Supply sink issue

[goodboyladdie]

Kuala Lumpur just stole all the supplies I was hording for the defence of Singapore. How can I get it back? There are no HQs in KL and the 2 fixed units there have replacements turned off. All HQs are at Singapore.

[Nemo121]

Just about the only thing you can do is move HQs into Singapore, remove all troops from KL and then fly many planes into Singapore also ( preferably bombers and transports --- basically anything with a high payload ) as all of those measures will help boost Singapore's basic supply requirement and lessen KL's.
 
Unfortuately what you have described is one of the primary failings of supply sinks and given their massive size even the above measures won't prevent much of the stealing of supplies from Singapore. Supply sinks were one of the first things I ripped out when I was doing my mod as they are a very poor solution to this problem and cause so many new problems ( this being one of them ).

[el cid again]

Actually - Nemo's charge is a bit misleading - Kuala Lumpur is the worst case - and most supply sinks behave properly in most respects. And KL is good enough I don't think it should be changed - although possibly I could break it up into parts.

This problem is somewhat self correcting - if the enemy isolates KL from Singapore - as usually happens - no more sucking occurs.

I think Nemo's advice is backwards - base your UNITS on KL - and USE the supplies it sucks. It will tend to damage the sink - reduce its impact - and make the units more effective. A foolish enemy can take horrible losses if KL is attacked too swiftly - with strong units present. Code shares suppliies among all units present - so the sink is treates as a unit - and it will get disabled squads if you feed other units in the hex.

It is true that all HQ should go to Singapore - or the hexes North of it - and these will attract supplies. You also can MOVE supplies from KL to Singapore by ship - assuming you know how to do that without losing ships.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Actually - Nemo's charge is a bit misleading - Kuala Lumpur is the worst case - and most supply sinks behave properly in most respects. And KL is good enough I don't think it should be changed - although possibly I could break it up into parts.

This problem is somewhat self correcting - if the enemy isolates KL from Singapore - as usually happens - no more sucking occurs.

I think Nemo's advice is backwards - base your UNITS on KL - and USE the supplies it sucks. It will tend to damage the sink - reduce its impact - and make the units more effective. A foolish enemy can take horrible losses if KL is attacked too swiftly - with strong units present. Code shares suppliies among all units present - so the sink is treates as a unit - and it will get disabled squads if you feed other units in the hex.

It is true that all HQ should go to Singapore - or the hexes North of it - and these will attract supplies. You also can MOVE supplies from KL to Singapore by ship - assuming you know how to do that without losing ships.

Your solutions suck as much as the supply sink idea I'm afraid Sid. I have been reading the threads on these from 2005 and 2006 and am shocked to find that you still have not acknowledged the issue. How can you justify 88000 hungry non combatant mouths stealing all the Singapore Fortress supplies without orders?! As for "This problem is somewhat self correcting - if the enemy isolates KL from Singapore - as usually happens - no more sucking occurs." , the problem has already caused the premature loss of Singapore by the time this happens as all of my siege supplies have then been cut off in KL. I wonder if my opponent would be kind enough to drop a para unit behind KL for me and then give me two weeks to ship all the supply back without attacking my ships? Oh wait I forgot - we are at war! AAAAAAGGGGHHHHH!!![:@]

[el cid again]

You did ask - so here is the technical answer:

The supplies that are consumed by those 88000 mouths are ALL generated in the Kuala Lumpur Hex - or possibly nearby hexes - at resource centers NOT in Singapore. They do not really consume all the excess supply - just a working major fraction of it.


IF we put the sink off the major site (KL is a major resource generating center) in Singapore - the supplies would try to go there. But when Singapore was cut off by enemy units - the sink would STILL want to be fed - and the pile of excess supplies in Malaya would be bigger than if KL was sucking from them.

