Terrorizing the Economy

[JWE]

Something Maj Faustini said a while ago just sunk into my thick skull. "Why do I have to keep all the factories running, when I get full-up divisional sets for free?"

Seems many people are turning off factories as unnecessary and using the excess HI points to do more planes and engines, or shipyards, or some such. We worked a lot with Andrew Brown to make all new ship construction arrive with empty fuel tanks, and ships appearing at off-map bases arrive half empty, to keep people from getting a "free fuel" bonus. AndyMac has set many later war arrivals at a reduced establishment, but there's still a gazillion Divisions, Brigades, Rgts and bears, oh my, that appear fully equipped and ready to boogie at absolutely no cost to the pools. So ...

Gonna look at arrival dates for LCUs and tweak the arrival 'device content'. TOEs stay the same, but units will need to suck sustenance from the pools in order to get operational and get to TOE levels. That will force retention of vehicle and armaments factories and reduce the potential for excess HI points for use with more sexy stuff.

Everything, and I do mean everything, gets cut. 1942 arrivals get cut to 50%. 1943 arrivals get cut to 33%. 1944 arrivals get cut to 25%. 1945 arrivals get cut to 20%. Understand that some late-date units (like the tanks) were formed from previously disbanded units, so will have to be careful with the withdraw 1 or 2 thing. If one withdraws a tank unit and dumps the tanks into the pools, the later arriving (reformed/renamed/whatever) tank unit arrives totally empty and must rely on the pool content and intervening production to get fleshed out.

Not sure exactly what effect this will have on the long term econometric model, but do remember Andrew Brown taking this sort of freebie device pool stuff into account when he developed the thing - just like the freebie fuel thing - so don't think this will break anything except gamey JFBs hearts.

What ya'll think?

[witpqs]

I think hard core IJ players will love it, provided the numbers add up righteously. Fanbois I am not worried about.

Thinking on it a bit, the time to flesh out units in the game engine is a consideration. You might consider advancing the arrival dates of dehydrated units to compensate for that.

I take it you will not touch Allied formations or else you would have to start upping Allied replacement rates?

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Something Maj Faustini said a while ago just sunk into my thick skull. "Why do I have to keep all the factories running, when I get full-up divisional sets for free?"

Seems many people are turning off factories as unnecessary and using the excess HI points to do more planes and engines, or shipyards, or some such. We worked a lot with Andrew Brown to make all new ship construction arrive with empty fuel tanks, and ships appearing at off-map bases arrive half empty, to keep people from getting a "free fuel" bonus. AndyMac has set many later war arrivals at a reduced establishment, but there's still a gazillion Divisions, Brigades, Rgts and bears, oh my, that appear fully equipped and ready to boogie at absolutely no cost to the pools. So ...

Gonna look at arrival dates for LCUs and tweak the arrival 'device content'. TOEs stay the same, but units will need to suck sustenance from the pools in order to get operational and get to TOE levels. That will force retention of vehicle and armaments factories and reduce the potential for excess HI points for use with more sexy stuff.

Everything, and I do mean everything, gets cut. 1942 arrivals get cut to 50%. 1943 arrivals get cut to 33%. 1944 arrivals get cut to 25%. 1945 arrivals get cut to 20%. Understand that some late-date units (like the tanks) were formed from previously disbanded units, so will have to be careful with the withdraw 1 or 2 thing. If one withdraws a tank unit and dumps the tanks into the pools, the later arriving (reformed/renamed/whatever) tank unit arrives totally empty and must rely on the pool content and intervening production to get fleshed out.

Not sure exactly what effect this will have on the long term econometric model, but do remember Andrew Brown taking this sort of freebie device pool stuff into account when he developed the thing - just like the freebie fuel thing - so don't think this will break anything except gamey JFBs hearts.

What ya'll think?

This sounds good. It forces a more 'realistic' industrial base structure. What's the debate on Allied units in turn? Start them with reduced effectives also? Add a full-blown Allied industrial base on the map?

[Local Yokel]

Here is a Tracker-derived image showing daily armament gains/losses in my 'Peace in the Pacific' test of Treespider's mod. By definition, no combat is taking place requiring replacement of destroyed devices. As at 7 March 1942, I see that I have 2 base forces, 1 special base force and 1 engineer regiment permitted to draw replacements. All other LCU's are set to 'no replacements'.

In the 1st week of January I reduced armament production by about one third of total capacity - yes, I plead guilty to turning production off and on! The 'usual' effect of this was to reduce the gain in stockpiled armament points from 620 to 390 points per day.

