RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

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: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

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 >> RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/3/2017 8:26:27 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

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.

The USA was not self-sufficient but most of what we didn't have came from South America, off map. Resources in CONUS largely went by train, although there was some coastwise shipping.

You should play the Allies. Nothing produced in either the UK or CT is needed.

But I'd be fine with shipping Resources and using LI. Just as soon as Japan can't move crude oil on mules across thousands of miles of Asian wilderness on magic highways.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 31

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/3/2017 8:32:40 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: szmike

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

Possibly the most elegant solution is the reduced cargo thing in Babes mod. The screenshot above is basically telling us that AKs transported in 1942 8M of non-military cargo vs 6,7M military cargo (our on game supplies and fuel). 10M vs 8,7M in 1943. 60% non military cargo (too lazy to calculate). Well, then reduce cargo capacity to make sure this 60% disappears.

If the proportion changes in let's say 1944 and/or 1945, upgrades could give more capacity to AKs. Problem more or less solved. The players experience the famous shipping shortages, as it should be IMHO.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to szmike)

Post #: 32

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/3/2017 8:49:41 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: szmike

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

Possibly the most elegant solution is the reduced cargo thing in Babes mod. The screenshot above is basically telling us that AKs transported in 1942 8M of non-military cargo vs 6,7M military cargo (our on game supplies and fuel). 10M vs 8,7M in 1943. 60% non military cargo (too lazy to calculate). Well, then reduce cargo capacity to make sure this 60% disappears.

If the proportion changes in let's say 1944 and/or 1945, upgrades could give more capacity to AKs. Problem more or less solved. The players experience the famous shipping shortages, as it should be IMHO.

Port Hueneme alone shipped over 20 million tons of materiel. It's not in the game per se.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 33

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/4/2017 4:36:59 AM

PizzaMan

Posts: 200
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline

For the Platinum Edition, I'm hoping to see Supply broken out in to four different types: Air Supply (fuel, bombs, and ammo), Naval Supply (Ammo, lubricants, etc, but not fuel), and Ground Unit Supply (weapons, ammo, etc), and Food & Medical (for all unit types - Air, Nava, and Ground). Transport/cargo TFs in port would have a % option for each type to load. Penalties would be applied for shortages of supply by type to units requiring a specific supply type. So forward bases with no Naval forces, or rear bases with no combat GCUs might require a different supply mixes. Of course, resources and fuel would remain the same.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 34

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/4/2017 5:34:12 AM

RogerJNeilson

Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

But I'd be fine with shipping Resources and using LI. Just as soon as Japan can't move crude oil on mules across thousands of miles of Asian wilderness on magic highways.

Seconded..... or drive their armoured formations through China stopping at convenient gas stations to fill up. The game is the way it is...

Roger

< Message edited by Roger Neilson 3 -- 4/4/2017 5:36:41 AM >

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 35

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/4/2017 1:39:52 PM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

quote:

But I'd be fine with shipping Resources and using LI. Just as soon as Japan can't move crude oil on mules across thousands of miles of Asian wilderness on magic highways.

Seconded..... or drive their armoured formations through China stopping at convenient gas stations to fill up. The game is the way it is...

Roger

I've had fun doing the same thing the 6th Gds tank army heading south. Those 500 L.L. diesel engined Shermans they sent over in '45 are rather useful - seems they run on bio-diesel.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to RogerJNeilson)

Post #: 36

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/4/2017 4:31:07 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

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. ....

I sure agree with this!

If the player establishes forward depots and assigns shorter ranged cargo ships to them, you can keep further bases in constant supply and risk at a minimum.You can also use those smaller CVE's to patrol the longer range and assigned supply lanes.

