Can the map of Australia be improved?

[DrewMatrix]

What is the real problem with the current road/rail net? I realize it is not accurate as to what roads were where, but what is the game-play problem:

That the Allies can get supplies to Darwin too easily
or
That the Allies can get LCUs to Darwin too easily

As I am experiencing it, I have an enormous problem getting LCUs to Darwin because I can't load Aussie LCUs on ships. Were I to want to send one of the LCUs in the Melbourne area to Darwin, say, I would (in real life) likely have used AKs. I had AKs in the south at the start of Scen 15 or 16, but Australia being a restricted command I can't use the AKs so I send them overland. It is taking 3 months to get from Melbourne or Sydney to the North Coast by land.

I don't care as much if the map looks like the real road net, as I care that the ability of the Allies to move stuff around is roughly correct.

If the problem is that supplies keep oozing in to the North Coast Cities (because supplies ooze along any road net) you could fix that with a "broken rail net" i.e. a rail/road connection from Melbourne to Darwin by some route that is, maybe 50 hexes long, 48 of those rail and 2 open country. That way an LCU could get from south to north without taking even longer than the current 3 months or so (it will move 48 of the hexes fast and only 2 slowly) but the supplies won't flow endlessly into Darwin (at least I think that will solve the problem).

I realize this doesn't give IJ subs and aircraft the chance to sink the transports the LCUs are on, but it seems a better compromise than making it take even longer (what do you want? 6 to 12 months walking?) to reposition the Aussie LCUs inside Oz.

[moses]

I think you're solution completely solves the problem of the supply net. The supply net has to be made inefficient enough that basing large ground and bomber forces there will be prohibitivly expensive without sea supply. The only thing that concerns me about the current map is that as is Darwin is the "correct" starting point for a attack into the Japanese empire once the allies go over to the offensive, whereas histically the difficulties of supplying northern austrailia rendered this area a backwater.

[DrewMatrix]

Actually in my current game (Scen 16, late Jan) Darwin is chockablock with Oil/Resources/Supply/Fuel. I have dumped what I can sneak out from under the noses of the advancince IJ in N. Oz then rush the ships back for more.

The contiguous supply net is letting that stuff get South at the moment.

[moses]

Which is also a problem. If you wanted to use that oil you would never have sent it to Darwin where it would have to be trucked all the way across Austrailia before being used. But with the current rail net you can do this and it is efficiently and rapidly tranported whereever it is needed.

[DrewMatrix]

Yeah, I agree the Oil/Reource leak is a problem too.

I just don't think fixing the supply problem should make the LCU movement problem even worse.

You seem to be agreeing the problem was not moving LCUs or A/C to the North Coast, but supplying them there.

So maybe the "broken railroad" _will_ help this situation?

[moses]

I don't think LCU movment is a significant play balance issue. I have no idea how long it took to march a unit from Brisbane to Darwin. But yes supply is the main issue in my opinion.

[akbrown]

ORIGINAL: Beezle

What is the real problem with the current road/rail net? I realize it is not accurate as to what roads were where, but what is the game-play problem:

That the Allies can get supplies to Darwin too easily
or
That the Allies can get LCUs to Darwin too easily

As I am experiencing it, I have an enormous problem getting LCUs to Darwin because I can't load Aussie LCUs on ships. Were I to want to send one of the LCUs in the Melbourne area to Darwin, say, I would (in real life) likely have used AKs. I had AKs in the south at the start of Scen 15 or 16, but Australia being a restricted command I can't use the AKs so I send them overland. It is taking 3 months to get from Melbourne or Sydney to the North Coast by land.

I don't care as much if the map looks like the real road net, as I care that the ability of the Allies to move stuff around is roughly correct.