However, note that (leaving aside some anomalous figures possibly related to the monthly HI hit for pilot training) there are some days when the gain is less than the 'usual' figure. And there are also days when the stockpile is actually reduced. When this occurs, it has been my entirely subjective impression that such loss or reduced gain coincides with an influx of reinforcements.

So what is accounting for these fluctuations in the armament stockpile, given the absence of combat and near universal denial of replacements? Could I be right in thinking that it is the consequence of armament devices being drawn from the stockpile in order to equip the reinforcement LCU's? If so, that calls in question the validity of John's premise that such LCU's are arriving at full establishment and at no cost to the pools. If not, what is causing these gain/loss fluctuations in the armament stockpile?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Pascal
This sounds good. It forces a more 'realistic' industrial base structure. What's the debate on Allied units in turn? Start them with reduced effectives also? Add a full-blown Allied industrial base on the map?

There really isn't much of a 'debate' on Allied units, in turn. The thing is:

AE is an adaptation of Gary Grigsby's WiTP game system. The fundamental rule for us was "better, but no worse, than Witp". We could not tweak Gary's game system; we could only tweak the incidentals. That is Life, The Universe, and Everything.

All DaBabes does (and what DaBabes is all about) is tweaking the data so that various outcomes tend to approach a more realistic level, but it's all based on Gary's fundamental system. When all is said and done, the Game is the Game.

Allied units don't have the economy underpinnings, so it's not relevant how they come into-game.

The whole process of devising realistic scenarios means conceptualizing a multitude af factors, and then adaptively judging those factors in terms of play balance: admittedly a highly subjective exercise, but I think the Babes folks are pretty honest on both sides of an issue. All we want to do is provide the most realistic environment possible for players to deal with. Given that the game system is cast in stone, we have to dink with the details and try to tweak the result distributions within the algorithms.

We are basically a refinery, not the oil field. Ciao. J

[vettim89]

Love this idea. I am wondering about LY results though. Perhaps an examination of the DB can reveal what if any units arrived on those dates. The large jumps make no sense as the code allows for a unit to add no more than one of each device per game turn. If that is true arriving understrengthed units should not cause a large drop but instead a slow drain on the armament pool. However, if LY is correct and newly arriving units do draw there devices from the armament pool vice the individual device pool then that would explain the drop on the day of arrival. That question does bear out an answer before going forward.

LY, can you look at the device pools directly and see if there were any changes in them on those dates?

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Love this idea. I am wondering about LY results though. Perhaps an examination of the DB can reveal what if any units arrived on those dates. The large jumps make no sense as the code allows for a unit to add no more than one of each device per game turn. If that is true arriving understrengthed units should not cause a large drop but instead a slow drain on the armament pool. However, if LY is correct and newly arriving units do draw there devices from the armament pool vice the individual device pool then that would explain the drop on the day of arrival. That question does bear out an answer before going forward.

LY, can you look at the device pools directly and see if there were any changes in them on those dates?

This isn't conclusive, but I think significant.

Here's an extract from the device pool history of the 70mm Type 92 Howitzer in my PinP game. Note that at turn 57 there's a draw of 63 of these howitzers from the pool. The unit highlighted in the Current Device Usage section, 62nd Inf Gp Bde, is one of a number of infantry reinforcements arriving 57 days into the game. In the Reinforcement Arrival Schedule display, it is shown at turn 1 as having 10 active and 2 disabled Type 92's, but (without having checked) I think its full establishment is 18**. It looks as though the 62nd, along with other reinforcements arriving on turn 57, actually drew their full complement of Type 92's from the device pool. This would also be consistent with the big drop in armament pool points occuring on turn 57.

It does seem that there is evidence of arriving Japanese LCU's drawing their equipment from the armament pool.



<edit>** Having checked my 7 March turn, I find that the 62nd does, in fact, have a full complement of 18 Type 92's. It has remained at 'no replacements' since arrival, so I am fairly confident it drew all 18 from the pool when it appeared on turn 57 </edit>

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Pascal
This sounds good. It forces a more 'realistic' industrial base structure. What's the debate on Allied units in turn? Start them with reduced effectives also? Add a full-blown Allied industrial base on the map?

There really isn't much of a 'debate' on Allied units, in turn. The thing is:

AE is an adaptation of Gary Grigsby's WiTP game system. The fundamental rule for us was "better, but no worse, than Witp". We could not tweak Gary's game system; we could only tweak the incidentals. That is Life, The Universe, and Everything.

