RHS Supply Sink Evaluation

[herwin]

It's late July in my game against blitzk, and Singapore is about to fall. Manila is a bit further away. I'm also besieging Palembang and hold most ports in Borneo and the Celebes. I think the evidence is that supply sinks are rather too powerful. Let's hope that AE has a more effective approach to the underlying problems that led to the invention of supply sinks.

[herwin]

The July 20-21 turns seem to confirm this. I expect to capture Singapore by August. I never expect to capture Palembang, Toboali, anything else in Indonesia, Cebu or Manila. The industry fortresses are simply too powerful.

[Elladan]

How big forces have you used to overcome those sinks? In my experience they eventually fall when you use few additional divisions (in case of big ones).

[herwin]

My opponent says he knew there was a problem when the entirety of the Malaya invasion force was insufficient to get 1-1 odds on the Kuala Lumpur industry fortress. Currently, I need 18 divisions (and proportional supporting forces with close support by a couple of corps and an area army HQ) to get 1-1 on the Manila position. To take Toboali, I will need three divisions. Palembang will require a couple of fresh divisions.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

It's late July in my game against blitzk, and Singapore is about to fall. Manila is a bit further away. I'm also besieging Palembang and hold most ports in Borneo and the Celebes. I think the evidence is that supply sinks are rather too powerful. Let's hope that AE has a more effective approach to the underlying problems that led to the invention of supply sinks.

AE has a solution at its heart - so the reason sinks were formed no longer exists. They won't quite go away - however - in the RHS world.
Several secondary functions - and even unique devices - still have missions. "Civilian" engineer units of virtually no combat power simulate destruction of infrastructures. Civilian aircraft maintenance at certain hubs - also static - won't move because the war effort might want them too - and they can refuel and service any plane that happens to land there. Labor squads have other functions - some in other mods - and I use them in draft units - to simulate the added size to lift and feed associated with such units - and similar things.

AE also gives you hex controls over supply entry and exit - which will help manage the economy far better.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

My opponent says he knew there was a problem when the entirety of the Malaya invasion force was insufficient to get 1-1 odds on the Kuala Lumpur industry fortress. Currently, I need 18 divisions (and proportional supporting forces with close support by a couple of corps and an area army HQ) to get 1-1 on the Manila position. To take Toboali, I will need three divisions. Palembang will require a couple of fresh divisions.

What is the version you are playing? In current versions KL is falling very fast IF abandoned and it is JUST the sink present. Now if the enemy has put (in one case) 11 units there - 9 volunatary and not static - he can stop you - I got held up for about two weeks that way - flanked the position down the center - and then isolated it. He THEN ran - evacuating by sea (an op not supposed to be possible - but all my planes could not prevent it - just make it cost him). But IF it is not defended by much - it falls on the second or third day.

Manila is also slightly different: it has lost its heavy CD unit - which moved to Olongapo - the entrance to Manila Bay (the unit in Cavete Province is not at Cavete the shipyard/city - which confused me - and it belongs at Olongapo - covering the entrance hex). Again - the issue is - is it defended? IF you play MacArthur- declare open city - and move ALL units out you can - it is a different kettle of fish than if you defend it.
Just one brigade equivelant of navy troops in 1944 caused an awful fight for just part of the city - the old walled part - making Manila the most destroyed city in PTO - which is saying a lot given what happened to Japanese cities. IF defended - Manila should be tough. It isn't size that kills it - it is time. Stop local production - wait - THEN attack. Another factor is air power - bombard it to smitherines - and it is easier to take.
Mac refused to use heavy bombers - but DID allow 8 inch artillery - and you cannot tell the difference on the recieving end. That is what destroyed the city - bombardment.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: herwin

My opponent says he knew there was a problem when the entirety of the Malaya invasion force was insufficient to get 1-1 odds on the Kuala Lumpur industry fortress. Currently, I need 18 divisions (and proportional supporting forces with close support by a couple of corps and an area army HQ) to get 1-1 on the Manila position. To take Toboali, I will need three divisions. Palembang will require a couple of fresh divisions.

