Fuel issue.

[Ron Saueracker]

What was decided guys? There was a ton of discussion, lot's of good points. I'm curious.

[juliet7bravo]

Something I don't like is the way fuel overall is handled in PW (and probably UV/WiTP). You can dump 100,000 tons of fuel (or whatever the cap limit is) in drums on a 0/0 atoll, and still conduct refueling operations.

"Bare nekkid" 1X bases should have a "reasonable" limit for stored fuel in drums. Their overall fuel storage capacity should increase correspondingly with airfields/ports size due to tanks/bunkerage being constructed. Fuel storage expansion should be incremental based on the airbase/port size. Fuel storage should be X+Y+Z= fuel capacity, with X=1X base global limit, Y=airfield size, Z=port size

Bases without actual ports size 2 or above shouldn't be able to refuel ships of (for the sake of argument) DD size or bigger at all...you're not going to refuel a DD or the Yamamoto either one from 55 gal. drums.

Larger ships should be constrained to refueling from (1) other ships, (2) tankers/AO's/fuel barges, (3) ports size 2X

Which brings us to a new "ship class"...fuel barges. Most forward bases (Rabaul, Truk, Midway, Wake as examples I believe) used fuel barges to augment their on-shore fuel storage capacity. Could effectively be a very slow tanker (speed equivalent to being towed) able to be moved to forward bases and staged there. Probably not workable though...AI would want to treat them as tankers I'm sure.

It's really not realistic to have multiple forward bases with a zillion tons of fuel stacked up in 55 gal. drums where coolies busily top off the Yamamoto with a barrel pump. Commanders wanting to forward deploy large amounts of fuel for combat ops should have to dedicate the tankers/fuel barges to remain on station to store the fuel over and above a reasonable base capacity...not just zip a slew of tankers forward and pump it into the harbor where the ships just toss a hose over the side and suck it up while the tankers go back for another load.

Other thoughts for WiTP...For that matter, bases should be able to take damage (reduced in size) from airstrikes/bombardment to simulate infrastructure damage to the tank farms/fuel distro net, repair and cargo handling facilities. It should, however, take some serious pounding to permanently (ie. take engineers to rebuild) reduce the size of an airfield/port. Port size should be reflected in cargo handling and refueling speed as well.

You should be able to direct your engineers to work on either air fields or ports...not just take what they give you.

Possibly repair ships, various tenders, crane ships, dry docks, and fuel barges could be "plugged in" to bases to increase their capabilities, and "unplugged" when you want to move them elsewhere? Bases could have fuel, patrol boat, seaplane, sub, repair and cargo handling ratings based on their port size, but these ratings could be upgraded by adding these units?

Ignore me...I'm just ranting, it's either that or buckle down and do some actual work...

[11Bravo]

I enjoyed your rant and learned some things about realistic naval operations. I have only recently become interested in the navy side of things, and most of my reading concentrates on the glamorous stuff like fighting, and ignores the gritty business of operations, like the refueling operations.

Good stuff. I hope it gets listened to.

[juliet7bravo]

Anyone know what the difference is between an "oiler" and a "fleet tanker"? An oiler is optimized with underweigh refueling booms?

[Marine]

Good stuff on the fuel issue, can make u or break u. Hope its thought about to the degree it effects things.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Nice point about refueling from 50 gallon drums ported from the beach. Right now, refueling costs operation points (sailing time). I am not sure if it takes more points to refuel from a smaller port (or no port at all). I will look into this. We may make operation points spent refueling dependant on port size for WiP, if it is not already.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

[juliet7bravo]

No problem...you might also look into underweigh replenishment. UNREP specialized ships can be broken down into; Fuel, Supply, and A/C. TF's doing UNREP should get a break in the "cost" if they're doing it from a replenish TF containing those specialized vessels (as applicable). From the AAR's, UNREP is apparently time consuming...which is good. But by giving players a break in the "cost", if they use the appropriate specialized supply ship, you're placing a tactical value and overall game importance on those ships optimized for UNREP...ie. a fleet tanker/AO cutting UNREP refueling "cost" by 50% vs. a replenish TF with TK's and MCH's/AP's.

