Merchant Ships

[treespider]

For no good reason -

HR / Coding Change: Limit the # of Japanese cargo vessels allowed in a TF transporting resources to 5.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: treespider

For no good reason -

HR / Coding Change: Limit the # of Japanese cargo vessels allowed in a TF transporting resources to 5.

Are you serious?

[Nikademus]

then i'd suggest that adding more merchants for Japan would only exaserbate the issue, same as giving the Allied side more detail control of historical military and merchant reinforcements throws off the early pace of the game, not to mention the massive evacuation of fuel reserves in the SRA to Oz.

While i have not gotten to 44-45 in a PBEM, it seems to me that short of massive carrier raids on ports, the Japan player isn't going to be hurting in the merchant dept. But if someone has experienced differently, i'd be interested in hearing their thoughts on the matter.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Brady

As to the efects of ASW assests, thats another subject, and from what I have sean on the forum a very subjective one.

I agree regarding surface ASW assets. Regarding air ASW, I think it's pretty solid. And - it goes beyond ASW to other functions affected by pilot skills: ground attack, airfield attack, naval attack. Port attack doesn't seem to show excessive results. Air to air very highly skilled pilots should see big shifts in their favor, no problem there. But for the ones I listed, high pilots skills give too much benefit, probably resulting in results that exceed what could really be done with best skilled pilots. Technology provides a hard limit!

I mention this here because it does (when an IJ players practices this as many do) greatly reduce the potential impact of Allied subs on the IJ merchant fleet, and that affects the impact of whatever actions you take regarding the IJ merchant fleet.

Not hijacking - will not post further on this point.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The allied situation can be addressed by restricting many more LCU's at game start, and reducing supply levels, tweaking merchant availability. Personally i would also remove the ability to insta-divert historical reinforcements to new objectives, such as Singapore reinforcements and the sending home of Aussie divisions for home defense.

Aside from disagreeing with these points, I don't understand what you are getting at here. How is this related to the strain on the IJ merchant fleet to bring resources to Japan?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

The "all resources collect in the biggest connected port" thing, combined with the infinite capacity insta-rail is a big part of the problem IMO. You only need a relatively few large ships trucking between a small set of large ports to shift all the stuff out of a region. The smaller cargo vessels are basically surplus to requirements, and having a very few convoy routes and bottlenecks to protect makes the ASW job vastly easier.

In reality, even with a convoy system, there would be shipping constantly checking in and out of every base on the map, and of necessity much of this traffic would comprise of small ships. That's not something you would necessarily want to manage of course.

I suspect that just limiting rail capacity and range would be about the most useful simple way to address this. That's a code change though ...

It's a fairly natural change if you're already addressing the optimisation problem for moving supplies, goods, fuel, and oil from their sources to the points demanding them. Instead of infinite transfer capacity, you use finite capacity.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
i'm being serious. The issue of fully aka accurately representing Japan's merchants is a long standing one that has spawned many heated arguments.

But given how the game economy works......again, has anyone even equaled the economic success achieved by the Allies during the war against Japan? Has Japan's resources and oil/fuel shriveled to the point of shortages?

I'm not counting SB of industries ....talking specifcally about the strangling of Japan's merchant marine trying to bring in resources. It has been suggested that given the abstract nature of supply in the game that one can't starve Japan....so if thats the case.....an argument for putting in every wooden boat or small merchant is moot.

Pacwar had the same issue.

That's quite true. It's not 'really' possible to starve Japan out. At least not 'effectively'. I think that was a game play consideration. Given all the other advantages the Allies acquire over time, the ability to 'end' the game by halting the economy was just a teensy bit much.

The bitch is that irl, Japan was frikkin pathetic. They knew nothing, they had nothing, they did nothing, they got nothing.

A lot of these discussions would be a bit more relevant if we were talking about opponents with some small degree of relative capability, but jeez, louize. I mean, if realistic Japanese capabilities were impressed on the game, anyone with an IQ over 36, that was able to read a book, could do the nasty. That's not good in terms of fun and playability.

You got lots of great data and stuff, but just what do you propose to do with it, I mean, in broad, general, game terms. Am willing to listen and modify stuff, but, need a conceptual basis to work from, rather than a pile data dumps.

He'p me, he'p me here. I'm reaching out but just can't quite grasp the brass ringy thingy.

With all due respect, Ciao. John

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The allied situation can be addressed by restricting many more LCU's at game start, and reducing supply levels, tweaking merchant availability. Personally i would also remove the ability to insta-divert historical reinforcements to new objectives, such as Singapore reinforcements and the sending home of Aussie divisions for home defense.

Aside from disagreeing with these points, I don't understand what you are getting at here. How is this related to the strain on the IJ merchant fleet to bring resources to Japan?

Brady mentioned some issues on the Allied side....i gave my thoughts on it......and if i have time will probably employ it in a mod. Issue is the same....there's historical situations, and then there's how the game reprsesents....usually abstractly, these situations.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
i'm being serious. The issue of fully aka accurately representing Japan's merchants is a long standing one that has spawned many heated arguments.