If the problem is that supplies keep oozing in to the North Coast Cities (because supplies ooze along any road net) you could fix that with a "broken rail net" i.e. a rail/road connection from Melbourne to Darwin by some route that is, maybe 50 hexes long, 48 of those rail and 2 open country. That way an LCU could get from south to north without taking even longer than the current 3 months or so (it will move 48 of the hexes fast and only 2 slowly) but the supplies won't flow endlessly into Darwin (at least I think that will solve the problem).

I realize this doesn't give IJ subs and aircraft the chance to sink the transports the LCUs are on, but it seems a better compromise than making it take even longer (what do you want? 6 to 12 months walking?) to reposition the Aussie LCUs inside Oz.

I do care, very much, that the map is innacurate. This is supposed to be an historical simulation afterall. Would you care, for example, if the US were given three nonexistent aircraft carriers at the start of each scenario? If so, why?

I admit that I have not actually tested the movement of LCUs across Australia. When I get time I will try it though. According to the manual, engineers move at 90 miles/day on rail and 30 miles/day on road. That means that using my map an engineer unit should take 45 days to get from Melbourne to Darwin (31 hexes of rail and 12 of road). I found one real life example of a land unit moving along this route. Interestingly they did it overland instead of by ship. This excerpt is from the following web page:

Katherine Airfield, NT during WW2

The 808th Engineer Aviation Battalion arrived at Melbourne aboard the U.S.S Coolidge on 2 February 1942, the first U.S. Army Engineering Unit to arrive in Australia. The 808th initially camped at Camp Darley in Melbourne.

The unit took trains and trucks to Katherine, in the Northern Territory, arriving there 19 - 20 February 1942. On 28 February Company " B" began working on the Katherine Airfield.

So in real life it took 18 days, maybe less. Admittedly using my map that would be slower, but that indicates that perhaps the movement rates in the game may not be completely accurate.

In any case it should not take months to move units to Darwin, either using the original map or my own. if that is happening them I have overlooked something, the manual is wrong, or something is not working properly? When I get some time I will test it.

[DrewMatrix]

In any case it should not take months to move units to Darwin

At the moment I am not at home so I can't look at my game but I told an Aussie LCU to move from Melbourne (I think) to Darwin on turn 1 of Scen 16, ie on 8DEC41. It is now about 18Jan42 (6weeks?). The unit is just north of Alice Springs but not back on the "good road" yet.

My only comment is that to fix the supply-to-Darwin-too-easy problem don't make the LCU-to-Darwin movement much worse.

[juliet7bravo]

"Aircraft Upgrade flap"

I've missed that one? What's the issue with AC upgrades?

[strawbuk]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"Aircraft Upgrade flap"

I've missed that one? What's the issue with AC upgrades?

NO! Lordie no.....

Start here tm.asp?m=68955810

Please only comment when you have read it all and linked links - in about three months time.

[rader]

Hey Andrew. You are the guy that made a bunch of maps for wif. I saw them on the net somewhere. I am a huge wiffer (went to the last 3 wifcons). Do you play much wif anymore?

Rader

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: rader

Hey Andrew. You are the guy that made a bunch of maps for wif. I saw them on the net somewhere. I am a huge wiffer (went to the last 3 wifcons). Do you play much wif anymore?

Rader

Yes that is me, but I haven't played WiF for years. I was one of the 'old school' players that didn't like all of the endless addons which, in my view, didn't belong in a strategic game.

Speaking of WiF though - I am toying around with map mods for WitP and I am experimenting with a 'hexdot' system for representing sea hexes ala WiF. Do you or anyone else here think that this sounds like a good idea?

[stubby331]

ORIGINAL: Beezle

What is the real problem with the current road/rail net? I realize it is not accurate as to what roads were where, but what is the game-play problem:

That the Allies can get supplies to Darwin too easily
or
That the Allies can get LCUs to Darwin too easily

As I am experiencing it, I have an enormous problem getting LCUs to Darwin because I can't load Aussie LCUs on ships. Were I to want to send one of the LCUs in the Melbourne area to Darwin, say, I would (in real life) likely have used AKs. I had AKs in the south at the start of Scen 15 or 16, but Australia being a restricted command I can't use the AKs so I send them overland. It is taking 3 months to get from Melbourne or Sydney to the North Coast by land.