The base idea is also excellent for WiTP...even more so for the UV engine since UV is more focused, but it's a little late in the game. Bases should have the following values; submarine, refueling, seaplane, PT boat (any high speed PC), repair (includes barge repair and dry docks), and cargo handling. All bases would have generic values for these assigned globally based on base size and nationality. Each value affects specific ship classes/functions accordingly. But plugging a special purpose ship(s) into the base would raise the appropriate value accordingly. Basic idea being, you could take a 1/1 base and immediately have a forward support base in action with a limited ability in whatever task(s) was required. It'd be realistic, historical, and really darn cool.

(1) Submarine; Submarine depot ship...affects sub turn-around times/crew morale due to having the torp reloads available pre-serviced, machine shops, specialized personnel, sub specific spares, and ice cream.

(2) Fuel time; fuel barges/small tankers...affects port refueling speeds by acting as floating fuel docks, movable fuel lighters.

(3) Seaplane; Seaplane tender...converts any 1/1 base into seaplane base by providing spares, AVGAS, repair facilities, mechanics and other specialized personnel. In game terms, you wouldn't need to provide base forces to operate seaplanes if a tender was present.

(4) PT boat; PT & PC boat tender...provides AVGAS, repair facilities, spares, engine shop, A/C engine mechanics, hull repairs. Could be treated like coastal subs, ie. PT boats (and similiar types) would have to operate based from a tender within a certain operational radius or lose serious effectiveness, suffer higher mechanical casualty rate, and loss of morale. This would still allow re-fueling from forward bases. PT boats should only be able to refuel from a PT boat/Seaplane tender or a base...not from a ship or TK to simulate needing AVGAS.

(5) Repair; Repair ship...provides on ship repair points (speeds up ship repairs), value based on repair ship size.

(6) Cargo; Crane ship...speeds up cargo handling times for the port.

(7) Barge; Repair ship for barges/low speed boats/ships...provides ship repair points, but not many.

(8) Dry dock; Floating dry dock...provides ship repair points based on dock capacity.

Bottomline is that bases/ports need to "do more" based on their size. A base should do all the functions above, and these functions should improve according to base size. By allowing the player to use "plug in" specialty ships you'd add an entirely new tactical and strategic element to the game. The ships wouldn't need to do anything while underweigh...just when plugged into a port. Kaiten "mother ships" and seaplane carriers of course, would be another story...

[IanLister]

Juliet7Bravo.......I think your post about bases is a brilliant idea - that would really make you plan ahead. Don't know if it's possible for WITP, but I hope so.

[juliet7bravo]

Thanks...the entire base concept needs to be addressed and revamped. A base should be more than just a place to dump supplies and fuel, and everything should revolve around the base size and the facilities thus available. I really think that the amount of supplies and fuel available should be tied to the base size as well, at least below a certain size.

A 1/1 base, which is basically a beach with a rickety coconut log pier for rowboats shouldn't be able to provide services without some "help". Giving the "specialty" ships an actual useful/tactical/strategic function would also add alot to the game. Both the Allies and the IJN put alot of effort and treasure into building them, and having them in the right place and time was often crucial.

By giving bases a global value for certain functions you can also adjust the various values by nationality...as was historical. For the "cargo" variable, the IJN should have a handicap (as they did historically) due to disorganization, cargo stowage, and a lack of cargo handling tackle. On the other hand, if there was a "barge" variable, you could give the IJN a serious bonus for repairing/operating barges and various small wooden motor/sail cargo craft...as was also historical.

You would still be able to use a 1/1 base, but to do so would require prior planning and positioning of the proper type support ships. Even the IJN had plenty of repair vessels and tenders available (before they all got sunk)...proper use/positioning of them would allow the IJN player to overcome many inherent handicaps.

*Side note...You could even give the IJN player "wooden ship building points" in the appropriate historical locations (all over the Pacific), and provide a few new 100-250 ton ship classes (in addition to barges) to reflect all the wooden "sea trucks" they built and operated. These ships composed a significant % of Japans cargo carrying capacity, and even higher % as the war progressed.

