BP convoy lines to the USSR

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

To my opinion, the production planning is too difficult and thinks too much for the player. Now, if things were working 100% OK (that means that it optimizes the results for each major power involved) than things would be better.

Agreed.
Even if it optimized perfectly, would that be what every player wants? This goes specifically to Oil games. Do you want the production system to optimize on the basis of maximum BPs or on the basis of saving some oil in the Early Game or even later on, prior to the Jul/Aug turn if you're playing Germany? The AI can do anything it wants, doesn't bother me. But that should only be the AI player, not the human player.

[Larry Smith]

As a work-around right now, during the Preliminary Production phase, I make sure to leave the CW to last, to make sure every resource going to France gets to France. If I have to skip back and forth to reset those darned Malay resources to not use the French convoys in the S. China Sea, I do. It's annoying, and time consuming, but I do it. As for saving oil in the early game, make sure to pay attention to your build modifier. There will be times when the rounding from that one extra resource needed to fill out all your factories just doesn't push up your BP total, so you can chose to save an oil, since the round up gives you the same BP's. [10.25 rounds to 10, but so does 9.5] There are tricks.

On another note, it just occurred to me that in some of my games, I have been able to send resources to the USSR while it was still neutral, simply by choosing the US Entry Option for that. I'll see if I still have a save with that in it, and if it is a bug, would someone let me know. The game keeps changing, and I long-ago gave up trying to keep up with the changes.

[Centuur]

Here is RAW, which answers you question on the USSR receiving resources while neutral:

19. Resources to USSR - The US, CW and/or France can give or
receive 1 resource each per turn to or from the USSR in future
turns even if the USSR is neutral (5 each per turn while Germany
and the USSR are at war and unlimited while the US is also at
war with Germany). US convoy points can’t be used to transport
these resources while the US is a neutral major power.


So that's no bug, if the number of resources is only 1 with a neutral USSR per major power sending or receiving the resource. Can you check this in your game? Since Steve has started to fix the bugs on production planning and there isn't any bug recorded for this at the moment, it's useful to check this if you can.

And you are right to make the CW the last country in production planning (when all the other are done).

[Larry Smith]

What do you know! It just so happened that I only gave them one from each of the CW and from France. At least while the USSR was neutral. I was doing it right and I never even knew. Don't tell my wife - she'll never believe it.

And, thanks!

[Viktor_Kormel_slith]

I fall into despair each time I have to fight with production phase. I am thinking about it and my conclusion is that it´s very difficult to solve it. Sometimes I get so frustrated that I would like a total manual assignation, this way what I get is what I choose, the program just should to force the trade agreements or help with preasignment. Other times, I think and I understand what Steve tries to do but I think it´s no working like it should. Anyway I agree with most of you,when you choose some assignation the program should not to ignore your orders. I think that it would be right a "delete all the assignations" or "delete last turn assignations" buttons to make easy adjustments,this way the preproduction work will be easier and faster...

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Here is RAW, which answers you question on the USSR receiving resources while neutral:

19. Resources to USSR - The US, CW and/or France can give or
receive 1 resource each per turn to or from the USSR in future
turns even if the USSR is neutral (5 each per turn while Germany
and the USSR are at war and unlimited while the US is also at
war with Germany). US convoy points can’t be used to transport
these resources while the US is a neutral major power.


So that's no bug, if the number of resources is only 1 with a neutral USSR per major power sending or receiving the resource. Can you check this in your game? Since Steve has started to fix the bugs on production planning and there isn't any bug recorded for this at the moment, it's useful to check this if you can.

And you are right to make the CW the last country in production planning (when all the other are done).

If it worked, then the transporting CPs would have to have been Russian, because of this in the RAC:

Active major powers may contribute to the convoy chain of any other active major power on the same side (Clarification: but not to the convoy chain of a neutral major power).

Otherwise, it's a bug.

[Larry Smith]

Well, the two in the Arctic Ocean were Russian. The rest of the chain was CW, however.

[paulderynck]

Any chance of a saved game with that lend working? Maybe in Auto-saves?

[Larry Smith]

I will check in the morning. If I have one, I'll send it.

Here we are. Found two. One is from an earlier beta version.
The newer one only has the CW sending a resource. It highlights an issue I mentioned in another thread, about the convoy planner not taking the shortest route, as this one is being sent out through the Bay of Biscay, even though Liverpool is adjacent also to the Faeroe gap - and Coventry is just two hexes away, so another British port that is only adjacent to the Biscay would be further to send the resource by rail!