The problems with supply sinks are substantially solved or mitigated to the point most players - including you - cannot even identify where the small ones are - and where nobody - including you - complains when the smaller identifiable ones are encountered. But there is an exception to this principle - the case of large and very large supply sinks. Kuala Lumpur is one of the worst examples; Palembang is another and Asanol is probably the olympic champion. These rare, exceptional supply sinks have two significant problems:

1) They are very hard to kill - and impossible to kill in a single day assault. While a major production area might indeed take some time to bring under control, it is not likely to produce the gigantic casualties which code produces if you make an unwise, precipitous assault. [For one thing, the first day in combat an attacking unit does not have the power it will have on the second and later days - which I am not sure is right - but that is the way it is in our system. For another thing, each day you do NOT assault the local resource centers do not produce, so the sink and anything else there is now starving - and getting weaker.] The fact these fights destroy the local industry does not bother me so much - and I wish it was more than the fraction we get - it can be about half - but it is never the vast majority - which I would prefer. This makes the hex less a boon to the enemy - and eventually he gets his own supply sink to feed there - but in the meantime I like it not producing so much. But while I want a sink to resist - and think that is BETTER than NO defense at all - so a single squad can capture a vast resource / manufacturing area - I do not like how the really big sinks require sustained assault - and if you want to be fast - assault by larger forces than should be required.



2) The effect you complain about here. It is a valid one. Major sinks tend to suck supplies on the principle that AI wants to feed places with more units, and larger units.
Here the problem is not that part of the code is wrong.

Now the whole idea of supply sinks attracted enough notice we won't need them in the present form in future versions of WITP. And they were so successful that RHS will continue to have them for secondary functions - some defense of a major area (thus you can take Palembang, but the odds are the industry will be destroyed by its civil engineers, as IRL) - static support for the few civil air units (e.g. Empire Flying Boat hubs have ground support - but it won't go where you want - it is where it is) - and the provision of total intel in the hex where you must have agents.

The supply sink concept has worked so well I am surprised at your tone - and must assume you are not familiar with the details of the vast majority of them. The tiny ones are organic to other static units - and they consume perfectly - while they add only a bit to demolition because of what engineers do when a hex falls. The modest separate ones do not hold out more than a day or so - and still consume as they should -- and demolish as they should. The special cases provide aviation support or other unique civil support functions in areas where this should happen - consider that civil truck are routinely called into service - and in the case of Manila - the biggest trucking company volunteered its trucks for military service. These functions are all absent in any flavor of WITP without supply sinks. Since the game makes no strategic sense when you don't have to move supplies - or the resources and oil to make them - in many areas - I think the compromise was well concieved.

IF - however - you followed my mother's advice - and COMBINED a critical comment with a BETTER solution - I would listen to that. MANY of the reasons supply sinks - which indeed were unworkable in important respects as introduced - were made tolerable is that many critics DID offer ideas how to make them better. Either a way to reduce undesired effects - or a way to solve the problem of "free supply" without them - is worthy of consideration. But I did not notice such ideas in your comments.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

As for "This problem is somewhat self correcting - if the enemy isolates KL from Singapore - as usually happens - no more sucking occurs." , the problem has already caused the premature loss of Singapore by the time this happens as all of my siege supplies have then been cut off in KL. I wonder if my opponent would be kind enough to drop a para unit behind KL for me and then give me two weeks to ship all the supply back without attacking my ships? Oh wait I forgot - we are at war! AAAAAAGGGGHHHHH!!![:@]

The problem of Singapore falling in less than 100 days - or even anything approaching 100 days - pre dates RHS. It is not changed a whit by RHS - unless it it is in the right direction - it takes longer on the average than it did. But this is hard to measure - there being no place collecting all player games to look at. Certainy the SOP strategy of "run with most things" and NEVER send major reinforcements is not going to permit even a historical resistence - even if the game was up to it.

You DO have the power to change the commander - whose ratings are properly bloody awful. You DO have the power to use naval and air forces FORWARD - shell the enemy on the invasion beaches - bomb him everywhere - and bomb the air bases from which he is bombing yours. But so far I have never seen a prolonged defense of Malaya that approaches making it hard to get as few as 100 days to the fall of Singapore (a near thing that almost did not happen - Yamashita was within one day of suspending offensive operations when surrender came).