**Another side note...Wonder how they keep barges from heading out to sea?

***Yet another side note...IJN AP's should have a much higher troop capacity than the USN. They could (and often did) cram an entire regiment into a 7K ton ship. Also, for both sides, troops should get a readyness rating when offloaded based on # of troops per ton and length of voyage.

[Ron Saueracker]

Good stuff on bases. Even large bases can be a mess. Take Auckland, New Zealand for instance. Prior to invading Guadalcanal in Aug 42, the entire invasion fleet had to unload and reload because the ships were not "combat loaded". To paraphrase a USN beach master, "the essence of combat loading is to insure that the ammunition is offloaded before the bum wad."

On top of that, the NZ unionized civies wouldn't work during their friggin' tea breaks, or any overtime, etc. and the marines had to do all the work. They should have been shot, the ungrateful commies. All the boxed supplies were falling apart due to rain storms....mountains of soggy cornflakes etc. were on the docks. This is just one example to illustrate that perhaps changes need be made in future patches.

[byron13]

Great ideas, but the latter posts are probably pipe dreams. First, for a game that will encompass as many things as WIP probably will, the latter suggestions are probably just too much to code. Second, Iain has already suggested that the simple task of convoy management is difficult without some sort of computer assistant. Keeping track of all the supply variables you're suggesting will, in my opinion, unduly complicate the game.

Understand that I'm agreeing that it is more realistic, but probably too complicated. "Improvements" in the form of more detail could be provided across the board, but WIP will be immense as it is. Several months ago there were rantings, especially by me, about how players should be able to control production, and people started suggesting detail that would result in an entirely separate production game. By the time we were through, Matrix could have used the production engine to release "Production Minister," a scintillating game of war-time production and resource management.

J7B, I think your first ideas were good - and appropriate for a game of this scale. Make some broader-based rules about capital ships not refueling at level 1 bases and not allowing atolls with a grass shack to act like large, improved ports with dockage and lots of heavy lift equipment. I also like the idea of distinguishing between run-of-the-mill transports from specialized UNREP ships. Incorporating these limited changes would force players to behave in a more realistic manner without unduly complicating things.

[juliet7bravo]

Rantings, are what the guys who actually have to do the dirty work can sift for raw material...I can't code, but I can certainly rant.

Most of these things already have a basis in the PW code. A size 9 base, for example, repairs ships more quickly than a size 1 base...so obviously, there's already a repair routine to be exploited, which is what got me thinking about it. That and the comment from David Heath (I think) "WiTP code will look alot like PW code". With refueling and cargo handling already costing "operational points/time" in UV, the game has code controlling these functions, and is already crunching numbers regarding "how much time to take"...I'm trying to think how to make it more realistic, building on what already has a basis in the code. The fact that a size 9 base operates more efficiently than a smaller base across the board shouldn't unduly complicate things for either the AI or the player. Breaking that efficiency down and quantifying it accordingly would allow greater "depth" to the game, with both sides "invisibly" receiving plus's/minus's according to their historical strengths. "Plug in" specialty ships would allow players to augment these factors at a specific base as required by need/desires/planning.

Convoys/supply variables and computer assistants...every nationality and every command had immense staffs dedicated to just these areas, so a computer assistant "Chief of Staff" is a dang good idea. While you can over-complicate things, you can also over-simplify.

Ian's AAR's are EXACTLY what got me ranting about bases/supply...I was just being nice and addressing the issue roundaboutly. 30-40k Japanese troops squatting on the beach (for weeks) at Esprito Santo in mid-1942, with 15X supply is ludicrous IMO. Those Japanese troopers are living better than when they're laid up in their billets.

