RE: Limited Stacking

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Limited Stacking

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 8:38:32 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Given this thread has been seriously hijacked, it will be restarted elsewhere.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 31

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 9:01:21 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
To both Nik and Harry, I'm going to beg off of further Burma supply discussion in this thread because too far afield is a hijack. The point is that the changes in this mod should have further impact on the situation in Burma. Let's see what it brings.

The situation in Burma is one of the motivations for experimenting with the stacking limits (??) so it's not a hijack. The thing about using the limits is it will incur (in theory) added supply and disruption penalties to large stacks of LCU's that try to move in on places like Burma despite the historical paucity (aka virtual absence short of air transport) of supply lines between India and Burma.

And the Maginot line in Burma can still be done with the latest patches

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 32

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 9:48:33 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
The situation in Burma is one of the motivations for experimenting with the stacking limits (??) so it's not a hijack. The thing about using the limits is it will incur (in theory) added supply and disruption penalties to large stacks of LCU's that try to move in on places like Burma despite the historical paucity (aka virtual absence short of air transport) of supply lines between India and Burma.

And the Maginot line in Burma can still be done with the latest patches

I do agree that is an excellent motivation and deserves to be cussed and discussed. That sort of discussion should continue and I encourage it. It really does help in determining SL numbers and is of great value.

Only moving it because the original topic needs to represented somewhere. When the self-absorbed and self-important come around to pee in their little corners, it's time to move the OP. Hopefully, the discussion can continue by simply ignoring the s-a/s-i .. um .. person.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 33

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 10:37:51 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Does this help with the problem in Burma where it seems the Allied player can replicate Slim's dry season 1944-45 offensive during the monsoon season of 1942? I assume it also helps in China.

These complaints keep popping up, but has anyone actually ever managed to do a large Burma invasion after the introduction of supply movement caps ? All the examples I know from the AAR forum are old games, started before the supply movement restrictions were patched in.

The last upgrade of the beta for us was 14 August 2011.

Smeulders is correct, those large scale invasions have not been demonstrated. It will be interesting to see what you do with yours, but in AE most IJ players have been able to cut off those early Allied offensives out of India by invading India. Andy Mac's AAR is recommended for a look at supply issues of large scale Allied offensives in Burma.

And of course, these modifications should have a major effect on things there too.

If so, what kept Japan from invading India in reality? The 1944 offensive died due to lack of supply.

? Sending 3 Divis to do 6 Divs work.

? ASSUMING the weak British and Indians would run away and leave enough supply for the conquering IJA

? Leaving a dolt like Mutaguchi in charge of troops

? Still believing that the IJA was invincible with its obsolete tactics and weapons.

(And they still got disturbingly close)

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 34

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/24/2011 8:15:20 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

Sorry about the hijack. The situation in Burma was supply-limited at best, and during the monsoon, the war shut down. The terrain, while not untracked, was very difficult for motorised vehicles. The Ledo Road was notable for being all-weather and having a pipeline alongside. All supply had to be trucked or carried in--no bulk transfer--so the proposed stacking limits make a lot of sense.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 35

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/24/2011 1:29:46 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

No worries Harry. This is good discussion material. Only moved the OP about implementation details.

Really would like to know what people are finding. Burma/India looks like a good test area. Solomons/New Guinea should be another (although I haven't seen many mega-stacks roaming through the jungles out that way).

Blackhorse is concerned this might make China too easy, now. We see the opposite in our games. Large offensives, by either side, tend to run out of steam more quickly. Our style of play is very different, so could use some input from people who play a more normal style.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 36

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/24/2011 3:51:05 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

No worries Harry. This is good discussion material. Only moved the OP about implementation details.

Really would like to know what people are finding. Burma/India looks like a good test area. Solomons/New Guinea should be another (although I haven't seen many mega-stacks roaming through the jungles out that way).

Blackhorse is concerned this might make China too easy, now. We see the opposite in our games. Large offensives, by either side, tend to run out of steam more quickly. Our style of play is very different, so could use some input from people who play a more normal style.

I guess I'd need to know what you consider a more normal style? I tend to have minimal operations in China, so maybe I am more normal.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 37

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/24/2011 3:56:59 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

No worries Harry. This is good discussion material. Only moved the OP about implementation details.