RHS probably does not help a player who adopts the AI strategy - have almost every unit run for Singapore - and try to hold out - and if THAT produces a desire to stock supplies there - well that isn't going to be as effective as fighting forward where much of the supply is generated (and yes, at KL, where some is sucked).

However - did you know I recoded pwhex so FAR FEWER supplies leave Singapore? I did. IF you move supplies TO Singapore (and don't be passive) they take longer to leave than if it was coded as a rail hex - which it is not. Did you know the KL supply sink is TOO SMALL - as a compromise - to mitigate the impacts which occur if it is properly sized - which is to say twice as large?

I do have one other trick but I did not use it here - I used it for Fort Drum. ONE unit - as far as I know - does not dump supplies. If you have more such slots - I will make the Singapore Fort one of them - and that will help. I will adopt any other idea that actually works you come up with. Please do not blame me for a system that I did not design and can only modify by external data programming. My heart is in the right place - get the logistics right - and this issue is an exceptional case - not the normal case. Supply sinks work - objectively speaking - and even this one does its primary job - it just has secondary effects which are stronger than we want.

[goodboyladdie]

Yet again the babble to disguise your inability to justify a problem. They may work elsewhere and I do not pretend to be clever enough to understand the complexities you live with, BUT this is potentially a game killing problem. Early on the only thing I can do is to make my opponent pay dearly for his gains and force him to invest a proper amount of war-fighting resource to achieve his goals. Making Singapore hold out and using it to draw in other forces and therefore throw off his timetable with a knock-on effect on his economy is a lynchpin of this strategy. It is impossible with KL in it's current form because of it's draw on supplies. You acknowledge this and have found solutions to similar issues elsewhere so why not here? My tone is borne out of frustration. I enjoy your work. I want to play it. I am not the first person to find you infuriating and superior, but I also appreciate your great strengths and dedication and the fantastic and selfless job you do on this mod. What frustrates me is that you knew this was a problem and have known since 2006. If a large supply sink at KL throws off the entire defence of the Malay peninsula, do not have a large supply sink in KL. You have placed the others in areas where you do not expect major battles in the short term so their impact is not severe. Here, it causes too much of a problem to justify it's existence, so my solution would be to remove it...

[el cid again]

I find your language far more negative and offensive than any I have used - and I regularly get email saying my restraint under fire approaches saintly quality. On the other hand - in this last - I ALSO hear some respect - and so I will try to help you understand - again.

You are right - this is a problem - not as big as you say - but big. It used to be bigger and now it is tolerable - not game killing. BECAUSE I listen we were able to tame it.

You are wrong - we do not have a choice about WHERE this sink is. It is where it is because that is where the major resource area is. Putting it somewhere else only generates horrible problems when the resource center and the sink are isolated from each other.

What we might do is spread the sink around to several locations. Indeed - I DID do that - and you will find one burried in places like Alor Star. But we also have a problem: slot limits - and unless you have a trick up your sleeve - it is not really feasible to go much farther down that road - even if we are willing to pretend resources are more spread out than they really are.


No one has complained for a long time - and I do not worry about what I cannot fix either. I cannot change that your bombers don't destroy railroads - which I think is wrong - so I don't worry about it. But I WILL look at this briefly tonight - and if I think of something - or if you think of something that actually works - I will issue a general update instead of an EBO update in the morning.

But taking the sink out is a non-starter. Go play stock or CHS if it is acceptable to get many tens of thousands of supply points per month in just one territory - which is really not generated there. What we could do is make Malaya resource poor - less valuable than it should be. The amount should be half of the gross tonnage of the 26 significant commodities which are probably part of "resources" - half because our industrial model does not consume properly resources to oil - and so we only move half of them - and keep back the ships moving the invisible other half - so you are not oveerstocked with AKs. But we could cut that to a lower number - and then divide by 30 the sink numbers - because it takes 30 squads to eat 1 resource center supply production (wierd but true).