This is where you see the failings of a lack of a realistic logistics model, cargo handling/storage requirements, and limitless fuel start coming into play. The fact that the players can haul unlimited fuel in MCH's/AP's in drums (up to 50% of cargo) and just dump it on the beach just excerbates this. For one thing, I doubt even the US could make enough steel drums to transport enormous amounts of bulk fuel oil, let alone Japan...at some point, you just gotta say "this is ridiculous". Gasoline, yes...up to a point, umpteen thousands of tons of fuel oil, no. This is one reason (unless you wanted to separate gasoline from fuel oil, and have levels for both...much more realistic) I think having base capacity caps (and fuel lighters) based on size makes sense. I seriously doubt if anyone transported bulk fuel oil in drums (on the scale needed for large ships) since around the turn of the century.

Can you imagine a combat beachhead facing 40-odd K entrenched enemy troops still hunkered in their base, where you'd have 15X supply, and be maintaining high readiness levels (Excuse me Sarge-san...you want anything from the beach? I'm gonna wander down and pick up some hot yaki-soba and an iced coffee.)? That's one respect where the old PW invasion routine where you normally either took an island in a day (or two) or got turfed off, and could only get a readiness of 50% via "over the beach supply" while simplistic, was probably more realistic than UV I suspect.

The AI's extremely poor/piecemeal response also has me concerned BTW, with lousy dispostion of LBA units/targets, piecemeal bombardment TF's, and multiple basically unescorted supply TF's being sent to certain death...and WTF is the Americal Div. doing letting a numerically inferior Japanese force squat on THEIR beach without a FIERCE attempt to push them back into the sea before they get resupply (to the 15X level!!!) or entrenched?

Also, at 100k tons of tankers, the IJN player has got a minimum of roughly 50% of the IJN's entire available tanker capacity for mid/late 1942 dedicated soley for his forward combat use...could be as much as 100% (750 tons for the ENTIRE remainder of the world), but I can't find exact figures for IJN tanker tonnage being used to transport crude to the Home Islands in that time period. Dunno what they're using to haul fuel to Truk or the rest of the Pacific that they just siezed and are ferverishly building up.

Logistics is what kinda kept the IJN in check in '42. Realistic rules on bases, supply/cargo handling, and "over the beach" supply would tend to keep the games MUCH more balanced.

[IChristie]

I think much of what you say are points well taken, I think you should reserve some judgement until you have had a chance to get your own teeth into the game.

I think that the AAR's may have given some false impressions to whit:

At the current time TF's are being refueled at sea by tankers and AO's. The tankers are at anchor in Nevea but are not offloading fuel to the beach. In a single days refueling it appears to be possible to fuel the big BB's by around 25% of their total capacity (that's a total WAG). So refuelling them all the way would take 3 to 4 days of full ops points

When Lunga and Shortland were used as fuel depots they were both size 4 ports, not beaches.

Ships unloading at Luganville take about 7 to 8 days to unload 3000 tons. A task which takes about 2 days in a size 4 port. That is probably not unrealistic. Unloading all 12 simultaneously... that's another matter.

As I understand the way supply levels are reported the invasion force now has enough supplies for 15 days of ops at the current level of effort. Does that seem unrealistic? Considering they are not acting offensively that does not seem too far out of whack. Surely in a typical amphib operation that kind of supply level is not unheard of? Basically two convoys have unloaded approximately 60K tons of supplies in about three weeks to support 35K troops. I have not experience or data to determine if that is wildly unrealistic or not.

BTW, part of the reason that they have lost 8K (or 20%) strength was because I did not land enough supplies to begin with. The whole idea of landing them was, actually, pretty stupid and that is showing up now as the troops have lost about 40% of their assault strength.

And one final not. Loading tankers even in Truk seems to take a very long time (3-5 days).

I think I may have given a false impression of how complex the modelling of the supply system is because I have tended to gloss over it in the reports. I'll be interested to see what you have to say when you have a chance to really look under the hood rather than merely subsisting on 30s advertising spots.

[juliet7bravo]

Most of my comments are addressed to WiTP...they wanted feedback, so I'm getting my licks in early (before it's too late) as they said they'd already pulled people off to WiTP. Of course, most of these issues really pertain more to the UV engine (the Med. and any other spin offs) as it's more macro focused.

