Initial impressions

[bradfordkay]

Allow me to preface these remarks by admitting that I have been playing the WITP system since Uncommon Valor was released, so I have some prejudices to overcome.

I have only played a few turns of the Balearic Islands scenario so far, but I am very impressed with the new game engine and can see an awful lot of potential in it. I don't know if it is due to the larger scale map or the game engine, but surface combat interceptions are far more plentiful than in the older games. Perhaps it is a combination of both. Maybe in a full Mediterranean game the smaller scale will reduce that interception likelihood. What I am seeing in the few days I have played, this could work very well for a Nelsonian era naval game. Perhaps a lower cost game (in terms of producing the game, not necessarily in retail terms) using this system could be one depicting the Peninsular Wars.

I am looking forward to gaining more experience with the land logistics model in the game. It intrigues me, though I don't fully understand it yet. I am amused by the "breakdown" of supply into ship ammo, aircraft ammo, LCU ammo, and AVGAS - because they all are each depicted as being equal to the total of supply in the base. I.E., the base has 16609 supply and it shows 16609 AVGAS, 166609 Naval Ammo, 16609 Aircraft Ammo, and 16609 LCU ammo. I wonder if the intent was to have each of them different and the total of them all equal the Supply amount and things just didn't work out - or if it is a bug.

The interface is clunky, even to someone with thousands of hours in the GG interface. It's little details like not being able to transfer ships directly from one TF to another in the same port without first removing those ships from their present TF or disbanding the whole TF (this is because when you click "add ships" button o0n a TF it only shows the ships that are anchored in the port and not in another TF).

[RangerJoe]

Allow me to preface these remarks by admitting that I have been playing the WITP system since Uncommon Valor was released, so I have some prejudices to overcome.

I have only played a few turns of the Balearic Islands scenario so far, but I am very impressed with the new game engine and can see an awful lot of potential in it. I don't know if it is due to the larger scale map or the game engine, but surface combat interceptions are far more plentiful than in the older games. Perhaps it is a combination of both. Maybe in a full Mediterranean game the smaller scale will reduce that interception likelihood. What I am seeing in the few days I have played, this could work very well for a Nelsonian era naval game. Perhaps a lower cost game (in terms of producing the game, not necessarily in retail terms) using this system could be one depicting the Peninsular Wars.

I am looking forward to gaining more experience with the land logistics model in the game. It intrigues me, though I don't fully understand it yet. I am amused by the "breakdown" of supply into ship ammo, aircraft ammo, LCU ammo, and AVGAS - because they all are each depicted as being equal to the total of supply in the base. I.E., the base has 16609 supply and it shows 16609 AVGAS, 166609 Naval Ammo, 16609 Aircraft Ammo, and 16609 LCU ammo. I wonder if the intent was to have each of them different and the total of them all equal the Supply amount and things just didn't work out - or if it is a bug.

The interface is clunky, even to someone with thousands of hours in the GG interface. It's little details like not being able to transfer ships directly from one TF to another in the same port without first removing those ships from their present TF or disbanding the whole TF (this is because when you click "add ships" button o0n a TF it only shows the ships that are anchored in the port and not in another TF).

If there are ships in a TF that you want ships in another TF, just click the TF button (in the pink area) next to the port button for the ships.

ship selection in TF in pink.png (205.85 KiB) Viewed 1183 times

For any reasons for the increased interceptions, it may be because of the hourly movement as well as the twice daily aerial recon/searches as well as the twice daily air combat which may also see something but I am not an expert as to why that is. I did not work on that part of the game.

As far as any other games, I am not allowed to state anything on that subject.

As far as the supply, that is perceptive but I did not work on that part of the game. I just know that the more logistical units in the game that are spread around, the better that it is. Especially having those RR units at ports where a lot of supplies are unloaded from ships, those units move the supplies to other bases where other logistical units can spread it around to smaller bases while some units have dedicated logistical units in them. That is like the hub and spoke system.

If there is anything that you would like to see added to the game, you can always request it. You may get it or you may not get it but unless someone mentions it then it probably won't be added to the game system.

Also, thank you for your feedback.

[bradfordkay]

I guess that because the "In TFs" button is by default turned off and therefore dark red on my screen these old eyes just didn't see it. Thanks for the heads up.

I should own up to the fact that I have long dreamed of an operational level naval game of the Nelsonian/Napoleonic era along these lines. I think that this system could do it well.

[RangerJoe]

I guess that because the "In TFs" button is by default turned off and therefore dark red on my screen these old eyes just didn't see it. Thanks for the heads up.

I should own up to the fact that I have long dreamed of an operational level naval game of the Nelsonian/Napoleonic era along these lines. I think that this system could do it well.

You are most welcome.

Due to NDAs, I can't mention anything about any games being planned - even if I knew anything about them!

