Empires in the Balance (TS GCM v2)

[Buck Beach]

From the DBB errata thread. 

"So I've gone through and made a hand written list of all of the parents and next to them the sub-units.

Then under the parents I've written down the device numbers.

I then cross check the parent to the TO&E - PROBLEM - some parent divisions don't match TO&E namely in devices 775/776 in addition to the aforementioned Sqd issue.

I then place a check under each sub-unit on the line for the device...if there is a mismatch I correct the sub unit.

In some instances I've found the parent assigned device 721 - 7.7 AAMG but the subs assigned device 722 - 13.2 AAMG.

This is going to take a while... "

Did you ever get through this?  Will it get into your Mod?

Buck

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

From the DBB errata thread. 

"So I've gone through and made a hand written list of all of the parents and next to them the sub-units.

Then under the parents I've written down the device numbers.

I then cross check the parent to the TO&E - PROBLEM - some parent divisions don't match TO&E namely in devices 775/776 in addition to the aforementioned Sqd issue.

I then place a check under each sub-unit on the line for the device...if there is a mismatch I correct the sub unit.

In some instances I've found the parent assigned device 721 - 7.7 AAMG but the subs assigned device 722 - 13.2 AAMG.

This is going to take a while... "

Did you ever get through this?  Will it get into your Mod?

Buck

Yes it will eventually get into the mod.

[treespider]

Bump for no good reason... other than to report the mod seems to be working as intended....and to aid those in finding the discussion of this mod that has come up in some other posts.
 
witpqs and I have been "playtesting" the mod and the Japanese are able to achieve all of their historical objectives and then some....within the historic time frame. I have uncovered some data entry hiccups that will be cleaned up in the coming weeks....but all in all life is good.
 
Next big project is to attempt to write some AI scripts for this beast and to develop a Dec 8 start as well.

[treespider]

Bump

[oldman45]

As always, thanks for your hard work on this!

[inqistor]

So, since it should have been already battle-tested...


Does USA have initial problem with supply? Namely was there possibility, that transport ships were forced to wait, because there was not enough supply in ports for full load?

Are Japanese ports too crowded with unloading extra Resources, that some ships have to go elsewhere for their loading?

And is there shortage of transport ships?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

So, since it should have been already battle-tested...


Does USA have initial problem with supply? Namely was there possibility, that transport ships were forced to wait, because there was not enough supply in ports for full load?

Are Japanese ports too crowded with unloading extra Resources, that some ships have to go elsewhere for their loading?

And is there shortage of transport ships?

From a Japanese perspective -

I have probably 80% of my xAK's tied up on regular resource/supply/fuel runs - not enough tankers. The remaining 20% of the xAK / AK's are used for moving reinforcements around and local supply runs. These %'s are just guestimates, I haven't done an actual count.

Unlike other games I have committed to only placing 5 xAK's per TF's that are devoted to resource runs. As a result I have a bunch of small TF's running to and fro to almost every Japanese port in the HI that is size 3 or larger.

100% of my tankers are in convoys either moving Fuel or Oil.

[witpqs]

USA does start with a shortage of supply. Due to the shortage of ships at the USA to move the supply and sever shortage of escorts, supply builds up quickly enough for the ships available. If one wanted to, the supply shortage could be tuned to be somewhat more severe for the first 6 months or so.

[Halsey]

bump...

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: treespider
From a Japanese perspective -

I have probably 80% of my xAK's tied up on regular resource/supply/fuel runs - not enough tankers. The remaining 20% of the xAK / AK's are used for moving reinforcements around and local supply runs. These %'s are just guestimates, I haven't done an actual count.

Was there any changes in fuel usage in MOD, except extra needed for more transports?
Just check how much transports waiting in ports, that would indicate how big is reserve.
Were you forced to convert xAKs into -t, or xAPs?