"wildly unrealistic"

A MAJOR contested IJN amphibious assault (without landing ships or barge carriers) in 1942 with inferior troops in number/material landing at the the USN's major forward fleet base in the teeth of superior in number/material combat troops who weren't starving, suprised, or poorly equipped?

Without writing a book, dunno how to describe how bogus that is. As an example, the landings at Tarawa took 35,000 US troops, against about 4800 Japanese, and it was still a bloodbath. This should give you an indication of the difficulties in forcing a contested assault landing. It also took a fleet of 17 CV's, 12 BB's, 8 CA's, 4 CL's, 66 DD's, and 36 AP's to support it...later amphibious landings just got worse. Look at the IJN attempted invasion #1 of Wake Island, when they thought they were just going to steam up to the shore and drop the troops off. Aaaak! Wrong answer!

Again, why 40 odd thousand US Marines let you wade ashore, squat on their beach, and unload your transports unmolested...I dunno. Since you don't own the port, all those ships (all 60 thousand tons of supplies) would be getting unloaded by hand, brought ashore "somehow" while under fire, stacked on the beach, and "somehow" gotten to the troops holding the perimeter of the beachhead. Or to put it another way...each of your troops, while engaged in combat against a numerically superior enemy, somehow found the time to unload, unpack, and distribute 1.5 tons (or more) of supplies by hand.

Incidentally, you wouldn't have to worry about the USN or LBA...Div. Arty would see off all those unarmored transports/freighters parked in Luganville Roads sloooooowly getting unloaded.

"Looking under the hood"...can't wait, and sure I'm going to love the game.

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by juliet7bravo

"wildly unrealistic"

A MAJOR contested IJN amphibious assault (without landing ships or barge carriers) in 1942 with inferior troops in number/material landing at the the USN's major forward fleet base in the teeth of superior in number/material combat troops who weren't starving, suprised, or poorly equipped?

Without writing a book, dunno how to describe how bogus that is. As an example, the landings at Tarawa took 35,000 US troops, against about 4800 Japanese, and it was still a bloodbath. This should give you an indication of the difficulties in forcing a contested assault landing. It also took a fleet of 17 CV's, 12 BB's, 8 CA's, 4 CL's, 66 DD's, and 36 AP's to support it...later amphibious landings just got worse. Look at the IJN attempted invasion #1 of Wake Island, when they thought they were just going to steam up to the shore and drop the troops off. Aaaak! Wrong answer!

Again, why 40 odd thousand US Marines let you wade ashore, squat on their beach, and unload your transports unmolested...I dunno. Since you don't own the port, all those ships (all 60 thousand tons of supplies) would be getting unloaded by hand, brought ashore "somehow" while under fire, stacked on the beach, and "somehow" gotten to the troops holding the perimeter of the beachhead. Or to put it another way...each of your troops, while engaged in combat against a numerically superior enemy, somehow found the time to unload, unpack, and distribute 1.5 tons (or more) of supplies by hand.

Incidentally, you wouldn't have to worry about the USN or LBA...Div. Arty would see off all those unarmored transports/freighters parked in Luganville Roads sloooooowly getting unloaded.

"Looking under the hood"...can't wait, and sure I'm going to love the game.

You are forgetting the scale of the game. Given the lack of direct combat, I think we can assume that the landings at L'ville are not opposed combat landings, or even within art range. These are 30 mile hexes, and the landings could easily be 10 miles from the main port. Think Guadalcanal, rather than Tarawa in terms of landings.
The support forces you mention were NOT all there to land the troops. You are including CAP, surface support etc. The US in Iain's game were not in a position to interfere, so not having these is not relevant.
Also, don't forget that not all troops are front line. Some of the people are only there to handle supplies! Admittedly the Japanese did not have such a large tail, but you had many US sevicemen not in the front line supporting each front line soldier.
As the game gets more detailed, you have to abandon hard and fast simplifications like "over the beach supply limits to 50% effectiveness". Given that the game models supply directly, the correct solution to the instant airlift of 10k tons of supply onto a beach is, of course, to get the unloading rate correct.
Having said which, I like the idea of limited unload/load at small ports, and the specialist support ships as a game feature. I wouldn't want to hold the game, but it would be a lovely patch, or feature for WitP

