A2A musings...

[el cid again]

Reduction in HI output of up to 5% (haven't got the final numbers completed yet - it will be about 5% or less, and I can adjust it upwards again).

I don't know what HI means? But it probably SHOULD mean steel production - at least in part. Steel can be used to make factories - machine tools - bridges - railroads - rolling stock - motor vehicles - ships - artillery - munitions - etc. But any given ton of steel can only be used one way. And the ability to change how much steel is made in a given time is limited. Steel was the most critical resource other than oil for both the USA and Japan.

On what basis should Japan's production be reduced? And why by 5% (as opposed to 1 % or 10 % or some other value)? Given that Joe ADDED ground units IN Japan - and these eat - and that I ADDED air units in Japan - and these eat - I think an INCREASE in supply is going to be needed just to stay even with where things used to be. And as it was, I ran out of supplies in Japan in two days. From the moment I load my first convoys onward, I am always SHORT of supplies in Japan. IF we want to simulate a campaign where Japan is the supply SOURCE for ships, it is probably going to need a lot MORE supplies - not less - otherwise you simply won't have the supplies there to load at all.

But HI points won't impact aircraft production very much in the early war period. Since Japan makes the wrong kinds of planes, I tend to curtail production anyway - and it takes time to grow back - since I don't want to collect huge numbers of junk aircraft. A player who didn't do that might grow production less fast - but it should still grow. [He is just wasting his points on Sonya, Mary, Ann, Oscar, etc.] What WILL be impacted significantly is the growth in the economy itself. And Japan seems to grow about right (25% is history - and game players are able to achieve about that) so reducing this may also be wrong.

[el cid again]

Ship production?

Japan should need ships. In the game now it does not. So it matters little. JF Dunnigan - creater of the S&T War in the Pacific mechanical system - wrote that smart players would build merchant ships. Joe says that we have no use for them here. I am upset if Joe is right - and I build them on principle - but I must admit it looks like they turn into offensive assets - they are not needed to ship supplies and resources. Unless the supply model is changed, probably merchant ships should be removed from the game - making it more managable - and freeing up slots for interesting naval vessels. Now IF you INCREASE supplies IN Japan - and DECREASE them other places - THEN not being able to build as many ships might matter.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

- Concentration of more resources in Japan as opposed to other locations (especially Manchukuo), which should result in more supply being generated in Japan as opposed to elsewhere.

This seems quite wrong. Japan is an astonishingly resource poor country - more than any other significant power - and Manchukuo was a really major source of iron ore, coal, non-ferris minerals, timber, soy and other things - and a modest producer of oil in three different senses (oil from wells, shale oil and artificial oil from coal and natural gas).

On the face of it, you are correct. But the problem with the way the game operates is that resource centres also generate supply. Because of this there is no good way to represent the Japanese economy. Resource centres located in far flung areas also generate supply, removing the need to ship supplies to forces located there.

I am aware that supply was generated locally, but I do not believe that the Japanese military were entirely self sufficient without the need to ship anything from Japan at all.

As you say having a few more resources in Japan reduces the need to ship them there, but this is replaced by the need to ship the generated supplies out.

Also, oil is a separate issue from resources. Speaking of which, I have also reduced the oil centres in Manchukuo as they are too high. This results in a reduction of Japanese owned oil centres (at game start) from 750 to 550 (approx - I don't have the exact number). On the other hand, however, Japan's starting oil reserves will be slightly higher.

I recommend eating some of the excess supply in manchukuo. And also letting some survive - Manchukuo really makes supply points! Even ammunition. Let Japan have to move both resource points and supply points FROM Manchukuo - and also worry about what happens if it is taken by an enemy? And also have to defend it from bomber raids.

There is still a lot of resource generation in Manchukuo and elsewhere. I have only reduced it by a small amount. There is still a need to ship these resources to Japan.

Part of my rationale in the resource placement is that I view resources as not only representing raw mineral resources, although that is a major component. I also see it as representing light industrial output (basically, everything that is NOT represented by HI), and so I co-locate some resource centres in bases, proportional to manpower. Therefore population centres produce supplies, as well as resources which are used to feed HI. I have already done this in India, the USA and Australia, and I am now extending that to Japan and China. Eventually I hope to redo all bases using this system.

One difference with my revision of the Japanese bases is that I didn't use the system I have already used in India and China, where resource generation has been split 50/50 between resource centres and daily resource output. The reason being that output from daily resources is not included in the industry totals available via the Intelligence Reports summary pages (unfortunately), so using daily resources output would make the running of the Japanese economy more difficult to track.

Andrew

[jwilkerson]

What effect would a worst case reduction of 5% to the Japanese industry output do to their economy? Aircraft output? Ship production? I haven't played Japan so I need to know what the effects would be. The worse the effects the more careful I need to be to not make damaging cuts to the Japanese economy, by tweaking the revised figures upwards.

This would cause a slower accumulation of HI reserve and a corresponding reduction in supply production. Actually in my games by '44 I'm not having spare supply anywhere .. and am shipping it from the home islands to the SRA ( despite those that think supply in SRA is self sufficient .. in real games .. by this point .. the area is not self sufficient and you are shipping it in ). So will put more pressure on supply.

