The need for logistics ground transport!!!

[Distiller]

I can't understand why there is no groundbased logistics in this game!

That is a SERIOUS deficit!

If it is not possible to include steam engines, waggons and trucks, then make it a simple push/pull affair with a wandering triangle as symbol (for example) which on mouse-over reads something like "xxx amount of supplies on trucks/rail on the march from xxx to yyy". And include "interdiction" in the aircraft menu.
How can you make a warsimulation and not include the possibility to attack the enemy's landbased logistics chain?
This really needs to be included. The automatic groundbased logistics is simply not satisfactory.

[AmiralLaurent]

Can't agree more than that.

[Bobthehatchit]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

Can't agree more than that.

Dont think you're gona get it though.

Best we can hope for is the ability to stop a base from drawing supply, whilst still allowing supplies to flow throught it. to a forward position, no point having 100,000 tons of supply at a base when troops are starving at the front.

[Distiller]

Could be done as "reverse" ships, or as a new regular ground unit.
The new unit would be best, only question is, if the land unit code supports load/unload ops.
Delete that auto-logistics system and model the landbased supply scheme along the naval scheme with those new "Logistics Support Units".
Shouldn't be that hard; it's like a land-ship with 500/1000 loads and 99999 range.

[Feinder]

Things you should never say in application developement...

"Transparent implementation."
"User friendly."
"Shouldn't be that hard."

And many, many others. You just jinxed yourself big-time.
-F-

[Ron Saueracker]

What would suffice is to add more detail to the base screens. Add a "transportation infrastructure" level like fortifications, airfields etc to the base and make it targetable. Can be developed, damaged, repaired etc and its size and repair state govern it's ability to send and receive supplies between adjacent bases. Like in Battle of Britain and Bombing the Reich. So many good design elements in these games which amazingly do not show up in WITP, a follow on game...or is it? [8D] Sometimes this game seems like it was designed many years before.

[Halsey]

I'd be happy if HQ's, other than the theatre ones, would draw some supplies. It would make them more useful.[;)]

[tsimmonds]

The SPI boardgame had Logistics Transport Units that could load up supply and move it by land. You could also trace an LOC to it. Those things were great.

[byron13]

I think this is going a little overboard. The game is already quite detailed; many (non-grogs) think too much so.

There are some problems with supply oozing to or from places we do not want it to, but the overall supply mechanics seem fine to me. It allocates supply fairly evenly over all units (something I gather you'd like to change, i.e., ability to supply priority units) and penalizes for excessive supply length. I don't see where what you're requesting adds much to the game.

I think Halsey is right when he states:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I'd be happy if HQ's, other than the theatre ones, would draw some supplies. It would make them more useful.[;)]

Implementing this would enable players to prioritize an assault area by stacking a Corps headquarters that attempts to draw, say, 5k or 10k supply points - if available - in a hex with units on the offensive.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Things you should never say in application developement...

"Transparent implementation."
"User friendly."
"Shouldn't be that hard."

And many, many others. You just jinxed yourself big-time.
-F-

Is that not always the case. Might I remind people of Leaders?

Land based transportation of goods is a great idea. Had it been part of the original design scope of the game, it would have been desiged *into* the game. Retrofitting something that major that touches on pretty much every aspect of the game after the fact is a huge undertaking. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

[byron13]

You know, the truth is, you'll obviously never get unanimous opionion on this - or anything else. Other people want more detail like land supply, rotating pilots home, super-detail damage on ships, production. Others want less detail, e.g., dump leaders, or are so scared off by the existing detail and scope of the game that they won't even buy it.

My vote is that current ground supply works well enough, though assigning lower level headquarters to draw supply like theater headquarters (though in a smaller amount) would permit a nice amount of supply tailoring capability. Changing supply is not going to improve the more fundamental inadequacies of the ground combat system that have already been ranted about and which affect the game more. I'd rather focus on tweaking the combat system that spending limited time on making an adequate supply system more detailed.

[tsimmonds]

My vote is that current ground supply works well enough, though assigning lower level headquarters to draw supply like theater headquarters (though in a smaller amount) would permit a nice amount of supply tailoring capability.

Surely one could consider this "simple"(?) It is a nice idea.