[juliet7bravo]

You can't have it both ways. It's got nothing to do with game scale. Either it's an island, ie. an amphibious assault, the 2 sides are contiguous/occupying the same hex, or it's 2 closely related bases joined with a road and they've got a supply dump which can be interdicted. If the island is big enough to have multiple BLZ's/anchorages, then each should be at least a 1/1 base, which can be defended by at least coastal defense guns. If they're occupying the same hex, and it's an amphibious assault, then the assaulter should be under some handicap for over the beach supply levels...ESPECIALLY when he doesn't have any assault boats, barges, or landing ships to get the stuff ashore***. You're still left with the IJN mounting a major amphib attack in '42 on the USN's major forward fleet base, and having 15X supply ashore to the tune of 1.5 tons of supply for each swinging dick, and this supply being distributed ala a supply dump...without a supply dump

It's alot easier to believe the AI, for whatever reason is just sitting there, than it is to swallow "stealth" landing zones located in the Bermuda Triangle. I noticed in the AAR's they're having "daily artillery exchanges", so obviously the US is able to interfer, and is chosing not to other than lobbing some arty rounds over which (since they don't have a supply dump to disrupt) probably doesn't do much.

"Some of the people are only there to handle supplies!"...Okay, the IJN landed a coolie labor battalion to handle the manual labor. You're still left with 1.5 tons of supply per man, 15X supply levels via over the beach resupply, Japan occupying Bermuda Triangle BLZ, and 40+ thousand USMC Jarheads and support troops sitting idly by whilst the IJN establishes themselves on their front porch. Ian's not attacking (yet) because why should he? He's getting stronger, the AI is getting weaker.

"The support forces you mention were NOT all there to land the troops."...Duh.

"Think Guadacanal"...okay, it's got several bases which can be invaded. Not a one of which is a "Stealth base" which can't be interdicted.

I'm not being snide, I'm trying to point out a few possible serious problems here;

(1) Ability to reach 15X supply levels via over the beach supply...effectively, then it would appear that there's no such thing as an amphibous assault except for (possibly) slower unloading rates. If you can get them ashore it's all over...no need to use overwhelming numbers as was historical (Tarawa again; 35,000 vs. 4,800), sieze control, and crush them with overwhelming numbers/firepower before the supply issue became a major factor.

(2) AI not reacting to a DEADLY threat...it had superior numbers, superior supply, superior fort. level, and chose to sit on its hands instead of attempting to push them back into the ocean BEFORE they unloaded 60K tons of supply (over a period of weeks) and reached a 15X supply level. Now they're reportedly in a serious supply state, while Ian's guys are fat and happy.

***there's a thought...TF's which include dedicated landing ships could get a over the beach resupply bonus, both in speed of unloading and resupply levels.

I'm also overstating the boat issue to some degree, as they could have barges on deck and put them in the water using cranes, US swung LCI's from modified davits ect...this is how you could have "small scale" amphibious assaults against lightly held objectives...but not major 40K plus attacks on Espririto Santo/Truk/Rabaul for example.

Also, if a LCU is co-located in the same hex with an enemy TF, wouldn't it make some sense that the unit's organic arty should have some capability/chance of interdicting the ships each turn? As an example, US M1918 155 and M2 105's had a range of 7 miles, M1 155 had a range of 15. No clue how you'd factor that in.

[juliet7bravo]

And now, I'm just gonna shut up and wait for the dang game...

[byron13]

I'm with J7B on this one. Amphibious assaults are major affairs. If UV or WiP is like PacWar, you can use any ole transport to lift the assault element, put it ashore quickly enough and in good enough order to conduct an assault against opposition. I don't buy it either. I know you can rationalize it as being a mix of various ships and assault craft in a generic transport group, but I still don't buy it. Better to distinguish between ships capable of acting as assault ships and the run-of-the-mill rust bucket plying the oceans at five knots. Putting a division ashore - especially while in contact - simply requires a massive effort. Maybe the answer is to distinguish between atoll-type targets where it is a necessarily opposed landing from major land masses where you might actually be able to land unopposed (or relatively so).

