The return of tristanjohn

[Nikademus]

more excuses. Play as Japan. Show me yourself how Japan swims in supply during it's expansion period. Until you do, i'll go with my own experiences since i've been there, done that.

[Mr.Frag]

It's always good to have a little in reserve, but over and above that I'm a "can't take it with you" guy at heart.

So am I, thats my slop fund [:D]

I have all the toys I need, was actually depressed over Xmas as I couldn't find anything in the toy catagory to spend money on ... Ended up buying a nice HP scanner/fax/printer/etc simply to send a NDA agreement cause I didn't want to go into work to do it. Sad when you get that lazy. [X(]

Have 5 machines now ... need to get a bigger air conditioner again [:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: moses

I'm just pointing out that "global" supply, by which I mean the total amount of supply existing on the map at any one time, is probably not a problem. It is a red hering which halts any attempts to discuss, much less fix, actual potential problems.

The ease with which both sides can move supply about the map is an issue which gives a less then historical feel to the game. The ability to instantly convert supply into anything needed at a specific location also gives rise to issues which might profitably be addressed.

Many possible changes have been discussed to improve supply. These are generally lost in the noise of those who are intent on demonstrating that the game is "broken" or "worthless".

This is what I'm trying to get at but everyone keeps saying I'm some Allied fanboy who claims the Japanese system is off and the logistics system is beyond salvage. I'm NOT saying any such thing. I'm saying that there is a problem due to the hardcoded equal supply to resource production element which disrupts, even negates, much of the natural flow which the design is capable of and am sure was aiming for. This is further compounded by any per turn operational limit for ports (which of course is much more complex to add so must be compensated for by modders in juggling supply). All of this impacts how fast replacements are available at the front lines and generally is the main culprit behind the rapid pace of the game, which is what the majority of players complain about.

By seperating supply from resources, and allowing the modders to drastically reduce the supply generated alongside resources in regions where heavy industry was neglible (ie, the resource, not manufacturing based economies present in the DEI), we can then get A more historical utility out of shipping assets (by lowering supply generation in the resources areas and increasing supply generation in the manufacturing areas to compensate will require shipping the majority of supplies from the manufacturing centres, thereby slowing down the speed with which supplies reach and build up at the forward areas and recreating the actual shipping model, as well as tying up shipping that otherwise is ahistorically used on amphibious tasks), B improve the feel of the supply model because, by requiring that the majority of supply originate in the manufacturing centres and must be shipped in, the abstract design where having enough supply at a base triggers TOE replacement will now appear as it should...the replacements are being shipped in, not just appearing because supply is questionably being produced in equal quantites to resources in non manufacturing areas, and, in conjuction with reduced replacement rates, this seperation of supply to resiurces may even tone down the PDU issues,C will slow down the pace of military operations because the bonus caches of supply (translates to war materiel in practice) will no longer be in places that they should not actually be, or in the vast quantities they are in if they should be present.

I'm not saying that no supply should be generated in these resource regions, I'm just saying that there is no reason why the supply should not be reduced. Supply, being generic, can't be both food and munitions, but it is in WITP. Because of this, those areas which produced alot of food must be reigned in because of both a lack of a civilian model (no civilians, less need for food...El Cid made a good point saying that modelling this food production 100% is a mistake given that the majority consumer, the civilian population, is not present) and the generic nature of supply (food can also be munitions). 10,000 tons of rice should not = 10,000 tons of ammo, but it is so this rice needs to be culled in order to restrict this transformation.

[moses]

I would think it would be best if each resourse point produced .1 supply and 1 resourse. Then each resourse point would produce 2 sp instead of 1 when combined with oil at the HI location. I think this is basically what you are getting at.

But this has no impact on global supply. In fact you get a little bit more supply (2.1 vs. 2 sp per resourse) but I assume a little will be lost while in transit. So your references to AAR's confuse the point you are trying to make.

The change you recommend (and my version of it above) makes perfect sence and would if nothing else require Japan to use a greater part of its shipping to move the resourses to Japan and the supply back to the front lines.