All DaBabes does (and what DaBabes is all about) is tweaking the data so that various outcomes tend to approach a more realistic level, but it's all based on Gary's fundamental system. When all is said and done, the Game is the Game.

Allied units don't have the economy underpinnings, so it's not relevant how they come into-game.

The whole process of devising realistic scenarios means conceptualizing a multitude af factors, and then adaptively judging those factors in terms of play balance: admittedly a highly subjective exercise, but I think the Babes folks are pretty honest on both sides of an issue. All we want to do is provide the most realistic environment possible for players to deal with. Given that the game system is cast in stone, we have to dink with the details and try to tweak the result distributions within the algorithms.

We are basically a refinery, not the oil field. Ciao. J

Yes, unless the whole system is redesigned from scratch, there is nothing but tweaking the edges that is possible.

[FatR]

Considering that even with pools overflowing rebuilding a division that had less than 20% of its combat strength destroyed to full takes, in my experience, over 4 months, I would have preffered other ways to increase Japanese economical strain, assuming that is the main goal of this proposal. Because huge amounts of time necessary to restore the units to full combat strength (meaning, in particular that units from the main wave of wartime IJA expansion, starting in late autumn of 1943 will be fully combat ready only for the final defense of Home Islands, if then) are a much harder kick in the Empire's nuts

[PaxMondo]

I thnk conceptually, you are on the right track.&nbsp; I would echo others thoughts that the arrival times will need to be pulled up to allow for the units to be ready for deployment per historical dates.
&nbsp;

[beppi]

ORIGINAL: FatR

Considering that even with pools overflowing rebuilding a division that had less than 20% of its combat strength destroyed to full takes, in my experience, over 4 months, I would have preffered other ways to increase Japanese economical strain, assuming that is the main goal of this proposal. Because huge amounts of time necessary to restore the units to full combat strength (meaning, in particular that units from the main wave of wartime IJA expansion, starting in late autumn of 1943 will be fully combat ready only for the final defense of Home Islands, if then) are a much harder kick in the Empire's nuts

Problem is that currently in the game it only takes around a month to bring a division to full TOE. Put it in a Base with enough Support, enough HQ, more than enough supply. Split it in 3 parts (A/B/C), put it into rest mode. Have seen up to 4 devices drawn per turn for each part (12 total) and even saw up to 8 devices drawn but only for full divisions. Usually support takes the longest as most of the time it is the devices with the largest number. If you say 450 support, leads to 150 per part. 3 - 4 drawn each day is between 37 and 50 days to rebuild a division.

[Shark7]

Just to weigh in with what LY is seeing...

When my pool is too low to supply the units that arrive, I have noticed they will arrive very understrength. I have had units arrive with as few as 4 of a particular device due to my pool being at 0 (armaments and armor). So you either 1. Get a very minimal amount for free (it seems to be around 10%) and the rest is drawn from the pool 2. these units are programmed to come in extremely understrength.

Honestly, changing this will not affect me in any way, since I do not turn off my factories unless I am having HI shortages (I like a large pool for the end game).

I assume you are going to adjust arrival dates so that the unit will be 'combat ready' on its historical activation date? As it is, if you have to draw from the pools, then the units will not be combat ready on arrival.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: beppi
Problem is that currently in the game it only takes around a month to bring a division to full TOE. Put it in a Base with enough Support, enough HQ, more than enough supply. Split it in 3 parts (A/B/C), put it into rest mode. Have seen up to 4 devices drawn per turn for each part (12 total) and even saw up to 8 devices drawn but only for full divisions. Usually support takes the longest as most of the time it is the devices with the largest number. If you say 450 support, leads to 150 per part. 3 - 4 drawn each day is between 37 and 50 days to rebuild a division.

In my experience even a garrizon unit won't go from 70% (?) strength to 100% in a month, even in a huge base with a HQ and a lot of supplies. I have garrizon units that arrive in early October of 1942 before me as an example, none of them has full TOE by November 26.

EDIT: Admittedly, they spent slightly under two weeks being transported on ships. But that still leaves over five weeks of recovery.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
If not, what is causing these gain/loss fluctuations in the armament stockpile?

Hi John,

Good stuff. Made me run some tests of my own. Very interesting results. Found some peculiar burps that I'm pushing upstairs. So can't comment just now except to say that I too see a great deal of (unexpected) variability in certain aspects of the algorithm.

What ever comes of this, I must say you will be the fellow that prompted whatever fix comes into being. Very nice work, John. Please keep it up.