[juliet7bravo]

Answer's to sprinkle a few unnamed or small fishing village type "bases" with a max development size of 1/1 on land masses large enough, such as Espirito Santo. Connect them to the main base with a road. Defender could move in troops/coastal guns as he desired/was capable (simulating defending/fortifying potential invasion beaches) but it wouldn't be developable into a major port/airfield. If it's lightly held, it'd still be an amphib assault, but the Mongollian horde invasion fleet landing is going to roll over them regardless and sieze the hex.

That, in conjunction with limits on supply capacity, and unloading/refueling rates, would straighten things out immensely as the defender would be required to physically "defend the beaches" in order to gain the amphibious assault advantage. As the landing would require a turn, it would also allow the defender to move troops in from his main base and "fight them on the beaches" on the next turn. Much more realistic. Still need to have limits on amphib assault attacker readiness and over the beach supply for true amphibious assaults. Anytime you're landing troops directly into an enemy controlled hex, then it should be an amphibious assault, and combat should be resolved immediately to determine control.

Game out yet?

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by juliet7bravo
You can't have it both ways. It's got nothing to do with game scale. Either it's an island, ie. an amphibious assault, the 2 sides are contiguous/occupying the same hex, or it's 2 closely related bases joined with a road and they've got a supply dump which can be interdicted. If the island is big enough to have multiple BLZ's/anchorages, then each should be at least a 1/1 base, which can be defended by at least coastal defense guns.

I completely disagree. You are mixing two issues here. I agree that you should be able to affect the supply state of 'over the beach' supplied units, by air attack etc. I hope this is factored in to the effectiveness loss (or whatever), or that the game does allow supplies to be attritioned. However, this is a completely different issue to the fact that a significant island, (or 30 mile length of coast) could have numerous possible landing sites. You have to accept, with a game of this size, that two significant forces can be present in the same hex, without being toe to toe. The defensive capabilty of a base is to some extent abstracted, in that I assume that coastal guns can defend against any landing (i.e. they are assumed dispersed to cover 'all' possible landing sites). The fact that the attacker can then land successfully, and build up unmolested (OK, I missed the sporadic artillery exchanges), means that they have a centre of operations some miles from the enemy. I hope the game recognises the difference between an atoll, and a sensible island, because none of what I wrote holds for a bit of land smaller than say 5 miles across.

If they're occupying the same hex, and it's an amphibious assault, then the assaulter should be under some handicap for over the beach supply levels...ESPECIALLY when he doesn't have any assault boats, barges, or landing ships to get the stuff ashore***.

We are in agreement here.

You're still left with the IJN mounting a major amphib attack in '42 on the USN's major forward fleet base, and having 15X supply ashore to the tune of 1.5 tons of supply for each swinging dick, and this supply being distributed ala a supply dump...without a supply dump

I do not necessarily see a problem here. If I understand correctly, 15x supply means that the force has enough supply for 15 days operations 'at current posture' i.e. basically doing nothing other than lob a few shells night and morning. If I am wrong, and it means 15 days at full combat rate, I agree with you, way too much stuff landed too quickly. In my understanding. Iain has no where near enough supplies for serious combat ops. He can just about rush in and accept the surrender. Maybe a beta tester could help here?

It's alot easier to believe the AI, for whatever reason is just sitting there, than it is to swallow "stealth" landing zones located in the Bermuda Triangle. I noticed in the AAR's they're having "daily artillery exchanges", so obviously the US is able to interfer, and is chosing not to other than lobbing some arty rounds over which (since they don't have a supply dump to disrupt) probably doesn't do much.

I do not understand the response of the AI either. However, is it not possible that the AI has less supply than we realise? It is a very common observation that it is easy to give full credit to your own problems, and underestimate those of the enemy? I hope the AI was caught with its trousers (pants) down, and 'calculated' that it could not risk combat with the invaders, because this would not have a sensible chance of success, and would compromise the defence. Who says it isn't sitting there, thinking that the IJN will not manage to get enough supplies in, and the its attack can wait until nearer the auto victory deadline, to reduce IJN supply levels, and reduce time for a counter?