[Nemo121]

Cid,
 
Sorry but your solution which suggests:
 
a) using the support squads in supply sinks to damage enemy combat units ( completely ahistorical, coolies in the fields just didn't wreck entire IJA infantry and armoured divisions) and
 
b) basing the defence on where the GAME MECHANISM OF SUPPLY SINKS sucks supplies ( instead of where the historically and strategically logical defensive lines were/should be )
 
are just making excuses for a flawed game mechanic. Calling something a "feature" when it creates completely ahistorical and unreasonable behaviour ( abandoning Singapore because KL is a stronger defensive feature due to the mechanism of supply sinks ) simply doesn't cut it.
 
 
Cid, this isn't about the consumption of supply ( in this example ) as much as it is about the pooling of supplies at KL in preference to Singapore in a completely ahistoric and game unbalancing manner ( as goodboyladdie says, players routinely lose Singapore much earlier than they should because of this problem ).
 
 

No one has complained for a long time

 
LOL! That's just because everyone who pointed out the problems got sick and tired of you saying "well there aer secondary effects but it does its primary job". Kinda like saying that I shot someone in the head to stop them killing themselves. My primary goal of preventing suicide worked but the secondary effect was that they still died. Just cause its a secondary effect doesn't mean it isn't massively significant.
 
 
goodboyladdie, seriously, if you want a game without supply sinks ( and games without them work just fine so long as you have almost all supply be produced on-map --- you may need a few HRs about resource bombing but that's easy enough to do ) then you need to look at a non-RHS scenario.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Cid,

Sorry but your solution which suggests:

a) using the support squads in supply sinks to damage enemy combat units ( completely ahistorical, coolies in the fields just didn't wreck entire IJA infantry and armoured divisions) and

b) basing the defence on where the GAME MECHANISM OF SUPPLY SINKS sucks supplies ( instead of where the historically and strategically logical defensive lines were/should be )

are just making excuses for a flawed game mechanic. Calling something a "feature" when it creates completely ahistorical and unreasonable behaviour ( abandoning Singapore because KL is a stronger defensive feature due to the mechanism of supply sinks ) simply doesn't cut it.


Cid, this isn't about the consumption of supply ( in this example ) as much as it is about the pooling of supplies at KL in preference to Singapore in a completely ahistoric and game unbalancing manner ( as goodboyladdie says, players routinely lose Singapore much earlier than they should because of this problem ).

No one has complained for a long time

LOL! That's just because everyone who pointed out the problems got sick and tired of you saying "well there aer secondary effects but it does its primary job". Kinda like saying that I shot someone in the head to stop them killing themselves. My primary goal of preventing suicide worked but the secondary effect was that they still died. Just cause its a secondary effect doesn't mean it isn't massively significant.


goodboyladdie, seriously, if you want a game without supply sinks ( and games without them work just fine so long as you have almost all supply be produced on-map --- you may need a few HRs about resource bombing but that's easy enough to do ) then you need to look at a non-RHS scenario.

With our 4th restart we were very tempted by Empires Ablaze, but I went with EOS because I enjoyed what I had been able to do between restarts, I really appreciate Cid's work and I felt it deserved another chance . I intend to play on and I am sure my opponent will be cursing these units when he can't kill all my coolies (who in real life ran away...) in the DEI. Most of Cid's innovations are truly brilliant and I do not believe he gets the credit he deserves, but a few are real stinkers. As I understand it EA is RHS based, but with no supply sinks and a recent tweaking of the 2E A2A model?

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I find your language far more negative and offensive than any I have used - and I regularly get email saying my restraint under fire approaches saintly quality. On the other hand - in this last - I ALSO hear some respect - and so I will try to help you understand - again.

You are right - this is a problem - not as big as you say - but big. It used to be bigger and now it is tolerable - not game killing. BECAUSE I listen we were able to tame it.

You are wrong - we do not have a choice about WHERE this sink is. It is where it is because that is where the major resource area is. Putting it somewhere else only generates horrible problems when the resource center and the sink are isolated from each other.