I think its impact on pace of operations, while positive, would be less dramatic then you think. In the end I suspect the Japanese player would simply send 20 extra loaded AK's south for the initial offensive and then proceed as normal.

I don't think supply is the main culprit in the faster then historical pace of operations. Number one would be non-historical first turns. Number two would be the willingness of Japanese players to take greater than historical losses. Number three would be the perfect Japanese knowledge of initial allied dispositions and capabilities. Number four would probably be supply and related issues (op points for port operations included). IMO of course.

But I hope changes like above get made because I think they would make the game better. [:)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: moses

I would think it would be best if each resourse point produced .1 supply and 1 resourse. Then each resourse point would produce 2 sp instead of 1 when combined with oil at the HI location. I think this is basically what you are getting at.

But this has no impact on global supply. In fact you get a little bit more supply (2.1 vs. 2 sp per resourse) but I assume a little will be lost while in transit. So your references to AAR's confuse the point you are trying to make.

The change you recommend (and my version of it above) makes perfect sence and would if nothing else require Japan to use a greater part of its shipping to move the resourses to Japan and the supply back to the front lines.

I think its impact on pace of operations, while positive, would be less dramatic then you think. In the end I suspect the Japanese player would simply send 20 extra loaded AK's south for the initial offensive and then proceed as normal.

I don't think supply is the main culprit in the faster then historical pace of operations. Number one would be non-historical first turns. Number two would be the willingness of Japanese players to take greater than historical losses. Number three would be the perfect Japanese knowledge of initial allied dispositions and capabilities. Number four would probably be supply and related issues (op points for port operations included). IMO of course.

But I hope changes like above get made because I think they would make the game better. [:)]

Glad to see that I'm makingsome sense to some people, I was begionning to think I've been couped up too long and lost what little ability I had to communicate to begin with.[:D]

One thing to think about...Global supply may not be an issue as you suggest, however, when one sees the Japanese player capable of repairing all damaged resource centres, R&Ding to the max possible, upgrading/expanding all industry and repairing all resultant damage, having more than enough supply to maintain an all out offensive on nearly all fronts, AND still managing to increase the supply in the coffers within six months, then again, perhaps there is an issue.

I'm going towatch AmiralLaurent and Pophats AAR with interest, as well as others and my game too, too see how it all pans out.

The Allied players problem was not that he does not have enough supply, but not enough to move it with and supply bottlenecks, something which the lack of operation limits at ports, and in my view the all too liberal assignment of higher port values on map can't simulate. I for one believe ports should be reduced in max size in many cases as it seems size of anchorage is being confused with port facilities. Ulithi or Truk is no Osaka. The smaller the port, the slower the load rate, so maybe to compensate for a lack of operations limits, maybe all but the largest ports should be dropped a size or two.

[moses]

One thing to think about...Global supply may not be an issue as you suggest, however, when one sees the Japanese player capable of repairing all damaged resource centres, R&Ding to the max possible, upgrading/expanding all industry and repairing all resultant damage, having more than enough supply to maintain an all out offensive on nearly all fronts, AND still managing to increase the supply in the coffers within six months, then again, perhaps there is an issue.

To demonstrate your point about global supply I recommend you look at AAR's or play a late game scenario. The test really is at what point does Japan begin its decline in terms of overall supply.

I would think this should occur sometime in mid 43 as by this time allied ofensives should be stressing the Japanese force structure and the bombing campaign should be reducing Japanese resourse levels. If you showed for example that Japan had more supply in July 44 then they did in Jan 44 then this would prove your point.

Examples taken from 1942 have little force in this case. I expect that Japan should have significantly more supply in July 42 then they started with. The data in the AAR you referenced simply confirms this expectation and leads me to believe that all is well in this respect.

But again I think the issue of global supply is essentially unrelated to your recommendations. All of these recommendations seem to impact mainly on usage of supply and ability to get it to the front. As such they should be argued individually on their own merit and not as part of an expansive critisism of the logistics system.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: moses

One thing to think about...Global supply may not be an issue as you suggest, however, when one sees the Japanese player capable of repairing all damaged resource centres, R&Ding to the max possible, upgrading/expanding all industry and repairing all resultant damage, having more than enough supply to maintain an all out offensive on nearly all fronts, AND still managing to increase the supply in the coffers within six months, then again, perhaps there is an issue.