I don't care as much if the map looks like the real road net, as I care that the ability of the Allies to move stuff around is roughly correct.

If the problem is that supplies keep oozing in to the North Coast Cities (because supplies ooze along any road net) you could fix that with a "broken rail net" i.e. a rail/road connection from Melbourne to Darwin by some route that is, maybe 50 hexes long, 48 of those rail and 2 open country. That way an LCU could get from south to north without taking even longer than the current 3 months or so (it will move 48 of the hexes fast and only 2 slowly) but the supplies won't flow endlessly into Darwin (at least I think that will solve the problem).

I realize this doesn't give IJ subs and aircraft the chance to sink the transports the LCUs are on, but it seems a better compromise than making it take even longer (what do you want? 6 to 12 months walking?) to reposition the Aussie LCUs inside Oz.

Has anyone got any updated opinions/suggestions on this situation?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: stubby331

Has anyone got any updated opinions/suggestions on this situation?

I am not currently playing the game (will do in the near future), but I guess the question is - how long DOES it take for an LCU to get from Melbourne to Darwin in game? I have not tested this but I think I will give it a go...

[moses]

I think there was a consensus that this needed to be fixed and so everyone stopped posting on the issue pending some decision by Matrix.

I consider the main issue to be the ease of supplying large air and ground forces in North Austrailia and not speed of LCU movement. Currently it will be easy for allies to make North Austrailia the primary base of ops. for attacks into the DEI once the tide turns. This was not historically possible in my opinion at least without a huge and expensive upgrade in the supply infrastructure.

As far as I am concerned changing one or two rail hexes to trail, or four or five to road, would probably solve the problem.

[pasternakski]

I don't know that this has ever been identified as a problem, at least on the level of requiring change.

LCUs on the Australian rail/road net travel about three hexes every two days. They would not be walking (either loaded in rail cars or on trucks). That's 90 miles of motorized or rail travel in 48 hours. Getting from Melbourne to Darwin takes an LCU something like a month as it is.

I agree with moses (I've been hoping to have a chance to say that) that the Allies ought to have significant logistical constraints in building up the west and northwest coast as an offensive base of operations. In my experience (so far limited because I have suspended play pending patch 1.30), it is already very difficult for the Allies to do this and sustain it with needed fuel and supply.

Application of significant amounts of men and materiel, however, should make it possible, though difficult. If, in light of historical circumstances, the judgment is that the Japanese ought to have a fairly easy time of it if they choose to invade an unprepared western Australia, they also ought to have an extremely difficult time if proper defenses are in place. An Allied player who devotes too many resources to an effort in this area is likely to pay the price elsewhere, particularly in the Southwest Pacific area (and maybe SoPac, as well).

I'd hate to see something fixed that isn't really broken (if it isn't really broken, that is). I thought that a lot of the discussion over the Australian map centered on aesthetic considerations and the actual historical state of development of the rail and road net. I don't remember being persuaded that the current representation, for game purposes, is particularly out of line (please note that I said "for game purposes." If we wind up with a game where it is absolutely impossible to defend western Australia, I think we will have gone pretty far afield from history. It has been noted in other contexts that the game moves too fast and allows players to accomplish too much. Imposing further constraints on Allied defensive capabilities in the early war may exacerbate this problem).

I dunno. You tell me.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
I'd hate to see something fixed that isn't really broken (if it isn't really broken, that is). I thought that a lot of the discussion over the Australian map centered on aesthetic considerations and the actual historical state of development of the rail and road net. I don't remember being persuaded that the current representation, for game purposes, is particularly out of line (please note that I said "for game purposes." If we wind up with a game where it is absolutely impossible to defend western Australia, I think we will have gone pretty far afield from history. It has been noted in other contexts that the game moves too fast and allows players to accomplish too much. Imposing further constraints on Allied defensive capabilities in the early war may exacerbate this problem).