The older one has a French resource coming out of Senegal. I had one where I thought I'd be cute, and send the oil from Iraq, forgetting that it was not French controlled until saved. Well, the program did remember, and took the saved oil in Damascus. However, I don;t have a copy of that one, and it was an overland route, so it wouldn't help much.

[Larry Smith]

And the older file...

I named the file "Russian Convoy Dilemma" [which I think I misspelled in the file name], but the shortened version looks like "Russian enema". Scary [X(]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

You're good at seeing what you want to see.


The point of this bug report was to show the USA could not send 3 BP's from the USA to the USSR. The CW always hijack some of the convoys.
We pick what nations send BP's. We cannont tell the program what convoys to use. That means our choice becomes no choice.

The convoy line into the Artic is known. Its not like i did not know the rail was cut to murmansk or the weather prevented any BP's from going from the north. It seems obvious the route from India to the Red Sea to the port of SUEZ was a way around this.
But of course the CW is using the convoy line the USA created to Vladivotok which means the indian Factories dont send to South USSR.

You are telling me the convoy line into the Red Sea cannot off load resources into the port of SUEZ which shares the same RR as Port Said?


Will this get a fix?

Hey, cut me some slack. I didn't see the port Suez on the detailed map (the screenshot below is a Where's Suez puzzle). The program finds a way to fulfill the Commonwealth trade commitments and then ends up with no way to fulfill the US build point commitments - as you have noted.

---

As for changing code to give the players more freedom of choice in production planning, I would prefer to only do that when necessary. Why, you may ask? Because players will push the limits of any freedom provided by the program to achieve diabolical results. Also, in general, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it", seems like a good idea to me.

The problem you have encountered is that there can be conflicts in assigning convoys for meeting build point commitments in trade agreements. That is a new problem, which I would like to think about for a while. Several possible solutions occur to me - other than letting players dictate that factory A sends a build point to destination B.

For instance, say using a route for a build point eliminates the ability of the program to fulfill a different trade commitment (e.g., for oil points)? Given the ability to 'control' what goes where, a player could renege on his oil point commitments and instead fulfill just his build point commitments. While if the program works it out, both could be fulfilled. A strange example? Well I have seen a lot of strange stuff in the saved games from many different parties over the years. As the programmer, I need to worry about such odd happenings. Plugging one hole at the expense of generating two or more new ones, wouldn't be a good idea.

[WarHunter]

Sir that is the difference between playing behind the stage and playing on the stage. Had i not said anything in my tactless way. We would not be here talking. The key here is that the program did not notice where the port of Suez was. I can cut you slack. Not the program.

If there is any place in the entire game you should seriously give the players more control it is the convoy/production/trade agreements.

The convoy lines are not 1 way streets. They are multilane highways. Especially for the Allied players. Currently with 1 player doing everything there is no way to tell the production routine which way the player wants a resource or BP to travel. Add France, CW, USA, USSR, China to the mix and it becomes a convoy nightmare.
I could give you wonderful examples of how the program screws up the Japanese convoy from the get go. Start a game place 3 convoy points in the South China Sea. Then look at the production screen. Does the AI send any 1 of the 3 resources or oil to Canton? No. I have to force it. And hope it sticks. But i dont trust the AI and check every turn it has not been changed. Oh and sometimes you even get a phantom convoy point in the China sea. This is during setup. Yes i have nice screenshots of that. No wonder i don't likey the convoy AI. Sending the korean resource to Sapporo and the resource from near Sapporo to Kyoto is just plain dumb. Sure the production is "optimized". But it is not how i want to see it done.

Really what's the point. You need to think about it. My suggestion. While you are thinking about it. How about setting up a campaign game and see for yourself. Seeing is believing. Look at each oil and resource point and what factory it gets sent to. Maybe you will like what you see. Maybe not.

In the boardgame you could eaisly explain where BP's were coming from. Where Resources were going and coming from. Where oil was being saved or being used for production. The boardgame gave players complete control. The other humans were the brake on an diabolocal ideas.

Players of this game will do exactly what the program allows them to. Of that i have no illusions. Just because it may be strange to some, does not mean they should not be able to do it. As long as the rules are followed.

