to make it related to manpower centres.  The game world would be divided into 3 currency blocs; the American dollar, pound sterling and the yen.  Each bloc would maintain its own global currency pool.  The yen bloc includes the existing IJA and IJN nationalities, the $USD bloc includes the existing USA, USN, USMC, Philippines, French and Chinese nationalities, the sterling bloc includes the existing British Empire nationalities and the Dutch.  This roughly equates to the historical division of logistical maintenance which occurred.

The existing game logistics would be retained but the additional layer of currency cost would be attached.  Thus when purchasing replacement aircraft not only would you need to have available onsite the existing requisite supply cost for the airframes but also sufficient currency in the global bank, sterling if purchasing a British airframe (or Dutch/Australian/Canadian etc), yen if purchasing for the IJA or IJN.

Production of supply, manpower, oil (representative of GDP) would generate currency.  When surplus Australian supply is sent off to American bases this export would be purchased by the Americans spending $USD at a fixed exchange rate to sterling thus the $USD global bank would decrease and the sterling global bank would increase.  When fuel was imported into Australia from the West Coast, sterling would be spent and $USD earned respectively.

No longer would it be feasible to simply rely on American logistics.  British Empire industry would need to be kept in full production and exports generated to pay for logistics.  A too hasty Sir Robin would too quickly give up production capacity and impede the purchase of devices for LCUs, airframes, rearming ships (currency based on ship nationality) etc at a time when the global bank would be low on the relevant currency.  Conversely Japan would need to widen its horizons as to the necessary industrial capacity which should be targeted in its expansion phase.

Of course the idea is more complicated and nuanced but the above should indicate the potential.

Alfred  

I like this. One complication with charging for moving supply would be double/triple-charging if Supply* were not tracked more closely. Supply moves around very freely in the game now (the automatic movement, I mean) and that mechanism would cause the new charging scheme to fail if, for example, the movement of Supply to a base of a different nationality resulted in a charge. The consumption of Supply might be a better point for the charge. That would be imperfect too, as 'free' pre-positioning of Supply could still be done, but would be more in harmony with current game mechanics.

* Supply meaning each of supply, fuel, resources, oil.

quote:

It would remain an abstraction, thus not perfect.

Auto overland movement of supplies would not be captured. The emphasis is on the point of "purchase" of supplies. Thus eating food and drinking water would not entail a purchase. Luckily the game continental land masses roughly fall within a single currency bloc. As a by product greater consideration would be required as to which nationalities would conduct land offensives. The common AE Allied praxis of sending several USA/USMC divisions to India, which never did occur historically nor could ever have occurred in real life would have consequences. The least being the likelihood of having to spend PPs to turn recaptured Indian bases from American to British control.

The actual export and import of material involves conscious player decisions based on the need to generate "foreign exchange". The existing underlying logistics rationale remains. Currency at the point of purchase is merely added to the current model. Have a healthy bank balance surplus, the pressure to export is reduced. Have a poor bank balance, those idle merchantmen will need to be used to carry material overseas to earn that foreign exchange.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The cleanest approach would be a completely new engine.  That is not a starter.

That leaves us with the existing game engine.  With sufficient effort it could be modified - less effort than a completely new engine but would not eliminate totally the basic interchangeability of the existing game design.

With sufficient development resources I would modify the existing game engine along these lines which I privately raised with Bullwinkle58 some 7 years ago.  What follows is a very abridged summary of what I discussed then.

I would introduce the concept of currency into the game.  Currency would be a new industrial production (like resources, oil, manpower etc) based on the respective GDP.  The simplest approach would be to make it related to manpower centres.  The game world would be divided into 3 currency blocs; the American dollar, pound sterling and the yen.  Each bloc would maintain its own global currency pool.  The yen bloc includes the existing IJA and IJN nationalities, the $USD bloc includes the existing USA, USN, USMC, Philippines, French and Chinese nationalities, the sterling bloc includes the existing British Empire nationalities and the Dutch.  This roughly equates to the historical division of logistical maintenance which occurred.

