The return of tristanjohn

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Mr.Frag »

Where's the middle ground??

There isn't any Moses ... This is a forum.

Has *anyone* tried the *very simple* test of going in and setting all the SRA resource sites to size 1 then playing the game?

Until someone actually goes off and does it (ie: prove what you speak is a sound concept), talking about it is rather meaningless.

There is no way on earth that Mike would go off and make a potentially game destroying change this late in time.

So, which of you who have the time want to pick up the challenge and prove that getting rid of the supply is actually a good idea?
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
But since it is a size 1 port with no ops restrictions I can simultaneously load limitless ships there. That little shithole sure produces a whack of war materiel and it is right there where it is needed. And really, why does one need to be an expert Japnese player to experience this? We are talking about a universal problem.

Fine. Are suggesting that there was production capacity that the port was unable to handle? I mean, it isn't like the resource production increases when Japan takes it, and the materials were transported out before the war through those same ports (or processed right there, but that negates your whole argument). So which is it Ron? Is there enough port capacity to handle the raw materials produced there, or are you just trying to find something else to shore up a losing argument?

Yes, but how long did this take? What is the actual capacity of that port? Does anyone have a picture of it, or references to go by? I've searched and can't find one.

The island of Bangka (or more correctly Pulau Bangka) basically only produced tin and pepper as far as I know, and maybe throw in a few coconuts. The primary port is Muntok.

I've found this much out here: Toboali, and I think you'll have to agree it isn't much.
    A pier 320m long, with a depth of 7m, mud. . . . From this postion the depths decrease regularly toward the shore. At times a heavy swell, with S and SW winds, makes landing troublesome.
How all that computes into what was there in World War II I haven't a clue, but it sure doesn't sound like a port that was servicing many different ships at once.

I can't find a photograph anywhere, and my hard drive is too full at the moment for an install of the Goodlge satellite server. Maybe someone else can provide that.
Mogami has posted ad inifinitum that it produced tin and food - and that a small munitions plant was located less than 150 miles away.

The food part is debatable. I suppose you could throw in some fishing, but this wasn't a major area for producing lots of food stuffs. So how many people over and above the native population could this area sustain?

I don't know about the munitions factory 150 miles away and what it actually produced--or how, how fast, with what, and in what quantity, for that matter. For instance, where did the raw materials for that production come from? I can't find any reference for anything of the kind indigenous to these islands. If that were the case, then you'd be right back to having to import those materials for that munitions factory to function.

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Supply does not build the Zero supply represents it while it moves from pool to map.

You can repeat that until the cows come home, but it still won't cut it. That's something you're willing to believe in order to rationalize this bad logistics model in your mind. You want to believe and so you do. But the model actually has little relation to reality. (I define "reality" as what happens or what happened in the real world, not necessarily what's up inside of your head.
If you read the rules on what is required to place an item on map you'll see how picky all this is.

Base must have 2x required supply. It is the amount over 2x supply that can be used to place items on map.
To place a zero you'd also need an airunit and support unit. All this to use 12 supply points.

If you wish to track that then I suggest you stop horseing around here and get to work coding. Don't worry I won't test your game, play your game or ever post on your private forums.

There's nothing "picky" about this. Unless you mean how easy it is to "pick apart" the model. That's easy . . . if you bother to approach it objectively.

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: Mogami
No army in history has ever conducted a campaign using captured supply.

Rommel in North Africa in summer of 1942... the DAK practically lived on captured British supply up until El Alamein defeat... :-)

That is not correct, though Rommel does write that without the captured supplies (combined with what did get to the front from their own supply sources) the DAK would have been in dire straits more than once. Mostly, the DAK benefited from captured petrol and food stuffs. But they didn't go around shooting off British ordnance (though they were able to use some of that for mining purposes here and there, for instance).

Anyway, that has little to do with how "supply" is freely used in WitP. As I've stated, some captured supply should be available for immediate use, but nowhere near the extent that it is in the game.
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: The truth about supply

Post by mogami »

Hi, I vote we simply code the supply rules from "Campaign for North Africa" into WITP.
How about we start tracking water. I mean those Japs, and Chinese and Indians all gobble lots of rice so they will need the "Pasta" point. (Inidan rice is hotter so they'll need 2 points) Water would limit stacking on atolls. We could even import that movement and combat routines. Turns will take longer and PBEM is out we'll need TCP/IP with 10 or 20 players per side but the game will be a vast improvement over what we are stuck with now. Imagine the nerve of some players using fish or tin to build A6m2's I vote the game move in real time. If you snooze you lose.