To demonstrate your point about global supply I recommend you look at AAR's or play a late game scenario. The test really is at what point does Japan begin its decline in terms of overall supply.

I would think this should occur sometime in mid 43 as by this time allied ofensives should be stressing the Japanese force structure and the bombing campaign should be reducing Japanese resourse levels. If you showed for example that Japan had more supply in July 44 then they did in Jan 44 then this would prove your point.

Examples taken from 1942 have little force in this case. I expect that Japan should have significantly more supply in July 42 then they started with. The data in the AAR you referenced simply confirms this expectation and leads me to believe that all is well in this respect.

But again I think the issue of global supply is essentially unrelated to your recommendations. All of these recommendations seem to impact mainly on usage of supply and ability to get it to the front. As such they should be argued individually on their own merit and not as part of an expansive critisism of the logistics system.

Yep, totals can always be adjusted using the editor if the current relationship between supply and resources is severed. Definitely watching the AAR in hopes that it goes long haul.

[ChezDaJez]

One thing to think about...Global supply may not be an issue as you suggest, however, when one sees the Japanese player capable of repairing all damaged resource centres, R&Ding to the max possible, upgrading/expanding all industry and repairing all resultant damage, having more than enough supply to maintain an all out offensive on nearly all fronts, AND still managing to increase the supply in the coffers within six months, then again, perhaps there is an issue.

Hi Ron,

You and I tend to be in agreement on many of the issues in regards to WitP. However, I've got to say that your quote above is a little exaggerated.

I'ld be willing to send you my latest PBEM Japanese turn and password for you to look over. My game is a stock scenario 15, v1.6 with PDU on and the date is 12 Oct 42. I would then ask you to compare your comments above with what you see in the my game. I think that you will find you are incorrect with your comments.

Let me know and I'll send it to you.

Chez

[dtravel]

*WHOOSH*

Just when I thought it was safe to buy more marshmellows, there goes another bag.

[ChezDaJez]

Nah, Ron's cool. I'm sending him the file.

Chez

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

*WHOOSH*

Just when I thought it was safe to buy more marshmellows, there goes another bag.

Thank God this ridiculous thread has turned up again, I thought I might have to do some work or something. [:D][8D]

[Cpt Sherwood]

Get your marshmellow ready:

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: moses

I would think it would be best if each resourse point produced .1 supply and 1 resourse. Then each resourse point would produce 2 sp instead of 1 when combined with oil at the HI location. I think this is basically what you are getting at.

But this has no impact on global supply. In fact you get a little bit more supply (2.1 vs. 2 sp per resourse) but I assume a little will be lost while in transit. So your references to AAR's confuse the point you are trying to make.

The change you recommend (and my version of it above) makes perfect sence and would if nothing else require Japan to use a greater part of its shipping to move the resourses to Japan and the supply back to the front lines.

I think its impact on pace of operations, while positive, would be less dramatic then you think. In the end I suspect the Japanese player would simply send 20 extra loaded AK's south for the initial offensive and then proceed as normal.

I don't think supply is the main culprit in the faster then historical pace of operations. Number one would be non-historical first turns. Number two would be the willingness of Japanese players to take greater than historical losses. Number three would be the perfect Japanese knowledge of initial allied dispositions and capabilities. Number four would probably be supply and related issues (op points for port operations included). IMO of course.

But I hope changes like above get made because I think they would make the game better. [:)]

The changes will be made, and in spite of the company's complete indifference. As far as I know Sid's made good progress in that area.

[jwilkerson]

Play as Japan. Show me yourself how Japan swims in supply during it's expansion period. Until you do, i'll go with my own experiences since i've been there, done that.