[jwilkerson]

I should own up to the fact that I have long dreamed of an operational level naval game of the Nelsonian/Napoleonic era along these lines. I think that this system could do it well.

Be careful what you wish for !!

[bradfordkay]

I should own up to the fact that I have long dreamed of an operational level naval game of the Nelsonian/Napoleonic era along these lines. I think that this system could do it well.

Be careful what you wish for !!

Okay, I'll wish harder!!!

[bradfordkay]

Why can't I stop doing this? I keep clicking on the base screen to access my ships and form task forces. Old habits die hard...

My Republicans just captured a crapload of Nationalist equipment at Felanitx. Now I have to pause and read up on how to incorporate captured equipment into my army.

[RangerJoe]

Why can't I stop doing this? I keep clicking on the base screen to access my ships and form task forces. Old habits die hard...
I know and I have played this game system a lot longer!

My Republicans just captured a crapload of Nationalist equipment at Felanitx. Now I have to pause and read up on how to incorporate captured equipment into my army.

You can disband the devices into the pools and then switch what is in your units. I did cover this in my AAR since it is the same process as changing trucks to wagons or upgrading devices.

Also, you can just "merge" devices into your other units but if they become disabled, they may not be repaired.

You can also leave the trucks and wagons in a unit and convert the unit into a Logistical Unit.

[vinnie71]

I would second the idea of having a Peninular War setup. For once the French armies will be swallowed whole in such a detailed map and British naval power could prove decisive with Spanish guerillas moving around at will...

Still I'll probably be playing the French side

[Piteas]

I would second the idea of having a Peninular War setup. For once the French armies will be swallowed whole in such a detailed map and British naval power could prove decisive with Spanish guerillas moving around at will...

Still I'll probably be playing the French side

Your wish could come true.

Stay tuned

[melvi]

I am looking forward to gaining more experience with the land logistics model in the game. It intrigues me, though I don't fully understand it yet. I am amused by the "breakdown" of supply into ship ammo, aircraft ammo, LCU ammo, and AVGAS - because they all are each depicted as being equal to the total of supply in the base. I.E., the base has 16609 supply and it shows 16609 AVGAS, 166609 Naval Ammo, 16609 Aircraft Ammo, and 16609 LCU ammo. I wonder if the intent was to have each of them different and the total of them all equal the Supply amount and things just didn't work out - or if it is a bug.

Thats due to the logistic model you are using, the simple ( simplest?) one. There are more complex logistic / production models where you would need to use those as different things. In the stock game supplies amount= ship ammo amount= aircraft ammo amount= LCU ammo amount. Fuel amount = air fuel amount= ship fuel amount ( for ships that use fuel). Coal amount = ship fuel amount ( for ships that use coal as fuel).
But the mechanic/maths exist in the game for anyone to use in the editor to create more complex stuff that would require have those you mention as different things.

Regards:
Melvi

[bradfordkay]

I am looking forward to gaining more experience with the land logistics model in the game. It intrigues me, though I don't fully understand it yet. I am amused by the "breakdown" of supply into ship ammo, aircraft ammo, LCU ammo, and AVGAS - because they all are each depicted as being equal to the total of supply in the base. I.E., the base has 16609 supply and it shows 16609 AVGAS, 166609 Naval Ammo, 16609 Aircraft Ammo, and 16609 LCU ammo. I wonder if the intent was to have each of them different and the total of them all equal the Supply amount and things just didn't work out - or if it is a bug.

Thats due to the logistic model you are using, the simple ( simplest?) one. There are more complex logistic / production models where you would need to use those as different things. In the stock game supplies amount= ship ammo amount= aircraft ammo amount= LCU ammo amount. Fuel amount = air fuel amount= ship fuel amount ( for ships that use fuel). Coal amount = ship fuel amount ( for ships that use coal as fuel).
But the mechanic/maths exist in the game for anyone to use in the editor to create more complex stuff that would require have those you mention as different things.

Regards:
Melvi

I have the advanced logistics model ON in my game. Perhaps it is because it is the "tutorial" scenario?

[melvi]

I have the advanced logistics model ON in my game. Perhaps it is because it is the "tutorial" scenario?

Umhh any stock game scenario doesnt have industry advanced features, so no way to produce the different products that supplies are sustituting in simple logistic model. What do you mean with "advanced logistic model"? is that the advanced preference replacements set to " pool" or "ship devices" maybe, instead the "supplies" option?. Cause none of them do nothing if there is no advanced preference "production" set to "from factories". That advanced preference you mentioning ( if it is the advanced preference "replacements") only makes different/harder the way to get the missing devices into LCUs, and "replacements" set to "from production" must go paired with "production" set to "from factories" afaik for them to "take effect".
Besides it seems there is some error in the manual regarding this issue ( of replacements ) that Alessandro is aware off and on his way to solve ( i guess).