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 37

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/5/2017 11:09:42 AM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

Yup TULIUS, I had noted similar problems like you while playing Allies (scen2 vs. AI ie. the same scen as my PBM as IJ)... you might be interested in this thread from some weeks ago:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4259526

(but I not only refer to the Allied side there)

I copy my OP:
What do you mean, Alpha?

a) How much stuff the Allied side has on stockpile is insane (I mean supplies and fuel mostly), make it more rare and not have 3 Mio. supplies at SF and 2 Mio liter fuel at LA already in mid 42. Perhaps in 45 yup.

b) Make smaller ships more worthwile, higher VP count. Also AKLs, but mostly AM, SC, other small specialized vessels. It seems the game only counts material to build small craft but does not account for the crews.. ie. a minesweeper needs also a trained crew to operate good in its task. And this crew is worth more than the material to build the ship imho. Double the VPs for these craft. Than also players might think twice to send them out in harms way or even as sacrifices or bait.

c) Make cargo shipping more worthwhile, rare and less capable. I know in one of the mods this was already done. Means less capacity and perhaps also range. Many ormost of these ships were perhaps also employed for civilian matters stills and not in the war effort - so just distract 20-30% of numbers the players get, esp. on the Allied side. In mid 42 there is already so much shipping you do not really care about them. But the families of the crews might care....

d) Also slow down building a bit or make engs a bit more rare. As Allies I have maxed out airfields at Suva, Luganville in mid 42. As IJ at Rabaul, Soerabaya in late summer. It is imho too early to have such massive facilities so early.

Thanks for considering...i have 3-4 more points but these were already named longer ago in the forum. Perhaps I write them later but above seem to be the most pressing issues.

A small EDIT, as for 1. June 42, the numbers are even much higher than I wrote above, it is more close to 8 Mio supplies and 4 mio fuel at the WC plus 1,2 mio supplies at Sidney and 0,5 Mio at Capetown and 1,5 Mio+ sup+fuel in India This is stock scen2, when I checked SF this turn, I thought (hoped) my eyes would deceive me by 1 digit, but in fact it is MIO not hundred-thousand...

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/5/2017 1:39:36 PM >

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 38

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/5/2017 8:49:26 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

Interesting thoughts, ideas Alpha77

quote:

d) Also slow down building a bit or make engs a bit more rare.

This idea was already mentioned above: increase x20 or x100

times the construction time. I will disagree on this one, and here's why IMO.

The inmediate problem I see (taken from the real conflict). I had read the Espiritu Santo (Luganville) airfield was ready, in time when Guadalcanal was assaulted the 7 august. We're talking about the 11st Bombardment Group (B-17s). So I assume in game terms this means a 5 level airfield or 4 (reduced load, penalties).

It's not like engineers were sent 5 or 6 months earlier, to start an epic construction. When did they start? 2 months before Watchtower? The x20 thing would make the construction impossible. And yet the airfield was ready.

Besides, all the toys should be there (the construction engineers). So how to simulate this really fast construction? Perhaps huge -and I really mean huge- amounts of supplies should be needed. The shipping is already there, doing nothing -well, the crews are depleting San Francisco beer stocks- I started this thread because I think it's er ridiculous

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 4/5/2017 8:52:02 PM >

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 39

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/5/2017 10:50:53 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

But I'd be fine with shipping Resources and using LI. Just as soon as Japan can't move crude oil on mules across thousands of miles of Asian wilderness on magic highways.

Since I don't attempt to use the 'magic highway', if we ever play you must ship resources.

The reason I don't use it is the game provides no way to interdict such transfer, not that I don't think it couldn't be done. Although I doubt it could be done to the extent necessary. Not enough infrastructure in the region to accommodate everything.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 40

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/5/2017 10:55:01 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PizzaMan

For the Platinum Edition, I'm hoping to see Supply broken out in to four different types: Air Supply (fuel, bombs, and ammo), Naval Supply (Ammo, lubricants, etc, but not fuel), and Ground Unit Supply (weapons, ammo, etc), and Food & Medical (for all unit types - Air, Nava, and Ground). Transport/cargo TFs in port would have a % option for each type to load. Penalties would be applied for shortages of supply by type to units requiring a specific supply type. So forward bases with no Naval forces, or rear bases with no combat GCUs might require a different supply mixes. Of course, resources and fuel would remain the same.