Interestingly .. the three games I've played as Japanese that have made 43-44 ( from 7/8 Dec 41 ) ... I am more so "swimming in supply" during the expansion ... it is after the expansion ( with the addition of many more air units and many many more ground units ) that I am starved for supply. So now I bring supply FROM the Home Islands to the SRA .. not the other way round .. this despite the concept the SRA producing supply is a game breaker ... in my most advanced game ( Jan 44 ) I have even brought supply to Palembang ( because it needed it ) !

I have supply during the expansion because I am careful about expanding production and I bring every possible resource and oil point back to the Home Islands as soon as possible.

I have almost every turn of PBEM I've played since 7/4/04 ... so tell me what data you'd like to see ... and I'll go hunt some up ... but the above is a summary.

[Nikademus]

Your PBEM experiences sound similar to mine. I had ample supply during my expansion period, but primarily due to the fact that i'd learned my lesson from previous PBEM's as Japan and had planned ahead much better on the logistical side. (I still had some issues with fuel stocks which delayed some of my operations by a couple of weeks) With my expansion period over, i too, have found myself having to ship supply from the Home Islands to the SRA to maintain the forces there and keep the resources chugging out my needed raw materials.

I'm probably aided too, by my light hands on the reins approach to production....i do very little to no expanding during the territorial expansion period....then some light fiddling after that period has ended.

[moses]

Hence my earlier post in which I think I made clear that Japan just has to be running a daily supply surplus in 42. If supply levels are dropping steadily in 42 then what would happen later in the war as resourse centers begin getting bombed? The answer is that Japan would very quickly (I mean early to mid 43) be out of supply.

Anyone arguing that players have increasing supply stockpiles in 42 and that therefore supply is "broken" are missing this key point. Japan's total on-map supply MUST increase throughout most of 42. At some point in 43 you would expect increasing demands and damaged resourse centers to eliminate Japan's daily surplus and turn it into a daily deficit.

Once they begin running a deficit the end (while perhaps a way off) is at least in sight. Ideally Japan will try to maintain its supply surplus into 44. So one measure of success for Japan in the game is "How long until you begin running a supply deficit?"

Now lets say we have a game in which the allies have made some normal progress by say July 44. The allies have bombed quite a bit in Malaysia and have engaged in some level of combat iin order to place stress on Japan's position. Now if the Japanese player claims he is still running a surplus that might be an indication of a problem.

Running a surplus in 42 is a sign that the game is working properly.

[Nikademus]

no argument from me. During my territorial expansion period, i actually ran low on supplies in the Home Islands.

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

no argument from me. During my territorial expansion period, i actually ran low on supplies in the Home Islands.

Oh I wasn't arguing just to some extent venting as to how the supply debate gets sidetracked and confused.

All the recommendations about supply have to do with short term issues of supply use and transport and have nothing to do with overall supply levels. There are numerous good recommendations that MIGHT have a SMALL but distinctly positive impact. They are completly lost in the confusion that results when claims that the system is entirely FUBAR are made.

For instance the recommendations (of which there are many versions) that resourse centers produce less supply which is then replaced at the HI location. This has not a thing to do with global supply and should not change overall suply levels a whit. Its only effects would be 1.) to slow the initial Japanese attack slightly and 2.) require more Japanese transport throughout the game as he now has to send more supply back to the SRA which previously was simply produced there locally.

The first effect is minor as I would guess that it will only slow the Japanese by at most a day or two and it has almost no effect for the rest of the game. The second effect is more important as it effects the game for the duration and places some additional stress on the Japanese transport system and gives the allies more sub targets .

So two small but possibly positive effects. Hardly enough to fix a completly "broken system. Maybe good candidates for improving[:)] a currently functional system

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses

Oh I wasn't arguing just to some extent venting as to how the supply debate gets sidetracked and confused.

Stop being reasonable and logical moses. There's no place for that here. [;)]

[moses]

You should pause a bit before replying. How can you reply in 91 seconds!!!!!!!![&:]

Surely there is enough brilliance in each of my posts to require you to reflect seriously about the topics I raise. 91 seconds!!!!??? I'm very insulted.

[:D]