All the transport costs and ships will need redoing because currently you can only load 1 item on a ship except for supply on AP with troops and who knows what these Japanese have been using when they invade. Likely they are off loading supply that should not be used for LCU combat. (it's torpedos)

Yes lets just stop playing this monster and wait for TJ to finish his game. He might want you to pre-order the price is 19.95
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Speedysteve
Posts: 15975
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Speedysteve »

[;)][:D]
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
moses
Posts: 2252
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 3:39 am

RE: The truth about supply

Post by moses »

Hi, And what's the big deal?

Never said it was a big deal. I'm relatively happy with the supply system as is. I can see where some improvments might be made but I'm not screaming about it. I didn't know that it was a taboo subject.

We did after all get some unofficial encouragement (posts) from Mr.Frag that suggested that some small adjustments might be possible. (Not to try to blame anything on him)[;)].

It just appears that the insistance that supply abstractions are totally sacrosant is red meat to those who think that any level of abstraction is morally wrong.

I like to discuss game design because I think its interesting, not to piss you off. I like to discuss possible changes just because its fun to think about it even if there is no hope for a change. Please don't take any comment I make as an attack on the game or the people who made it.
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 25341
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,
ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Rommel in North Africa in summer of 1942... the DAK practically lived on captured British supply up until El Alamein defeat... :-)

That is not correct, though Rommel does write that without the captured supplies (combined with what did get to the front from their own supply sources) the DAK would have been in dire straits more than once. Mostly, the DAK benefited from captured petrol and food stuffs. But they didn't go around shooting off British ordnance (though they were able to use some of that for mining purposes here and there, for instance).

I wrote "lived" not "fought"... ammo still had to be German (and Italian)... [;)]

The captured British supplies (food fuel and similar) helped DAK great deal together with vast numbers of trucks (I think Rommel wrote 80% of all his transport was captured British trucks).


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Where's the middle ground??

There isn't any Moses ... This is a forum.

Has *anyone* tried the *very simple* test of going in and setting all the SRA resource sites to size 1 then playing the game?

Until someone actually goes off and does it (ie: prove what you speak is a sound concept), talking about it is rather meaningless.

There is no way on earth that Mike would go off and make a potentially game destroying change this late in time.

So, which of you who have the time want to pick up the challenge and prove that getting rid of the supply is actually a good idea?

I tried but do you think I can keep the resources while reducing the supply, my big beef in the first place? No, of course not. It's hard coded. I'd like to know how making the ratio between resources and supply independent of each other (so players can modify to their hearts content) is potentially game destroying? Man this is such nonsence.

Anyway, I did rip the guts out of the SRA and gutted the lift capacity of of ships in CHS by 80%. I went to far however and increased the load costs as well. According to Irrelevant, he thought that this would have worked rather well if the load costs were not increased. We ran the game for a couple of months until bugs drove him to frustration. He experienced no supply problems even with lift capacity reduced by 8-% and supply/resources gutted at bases (compensated with extra oil).
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Yamashita's Malayan campaign was partially dependant on captured supply. I don't see the "Zero" issue as "Major" because after all...the Zero must first have been produced in Japan by the onmap factories before it can be "uncrated/transported/flown" to the captured enemy base. It is an abstraction but the players have enough to do without signing invoices for every war item in the game.

Mog - This has all been hashed out before....i say....have em play the preposed AAR or lock the thread and everyone go back to their corners.

Yeah. Let's lock the thead. This is politically incorrect as trying to fix the games gross issues (or at least make them player toggled) is heresy.[8|]

If we do the AAR I want it to be CHS with your A2A mod in it. I want to see if it succeeds at correcting the grossly flawed stock uber cap and overall bloodiness in larger scale battles. No point in using the stock air stats.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Yeah. Let's lock the thead. This is politically incorrect as trying to fix the games gross issues (or at least make them player toggled) is heresy.[8|]

If we do the AAR I want it to be CHS with your A2A mod in it. I want to see if it succeeds at correcting the grossly flawed stock uber cap and overall bloodiness in larger scale battles. No point in using the stock air stats.

Has nothing to do with political correctness. As mentioned, this has all been hashed out before. Repeating it seventeen times over won't change anything or convince anyone. Play the AAR You and TJ as Japan. Show us the uber-supply. Put up or lock up.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: The truth about supply

Post by mogami »

ORIGINAL: moses
Hi, And what's the big deal?