Ciao. John

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: JWE

We worked a lot with Andrew Brown to make all new ship construction arrive with empty fuel tanks, and ships appearing at off-map bases arrive half empty, to keep people from getting a "free fuel" bonus.

Last time I checked, a lot of that "free fuel" had reappeared in the scenario files, including da Babes (I think). If you like JWE, I can grab the latest da Babes scenario, pull all of that fuel out again, and send you a copy? From memory it was something like 600,000 fuel points.

Andrew

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: beppi

ORIGINAL: FatR

Considering that even with pools overflowing rebuilding a division that had less than 20% of its combat strength destroyed to full takes, in my experience, over 4 months, I would have preffered other ways to increase Japanese economical strain, assuming that is the main goal of this proposal. Because huge amounts of time necessary to restore the units to full combat strength (meaning, in particular that units from the main wave of wartime IJA expansion, starting in late autumn of 1943 will be fully combat ready only for the final defense of Home Islands, if then) are a much harder kick in the Empire's nuts

Problem is that currently in the game it only takes around a month to bring a division to full TOE. Put it in a Base with enough Support, enough HQ, more than enough supply. Split it in 3 parts (A/B/C), put it into rest mode. Have seen up to 4 devices drawn per turn for each part (12 total) and even saw up to 8 devices drawn but only for full divisions. Usually support takes the longest as most of the time it is the devices with the largest number. If you say 450 support, leads to 150 per part. 3 - 4 drawn each day is between 37 and 50 days to rebuild a division.

But at what exp level? Probably not suitable for combat for another 3 - 4 months at least ... or more ...

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
If not, what is causing these gain/loss fluctuations in the armament stockpile?

Hi John,

Good stuff. Made me run some tests of my own. Very interesting results. Found some peculiar burps that I'm pushing upstairs. So can't comment just now except to say that I too see a great deal of (unexpected) variability in certain aspects of the algorithm.

What ever comes of this, I must say you will be the fellow that prompted whatever fix comes into being. Very nice work, John. Please keep it up.

Ciao. John

I'm seeing similar issues with VEH points taking steep dives that I haven't fully accounted for. I hadn't looked at armaments yet as there is a bigger pool ...

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Pascal
This sounds good. It forces a more 'realistic' industrial base structure. What's the debate on Allied units in turn? Start them with reduced effectives also? Add a full-blown Allied industrial base on the map?

There really isn't much of a 'debate' on Allied units, in turn. The thing is:

AE is an adaptation of Gary Grigsby's WiTP game system. The fundamental rule for us was "better, but no worse, than Witp". We could not tweak Gary's game system; we could only tweak the incidentals. That is Life, The Universe, and Everything.

All DaBabes does (and what DaBabes is all about) is tweaking the data so that various outcomes tend to approach a more realistic level, but it's all based on Gary's fundamental system. When all is said and done, the Game is the Game.

Allied units don't have the economy underpinnings, so it's not relevant how they come into-game.

The whole process of devising realistic scenarios means conceptualizing a multitude af factors, and then adaptively judging those factors in terms of play balance: admittedly a highly subjective exercise, but I think the Babes folks are pretty honest on both sides of an issue. All we want to do is provide the most realistic environment possible for players to deal with. Given that the game system is cast in stone, we have to dink with the details and try to tweak the result distributions within the algorithms.

We are basically a refinery, not the oil field. Ciao. J

For the U.S. forces, at least, the "build up" time is already accounted for. Early-war units that started / arrived significantly under-equipped IRL, are similarly shorthanded in the game (e.g. most 1942 AAA regiments arrive at 1/3 strength, and don't have the pools to fill out until after July).

Later war, U.S. ground forces appear on-map around their historic deployment date -- by which time they were fully- (and by the standards of other nations, lavishly-) equipped.

[GaryChildress]

Has anyone given some thought on the possibility of removing Japan's ability to control its economic output, putting Japan on par with the Allies? I assume it can be done by simply removing all factories from any bases in the editor and replacing them with monthly build rates. Just give Japan a static monthly output on engines, devices, and planes that match the historical output. It sounds like giving the Japanese the ability to manage their economy leads to more headaches and problems than it may be worth.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Has anyone given some thought on the possibility of removing Japan's ability to control its economic output, putting Japan on par with the Allies? I assume it can be done by simply removing all factories from any bases in the editor and replacing them with monthly build rates. Just give Japan a static monthly output on engines, devices, and planes that match the historical output. It sounds like giving the Japanese the ability to manage their economy leads to more headaches and problems than it may be worth.

Ummm.... then what purpose is reserved for the merchant fleet?