Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 5/31/2003 7:13:37 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		One of the things I hope WitP addresses is the fact that smaller ports always had a backlog at unloading supplies, Noumea was one of the classics of this, with ships swinging at anchor simply because equipment outweighed the ability of the cranes to lift off the ships. Additionally, there are a finite number of piers and cranes available to offload/onload ships. This should be reflected in the game as *this* type of factor over all others will truely govern how the game will unfold as he who manages his logistics tail is going to be the master, not he who has the better toys.

It would be nice if supplies actually weighed something and would add some serious reality to the logisitics nightmare faced with all the smaller ports at getting the goods (of which there were plenty) into the fight.

As it is sitting in UV, we are in dreamland completely. Fuel limits are one thing that will be shown in WitP from what I have seen, but fuel is one small part of the overall nightmare of logistics.

As an Example:

You want them B-17's fixed, too bad, the engines are stuck on the ship until you upgrade the port to size 6 (crane big enough to unload them). You want to bomb at low level, sorry, we are all out of stock on proper bomb fuses. SYS damage repairs should take PARTS to fix, which must be transported from the State or machined in shops locally (machining shops must be built, not magically be in every port).

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 61
- 5/31/2003 7:34:08 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		Mr. Frag, while I am sure you are ready, willing and capable of handling such a large scale game with such detailed logistics, I fear it will lose the bulk of us in myriad details and forgotten steps. Such logistical matters as parts, number of cranes,etc must be dealt with conceptually: a size 9 base will give you everything, a size 8 base will allow you up to so an so. WitP will lose alot of buyers because of the logistical complexity otherwise.

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 62
- 5/31/2003 7:58:50 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Drex :D

GG is asking us to invest a few years of our life into WitP as that is the scope of a full campaign. When looking at something that large, one really needs to evaluate the features.

Logistics won WW II completely in all theaters.

It was the first war where Logistics actually played a major part.

It was the first war where efforts were made to cripple the Logistics of the enemy (the invention of Strategic Bombing).

While I know there is obviously a finite level one can get down to in handling this as we don't have a few thousand clerks to help us play the game, I would hope that this overall key issue is given it's proper respect.

UV is a great game, but it stops just short because logistics are too simplified.

I hope some middle ground can be reached so we are made to feel the realities of this. Perhaps it could be a feature that was a toggle for those who really want to re-live the war.

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 63
- 5/31/2003 8:15:48 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Drex :D

GG is asking us to invest a few years of our life into WitP as that is the scope of a full campaign. When looking at something that large, one really needs to evaluate the features.

Logistics won WW II completely in all theaters.

It was the first war where Logistics actually played a major part.

It was the first war where efforts were made to cripple the Logistics of the enemy (the invention of Strategic Bombing).

While I know there is obviously a finite level one can get down to in handling this as we don't have a few thousand clerks to help us play the game, I would hope that this overall key issue is given it's proper respect.

UV is a great game, but it stops just short because logistics are too simplified.

I hope some middle ground can be reached so we are made to feel the realities of this. Perhaps it could be a feature that was a toggle for those who really want to re-live the war. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think logistics must be given the attention necessary. The reason that I got hooked on PacWar in the first place was the attention paid to logisitics. Any wargame at that level which does not have logistics as a major portion is "missing the boat".

Direction and management of campaigns was more a function of logisitcs than anything else. And logistical considerations weighed heavily in stategic decisions.

But if we do not have an adequate logistics "Staff" we will go nuts.

In UV logistics is far too important to be left to the AI, simply because logisitics management is key to successful military operations at operational level and above. The computer routines in UV are abysmal with a few exceptions for assisting the player run his logistical support. PacWar did that much better.

So more detail would be good if the corresponding management tools exist. If not, than it will be too much like work!

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 64
A GOOD POINT OR TWO. - 5/31/2003 9:41:07 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]One of the things I hope WitP addresses is the fact that smaller ports always had a backlog at unloading supplies, Noumea was one of the classics of this, with ships swinging at anchor simply because equipment outweighed the ability of the cranes to lift off the ships. Additionally, there are a finite number of piers and cranes available to offload/onload ships. This should be reflected in the game as *this* type of factor over all others will truely govern how the game will unfold as he who manages his logistics tail is going to be the master, not he who has the better toys.

It would be nice if supplies actually weighed something and would add some serious reality to the logisitics nightmare faced with all the smaller ports at getting the goods (of which there were plenty) into the fight.