What we might do is spread the sink around to several locations. Indeed - I DID do that - and you will find one burried in places like Alor Star. But we also have a problem: slot limits - and unless you have a trick up your sleeve - it is not really feasible to go much farther down that road - even if we are willing to pretend resources are more spread out than they really are.


No one has complained for a long time - and I do not worry about what I cannot fix either. I cannot change that your bombers don't destroy railroads - which I think is wrong - so I don't worry about it. But I WILL look at this briefly tonight - and if I think of something - or if you think of something that actually works - I will issue a general update instead of an EBO update in the morning.

But taking the sink out is a non-starter. Go play stock or CHS if it is acceptable to get many tens of thousands of supply points per month in just one territory - which is really not generated there. What we could do is make Malaya resource poor - less valuable than it should be. The amount should be half of the gross tonnage of the 26 significant commodities which are probably part of "resources" - half because our industrial model does not consume properly resources to oil - and so we only move half of them - and keep back the ships moving the invisible other half - so you are not oveerstocked with AKs. But we could cut that to a lower number - and then divide by 30 the sink numbers - because it takes 30 squads to eat 1 resource center supply production (wierd but true).

I understand why you introduced the sinks and appreciate that you have done a lot of work to create as clean an economic model as possible. What you have managed to do within the constraints of the code is truly amazing. I find your assertion that the "AI" defence of withdrawing to the Fortress of Singapore instead of choosing to fight where I can be outflanked just because there are a lot of non combatants there that cannot move insulting and bizarre. It also seems to be against the principle of making RHS as accurate as possible. I do not care about the free supply, if that is why you think I am complaining. I do care about the fact that I cannot use the proper tactic of a collapsing defence falling back onto my strongest, most well prepared position. I do care that my opponent will have to invest a lot of effort and likely ruin some of his units to wipe out these massive defensive beasts that did not exist.

Making Malaya resource poor would only harm the Japanese player as the Allies do not tend to own it long enough to matter. Singapore aside I think these units will do more harm to my opponent than me. He will have to commit much larger forces than IRL to deal with them without chewing the offensive power out of his best formations. How can this serve the game? If I hold on too long and he gets the equivalent Japanese supply sink turn up in Tokyo to drain the supply from his factories instead, how can that be fair?

The question I ask is do certain supply sinks do more harm than good? Any identified (KL and some in the DEI spring to mind) could be removed, so the excess supply is only a local issue. Those in the US or the Home Islands for instance are likely to be no problem.

[Mistmatz]

As I already mentioned in gbl's AAR I have a feeling that you guys want something that you see but that doesn't really belong to you.
You look at the supplies in KL, see say 50k supplies and think 'whoa I need this in Singapore... NOW'. Then you find out that you cant get it there (easily) and start complaining about those 50k supplies that are all of a sudden game breaking, spoiling your experience and what not.
Maybe it would help you getting along with this concept/feature/bug if you would mentally deduct say 40k of the supplies you see in KL for the locals which are not useable in a military way and think of the remaining stuff as yours.

I'm not a native speaker and sometimes have a hard time expressing what I'd like to express, so I try it in other words. Just dont take all the numbers and stuff you see in the game as given to your full control, sometimes it may be even misleading (eg showing supplies you dont own), try to get a reasonable view on things. This is btw not only valid for a mod, this is valid for the whole game. Long term this may spare you a heart attack. [;)]

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

As I already mentioned in gbl's AAR I have a feeling that you guys want something that you see but that doesn't really belong to you.
You look at the supplies in KL, see say 50k supplies and think 'whoa I need this in Singapore... NOW'. Then you find out that you cant get it there (easily) and start complaining about those 50k supplies that are all of a sudden game breaking, spoiling your experience and what not.
Maybe it would help you getting along with this concept/feature/bug if you would mentally deduct say 40k of the supplies you see in KL for the locals which are not useable in a military way and think of the remaining stuff as yours.