Really would like to know what people are finding. Burma/India looks like a good test area. Solomons/New Guinea should be another (although I haven't seen many mega-stacks roaming through the jungles out that way).

Blackhorse is concerned this might make China too easy, now. We see the opposite in our games. Large offensives, by either side, tend to run out of steam more quickly. Our style of play is very different, so could use some input from people who play a more normal style.

I'd need to kick off a new game to explore these issues. It would take about six months to a year of game time (about a year of playing, I suspect) to really get a feeling for the effects.

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 38

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/24/2011 3:58:28 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

No worries Harry. This is good discussion material. Only moved the OP about implementation details.

Really would like to know what people are finding. Burma/India looks like a good test area. Solomons/New Guinea should be another (although I haven't seen many mega-stacks roaming through the jungles out that way).

Blackhorse is concerned this might make China too easy, now. We see the opposite in our games. Large offensives, by either side, tend to run out of steam more quickly. Our style of play is very different, so could use some input from people who play a more normal style.

I guess I'd need to know what you consider a more normal style? I tend to have minimal operations in China, so maybe I am more normal.

It's hard to say, but I suspect normal Japanese operations try to take Chunking within one or two game years.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 39

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/24/2011 5:51:09 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
I guess I'd need to know what you consider a more normal style? I tend to have minimal operations in China, so maybe I am more normal.

Normal is just regular game-play. We do CPX style, with an umpire.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 40

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/24/2011 6:33:53 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

You've described what you do before, but what does CPX stand for? (I googled with no joy.)

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 41

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/24/2011 7:04:18 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
You've described what you do before, but what does CPX stand for? (I googled with no joy.)

A bit OT, but briefly; it stands for Command Post eXercise. 2 sides with an umpire. We adapt the technique for AE so that Side A moves and sends a raw file to the umpire along with a brief description of what's going on. The umpire may or may not monkey with the file, depending. Umpire then saves and sends to Side B. Side B then moves and sends a raw file to the umpire along with a brief description of what's going on. The umpire may or may not monkey with that file, depending. The umpire then sends the final file to A and B for them to run and see what happened.

This is a quick explanation. If people want to learn more, please start a new thread. It's actually a quite exciting way to play AE.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 42

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/24/2011 11:09:58 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

I've done TEWTS and miniatures like this, be nice to the umpire man!!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 43

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/26/2011 6:24:54 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Also think bases are best tweaked on a case by case. Stubs will work, and perhaps are necessary, to get the multipliers set up right, but certain bases will nevertheless need the base limits (BL) set manually. Lots of work, but still.

Using a bit of data manipulation in Excel I can change the values to account for base data fairly easily, and I currently think this might be the best approach. It would result in higher stacking values for most bases on the map, with the non-base hexes all retaining their original, "low" values. Small bases would not give a significant bonus, but large bases would.

My current thinking is that the bonus could be set to something like 5,000 points per point of port and airfield levels. So, for example, a base with port 5 and airfield 5 would provide a bonus of 50,000. As mentioned, these values would not change during the game, even if ports and/or airfields are built up, but I can live with that.

Andrew

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 44

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/26/2011 7:00:36 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Also think bases are best tweaked on a case by case. Stubs will work, and perhaps are necessary, to get the multipliers set up right, but certain bases will nevertheless need the base limits (BL) set manually. Lots of work, but still.

Using a bit of data manipulation in Excel I can change the values to account for base data fairly easily, and I currently think this might be the best approach. It would result in higher stacking values for most bases on the map, with the non-base hexes all retaining their original, "low" values. Small bases would not give a significant bonus, but large bases would.

My current thinking is that the bonus could be set to something like 5,000 points per point of port and airfield levels. So, for example, a base with port 5 and airfield 5 would provide a bonus of 50,000. As mentioned, these values would not change during the game, even if ports and/or airfields are built up, but I can live with that.

Andrew

That sounds like something you might query Michael on, as it changing in-game with base building is a really good idea if he can make it happen.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 45

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/26/2011 3:49:13 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

I'm just curious is this is something the end user can do, or does it require access to the code?