As it is sitting in UV, we are in dreamland completely. Fuel limits are one thing that will be shown in WitP from what I have seen, but fuel is one small part of the overall nightmare of logistics.

While I think getting down to the point of WHAT is/can be
unloaded is a bit much, Port Backlog was a real problem in the
Pacific Campaign. At least a simplified version of reflecting the
actual capacity of ports to handle cargo needs to be included.

The simpliest would be using port size as a multiplier---a lvl 9
port could unload 9 times as much in a day as a level 1. Some
varient of this should be easily programable. A more involved
variation might add limits to what could be supportted out of
a certain sized base---something like to support a certain sized
airbase requires a certain sized port. I'm sure other variations
will come to mind..., but the important thing is to give the
logistical infrastructure a more promenent role in game play.

As an Example:

You want them B-17's fixed, too bad, the engines are stuck on the ship until you upgrade the port to size 6 (crane big enough to unload them). You want to bomb at low level, sorry, we are all out of stock on proper bomb fuses. SYS damage repairs should take PARTS to fix, which must be transported from the State or machined in shops locally (machining shops must be built, not magically be in every port). [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 65
- 5/31/2003 9:41:50 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		Mr. Frag amd Denisohn:

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 66
I HAD A MESSAGE ATTACHED TO THAT QUOTE... - 5/31/2003 9:43:59 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		AND I DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHERE IT WENT. MATRIX???

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 67
- 5/31/2003 10:14:00 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		Dammit My wife interrupted my reply, and if it weren't for 20 years of marriage it would be grounds for divorce! Anyhow, its difficult for me to argue against two grognards like Denisohn and Mr. Frag, but as an average player ,the ability to manage the logistics that you describe for all the bases involved in the Pacific War is overwhelming. I am not disputing your eagerness and abiltity to manage this information but I doubt if the the rest of us can accommodate it. Maatrix wants to present a challenging game but still one that has a decent learning curve. Even UV needs an experienced player to help a newbie.

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 68
- 5/31/2003 10:17:34 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]Dammit My wife interrupted my reply, and if it weren't for 20 years of marriage it would be grounds for divorce! Anyhow, its difficult for me to argue against two grognards like Denisohn and Mr. Frag, but as an average player ,the ability to manage the logistics that you describe for all the bases involved in the Pacific War is overwhelming. I am not disputing your eagerness and abiltity to manage this information but I doubt if the the rest of us can accommodate it. Maatrix wants to present a challenging game but still one that has a decent learning curve. Even UV needs an experienced player to help a newbie. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is why we have this wonderful forum:D

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 69
- 5/31/2003 10:20:21 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		See Drex, thats your problem, I already got rid of the wife so I'd have time for WitP :D

Get your priorities right will ya! :D

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 70
- 5/31/2003 10:45:10 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		Once I get her to accept UV ( she almost has) it will be an easy transition to WitP.

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 71
- 6/1/2003 2:31:46 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		1 hour turn to 10 hour turn? I think not, pre-plan the bag packing and shop for lawers now. Be prepared! :eek:

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 72
- 6/1/2003 3:21:02 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		Why waste money on a lawyer? In California its 50-50 settlement, you can do it for $200. I've done it before you see.;)

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 73
BACK TO LOGISTICS. - 6/1/2003 6:14:05 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Before Frag and Drex get down to murdering each other's
wifes, can we get back to the point? Frag is right in that port
backlogs and unloading difficulties were a Key element of the
Pacific Campaign. And while some of his ideas on how to reflect
this are a bit extreme, some reflection would certainly make
WitP a more accurate Simulation.

How about a more simple approach? Something that limited
both the number of ships and the amount of cargo that could
be unloaded based on the size of the Port Facilities? If a level
One Port can unload no more than 1-2 ships at a time while a
Level Nine can handle a couple dozen, you could certainly reflect
the "port backlog" situation. For a further reflection of realities,
a Level One might only get to land 1-2,000 points per ship per
day (reflects the difficulty of "lightering" ashore materials with
a limited port infrstructure); while a Level Nine port could empty
a ship in a day (reflecting plenty of warfage and dock space,
additional cranes and storage facilities, more longshoremen, etc)

This would introduce the problems of trying to support an
"unlimited" attack through a "limited" port, and make specialized
amphipious warfare shipping more valuable as it has less need
of port facilities for landing men and material. Give those LST's
and Barges more of a role, and maybe cut back on the use of
large numbers of heavy bombers flying from micro-dot facilities.
Best part is it could be hard coded into the game. If a player
wanted to sail 8 Merchantmen at a time into a level One port,
he could do so..., but it might take them a month before they
were all unloaded whereas in a level 5 Port they would be empty
and ready to sail in a week or so.