The existing game logistics would be retained but the additional layer of currency cost would be attached.  Thus when purchasing replacement aircraft not only would you need to have available onsite the existing requisite supply cost for the airframes but also sufficient currency in the global bank, sterling if purchasing a British airframe (or Dutch/Australian/Canadian etc), yen if purchasing for the IJA or IJN.

Production of supply, manpower, oil (representative of GDP) would generate currency.  When surplus Australian supply is sent off to American bases this export would be purchased by the Americans spending $USD at a fixed exchange rate to sterling thus the $USD global bank would decrease and the sterling global bank would increase.  When fuel was imported into Australia from the West Coast, sterling would be spent and $USD earned respectively.

No longer would it be feasible to simply rely on American logistics.  British Empire industry would need to be kept in full production and exports generated to pay for logistics.  A too hasty Sir Robin would too quickly give up production capacity and impede the purchase of devices for LCUs, airframes, rearming ships (currency based on ship nationality) etc at a time when the global bank would be low on the relevant currency.  Conversely Japan would need to widen its horizons as to the necessary industrial capacity which should be targeted in its expansion phase.

Of course the idea is more complicated and nuanced but the above should indicate the potential.

Alfred  

I like this. One complication with charging for moving supply would be double/triple-charging if Supply* were not tracked more closely. Supply moves around very freely in the game now (the automatic movement, I mean) and that mechanism would cause the new charging scheme to fail if, for example, the movement of Supply to a base of a different nationality resulted in a charge. The consumption of Supply might be a better point for the charge. That would be imperfect too, as 'free' pre-positioning of Supply could still be done, but would be more in harmony with current game mechanics.

* Supply meaning each of supply, fuel, resources, oil.

It would remain an abstraction, thus not perfect.

Auto overland movement of supplies would not be captured. The emphasis is on the point of "purchase" of supplies. Thus eating food and drinking water would not entail a purchase. Luckily the game continental land masses roughly fall within a single currency bloc. As a by product greater consideration would be required as to which nationalities would conduct land offensives. The common AE Allied praxis of sending several USA/USMC divisions to India, which never did occur historically nor could ever have occurred in real life would have consequences. The least being the likelihood of having to spend PPs to turn recaptured Indian bases from American to British control.

The actual export and import of material involves conscious player decisions based on the need to generate "foreign exchange". The existing underlying logistics rationale remains. Currency at the point of purchase is merely added to the current model. Have a healthy bank balance surplus, the pressure to export is reduced. Have a poor bank balance, those idle merchantmen will need to be used to carry material overseas to earn that foreign exchange.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

It would remain an abstraction, thus not perfect.

Auto overland movement of supplies would not be captured. The emphasis is on the point of "purchase" of supplies. Thus eating food and drinking water would not entail a purchase. Luckily the game continental land masses roughly fall within a single currency bloc. As a by product greater consideration would be required as to which nationalities would conduct land offensives. The common AE Allied praxis of sending several USA/USMC divisions to India, which never did occur historically nor could ever have occurred in real life would have consequences. The least being the likelihood of having to spend PPs to turn recaptured Indian bases from American to British control.

The actual export and import of material involves conscious player decisions based on the need to generate "foreign exchange". The existing underlying logistics rationale remains. Currency at the point of purchase is merely added to the current model. Have a healthy bank balance surplus, the pressure to export is reduced. Have a poor bank balance, those idle merchantmen will need to be used to carry material overseas to earn that foreign exchange.

Alfred

Yes, I see. Given that, I think keying on nationality codes would be better than keying on base ownership as it would inherently avoid the problems associated with base ownership.

quote:

and replace F-14's with less capable F-18c's

quote:

Spare parts would be more of a problem, BUTTTT , let me let you in on a dirty little secret about ships. After the class of ships has ceased production , ALL repair parts are custom made.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence


... It seems that the Allied Player has national restrictions in so far as escorting bombers. USAAF fighters assigned to escort missions seem (at least) to never escort USN bombers (and vice versa). In fact it seems to be that USN fighters will not even escort USMC bombers (and vice versa)...


...My impression of these facts...