What is the version you are playing? In current versions KL is falling very fast IF abandoned and it is JUST the sink present. Now if the enemy has put (in one case) 11 units there - 9 volunatary and not static - he can stop you - I got held up for about two weeks that way - flanked the position down the center - and then isolated it. He THEN ran - evacuating by sea (an op not supposed to be possible - but all my planes could not prevent it - just make it cost him). But IF it is not defended by much - it falls on the second or third day.

Manila is also slightly different: it has lost its heavy CD unit - which moved to Olongapo - the entrance to Manila Bay (the unit in Cavete Province is not at Cavete the shipyard/city - which confused me - and it belongs at Olongapo - covering the entrance hex). Again - the issue is - is it defended? IF you play MacArthur- declare open city - and move ALL units out you can - it is a different kettle of fish than if you defend it.
Just one brigade equivelant of navy troops in 1944 caused an awful fight for just part of the city - the old walled part - making Manila the most destroyed city in PTO - which is saying a lot given what happened to Japanese cities. IF defended - Manila should be tough. It isn't size that kills it - it is time. Stop local production - wait - THEN attack. Another factor is air power - bombard it to smitherines - and it is easier to take.
Mac refused to use heavy bombers - but DID allow 8 inch artillery - and you cannot tell the difference on the recieving end. That is what destroyed the city - bombardment.

It was that special patched version you sent us. My opponent has defended everything, and he fell back to Manila, not Bataan.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: herwin

It's late July in my game against blitzk, and Singapore is about to fall. Manila is a bit further away. I'm also besieging Palembang and hold most ports in Borneo and the Celebes. I think the evidence is that supply sinks are rather too powerful. Let's hope that AE has a more effective approach to the underlying problems that led to the invention of supply sinks.

As my position on supply sinks have been all along, they are much ado about nothing, as I have seen no problem with the current WITP resource/oil to supply/fuel paradigm. There should be little to hinder the Japanese from expediently capturing the SRO, as historically they were rather pleasantly shocked at how quickly this are was captured.

Maybe AE will address this in a more reasonable manner by forcing the actual production of supplies and fuel bu on map devices. Maybe this is the best solution, but supply 'eaters' surely were not.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Elladan

How big forces have you used to overcome those sinks? In my experience they eventually fall when you use few additional divisions (in case of big ones).

The problem is that you should need to use 'extra divisions', this is treating the symptoms, and not the underlying problems, which of course are the 'supply sink factories'.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: herwin
.

It was that special patched version you sent us. My opponent has defended everything, and he fell back to Manila, not Bataan.

OK - Then this is NOT an evaluation of a supply sink defense. It is an evaluation of defending a city with a combined arms force properly supported by HQ. I did change things so that the sink is more neutral support wise - making the presence (or not) of HQ matter (in support terms). This is what SHOULD happen when defended - and the main sense in which the sink matters to combat (aside from destroying infrastructure) is squad count. I think your opponent is right - and I too don't go to malaria/dengue fever infected Bataan - which should also be hard to take due to the powerful static units - and due to the supplies lasting longer with lots fewer mouths to feed. The difference between me and him is that I also defend the MOUNTAINS in force - and the supply and resource rich Ilagan valley above it - and I try to hold the entire Central Luzon area as long as possible (generating lots of supplies - which go to where you put your units and HQ more or less).
Manila, Baguio and Olongapo should hold out a long time AFTER you lost Clark - if they come down the coast - and you can make the fight for Linguyan miserable - as well as the fight for Lucena. There is a possibility of holding central Luzon vs AI or a stupid opponent - and one good player ran in oil to keep industry running another long period (you start with oil stored at Manila). If the defense of Bataan was miserable, a defense of Manila should last longer (troops better off - more supplies to help them - urban terrain). Both Olongapo and Manila deny use of Manila as a port. A strong fight there destroys industry - forceing the enemy to go without - or to import supplies to fix it - barely worth it.
This is a key position on the key enemy LOC and you should make it expensive.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: herwin

It's late July in my game against blitzk, and Singapore is about to fall. Manila is a bit further away. I'm also besieging Palembang and hold most ports in Borneo and the Celebes. I think the evidence is that supply sinks are rather too powerful. Let's hope that AE has a more effective approach to the underlying problems that led to the invention of supply sinks.