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=415068


Regards:
Melvi

[bradfordkay]

I have the advanced logistics model ON in my game. Perhaps it is because it is the "tutorial" scenario?

Umhh any stock game scenario doesnt have industry advanced features, so no way to produce the different products that supplies are sustituting in simple logistic model. What do you mean with "advanced logistic model"? is that the advanced preference replacements set to " pool" or "ship devices" maybe, instead the "supplies" option?. Cause none of them do nothing if there is no advanced preference "production" set to "from factories". That advanced preference you mentioning ( if it is the advanced preference "replacements") only makes different/harder the way to get the missing devices into LCUs, and "replacements" set to "from production" must go paired with "production" set to "from factories" afaik for them to "take effect".
Besides it seems there is some error in the manual regarding this issue ( of replacements ) that Alessandro is aware off and on his way to solve ( i guess).

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=415068


Regards:
Melvi

At the bottom of the middle column on Advanced Preferences is a toggle for Logistics Model, on or off. According to the manual this is: "Off will provide you with the Simple model, which is for players who wish to focus on combat. On is for players who want detailed version of logistics and the historical constraints that come with it."

Being as I am playing one of the scenarios provide with the game and not a user-created scenario I thought that your comments on "the logistics model you are using" was in reference to his option.

[n01487477]

I'm double-checking on that switch, as there are a number of different logistics and economic modes available with this engine.
As for advanced logistics, scenario's can be developed that have distinct AC & Naval Fuel, AC & Ship ammo, & AC ammo modelled. Supplies are still used in this model too. This doesn't have to have full economy on. By using either daily production, or just supply conversions this is a dividing line.

But if you want to, there are 30 different intermediaries (half of which are already accounted for) that can be created on their way to becoming a regular output (except some of the hard coded ones like ship repair points, etc) or the five I mentioned.

eg. you could have coal and iron ore production on map, which you could turn into steel, which then could be an input into HI ... but this is going into full economy mode which opens up more.

So, the logistics model can run separate to advance economy.

[bradfordkay]

Something that is different from AE in TF creation. In AE there was a shortcut in that if you created a TF and gave it a new home port and then created another new TF from that first TF's screen the new one would have the same new homeport. That little time saving trick does not work here.

[btd64]

I have the advanced logistics model ON in my game. Perhaps it is because it is the "tutorial" scenario?

Umhh any stock game scenario doesnt have industry advanced features, so no way to produce the different products that supplies are sustituting in simple logistic model. What do you mean with "advanced logistic model"? is that the advanced preference replacements set to " pool" or "ship devices" maybe, instead the "supplies" option?. Cause none of them do nothing if there is no advanced preference "production" set to "from factories". That advanced preference you mentioning ( if it is the advanced preference "replacements") only makes different/harder the way to get the missing devices into LCUs, and "replacements" set to "from production" must go paired with "production" set to "from factories" afaik for them to "take effect".
Besides it seems there is some error in the manual regarding this issue ( of replacements ) that Alessandro is aware off and on his way to solve ( i guess).

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=415068


Regards:
Melvi

At the bottom of the middle column on Advanced Preferences is a toggle for Logistics Model, on or off. According to the manual this is: "Off will provide you with the Simple model, which is for players who wish to focus on combat. On is for players who want detailed version of logistics and the historical constraints that come with it."

Being as I am playing one of the scenarios provide with the game and not a user-created scenario I thought that your comments on "the logistics model you are using" was in reference to his option.

Check the following sections for more information:
See section 9.2 and 2.2.2.1
These talk about choices and the respective models.
And thank you Damian for bringing this to my attention.

I hope this helps....GP

[bradfordkay]

A silly aside: the map is absolutely beautiful. However it is a little jarring to have all the city and town names in Spanish and then to see the huge letters spelling out the nation's name as Spain rather than Espana. Just a stupid bit of nitpicking on my part.

Also... what good is a static cavalry unit?

[RangerJoe]

A silly aside: the map is absolutely beautiful. However it is a little jarring to have all the city and town names in Spanish and then to see the huge letters spelling out the nation's name as Spain rather than Espana. Just a stupid bit of nitpicking on my part.

Also... what good is a static cavalry unit?

One that defends before it disappears!

[bradfordkay]

Now this is just cruel PsyOps being used on the Republican player. The daily Operations Report is not only telling me which of my units have arrive/been released from Static status, but it is also listing for me all of the Nationalist units that are newly able to be used. Of course, their list is not only longer but made up of a lot of brigades whereas mine are mostly regiments that will be withdrawn within ten days. How brutal!


Also: the Ops report for 18 July, '36 shows a crapload of Republican ships (LBs, xAKs, and xAKLs) captured in two ports - Ortigueira and San Sebastian on the first turn. Since those ports were in Nationalist hands the day before, the Republican player never had a chance to even see those ships much less give them orders to vacate. Is this just a scripted action? I promise that I had not given any orders for ships to move to those ports.