Never said it was a big deal. I'm relatively happy with the supply system as is. I can see where some improvments might be made but I'm not screaming about it. I didn't know that it was a taboo subject.

We did after all get some unofficial encouragement (posts) from Mr.Frag that suggested that some small adjustments might be possible. (Not to try to blame anything on him)[;)].

It just appears that the insistance that supply abstractions are totally sacrosant is red meat to those who think that any level of abstraction is morally wrong.

I like to discuss game design because I think its interesting, not to piss you off. I like to discuss possible changes just because its fun to think about it even if there is no hope for a change. Please don't take any comment I make as an attack on the game or the people who made it.

Hi, Don't worry if you don't qoute someone directly the post is always addressed to the last poster. Debate is allowed or we wouldn't be having one.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Yeah. Let's lock the thead. This is politically incorrect as trying to fix the games gross issues (or at least make them player toggled) is heresy.[8|]

If we do the AAR I want it to be CHS with your A2A mod in it. I want to see if it succeeds at correcting the grossly flawed stock uber cap and overall bloodiness in larger scale battles. No point in using the stock air stats.

Has nothing to do with political correctness. As mentioned, this has all been hashed out before. Repeating it seventeen times over won't change anything or convince anyone. Play the AAR You and TJ as Japan. Show us the uber-supply. Put up or lock up.

How best to do this? Like my earlier attempt with merchant capacities reduced to 20% of CHS levels and supply and resources in non mainland bases reduced 90% (oil increased by 90%)? Leaving as is may just result in the supply levels being high/low subject to opinion. Gutting it and being able to achieve historical goals would prove something. Perhaps 50%? What?
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
moses
Posts: 2252
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 3:39 am

RE: The truth about supply

Post by moses »

quote:

Where's the middle ground??

There isn't any Moses ... This is a forum.

[:(]Perhaps so. Its too bad. Oh well maybe I'll get a turn tonight.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: The truth about supply

Post by mogami »

Hi, How would "A couple of months" prove any thing.
The Japanese Army began the war with enough supply (ammo, av gas and such) to fight for 2 years. Japan had been at war for 4 and supporting their army away from home for 10.
The Japanese economy was set for up to 18 months
The only real problem in the first 6 months was fuel for the Navy. In fact this is what caused the war in the first place and why the IJA and IJN were divided. The Army didn't need to go to war but the Navy did.

Japan should not have any supply problems before 1943 and after that unless they are caused by Allied action Japan's position regarding supply should improve vastly.
I'm not suprised Japan has no problems early in WITP WTF should they?
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Oznoyng
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:05 pm
Location: Mars

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Oznoyng »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Shore up a losing arguement? Pfttt! Give me an effing break. Blind or have an agenda to grind? I was countering your defence of the supply produced here is somewhat a non issue because the size 1 port limits its use. Hardly given the lack of any ports capacity/ops limits.
Taking 18 days to load a single AK is not limitless. If I try to load all the supply in one turn, I take 18 AK's to do that - and spend a lot of fuel that I will miss later. Tradeoffs, Ron. You can't complain about one side without acknowledging the other.
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
If you guys want to argue one day that the supply system is abstract and generalized for one reason (war materiel) then differentiate between tin, food and bullets the next to try and rationalize why 18" shells, tanks, spare parts etc are available in quantity without the benefit of having to actually SHIP the stuff, and actually suggest that the little shit factory down the road is capable of this, well, you guys are off your rockers.
You are confusing issues here. If you want to argue reload rates for BB's, let's talk about that. It is an entirely different argument that I tend to agree with. Let's not suggest sweeping changes to the game that impact supply drastically and unhistorically. The fact is, lots of supply (food mostly) and raw materials (everything from Tin to Rubber) were obtained and shipped out of the SRA. If you insist upon this change and cause it to happen, do I get to flame you as incompetent, careless, etc. when six months later everyone agrees your suggestion unhistorically ignores the contribution of food as supply? After all, you get to do it to Matrix, don't I get to do it to you? Fundamentally, your suggestion strikes me as trying to kill a deer with a machine gun. You are going to hit too much other stuff trying to accomplish your mission, not to mention probably ruining the deer. If your problem is BB reloads, suggest rules that affect *that* problem and that problem only.