As my position on supply sinks have been all along, they are much ado about nothing, as I have seen no problem with the current WITP resource/oil to supply/fuel paradigm. There should be little to hinder the Japanese from expediently capturing the SRO, as historically they were rather pleasantly shocked at how quickly this are was captured.

Maybe AE will address this in a more reasonable manner by forcing the actual production of supplies and fuel bu on map devices. Maybe this is the best solution, but supply 'eaters' surely were not.

This is a game players point of view - and valid enough if one wants to have fun fighting without the problems of logistics. It permits "AKs to burn" which means both sides are free to spend their transports and tankers for offensive operations. It also makes defenses far too STRONG - supply sinks WEAKEN the defenses - and the "much ado about very little" is to think it is to blame a supply sink for a hard fight. IF a supply sink is ISOLATED and occupied - it will fall very fast. Even those not disabled by things like bad planning and horrible commanders (e.g. Hong Kong) can fall in one day - NOT right - and when does HK ever take until Christmas (Black Christmas, the day it surrendered)? KL falls in 2 or 3 days. Singapore is NEVER an isolated supply sink - it has a heavy static defense unit present far stronger than the KL fort. Manila - its up to your opponent - not to you. We found it was a bear - AFTER we announced we had "captured the city without resistence."

I won't play a game with vast free supply - because outside the context of logistics military operations make no sense whatever in my mind. Nor do I blame a supply sink for the impact of combined arms defense in favorable terrain conditions - particularly if the enemy commanders have also been well selected - and even more if he attracted or shipped in lots of more supplies by good management of unit placement or actual shipping.

Nor is it true that it was "a pleasant surprise how fast things fell." Homma lost his job - and never got another - because he FAILED to take Luzon in time. Palembang was captured but both refineries were destroyed anyway - by the CIVILIAN (Dutch type). Oil in NEI was "pleasantly" back ahead of plan - but only because other civilians (native type) fixed things with skill neither Japanese nor Dutch thought possible. Engineers and plant managers and miners managed massive destruction - and I have photographs showing every vehicle destroyed at vital points (see for example Balikpapan). I do NOT see ENOUGH destruction of industry and resources by supply sinks - and will retain them even when not needed for supply eathing purposes - so one squad landed by a sub cannot capture a major urban metroplex or mining area.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Elladan

How big forces have you used to overcome those sinks? In my experience they eventually fall when you use few additional divisions (in case of big ones).

The problem is that you should need to use 'extra divisions', this is treating the symptoms, and not the underlying problems, which of course are the 'supply sink factories'.

No disrespect intended - this is utterly false. The force landed on Luzon was inadequate to the task - not only in size but also in duration: the plan forced the divisions to leave to move on to NEI before the Allied forces were reduced. It was too small to do the job in the first place, and then didn't hang out long enough to get it done with the force at hand. At one point only one brigade - with less than 2000 effectives - faced a nominal 110,000 (80,000 "effectives" if men infected with malaria and denge fever can be termed "effective") on Bataan. And that was the only "big" unit around (65th Brigade). This unit - not considered very good by its commander before the war began - turned out to do very well indeed - both in mobile and static warfare - although relatively green. But no brigade should take on a force truly the size of an army - including a professional division of US Army and its Philippine Scouts auxiliaries - and be thought sufficient.

In Malaya - five divisions were allocated - but only three were sent - on LOGISTIC grounds. I have NOT succeeded in getting the local supply eaten enough that this is a problem - you don't feed supplies to Malaya - even for a larger force - because they are locally generated - and because they come down the rail line from Thailand (provided you get Thailand working - by capturing the wrong flagged hexes which then generate and let rail lines work). It depends on what is done - but I have test games in which Malaya got hung up for all of TWO WEEKS vs historical invaders - not all that bad. When the Allies run - you can be next to Singapore in a few days. When they do not run - you will be there in three weeks - and you don't need extra troops to do so. The reduction of Singapore is more difficult - and I won't say how long it takes until I take it - but I suspect it is still nothing like 100 days until total control of Malaya - which is my goal - and which is history.