Idea for fuel and supply consumption in AE

[seydlitz_slith]

Is there any way to adjust fuel consumption based on speed setting?


Carriers at War did this nicely, and you definitely can see your endurance go down quickly when you start operating at high speed.

In WITP, I would be surprised if most people steamed around at "cruise" speed. Most operate at "mission" speed or in some cases "full" speed for days at a time. In RL, operating at speeds higher than planned cruise speed generally sucked fuel at an exponential rate. This change would greatly improve gameplay by driving more realistic strategy since you couldn't unrealistically afford to just charge all over the place without frequent refuellings or a logistical chain of support TF, which are not much of a concern now.

I would like to see fuel point consumption set as follows:

cruise speed -normal fuel consumption

full speed -make the consumption multiplier equal to the number of hexes moved in one phase by the TF so that power scaling is correctly reflected. In other words, Full speed in a convoy that results in 2 hex movement per phase would use twice the normal amount of fuel, while a carrier TF moving 5 hexes per phase would use five times the normal amount of fuel in full speed mode.

note that I didn't specify anything for mission speed, since this mode uses wither full or cruise in different combinations based on the mission.

Also note that this would also result in the Yamato and Musashi becoming the fuel suckers that they were. With their already short endurance, the Japanese player would really have to think about how to employ them since their range would get dramatically shorter if they go steaming at high speed. Furthermore, arrangements to refuel and supplort them would be a significant drain on fuel supplies and tankers to keep them at see at high speed for any amount of time.

This also leads to the realistic requirement for the US to field resupply TFs to support it's combat TF. Something that it doesn't have to do in any major scale at present. Furthermore, these TF must be protected from attacks, as their loss could dangerously impact offensive operations or even worse, leave fleet units low on fuel and unable to operate at high speed in proximity to the enemy's air coverage.

Think about it. By handling as a multiplier based on speed mode in use and hexes moved per phase, I would hope that it could be programmed in to the game on the global level, making it much easier than a change that involved manipulation of each ship.

----------------

On a related note, Shouldn't air operations also consume supply at a rate that reflects actual operations.

For example:

I have no idea how the game currently calculates supply for air ops, but I would think that you would want to modify it to reflect the following:

1. Number of engines on the airframe (a 4 engine plane would consume 4 times the supply per mission as a sngle engine plane) = A

2. Number of aircraft actually flown on the mission. (Cap would count as a range 1 mission for consumption) = B

3. Multiplier based on number of hexes flown on the mission (a range 4 strike would =8 hexes flown, and a range 20 base transfer would = 20 hexes flown.) Now, you would have to have the supply on hand to actually fly even transfer missions. = C

4. Combat dependant modifier. If combat happens (air to air or air to ground, additional supplies are expended per air frame). ATA maneuvering burns fuel, combat burns ammo and bombs that are normally returned to the carrier or airfield for reuse. = D



So, a theoretical formula would look like:

((A*B) * C) + (B*D)= supplies consumed due to air activities.



So, lets run a test here. Assume that we have a unit of 20 Bettys that plan to fly a naval strike mission with a naval search of 30% out to range 15. The unit finds a target, and the 70 not on search flies a strike at the target that is 10 hexes from base. The other planes fly their search pattern.



For the search planes:

A= 2 (each Betty has two engines)
B= 6 (20*30%)
C= 30 (15 hexes out, 15 hexes back.)
D= 0 (no combat encountered)
((A*B) * C) + (B*D)= X
((2*6)*30)+(6*0)=X
360=X

For the attack planes:
A= 2 (each Betty has two engines)
B= 14 (20-6)
C= 20 (10 hexes out, 10 hexes back.)
D= 100 (pulled this one out of thin air as a fixed amount)
((A*B) * C) + (B*D)= X
((2*14)*20)+(14*100)=X
(560+1400)=X
1960=X

Add the two X totals together to get 2320
Now, multiply by the Z factor.....the Z factor is the supply multiple. Obviously if one strike used 2320 supply, you would never have to invade the atoll. You could just let the Japanese starve themselves to death. So the Z factor is the fractional supply multiplier used to determine actual supply used.

If Z= .1 then the mission would have used 232 supply points. Not bad.
If Z= . 01 the mission would have used 23 supply points.

Point being, you could use this to better reflect the fact that you can't fly major sustained airstrikes from an atoll where you don't have the stockpiles to sustain the sortie rate. Transport aircraft and ships would become much more important in areas with combat operations or you would not be able to maintain the tempo. Missions such as the B-29 raids from China into Japan would indeed require the logistical build up (flying the hump) that they did in real life. Strategic bombing of resources and supplies would be more important since loss of these resources could quickly result in a cascade of bad things happening like a loss of an abilty to defend yourself. Right now, you only have to worry about runway damage closing the runways.

If there is insufficient supply to fly a mission, the program would simply say "not enough supplies at base to fly mission" and would cancel the mission.

Comments?


One of the problems is that this could only be applied to land based air activities unless a way to add supplies to naval air TF was there...like ASW or AA Ammo equivalents. Still it would greatly enhance the simulation aspect of the game and could hopefully be done without dramatically increasing the code required or need to micromanage.