Nationality blinders

[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 sake of 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.

[Chickenboy]

Agree with all points. Of course, it should quickly be pointed out that the Japanese should suffer similar (maybe even greater?) restrictions based on the historic enmity between the IJA and IJN. A mod that adequately dealt with all of these concerns would be quite interesting.

For your USN/RN/Dutch submarine torp interchangeability example, this is largely a matter of different kit for the different services. For the IJN/IJA this was more a matter of 'political' will / rampant mistrust. In this case, perhaps a 2-3x PP penalty for IJN units operating off of an IJA HQ base (or vice-versa)? Or restrictive theaters based upon which service 'owns' the base?

[dr.hal]

Thanks for responding Chickenboy and yes, certainly PPs would come into play (again the honor system). Also for torpedoes, etc., foreign subs could undergo their first "refit" and be modified to fire US torpedoes, but again this addresses only a few of the multitude of logistical concerns that must have kept many a supply officer awake at night. I really am only asking after how some of the players have actually tackled the most egregious supply/equipment anomalies.

[kbfchicago]

I don't think this could be addressed as mod. Seem to recall some prior forum discussions around this topic and the developers opting for "game" over "simulation". Likely a good call. I would be up for a much more restrictive environment but not sure the general gaming public would buy in.

Have not used self imposed cross nationality restrictions as Allied, I would definitely be up for that. As noted, it would have to be purely honor system. Would also want some IJ restrictions between Army/Navy and perhaps enforced development of some the less successful airframes to off set. Don't know enough about the issue to speculate on what that divide would look like for IJ.

Would appreciate hearing from those who have studied this theater on what a set of more historical limitations (beyond just the technical ones like munitions) might look like.

Kevin

[dr.hal]

Well I'm certainly not suggesting throwing out the baby with the bath water, so I would think a mod would be as far as I would suggest going. But I too am interested in learning how some folks take this challenge on. I think you're right Kevin, this should remain a simulation, but as suggested above some of us like the realism of this game and the more often we could "half the distance to the (realism) wall" would be of interest. I do believe that some fixes, both tactical and strategic, might be possible within the "mod" capabilities of some computer program type folks.

[Alfred]

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.

Not possible with existing game engine ergo no mod can achieve it.

There are a limited number of ingame abstractions (they generally are not noticed by players) which go a very limited way along this path if combined with self imposed player HRs.

Alfred

[dr.hal]

I agree Alfred, no mod "can achieve it" if "it" is the elimination of this problem. My quire is really far short of that. What have players done to "approach it" rather than achieve it. I would settle for far less than perfection, as we all must. Again, I was and am interested in what players have done to try and reduce this "imperfection" in an otherwise laudable game. HRs are one thing, and they can go far (as you indicate), as long as the policing mechanism is within all who participate. But this doesn't achieve much if the confidence level is low. Coded mechanisms would help. Now this might be naive of me, but, for example, would attaching a code to a nationality of a vessel so as to prevent rearming from other national vessels be possible, allowing only same national vessels/ports this option?

As I'm sure you have deduced, programing is not something that I know anything about. But I do suspect that such a move is much more difficult than a superficial examination would uncover!!! Thus this concern exists! But hope springs eternal, once in a while!

Nice to hear from you Alfred, thanks and happy new year! Hal

[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  

[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?

[witpqs]

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.

[Alfred]

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?

Everyone missed that conversation as it was not conducted on the public Matrix forum for the precise reason I did not want to fan the flames of criticism. There is too much of it as it is. Notwithstanding what people say there has been very little actual constructive criticism since the release of AE.

I've never said that AE is perfect. What I have consistently said is that it is not my right nor that of all the petty, ill informed and illogical critics to impose our invalid choices. Just about every criticism levelled at the devs is about a judgement call. The devs deserve to have all their judgement calls respected especially when the critics take no account of context, game design limitations, commercial considerations and the fact the world does not orbit around their personal annus. The editor exists for all those critics to create their own fantasy mods.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

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

[witpqs]

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.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: witpqs

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

Interesting. How much would it cost to convert HMS Victorious to use US planes, as done historically?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

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.

It is always driven by nationalities. Base ownership per se is not relevant hence why overland auto movement of supplies is not captured. However, what can flow from base ownership is ownership of the industrial facilities located inside the base and therefore who gets to "print" the currency.

For context consider the Burmese bases as at 7 December 1941. IRL, their industrial facilities (as defined by the existing game model) contributed to the overall GDP of the British Empire. Accordingly they would generate pounds sterling. Assume that during the course of 1942 the IJA 15th Army conquers all of Burma. Japan now acquires those industrial facilities as per the existing model (size manpower centres are reduced, oil centres damaged etc) and accordingly yen would now be produced, not sterling.

The difficulty for the Allied player then arises if Burma is recaptured using American or Chinese LCUs. Some of the recaptured bases then are automatically assigned to an American HQ assignment. Who then "owns" the recaptured industrial facilities? If "owned" by the Americans then they would print $USD, not pounds sterling. This would handicap the British Empire war effort and not reflect real world GDP. To avoid this problem, there are two solutions.

1. Disregard the nationality of the HQ to which the base is assigned to. Here one relies on the initial hard coded base assignment which never changes. Or,

2. Devolve responsibility to the player to ensure the underlying industrial facilities are "owned" by the right currency bloc by expending PPs to get the base assignment right.