ORIGINAL: witpqs

USA does start with a shortage of supply. Due to the shortage of ships at the USA to move the supply and sever shortage of escorts, supply builds up quickly enough for the ships available. If one wanted to, the supply shortage could be tuned to be somewhat more severe for the first 6 months or so.

My experience exactly, from GC. I could transport more, but I am short on escorts, so transports are waiting in San Francisco.

Thinking about Guadalcanal, there should be real effort to mount such operation, so I would say, there should be shortages by AT LEAST a year. Actually, what is the situation with fuel? Are there any disabled refineries in USA?
I see it that, it should be constant Allies decision:
1) stop repairs now, and stockpile supply for operations, or
2) keep repairs, to get bigger production in future?

Allies do not need much fuel at the beginning, so additional suck of supply for refineries repair seems reasonable.

[witpqs]

Scenario rules forbid turning off repairs of the repairing industries in North America. BTW, they forbid Allies turning off repairs of industries in most places.

I'm not aware of any shortage of fuel the US suffered in the Pacific, so that seems unnecessary. As for supplies, by the middle of '42 I think the real problem was having supplies from North America where they were needed, not so much the raw amounts. At Guadalcanal, for example, the issue was not having ships lining the bottom of the sound in futile attempts to deliver supplies during the early going.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I'm not aware of any shortage of fuel the US suffered in the Pacific, so that seems unnecessary. As for supplies, by the middle of '42 I think the real problem was having supplies from North America where they were needed, not so much the raw amounts. At Guadalcanal, for example, the issue was not having ships lining the bottom of the sound in futile attempts to deliver supplies during the early going.

I am just looking for additional sinkholes for supply. Considering distance, and capacity for early-war fuel transport, I do not think, even disabling HALF of Refineries will create shortage.

And, as I understand, this whole additional repairs, should create, in some point in game, supply shortage in USA, because otherwise they have completely no function. And it should be shortage influencing planned operations, not some late war lack of supply, in excess of already available 10 Gazillions at front.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I'm not aware of any shortage of fuel the US suffered in the Pacific, so that seems unnecessary. As for supplies, by the middle of '42 I think the real problem was having supplies from North America where they were needed, not so much the raw amounts. At Guadalcanal, for example, the issue was not having ships lining the bottom of the sound in futile attempts to deliver supplies during the early going.

I am just looking for additional sinkholes for supply. Considering distance, and capacity for early-war fuel transport, I do not think, even disabling HALF of Refineries will create shortage.

And, as I understand, this whole additional repairs, should create, in some point in game, supply shortage in USA, because otherwise they have completely no function. And it should be shortage influencing planned operations, not some late war lack of supply, in excess of already available 10 Gazillions at front.

For the Allies, at least, what you should really be after is a shipping "sinkhole." There were more supplies than hulls to carry it.

Churchill said (something like), "shipping was our great bottleneck . . . and the factor around which all strategy was designed."

Although it is a huge improvement over stock WitP, where it was not uncommon for players to leave half of their merchants swinging at anchor throughout the war, AE doesn't quite capture the 'feel' of a shortage of cargo ships. (Although it certainly does reflect the scarcity, and value, of tankers and assault transport).

[witpqs]

Well put, Blackhorse. I do find in this scenario that in the early going the shortage is ships. Some of this is due to conversions to needed types (AKE, AE, xAP, AG, etc.), but this mod also also reduced the carrying capacity of the xAK types, which I believe is incorporated in Babes-C (IIRC). Of course whether it is tuned to be short enough is matter of judgement and in a particular contest will always be dependent upon the strategy and tactics in play. The more you hold back the less the shortage, the more you push the more the shortage, but that's the whole point so it's all good. It has a good 'feel' to it where it is at now. I think I mentioned earlier that one maybe could tweak supply just a bit tighter in the first 6 months, but in a game with a different course that might be wrong too.

Inquistor, if you want to increase the supply burn in North America then look at the extra Heavy Industry factories (I don't know what else to call them) that Treespider put in place. If you want supply to burn longer then increase the numbers on some of them. If you want more supply burned at the beginning then add some additional such factories (each factory repairing 1 point per day at a cost of 1,000 supply per point).