I dunno. You tell me.

You are right - a lot of our criticism has been at the aesthetic level. But it is not just a case of 'aesthetics', it is accuracy. For me, at least, this is extremely important in a game that is supposed to be an accurate representation of the war.

Of course the accuracy must be present in a game-playing level as well as a physical representation level, thus the discussion about supply flow and LCU movement.

Roughly, the possibilities of what happens in the game if the map of Australia is corrected are as follows:

1) Game play becomes more realistic: If this is the case then there is no real argument against making the improvements, other than familiarity with the current innacurate representation.

2) Game play becomes neither more or less realistic: In this case I think the map should still be improved, since it will be better as far as accuracy is concerned. The problem is how high a priority this is.

3) Game play becomes less realistic: In this case there would be more powerful practical reasons for NOT improving the map, but for me the quesstion would then be - WHY does a more accurate representation of the map cause the simulation to be LESS realistic froma gameplay perspective. To me it would indicate that other aspects of the simulation, such as supply flow and LCU movement, were in need of adjustment.

[moses]

I think concensus was reached about the third page of this thread near the bottom.

The problem is this. As is there is no constraint on how many aircraft and LCU's that can be based in N. Austrailia. As soon as the allies can establish air parity there is nothing to stop the allies from driving NW into the DEI.

My understanding is that this was impossible. Darwin remained a backwater during the war due to the great difficulty of supplying significant forces in that area. The posts in this thread adressed in some detail the supply effort to Darwin and it appears that it took tremendous effort to supply even the small forces that were historically deployed there.

In the game you cannot prevent players from basing large ground and air forces in the area, however their should be a very high and I think prohibitive supply cost of doing so.

BTW I'm pretty sure N.austrailia could have been easily conquered by Japan any time they desired. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. They likely refrained since there was little of value to them there, The area prezented zero threat due to its precarious supply situation, and taking it would only have pissed the aussies off.

[moses]

One other point. While Japan could I think have taken N. Austrailia without much difficulty, the rest of Austrailia is a different matter. But the current map would allow Japan to invade south from Darwin. Given the historical road net this would be truly absurd.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: moses

I think concensus was reached about the third page of this thread near the bottom.

Well, I didn't subscribe to it. If it were reached, it would have been a "consensus," by the way.

The problem is this. As is there is no constraint on how many aircraft and LCU's that can be based in N. Austrailia. As soon as the allies can establish air parity there is nothing to stop the allies from driving NW into the DEI.

Concentration of force for defensive purposes is far different from concentration of force in order to mount an offensive. I am astonished that you would say there is nothing to stop the Allies. The Japanese player ought to know (or suspect and plan accordingly)what is necessary to defend himself in any particular area and ought to be expected to undertake operations to execute that defense. Why else would you play the game? "Well, it was unfair for them to be able to build up and attack me, so I'm picking up my toys and going home."

BTW I'm pretty sure N.austrailia could have been easily conquered by Japan any time they desired. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. They likely refrained since there was little of value to them there, The area prezented zero threat due to its precarious supply situation, and taking it would only have pissed the aussies off.

Taking of western Australia would have eased the effort needed to conquer all of Australia proper (within the capability of the Japanese to build up places like Darwin and Broome). Yet, as I said before, any major effort directed through this area would have required significant diversion of force from other places, possibly to the detriment of warfighting capability in those areas..

What precarious supply situation? There were no forces at the backs of Japanese invading western Australia by mid-1942. The Australians (and the Americans, for that matter) could have been pissed off or pissed on, but would be powerless to do anything about it if they had not anticipated the danger and prepared for it. What is wrong with allowing base forces to develop bases? If the allocation is wrong, it is up to you, the enemy, to disclose the error through your strategic and operational brilliance (or at least competence) of planning and execution.