I'm not claiming this is more than off the top of my head in the
numbers..., but the idea would seem to answer the problem with
out imposing a lot of extra player burden. THOUGHTS?

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 74
- 6/1/2003 6:25:16 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		I don't know to what extent, but isn't this already built into UV? I mean doesn't it already take longer to offload at a level one than a level 9?

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 75
SEEMS TO.... - 6/1/2003 6:36:50 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex
[B]I don't know to what extent, but isn't this already built into UV? I mean doesn't it already take longer to offload at a level one than a level 9? [/B][/QUOTE]

....But it doesn't seem to limit the number of ships, and the
amounts loaded/unloaded don't seem to vary by as large an
extent as I'm describing.

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 76
- 6/1/2003 9:03:54 PM   
Bradman

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		While I've never played him, I chose to beat Raver, metophorically speaking.

It really has to be a game for me. Of course, keep it as close as possible to history, but don't go overboard with the academic precision.

If the game is one sided like the actual war was, more would get bored with it, and stop playing. What good would a game unplayed be then?

So, my vote is on giving the Japs a little leg up here and there, just enough to allow one to beat the same (good) player from either side.

Just a humble opinion from a PBM greenhorn :)

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 77
- 6/1/2003 9:59:49 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Mike, thats one way of handling it and would probably work out without over complicating things. I'm not suggesting I have the *cure*, just stating that it did play a huge role in the war and overlooking it would be wrong.

It is historical fact that ships swung at anchor at Noumea for months simply due to the fact that the gantry cranes were not big enough to unload parts on the ships that arrived. This was complicated by the fact that manifests were not clear enough to indicate what crates needed to unloaded to get what parts. This added the nightmare of not even knowing the status of what was actually available from a supply standpoint.

Now, Noumea at the start of UV's time is a size 6 port, not a little port by UV standards. I believe according to sources I have seen, it was rated at being about to unload 21 ships per day but it fell far short.

Your idea of simply working the math that x ships can be handled per day and rest sit at anchor might just be the quickest way of dealing with this. Not knowing how WitP has handled docks, I saw some kind of repair screenshots, is it possible that just as it seems there are drydocks for ship repairs that there could be piers for unloading (fits your x ships = x piers concept) and damage to the port would disable 1 or more of these piers thereby imposing a very real effect on logistics, that of TIME.

Ships could be unloaded over the beachs (invasion type) or properly unloaded in port. The *rush* job at the beach should impose a 20% loss penalty (similar to the fast unload rule in UV).

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 78
ONE OTHER REASON - 6/1/2003 10:12:44 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Another thing that is often overlooked in the "loading/
unloading" discussion is that on an awful lot of locations
in the Pacific there was nowhere to put material when it
was unloaded. Not a lot of warehouse space at Port Moresby,
or Rabaul, or Numea because there was no need for it until
the war. Many of the ships that "swung at anchor" in the
South Pacific were being (wastefully) used as floating ware-
houses. Problem was that if you just stack things in the open
in a tropical zone they tend to rust, rot, or decay pretty fast.

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 79
Re: ONE OTHER REASON - 6/2/2003 12:35:17 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]Another thing that is often overlooked in the "loading/
unloading" discussion is that on an awful lot of locations
in the Pacific there was nowhere to put material when it
was unloaded. Not a lot of warehouse space at Port Moresby,
or Rabaul, or Numea because there was no need for it until
the war. Many of the ships that "swung at anchor" in the
South Pacific were being (wastefully) used as floating ware-
houses. Problem was that if you just stack things in the open
in a tropical zone they tend to rust, rot, or decay pretty fast. [/B][/QUOTE]

And fuel storage and handling was an even bigger problem. The amount of shipping that the USN and IJN poured into the area without a great deal of land based storage capacity is one of the reason the US sees so many AOs in the early months of the war until adequate fuel storage capaicity was constructed.

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 80
Shameless self-adulation - 6/2/2003 5:36:35 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]And fuel storage and handling was an even bigger problem. The amount of shipping that the USN and IJN poured into the area without a great deal of land based storage capacity is one of the reason the US sees so many AOs in the early months of the war until adequate fuel storage capaicity was constructed. [/B][/QUOTE]

On this and other fuel issues also see [URL]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31004[/URL]

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 81
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953