Awe dude, the game takes long enough to play. If I gotta count 'bullets and beans' I'll never get a turn done. I'm out if that ever happens. Abstraction is the players' friend.

_____________________________

(in reply to PizzaMan)

Post #: 41

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/5/2017 11:19:25 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Interesting thoughts, ideas Alpha77

quote:

d) Also slow down building a bit or make engs a bit more rare.

This idea was already mentioned above: increase x20 or x100 times the construction time. I will disagree on this one, and here's why IMO.

The inmediate problem I see (taken from the real conflict). I had read the Espiritu Santo (Luganville) airfield was ready, in time when Guadalcanal was assaulted the 7 august. We're talking about the 11st Bombardment Group (B-17s). So I assume in game terms this means a 5 level airfield or 4 (reduced load, penalties).

It's not like engineers were sent 5 or 6 months earlier, to start an epic construction. When did they start? 2 months before Watchtower? The x20 thing would make the construction impossible. And yet the airfield was ready.

Besides, all the toys should be there (the construction engineers). So how to simulate this really fast construction? Perhaps huge -and I really mean huge- amounts of supplies should be needed. The shipping is already there, doing nothing -well, the crews are depleting San Francisco beer stocks- I started this thread because I think it's er ridiculous

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ci0OHrZ64

Watch from 19:30 on.

Yes, they really were that fast. There really was that much stuff.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 42

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/7/2017 5:21:10 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Thanks for that. I often forget how staggering the logistics effort was and what it accomplished.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 43

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/7/2017 6:48:55 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Interesting thoughts, ideas Alpha77

quote:

d) Also slow down building a bit or make engs a bit more rare.

This idea was already mentioned above: increase x20 or x100 times the construction time. I will disagree on this one, and here's why IMO.

The inmediate problem I see (taken from the real conflict). I had read the Espiritu Santo (Luganville) airfield was ready, in time when Guadalcanal was assaulted the 7 august. We're talking about the 11st Bombardment Group (B-17s). So I assume in game terms this means a 5 level airfield or 4 (reduced load, penalties).

It's not like engineers were sent 5 or 6 months earlier, to start an epic construction. When did they start? 2 months before Watchtower? The x20 thing would make the construction impossible. And yet the airfield was ready.

Besides, all the toys should be there (the construction engineers). So how to simulate this really fast construction? Perhaps huge -and I really mean huge- amounts of supplies should be needed. The shipping is already there, doing nothing -well, the crews are depleting San Francisco beer stocks- I started this thread because I think it's er ridiculous

The level-5 at Espiritu Santo stand for two fighter strips, three bomber strips and a seaplane base which have been construced IRL on that island during the war.

But it 's not like the level 5 airbase at Espiritu Santo has been build in two months and was ready in time of the Guadalcanal invasion to support an entire HB group, plus fighters , patrol and transport planes.

All facilities except Fighter One have been constructed AFTER the Guadalcanal landings.

Fighter One was barely ready to allow for the take-off of a handful of B-17s in time for the Guadalcanal landings. It did not support the entire 11th HB Group, but only the 26th Bomb Squadron. Facilities were pretty basic, the B-17s preparing and supporting the Guadalcanal invasion had to be refueled from drums.

Construction times in AE seems to take into account only runway construction. A base also needed taxiways, revetments, hangars, repair facilities, weapon shops and storage, ammo dumps, fuel tanks, command and communication facilities, medical facilities, accomodation, kitchen and messing, laundries, water and electricity supply, officer and enlisted men clubs and other recreational facilities, and what else. Usually construction activities continued long after the runways were ready to be used.

All this is heavily abstracted in the game. Furthermore, runways and facilities also need upkeep and maintenance by construction troops for wear-and-tear by use and deterioration from the elements - not modelled in the game.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 44

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game) - 4/7/2017 8:18:04 PM

MakeeLearn