But given how the game economy works......again, has anyone even equaled the economic success achieved by the Allies during the war against Japan? Has Japan's resources and oil/fuel shriveled to the point of shortages?

I'm not counting SB of industries ....talking specifcally about the strangling of Japan's merchant marine trying to bring in resources. It has been suggested that given the abstract nature of supply in the game that one can't starve Japan....so if thats the case.....an argument for putting in every wooden boat or small merchant is moot.

Pacwar had the same issue.

That's quite true. It's not 'really' possible to starve Japan out. At least not 'effectively'. I think that was a game play consideration. Given all the other advantages the Allies acquire over time, the ability to 'end' the game by halting the economy was just a teensy bit much.

The bitch is that irl, Japan was frikkin pathetic. They knew nothing, they had nothing, they did nothing, they got nothing.

A lot of these discussions would be a bit more relevant if we were talking about opponents with some small degree of relative capability, but jeez, louize. I mean, if realistic Japanese capabilities were impressed on the game, anyone with an IQ over 36, that was able to read a book, could do the nasty. That's not good in terms of fun and playability.

You got lots of great data and stuff, but just what do you propose to do with it, I mean, in broad, general, game terms. Am willing to listen and modify stuff, but, need a conceptual basis to work from, rather than a pile data dumps.

He'p me, he'p me here. I'm reaching out but just can't quite grasp the brass ringy thingy.

With all due respect, Ciao. John

Suggestions--

1. Increase Japanese Resource requirements a "tinge" using the editor to account for the unaccounted for imports of "finished goods" and sundry other items - the returning empty hulls can be considered to be carrying whatever exports the Japanese made. The increased demand will require more trips by the ships.

2. Model the lack of escort policy and convoy routines through house rules...hence my earlier simplistic suggestion of limiting the # of cargo vessels in a Resource TF.

3. "Break" the rail lines in China and elsewhere to create a non-continuous rail lines...rail service sucked in the Pacific for the most part.(Been awhile since I played so not sure what effect if any this would have but is in response to the rail post above.)

EDIT:

4. Use House Rules to limit the ASW use of ARMY aircraft...

Those are four just off the top of my head based on experiences from 8 months ago...

[Brady]

Personaly I cant posably imagine implementing anything that would make the game any easer for the Allies at this point.
 
Aside from some obvious TOE eror.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: JWE

You got lots of great data and stuff, but just what do you propose to do with it, I mean, in broad, general, game terms. Am willing to listen and modify stuff, but, need a conceptual basis to work from, rather than a pile data dumps.

He'p me, he'p me here. I'm reaching out but just can't quite grasp the brass ringy thingy.

With all due respect, Ciao. John

Not sure to be honest....i'm not nearly as capable as you are in crunching the data. My main point was to avoid another heated debate in regards to the touchy issue of "missing" Japanese merchants. If the present game model can't really represent Japan's vulnerability to naval blockade....its an argument not worth having IMO.

As to a fix......not sure it can be done within the game engine. Supply abstraction is a major culprit here. It allows Japan to persevere in the face of limited resources, and allows the Allied player to go full offensive as early as early 42. (as occured in Joe and my PBEM with the Ozzzies)

band aid fixes might involve actually reducing Japan's merchant fleet or increasing the ability of USN subs after 42 to find and hit convoys.

I worked hard with Don and otherJoe to make ASW more realistic and less KABLAMMO as well as reduce air ASW. Problem here is any Japan player with a brain will not make the errors of non convoying that Japan did. Simply reducing Japanese ASW across the board will only add problems of 'sub camping' in port hexes again. We tried real hard to make shallow/port dangerous but deep see VERY hard for Japan to have success vs subs. I still think more can be done there....code permitting.

Fixing abstract supply is probably impossible as i'm sure you know. Only band aid there would be temporary reductions. I would (were it possible) lock down resources in the SRA to prevent mass evac from turn 2 onward.

Just brainstorming here. AE improved the situation alot. But working within the aging code of course has it's limits.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Brady

Personaly I cant posably imagine implementing anything that would make the game any easer for the Allies at this point.

Aside from some obvious TOE eror.

Brady, just due to wording I'm not understanding. Do you mean that the game is as easy as it gets for the Allies, or that anything worth implementing is a huge undertaking/would have undesired consequences? Not arguing, just asking.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Suggestions--

1. Increase Japanese Resource requirements a "tinge" using the editor to account for the unaccounted for imports of "finished goods" and sundry other items - the returning empty hulls can be considered to be carrying whatever exports the Japanese made. The increased demand will require more trips by the ships.

I think i recall John and Andy talking about that....only problem is that the model is so complex a tweak in one area could throw it off elsewhere and required the whole thing to be redone. I pity the fool who takes that task on [:)]. Still it's a good idea long suggested.

2. Model the lack of escort policy and convoy routines through house rules...hence my earlier simplistic suggestion of limiting the # of cargo vessels in a Resource TF.

A house rule could definately work here.

3. "Break" the rail lines in China and elsewhere to create a non-continuous rail lines...rail service sucked in the Pacific for the most part.(Been awhile since I played so not sure what effect if any this would have but is in response to the rail post above.)