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 46

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/26/2011 7:02:18 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Using a bit of data manipulation in Excel I can change the values to account for base data fairly easily, and I currently think this might be the best approach. It would result in higher stacking values for most bases on the map, with the non-base hexes all retaining their original, "low" values. Small bases would not give a significant bonus, but large bases would.
Andrew

Um, not sure this is a good idea. Am sending you a pm as to why. In the meantime, please do not do the base account thing till we discuss this. You may, of course, do what you wish, but don't think this is good and I'll explain why off-line.

Ciao. John

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 47

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/26/2011 11:29:28 PM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Also think bases are best tweaked on a case by case. Stubs will work, and perhaps are necessary, to get the multipliers set up right, but certain bases will nevertheless need the base limits (BL) set manually. Lots of work, but still.

Using a bit of data manipulation in Excel I can change the values to account for base data fairly easily, and I currently think this might be the best approach. It would result in higher stacking values for most bases on the map, with the non-base hexes all retaining their original, "low" values. Small bases would not give a significant bonus, but large bases would.

My current thinking is that the bonus could be set to something like 5,000 points per point of port and airfield levels. So, for example, a base with port 5 and airfield 5 would provide a bonus of 50,000. As mentioned, these values would not change during the game, even if ports and/or airfields are built up, but I can live with that.

Andrew

That sounds like something you might query Michael on, as it changing in-game with base building is a really good idea if he can make it happen.

It sounds good in theory, but that would involve manipulating the map data values (which is where stacking limits are stored) during the course of a game, which is not a trivial task. So I don't think this is on the table right now or in the forseeable future...

Andrew

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 48

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/26/2011 11:42:04 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Also think bases are best tweaked on a case by case. Stubs will work, and perhaps are necessary, to get the multipliers set up right, but certain bases will nevertheless need the base limits (BL) set manually. Lots of work, but still.

Using a bit of data manipulation in Excel I can change the values to account for base data fairly easily, and I currently think this might be the best approach. It would result in higher stacking values for most bases on the map, with the non-base hexes all retaining their original, "low" values. Small bases would not give a significant bonus, but large bases would.

My current thinking is that the bonus could be set to something like 5,000 points per point of port and airfield levels. So, for example, a base with port 5 and airfield 5 would provide a bonus of 50,000. As mentioned, these values would not change during the game, even if ports and/or airfields are built up, but I can live with that.

Andrew

That sounds like something you might query Michael on, as it changing in-game with base building is a really good idea if he can make it happen.

It sounds good in theory, but that would involve manipulating the map data values (which is where stacking limits are stored) during the course of a game, which is not a trivial task. So I don't think this is on the table right now or in the forseeable future...

Andrew

I understand, but give him a chance to say that. He's already blasted through stuff I had previously thought was too much for the patch.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 49

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/27/2011 4:51:31 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I understand, but give him a chance to say that. He's already blasted through stuff I had previously thought was too much for the patch.

There's a lot of things that are going on, my friend, to define even the basic paradigm of this. Soon as it's set and understood, if there are any code hooks necessary, we'll be sure to ask for them.

Right now, ya'll might be grasping michaelm by the tail and having him wag a dog of indeterminate scope and quantity. Not goodnik. Let's get the dog defined first.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 50

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/27/2011 6:08:11 PM

bk19@mweb.co.za

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Let's get the dog defined first.

It ain't a dog yet.... it's not much more than a new born puppy ah reckons!!

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 51

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/27/2011 9:44:23 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I understand, but give him a chance to say that. He's already blasted through stuff I had previously thought was too much for the patch.

There's a lot of things that are going on, my friend, to define even the basic paradigm of this. Soon as it's set and understood, if there are any code hooks necessary, we'll be sure to ask for them.

Right now, ya'll might be grasping michaelm by the tail and having him wag a dog of indeterminate scope and quantity. Not goodnik. Let's get the dog defined first.

Understood - I just meant don't count him out without asking 'cause he is full of surprises (the good kind, not a 4th green cup full of pee!!!

He has good aim, that pooch.)

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 52

RE: Limited Stacking - 9/27/2011 9:48:43 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

I agree with JWE define first code second - this is not straight forward if for no other reason than it cannot be an exe fix as it cannnot apply to core scens without buggering up the AI so it has to be something for Babes (or other modders) so its not an easy thing to do so need to define carefully 1st then ask michael to work his magic

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 53