At first glance option 1 above would appear to be the simplest but it carries the seeds of bugs by interfering with the existing code for determining HQ assignment for captured bases. These potential bugs are avoided with option 2 and hence less coding effort would be required.

Remember the entire currency transaction cost is COD. The nationality of the "purchasing" unit pays with its currency, the nationality of the selling bloc is paid in its own currency at a fixed exchange rate. Most transactions in fact involve no "selling" as they are conducted entirely within the same trading bloc. So when a RAF Hurricane squadron purchases 5 replacement Hurricanes, it pays sterling and the global sterling pool (aka bank) is reduced by that sterling amount; there would be no influx of sterling into the global sterling pool/bank. However if the scenario designer had allowed that squadron to upgrade to an American plane (as some Australian and Dutch squadrons currently are allowed to upgrade to an aircraft of a different nationality), if the squadron was upgraded to the American aircraft, at that point (when COD occurs) sterling would be spent by the buyer (the sterling bank decreased) and the dollar bank increased (at the fixed exchange rate) because the seller is the dollar bloc.

Alfred

[zeezeeazeezee]

Tracking the location of the various types of torpedoes and 6" and up naval ammunition would get the job done, but it would take a lot of programming effort.

Something more feasible would be to add pools for the various types of torpedoes and 6" and up naval ammunition and have large enough ports draw specific types from these pools the way Air HQs draw torpedoes now. Ports would draw their nation's ammunition types and be able to add a second nation for serious PP. Ships, boats, and tenders would then draw their specific type from a qualifying port. It would be possible to re-base the Dutch navy to Colombo, for a price. AS, AE, AKE would no longer have an infinite capacity, and would need to reload. It still requires some programming (not a mod), but not much: probably just a mod to make the pools, code (and database change) to draw devices to a port, code (and database changes wrt AS, AE, AKE) to load devices from a port instead of the old way from supply. That's it. It would be nice if after issuing a draw order it would take a week to a month for the stuff to arrive.

To keep the number of pools down, a nation's 6" pool could reload any type of 6" gun that nation has, etc.
Ammunition shortages would develop from misallocation.

Just an observation. I'm not advocating.

If the game is ever re-coded, it would add a lot of realism to track the location of torpedoes, mines, naval ammunition down to 6in, spare planes, uninstalled ship radars, and unassigned officers.

[Alfred]

My understanding of the existing code is that tracking of devices is not possible and can not be implemented with the current engine.
 
The naval design team for AE did consider having pools for certain weapons (torpedoes was high on the list).  They however came to the conclusion that this could not be implemented with the existing engine.  Whether a couple of more years of development time would have adequately addressed the difficulties was never publicly disclosed.
 
Alfred

[Yaab]

The simple solution would have been to introduce four different national supply pools:

US/Phillipine/Chinese
Commonwealth
Dutch
Soviet

Once the Dutch are eliminated, you are basically dealing with two supply pools: USA and Commonwealth.

Basically, if Japs land in Australia, and USA units go to Oz to help in her defence, they need to bring their US-made supplies. If Brits venture into China they need to bring their own supplies etc.

Basically, on each base screen you would have four different supplies pools instead of the universal one. On Cargo/Amphib TF screen you would have the option to load one of four kinds of supplies etc.

I try to implement national supply in my games against the Japanese AI. For example, since the Dutch have no additional external source for their national supply, the only way I can boost Dutch supply is to send resources from Sale, Australia to Batavia in anticipation of a long siege there, so the Dutch LI/HI in Batavia can produce supply even if the local Res centers stop producing resources. If I want to send Commowealth/US units to Java, I need to bring Commonwealth/USA supplies there.

[WingCmdr]

This is a good discussion of where the game design can go; great idea’s.

However for the wonky grognards there are in game solutions. Each major nation has its own AS, AD ships and numerous Aks that can convert to AG, AKE ships. Each player can then use each nations ships to re-arm its own ships. ie: the US AS ships can only resupply US subs etc. Not hard to track as the numbers of support ships is small, and based on Nationality. It is a self policing (leaky) rule when it comes to port size and re-supply. You can also make Ports size 7 and larger as "International" resupply ports.

Extra attention to detail that is done anyway, and a good in-game solution to increase historical accuracy.

[AW1Steve]

I really do get a feeling that you guys are trying to manufacture a problem that probably didn't exist in real life. For subs , you are talking 3 nations, the Dutch , British and US. Have any of you looked into who built the Dutch subs , or provided many of the same systems. And has anyone looked at the size of the torpedo tube of each country? Here's a hint: the answer to all the questions is the same. 21 inches.

Lost of the Dutch systems were built by the British , as were some of the subs. Also , many of the British weapons were also built under license by the Australians. And Australia had a pretty good existing manufacturing base all on its own. How difficult do you think , with technical assistance and advisors from the US and Britain to set up production in Australia? If necessary. I'd imagine that it was easier to simply refit the Dutch boats to simply use USN torpedoes.

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. In the USN they are done by a shore based SIMA unit or a sea based tender, be it a AD,AR,AS or AV. That's why older ships (and aircraft too) are more expensive to maintain that ships and aircraft in production. That's why Navies scrap ships with seemingly long life ahead of them (and replace F-14's with less capable F-18c's).


Sailors are amazing at being adaptable. I find it absolutely believable that Dutch subs used allied torpedoes. But the INJ and the IJA cooperating? Not a chance on hell! [:D]