I'm not a native speaker and sometimes have a hard time expressing what I'd like to express, so I try it in other words. Just dont take all the numbers and stuff you see in the game as given to your full control, sometimes it may be even misleading (eg showing supplies you dont own), try to get a reasonable view on things. This is btw not only valid for a mod, this is valid for the whole game. Long term this may spare you a heart attack. [;)]

These supplies started in Singapore. I have spent 2 weeks taking them there. Last turn KL stole them from Singapore. I do own those supplies which is why it's so annoying. I would love to be able to rationalise the loss of these supplies along the lines you suggest and have done so to cover certain other plane related issues in my AAR, but my defence plan centres on Singapore and not on the large imaginary fortress unit in KL. I am having an ahistorical, militarily poor plan forced upon me by poor game mechanics and these units that should not exist. In the DEI my opponent will have to face similar made up units after being disrupted by landing on hostile shores. I do not envy him.

[ny59giants]

I'm still learning to play WitP. I have my first PBEM game (CHS 158c Nik Mod) reach 2/43. Thus, being an Allied player able to conduct offensive operations against a human opponent will be a learning curve (hopefully not too steep [:D]).
 
My question that seems to have been posted vaguely here, is how to get as much of the supply at KL back to Singapore?? If there is a way to do so, I want to know as I'm doing the first turn for the Allied in RHSEEO (PBEM against Dice).

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I'm still learning to play WitP. I have my first PBEM game (CHS 158c Nik Mod) reach 2/43. Thus, being an Allied player able to conduct offensive operations against a human opponent will be a learning curve (hopefully not too steep [:D]).

My question that seems to have been posted vaguely here, is how to get as much of the supply at KL back to Singapore?? If there is a way to do so, I want to know as I'm doing the first turn for the Allied in RHSEEO (PBEM against Dice).

Simply put move all units spending supplies out of KL. In addition you can move them by ship or air. By ship is very dangerous once the japanese have a foothold and place DBs in Malay. By air is time consuming and you probably want to evac important units with those planes rather than setting up a supply route. So basically I have written off those supplies right at the start. Once KL has fallen or is no longer connected to Singapore you may bring supplies in safely from elsewhere.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I'm still learning to play WitP. I have my first PBEM game (CHS 158c Nik Mod) reach 2/43. Thus, being an Allied player able to conduct offensive operations against a human opponent will be a learning curve (hopefully not too steep [:D]).

My question that seems to have been posted vaguely here, is how to get as much of the supply at KL back to Singapore?? If there is a way to do so, I want to know as I'm doing the first turn for the Allied in RHSEEO (PBEM against Dice).

Simply put move all units spending supplies out of KL. In addition you can move them by ship or air. By ship is very dangerous once the japanese have a foothold and place DBs in Malay. By air is time consuming and you probably want to evac important units with those planes rather than setting up a supply route. So basically I have written off those supplies right at the start. Once KL has fallen or is no longer connected to Singapore you may bring supplies in safely from elsewhere.

You can't. You can try to increase the draw of Singapore by making it aircraft and HQ heavy, but nothing has the draw of the 2 units in KL that you cannot move, particularly once they start fighting. I am using Singapore as an offensive airbase and flying a lot of sorties, but I still cannot compete. I was alright until the Japs arrived in KL. Up to that point KL only had about 20000 supply. Once the Japs arrived KL drew an extra 40,000+ from Singapore. If I send ships to pick it up the game will just send it back...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I'm still learning to play WitP. I have my first PBEM game (CHS 158c Nik Mod) reach 2/43. Thus, being an Allied player able to conduct offensive operations against a human opponent will be a learning curve (hopefully not too steep [:D]).

My question that seems to have been posted vaguely here, is how to get as much of the supply at KL back to Singapore?? If there is a way to do so, I want to know as I'm doing the first turn for the Allied in RHSEEO (PBEM against Dice).

Simply put move all units spending supplies out of KL. In addition you can move them by ship or air. By ship is very dangerous once the japanese have a foothold and place DBs in Malay. By air is time consuming and you probably want to evac important units with those planes rather than setting up a supply route. So basically I have written off those supplies right at the start. Once KL has fallen or is no longer connected to Singapore you may bring supplies in safely from elsewhere.