Furthermore, I did not mean to suggest that the little ammo plant could produce BB ammunition. I can see where you might have gotten that, but did not intend that. I meant to imply that it was possible that some small arms ammunition (<= .50 cal) could be provided locally. It was more an implication that the SRA was not totally devoid of industry. In other words, the supply was not limited to food.
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
How many respected people (not me or Tris or some other heretic[8|]) have said this is an issue they feel strongly about? Lots. Yet I see only a few denying that any supply/logistics problem exists.
I would say that I am pretty well respected as far as Japanese production is concerned. I wrote a post many consider useful for thinking about Japanese aircraft production in the game. I wrote it from a theoretical perspective, not from an experiential one. You know what? After gaining more experience, my recommendations are different. Not hugely, but significantly.

My problem with all the "experts" is they "won't play the game because it is flawed" yet their analysis leaves out critical processes that materially affect their analysis. Those processes are clear to someone who has played Japan, but are totally glossed over or missed if you don't. My own experience as Japan tells me that you are making a mountain out of a molehill on one hand, and fighting the wrong battle on the other. BB reloads is an issue, I agree. But the solution you propose is a very bad one imo. So I argue the point. :)

My challenge to you to play a game as Japan against me comes from this: I think you will be unpleasantly suprised as Japan with what can be done by the Allies to curtail Japan's expansion. I think you will also discover more limits exist than you realize. Unfortunately, the accepted strategy for the Allies is to play turtle until overwhelming force arrives and then kick ass. A good strategy, but it makes Allied players myopic when it comes to Japanese power. The Allied player runs away and hides his carriers, then complains that Japan is too powerful. Japan isn't, but the Brave Sir Robin defense strengthens Japan and makes it look like they are.
"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Mr.Frag »

I'm not suprised Japan has no problems early in WITP WTF should they?

Cause Ron says so Russ! [:D]

By the way Ron, have you actually played Japan in a game yet that went into 1943?
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: The truth about supply

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

How best to do this? Like my earlier attempt with merchant capacities reduced to 20% of CHS levels and supply and resources in non mainland bases reduced 90% (oil increased by 90%)? Leaving as is may just result in the supply levels being high/low subject to opinion. Gutting it and being able to achieve historical goals would prove something. Perhaps 50%? What?

Since the complaints center around the stock scenario, that should be used. Show us the Uber-supply situation for Japan. I fought the SRA campaign as Japan and i wasn't swimming in supply.
moses
Posts: 2252
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 3:39 am

RE: The truth about supply

Post by moses »

Hi, How would "A couple of months" prove any thing.

Here's why. The problem is much much SMALLER then you think. It only seems big because of all the people screaming about it.

None of the proposed changes (At least that I or the one by Andrew Brown proposed) would have any significant effect on Japan's long term supply condition. They only really impact the short term issue of the initial Japanese expansion and the ease with which supply can be brought forward.

The abstaction of 100% convertability makes it a little easier to get supply forward quicker. Because its easier, operations can move a little bit quicker. Thats it--Period.

After the first 3 or 4 months of the game the issue of captured and locally produced supply is quite insignificant. (AB's suggestion that supply be produced at the HI instead of resourse location only means that Japan needs more transports moving things about. But Japan seems to have plenty of these so where is the massive impact.

Really I wonder that if every recommendation made were coded into the game if it would really change all that much. Is it even worth it? Can't Japan just send 20 extra AK's to the SRA in the first week to replace the now unusable captured and local supplies?

I would like to see AB's change or something similar just so that Japan has to use a greater part of its shipping. I think some of my suggestions would improve things but they are hardly earth shatering in their effect.

P.S. I use the word 'abstraction' in the positive sence as a neccessary thing. I do not want to have to load my ships by individual supply items.[:D]

User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: The truth about supply

Post by mogami »

Hi, Here is a not "Sir Robin" how much help has SRA supply been here? It is Feb 42
Japan has lost close to 500 aircraft. A BB has been torpedoed (by air) attempting bombardment and many IJN ships damaged in such missions (they are coming down from major port Singapore) I've damaged a slew of Japanese transports.
Allies have not lost a single DD or larger (but I did just have 2 CLAA damaged because I had no air cover)
The most major disaster to befall Allies was I had a large convoy of exited SRA ships run into KB between Cooktown and Port Moresby and get slaughtered.
The Japanese have needed to escort everything because I have lots of combat ships to hit unescorted TF with.

Image
Attachments
nsr.jpg
nsr.jpg (185.47 KiB) Viewed 241 times
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”