China.....aiee. [;)]

EDIT:

4. Use House Rules to limit the ASW use of ARMY aircraft...

Those are four just off the top of my head based on experiences from 8 months ago...

Agreed. Army pilots were not trained for it. In addition, or in place of this one could suggest limiting ASW to one hex....to help discourage "port camping" but otherwise leave the open sea more friendly to Allied subs.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Suggestions--

1. Increase Japanese Resource requirements a "tinge" using the editor to account for the unaccounted for imports of "finished goods" and sundry other items - the returning empty hulls can be considered to be carrying whatever exports the Japanese made. The increased demand will require more trips by the ships.

2. Model the lack of escort policy and convoy routines through house rules...hence my earlier simplistic suggestion of limiting the # of cargo vessels in a Resource TF.

3. "Break" the rail lines in China and elsewhere to create a non-continuous rail lines...rail service sucked in the Pacific for the most part.(Been awhile since I played so not sure what effect if any this would have but is in response to the rail post above.)

EDIT:

4. Use House Rules to limit the ASW use of ARMY aircraft...

Those are four just off the top of my head based on experiences from 8 months ago...

Dude, I hear you, but you are trying to fold four/five different things into a highly differentiated model. It doesn't work that way.

Let's just try and get the elements of one specific thing set. And then we can mess with the elements of the next specific thing; and then the next specific thing. The Deming analysis knows how to accommodate all this, but it requires the individual elements to be cast in frikkin stone.

So let's play this ship thing out before going on to another parameter. Patience, patience, Padawan, patience. All things do indeed come to those who wait and who truly see.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: treespider
Suggestions--

1. Increase Japanese Resource requirements a "tinge" using the editor to account for the unaccounted for imports of "finished goods" and sundry other items - the returning empty hulls can be considered to be carrying whatever exports the Japanese made. The increased demand will require more trips by the ships.

I think i recall John and Andy talking about that....only problem is that the model is so complex a tweak in one area could throw it off elsewhere and required the whole thing to be redone. I pity the fool who takes that task on [:)]. Still it's a good idea long suggested.

One of the side-effects of an increased demand for resources by industry would be an increase in consumption of said resources by industry in Manchuria, China, Indonesia and elsewhere...which could have serious repercussions or perhaps not that serious...so this idea would have to be studied long and hard...as it was my first suggestion I still think its one of the better "direct" antidotes.

Perhaps at some point through the use of TRACKER or some such utility the impact of increased resource demand outside of Japan could be studied...

The outputs could all remain the same just a change in the inputs would be needed.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Dude, I hear you, but you are trying to fold four/five different things into a highly differentiated model. It doesn't work that way.

Let's just try and get the elements of one specific thing set. And then we can mess with the elements of the next specific thing; and then the next specific thing. The Deming analysis knows how to accommodate all this, but it requires the individual elements to be cast in frikkin stone.

So let's play this ship thing out before going on to another parameter. Patience, patience, Padawan, patience. All things do indeed come to those who wait and who truly see.

The easiest and hardest is my first suggestion...easiest because it involves the change of all of two numbers in the editor...hardest because of the possible repercussions that need to be studied.

[Brady]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Brady

Personaly I cant posably imagine implementing anything that would make the game any easer for the Allies at this point.

Aside from some obvious TOE eror.

Brady, just due to wording I'm not understanding. Do you mean that the game is as easy as it gets for the Allies, or that anything worth implementing is a huge undertaking/would have undesired consequences? Not arguing, just asking.

Yes (Both)

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Brady

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Brady

Personaly I cant posably imagine implementing anything that would make the game any easer for the Allies at this point.

Aside from some obvious TOE eror.

Brady, just due to wording I'm not understanding. Do you mean that the game is as easy as it gets for the Allies, or that anything worth implementing is a huge undertaking/would have undesired consequences? Not arguing, just asking.

Yes (Both)

As far as however easy it is perceived to be, that's a matter of victory conditions. A baseline scenario should be close to 'realistic', then mods take it from there (ala scenario #2).

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
As far as however easy it is perceived to be, that's a matter of victory conditions. A baseline scenario should be close to 'realistic', then mods take it from there (ala scenario #2).

For reasons of which Brady is well aware, I have green buttoned him and will not respond to any of his comments. Ever.

[Local Yokel]

Just thinking aloud here – and I am probably being very naive.

I can't see insurmountable difficulties in setting up a sandbox to test a 'peacetime' model of the Japanese economy with resource inputs/outputs tweaked. Computer v Computer – 3 day turn cycle. Auto supply to all bases: bad side effects? The impression I get is that one would need to set up computer controlled CS resource convoys from only four ports or thereabouts outside the home islands, such are the effects of rail auto movement. Give the HI unlimited fuel for the exercise since it's resource inputs and outputs you need to test.

About 540 turns to run for a full test, but you would probably get a worthwhile data set with fewer turns.

As I say, just thinking aloud. What have I missed? Has such sandboxing already been done during AE's development?

Incidentally, where in the editor do you tweak victory conditions?