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: inqistor
I am just looking for additional sinkholes for supply. Considering distance, and capacity for early-war fuel transport, I do not think, even disabling HALF of Refineries will create shortage.

And, as I understand, this whole additional repairs, should create, in some point in game, supply shortage in USA, because otherwise they have completely no function. And it should be shortage influencing planned operations, not some late war lack of supply, in excess of already available 10 Gazillions at front.

For the Allies, at least, what you should really be after is a shipping "sinkhole." There were more supplies than hulls to carry it.

Churchill said (something like), "shipping was our great bottleneck . . . and the factor around which all strategy was designed."

Although it is a huge improvement over stock WitP, where it was not uncommon for players to leave half of their merchants swinging at anchor throughout the war, AE doesn't quite capture the 'feel' of a shortage of cargo ships. (Although it certainly does reflect the scarcity, and value, of tankers and assault transport).

Well, there is no need, to get units back into rear, once they end fights, because in most cases they are in pretty good condition, so it saves a lot of shipping.
But, are not load/unload rates generally too generous? It seems, once docked everything can be done in 2 days top. Only small port seems to have any impact on transport operations.

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Inquistor, if you want to increase the supply burn in North America then look at the extra Heavy Industry factories (I don't know what else to call them) that Treespider put in place. If you want supply to burn longer then increase the numbers on some of them. If you want more supply burned at the beginning then add some additional such factories (each factory repairing 1 point per day at a cost of 1,000 supply per point).

Reduction is doable in one way, or another. Question is - what is the goal of such reduction? If there is not enough shipping to load even reduced production it hardly have any effect in-game.
The other difference, I can see, is to have supply appear in off-map bases. If, for example, player would have to transport supply from USA, to Aden, instead it showing up there already.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Inquistor, if you want to increase the supply burn in North America then look at the extra Heavy Industry factories (I don't know what else to call them) that Treespider put in place. If you want supply to burn longer then increase the numbers on some of them. If you want more supply burned at the beginning then add some additional such factories (each factory repairing 1 point per day at a cost of 1,000 supply per point).

Reduction is doable in one way, or another. Question is - what is the goal of such reduction? If there is not enough shipping to load even reduced production it hardly have any effect in-game.

The problem with trying to answer this question is that it depends upon the course of the game, meaning the choices that both players make and how things go.

The other difference, I can see, is to have supply appear in off-map bases. If, for example, player would have to transport supply from USA, to Aden, instead it showing up there already.

Aden is not doable, as the Med is not open until mid-43. Besides, the supply allocation at Aden and Abadan is small. When the Med opens, convoys begin to arrive at Aden. Anyhow, I don't see any change like this doing anything more than burdening the player.

[treespider]

Bumpity bump bump...cause i'm getting the itch...

[Mac Linehan]

treespider -

Your presence has been missed, glad to have you back. Of course you will return to modding - AE is addicting; editing and modding AE even more so.

Resistance is futile...

Mac

[treespider]

Thanks Mac,

Yes I do intend on reviving this beasty...but I intend to pace myself this time around.

Need to get my tools in order...such as the pwhex editor etc. Also need to see where the game lies with 1108r9.

I know one of the current contentious issues is still the air war...and I think one of my mods core ideas has merit in addressing some of that issue. The idea being the across the board reduction in air base sizes so that players are forced to operate from smaller bases...thereby forcing inefficiency on the player. There is obviously more to the issue and that is just one facet of many.

Before any of that happens however I still need to get immersed in the game, and yet I still need to strike the balance between AE and the rest of my life.

[treespider]

Got my pwhexe editor up and running...will be starting with internal map changes to portions of China. Those changes coupled with the base additions and garrison requirements introduced in version 1 should slow China to an utter miserable crawl.


Do not have a release date forecast as of yet.