"Some of the people are only there to handle supplies!"...Okay, the IJN landed a coolie labor battalion to handle the manual labor. You're still left with 1.5 tons of supply per man, 15X supply levels via over the beach resupply, Japan occupying Bermuda Triangle BLZ, and 40+ thousand USMC Jarheads and support troops sitting idly by whilst the IJN establishes themselves on their front porch. Ian's not attacking (yet) because why should he? He's getting stronger, the AI is getting weaker.

See above - maybe the AI thinks it doesn't need to attack yet...

"Think Guadacanal"...okay, it's got several bases which can be invaded. Not a one of which is a "Stealth base" which can't be interdicted.

I'm not being snide, I'm trying to point out a few possible serious problems here;

(1) Ability to reach 15X supply levels via over the beach supply...effectively, then it would appear that there's no such thing as an amphibous assault except for (possibly) slower unloading rates. If you can get them ashore it's all over...no need to use overwhelming numbers as was historical (Tarawa again; 35,000 vs. 4,800), sieze control, and crush them with overwhelming numbers/firepower before the supply issue became a major factor.

(2) AI not reacting to a DEADLY threat...it had superior numbers, superior supply, superior fort. level, and chose to sit on its hands instead of attempting to push them back into the ocean BEFORE they unloaded 60K tons of supply (over a period of weeks) and reached a 15X supply level. Now they're reportedly in a serious supply state, while Ian's guys are fat and happy.

***there's a thought...TF's which include dedicated landing ships could get a over the beach resupply bonus, both in speed of unloading and resupply levels.

I'm also overstating the boat issue to some degree, as they could have barges on deck and put them in the water using cranes, US swung LCI's from modified davits ect...this is how you could have "small scale" amphibious assaults against lightly held objectives...but not major 40K plus attacks on Espririto Santo/Truk/Rabaul for example.

Also, if a LCU is co-located in the same hex with an enemy TF, wouldn't it make some sense that the unit's organic arty should have some capability/chance of interdicting the ships each turn? As an example, US M1918 155 and M2 105's had a range of 7 miles, M1 155 had a range of 15. No clue how you'd factor that in. [/B]

You keep making the 'stealth' base comparison. I have commented on the interdiction point, but if you recall the IJN reinforcement of G'canal, the US interdicted the supplies/reinforcements AT SEA. Once ashore they disappeared into the jungle, until they chose to attack/starved to death.
If one of my commanders got his ships shelled from the shore more than once (disregarding direct assault against the battery in question) I would have him sacked. 30 mile hex remember. I think land based art should only be allowed to interdict ships that are actively assaulting (first turn only), or unloading on a small island (atoll etc, as discussed above). The rest of the time, I think we can assume that they are positioned where the guns cannot see or reach them.

Whilst typing this I think I see a way to suggest improvements though. I am assuming that the 1/1 base idea is impractical to code, I also think its unnecessary. What each landing needs is a 'progress' parameter. This would represent the size of the beach head. I haven't worked out the details, but it is something like a number from 0 to 10. 0 would be 'not yet landed' - just offshore etc. 1, on the beach (literally) etc. 10 would be sufficiently far inland that no enemy could see, or shell the beach. A landing where the enemy chose not to contest, but stood off, would expand to 10 in a couple of days. A contested landing would depend on the success of the attacker. Small islands would be limited to the maximum level that can be reached (as low as 1 or 2 for an atoll). Things like over the beach unloading could then be a function of the beachhead size - 10 is maximum rate for manhanding over a beach (i.e. quite small relative to a size 4 port), and 1 could be 'almost nothing, and any ship trying can be hit by land based art', with ramp in between. Obviously, the base capture rules would override all of this, although, the ejected force could then have it's own 'prodress' parameter, to see if it could be resupplied without land based interdiction etc.

How about it Matrix (or can someone tell us you've got it covered anyway). I mean for WitP - we're way too far down stream fot UV I assume?