I know you mean well but your advice is simply wrong. Pulling units out of KL has virtually no effect because the supply sink is so much larger than the rest, and it can not be moved. Saying you write off those supplies means you have decided to get along with the problem, which is your choice.

It is not an historical restraint, it is caused by a bad side-effect of the supply sink. Sid stated that the supply sink at KL is fed by production at KL, so there is no IRL rationale for the supplies to moved from Singapore to KL. They were not needed to feed the populace of KL, the supplies were in Singapore specifically for an expected siege. They move in-game because of the game's logistics mechanism, which has been in place and unchanged during the whole life-cycle of RHS. Use of that supply sink simply fails to respect the game code's behavior.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I find your language far more negative and offensive than any I have used - and I regularly get email saying my restraint under fire approaches saintly quality. On the other hand - in this last - I ALSO hear some respect - and so I will try to help you understand - again.

Sid, I have seen you behave with great restraint under wanton insult and abuse. For that you are to be commended.

I have also, on very many occasions, seen you be openly insulting, condescending and dismissive of people who express reasonable disagreements with you. As you are doing in this very conversation. Respect is one of those things you must give to receive.

You might disagree with GBL's opinions, but I suggest that you give his concerns a fair and respectful hearing.

[el cid again]

I have found some slots available in all RHS scenarios = something to work with.

I have devised a scheme and tested a prototype version of it - and I may have a solution.

Like many RHS concepts - this requires massive manpower work on my part.

Like most radical RHS ideas (not just implementations of existing ideas) - it is semi-experimental
and might not turn out to be perfect. It is only a way to address a specific issue - and unitl
tested extensively it is not clear that it will be perfect. In most cases, all you can get is
a reasonable compromise.

Since many ongoing games are not generating complaints - including five human tests I am running -
I am disinclined to do this UNLESS there is a willingness to be positive about it by the few who
are really unhappy. I am not going to work unpaid just to be insulted - directly or indirectly.

In this instance I have enough slots to create a sink in all the towns of Malaya - Alor Star and
Georgetown already have them and they seem not to be a problem - so we can move resources from
KL to places like Taiping - and create small sinks in places like Kota Bahru - which has resources
but no sink - and instead of using a big sink to compensate for most - let the little ones do it.
We always knew that would be better - but it requires a lot of work to enter each possible site -
for each location involves changing two slots - and then there are not enough slots to do this map wide.
But there are enough for a critical territory like this one.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Cid,

Sorry but your solution which suggests:

a) using the support squads in supply sinks to damage enemy combat units ( completely ahistorical, coolies in the fields just didn't wreck entire IJA infantry and armoured divisions) and


REPLY: WE use support squads for two technical reasons: PRIMO they only count 1/10th as much as ANY OTHER squad does, but they eat just as much - the goal here is to eat supplies; SECUNDO: supply sinks are industiral facilities that SHOULD provide support in a military sense of the term - these are engineers, technicians, skilled and semi-skilled workers - and they can provide the basic transportation services and vehicles and machine and vehicle maintenace which "support" mainly involves. It was a happy choice - and it works so well we will need to continue supply sinks in major areas even when they no longer are needed for supply consumption per se. Further - both in general and in PTO - these people DID cause lots of problems for line formations. Only the word "divisions" above makes your concern valid - and even then - they will ONLY be wreaked if used improperly. I have not had a problem of this nature in over a year - because I learned how to attack in a workable procedure. Even AI wins - just starving out the enemy. Not being patient - I don't wait a long time - but (a) I support my division (I only need one) - (b) I don't attack a big sink on day one (the unit is stronger on day two); (c) I never use shock attack on a big sink and (d) if the attack fails and if the unit goes over 50 percent disorganized, I give it a rest for a day - possibly bombarding if disorganized is near 50 per cent. I reduce the sink with air and sometimes naval bombardment every day too. This really works. It is not entirely satisfactory - but it is not something that ruins even one division either. .