I actually dread trying to fullfill a trade agreement with the current public beta. If the program decides no BP's or resources get through. It is SoL for the players on both sides of the agreement. I will wait for feedback before even thinking of DL it. Far as i can tell not enough people post the problems they may encounter. It takes time and motivation which many have exhausted.
All i can say in closing. Listen to those who have been playing the game. We are giving you feedback that strikes at a core element of the game. Many have been fighting with it since the beginning. Currently it is not in any way fun.

Thank you for the reply and a chance to plead my case. Maybe others can chime in.

[paulderynck]

For me, having the program tell me it is sending resource A to factory Z is tantamount to it deciding what my rail moves should be.

Yes, all lends must get through if at all possible. That's the rule. I've even had cases where I intentionally RTB'd CPs so that lends could not get through, in order to not have a CP line around Africa running BPs backward against the flow of resources, (because PQ17 happened that turn). The program should alert the player in preliminary production planning if certain CPs must be used to get a lend through. But it needs to make much improved choices as to what should be sent from where to satisfy the lend, before it can be trusted with even that task.

And it needs the ability for the receiving power to decide what to do with oil it has been lent - either store it or use it for production.

[Larry Smith]

I've never had trouble with the Japanese convoys. I'm running the latest public patch [1.192, or something like that].
And you can save oil sent from trade. I do it all the time. I'd have the US save more of it [when they have idles non-oil to use] except they can't save more than one... and the program rarely lets more than one stockpile in a hex at a time. But you can save lent oil, you just can't use it for reorganization till it is a saved oil point on the map. You can even save leant oil, then use it to lend to another power next turn. I had that happen without intending it [Free France to Russia].

Sorry - replied in the wrong thread. This should have been in the BP to Japan bug thread.

[paulderynck]

Seems an appropriate thread to me. Unfortunately - up to now - about as many have reported no problems with the JP BP as those who did.

I'd seen posts from people who were unable to save an oil lent to China. I downloaded the game file they posted and was unable to accomplish this feat. Possibly this was due to the extreme complexity of the GUI.

Maybe you could make a post on how to do it for WiF School.

[Larry Smith]

I'm not sure what you're asking. How to mess up the Japanese convoys - I'm a complete failure at that one [knock on wood].

As for lending a saved oil, just try to task it, like you would any other resource. You can task saved oil to be used for production, so try tasking it to be lent. Though I feel it will only work consistently if you have no other oil to lend, but are receiving oil regularly. The situation I remarked on was where Free France had oil coming to it from Iraq [the CW liberated Syria], and had saved an oil in Damascus. The next turn they opt to loan oil to the Russians, but they can't loan the Iraqi oil [it's not theirs to loan out], but the program in trying to enforce the treaty sent the saved oil in lieu.

There was a time when I had oil going to China in addition to other resources, and so the Chinese had one resource too much; thus they saved the oil, choosing Kunming. Then the Japanese closed the Burma Road [by diplomacy] and while the non-oil resources became idle, the Burmese oil still went. I didn't muck with it, partly as I expected the program to wise up in the Production phase, and partly just to see what would happen, and to my surprise, the oil was saved in Kunming. I just left it there until the Burma Road was reopened, and then burned it, since that was the only trade agreement I cancelled. Unfortunately, I neither have a save, nor have I had a case where the BR was closed while China was saving lent oil.

Just reread your post and got what you were saying. You can save any lent oil, even if neutral. Just use the Production Planning Form. I know it's daunting at times, but it's not as complicated as most seem to think. One key element is patience. Every change you make needs to be recomputed before another change is made.

[paulderynck]

I'm happy you seem to be happy with production planning. It seems you are in the minority in that department.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

CW naval move done from a combined impulse.

BP convoy lines to the USSR. From USA to USSR and India to Red Sea.

Feel free to attempt any changes you can come up with. I dont see how a factory can be defaulted to be sent over a convoy line. Maybe i missed the FAQ.

If anyone can change the BP route so that all 3 USA BP's use the convoy line to Vladivostok. And 2 BP are coming out of India to the USSR. Post how it is done for the benefit of everyone.

You might be happy to know that the changes I made this past week enable the Commonwealth to specify that two build points going to the USSR should come from India. Given that input, the program routes them through the ports in Persia to Moscow (2 convoys needed for each BP). The program then finds the routes for the 3 BPs from the US to the USSR/Moscow (across the Pacific) without any additional action needed by the player.

[gw15]

Steve - good that it has been improved even further. Another example of excellent support given to this game.

Paul - I'm with Larry on this issue. Production works great for me and I really can't understand the complaints that I read about it. (I'm using the latest public beta)
Can it be simplified? Yes. But it works.