[ChezDaJez]

Basically, it was, I think. I believe it evolved from Gary's "Guadalcanal Campaign" originally developed for the Apple II computer. "Guadalcanal Campaign" was similar in scope to UV without the detail. If you think this map has errors, you should have seen that one. Everything (and I mean everything) was represented by square blocks similar to that found on graph paper LOL!

I lived about 3 blocks from SSI in Mt View, Ca and bought every one of his games; Guadalcanal Campaign, Bomb Alley, Fighter Command, North Atlantic '86, War in Russia...

People complain about the cost of games today... I paid $80 bucks for his "War in Russia" back then (1985ish). That would be like $125 today. All the other games cost $59.95 and came on 143K floppy disks.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

I don't mind it the way it is but I think an easy way to implement supply interdiction would be to allow the targeting of any rail or road hexes. Put a sufficient enough interdiction strike on the hex and no supplies get through that turn. Could even track transportation damage in that hex the way port and airfield damage is if you wanted more reality. No new units required.

Chez

[pasternakski]

The progenitor of UV was War in the South Pacific. Guadalcanal Campaign was part of a different thread of Grigsby games that included Bomb Alley. The differences in mechanics are quite noticeable, although the games are easily recognized as coming from the same designer (treatment of TFs is very similar, for example, but transport and bases are not).

WitSP was where the Japanese Death Star was born. When you played the American side, you basically hung around until that big, red meatball came cooking southward down the middle of the map toward Noumea (or whatever it was called in that game, I forget).

What you did was amass as much LBA (B26s and P39s) there as you could, and put every warship you had in the same hex. When the Japanese were a couple of days away, you disbanded everything into the port and became invisible. The Japanese would blunder onward until they were in range of your carrier planes out of Noumea, so you re-formed your TFs and fought it out, sitting under the LBA air cover. Most times, you beat 'em up badly enough that you could eventually launch a counteroffensive.

WitSP gave rise to the idea for PacWar, which, in turn, seeded WitP.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Land based transportation of goods is a great idea. Had it been part of the original design scope of the game, it would have been desiged *into* the game. Retrofitting something that major that touches on pretty much every aspect of the game after the fact is a huge undertaking. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

Not to be a spoilsport or anything, but I vote against (like this is a democracy in the fine tradition of the United Snakes of Iraq) this and all other nifty ideas for improvement until the game plays as it was intended in all aspects - without bugs.

[pfnognoff]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Land based transportation of goods is a great idea. Had it been part of the original design scope of the game, it would have been desiged *into* the game. Retrofitting something that major that touches on pretty much every aspect of the game after the fact is a huge undertaking. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

OK, I was following the other thread about togling on/off flow of supply, and I've noticed there that you were refering to supply requried level as being what engine is using when determining weather to move stuff arround or not.

Now we are talking about simple solutions, I don't know if this idea was mentioned before, but here it is:
Make that requried suply level field not display only but a propper entry/spin box where we the supreme commanders can say "Now you don't need 3000 supply, you can manage with only 1500 for the time being" That way engine isn't suffering, database structure stays the same and we have our so much wanted control.

[eMonticello]

I'm not big on separate supply units or a supply toggle. I would be more inclined to have a supply priority number between 1-10 that the computer would use to calculate the amount of supply sent to a base (roughly 10% to 100% requested). Of course, I don't expect to see anything like this since this is a change in design. Besides, I would like things that slow down the game, not speed it up.

[Halsey]

I was thinking more along the lines of 1000 for Corps and 2000 for Army HQ's. This would also help the Chinese pull supply to the front along the poor supply routes. The smaller supply pull would also keep forward support bases from being sucked dry every day. When combat units are marching they only carry so much in supplies, and supplies can only be hoarded at bases. This addition would help land combat outside of bases, and make it possible to do it with sustained effort.[:)]

[ChezDaJez]

Learn something new everyday.

I never got to play WitSP. I missed out on a lot of early gen PC games because I was a Apple and Mac fan until about 1998 when I finally got it through my thick skull that developers weren't going to make many decent games for the Mac and most of what they did publish were ported from the PC version with less than stellar results. The manuals still said "Right click on..."

A whole 10 years wasted waiting for that great MAC game...

Chez