The slower accumulation of HI reserve will essentially just mean the game ends sooner. In my game that has reached '44 .. I predicted that I could last until June once Palembang is bombable ( which would be a few weeks ) ... with 200,000 less HI in the reserve pool this would chop off a month. So the game ends 1-3 months earlier with this change.
Point is you prioritize such that there is no impact to actually production, only impact is to HI reserve accumulation, but this results in running out of HI sooner which I call the end of the game.

[treespider]

I have been reviewing a lot of the resource, oil and supply generation data for the Japanese bases for the next CHS update. At the moment, the effects of my changes would be:

- Concentration of more resources in Japan as opposed to other locations (especially Manchukuo), which should result in more supply being generated in Japan as opposed to elsewhere.
- Reduction in HI output of up to 5% (haven't got the final numbers completed yet - it will be about 5% or less, and I can adjust it upwards again).

What effect would a worst case reduction of 5% to the Japanese industry output do to their economy? Aircraft output? Ship production? I haven't played Japan so I need to know what the effects would be. The worse the effects the more careful I need to be to not make damaging cuts to the Japanese economy, by tweaking the revised figures upwards.

Andrew

Just curious as to what sources you are using? Is there a formula attached to the calculation ie. One ton of material = one point or something similar?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Just curious as to what sources you are using? Is there a formula attached to the calculation ie. One ton of material = one point or something similar?

For resources, my aim is to keep the total number available to Japan at the scenario start the same as they are now. I have simply moved some of the centres.

For oil, I have used the 1 ton = 1 point figure for my calculations.

For population (manpower), I have tried to gather as many contemprary population figures as I could find. When they are not available, I have extrapolated. Resource and HI values allocated to bases are then made proportional to the manopwer values. Additional HI is added where there were major HI installations (e.g Asansol in India). Also, large amounts of resource centres are kept in, or added to, locations where there were high levels of natural resource extraction (coal and iron, mainly).

Nearly all of the sources for this data were ones I found through online searches, given my paucity of actual reference books. Not perfect but it is all that I have.

Andrew

[el cid again]

So I don't see too many aircraft being a key problem for the Japanese - in the game .. they can't use them even if they have them ...

This is good history. The model may have details wrong, but Japan really did produce too many planes, and really could neither fuel nor man them properly. Since the game allows (correctly in my view) players some control over the Japanese production system, no competent player will EVER run out of good planes until very late in the war - because the player will shut down whatever it takes to get the planes that matter. Aircraft industry is not the main thing - and its bottlenecks are reasonably built into this game: how many factories are there and how many planes can they build? how many engine factories are there and how many engines can they build? THESE are the real limits (along with aluminum, which is not modeled) in real life. I do not think Japan can make too many planes in the sense that it can make a vastly greater number than it did (it appears that it cannot make quite as many as it did late in the war). And I think above a certain number it does not matter how many it has.

[el cid again]

I am aware that supply was generated locally, but I do not believe that the Japanese military were entirely self sufficient without the need to ship anything from Japan at all.

Except for areas of jungle and desert and rough mountains, and most of the smaller islands, most places actually make MORE supply than is in the game system. This is hard to deal with - because there are not enough kinds of supply. Thus lumber and gravel and food and hand made goods are equated with specialized electron tubes and heavy gun ammunition and torpedoes and optical instruments. In a real sense, this is a problem for which there is no present solution: it takes code and a design change to address it properly. For that reason, this problem is not your fault, and the impossibility of a really meaningful fix isn't your fault either. That said, it is a mistake to half do this job. If you want more supply in Japan - put Heavy Industry there - because I am sure it is understated - and IT makes supplies. But ONLY if you ship in more resources to feed it. And shipping is a big problem - make Japan use ships to move resources in and supplies out of Japan. That is the best we can do for now.

IF you want fewer supplies in Manchukuo (I am not sure this is a big issue - it may be there should be more not less - I routinely have supply shortages there) - try some form of supply sink. For example, the real land units of the area that really eat have been added. We could do the same thing in other places - most of the millions of men serving Japan who were not Japanese are not in the game. [Including some elite units. I am not sure that the Taiwanese airborne commandoes were added - or not? I see no Korean marines (Red Horse, White Horse, Blue Horse, Red Dragon, etc).

And do some testing - ARE SUPPLIES IN JAPAN DIFFERENT FROM SUPPLIES ON THE MAINLAND OF ASIA? Maybe they cross the Tsushima Strait? The way the manual is worded, they should.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

We already have very high ops losses for whatever reason. LBA not being able to make emergency landings is one culptrit. One of the reasons I think the AA is fine in stock scenarios. But something else is going on. In my PBEM vs Adm Halsey, he has lost 70 Sonias by mid March 42, all to ops losses and I rarely see them in combat. Must be using them vs subs or some such.

Ron..., this time you are totally wrong. Almost 2/3rd's of Japanese A/C losses were "operational"; and close to 3/5th's of US losses were as well. OP Losses should pe plentifull, with modifiers based on A/C transfers, overcrowded bases, lack of maintence crews, lack of supply, and pilot skill. The game doesn't come close to reality. T^ake away things like too many B-17 replacements, too many Tony's arriving far too early, and other such production flaws, and add in a more realistic reflection of OPs Losses, and most of the "over-abundant supply of A/C" in the game will dissappear.

[mogami]

Hi, I have more trouble moving supply in this computer game then I had in the board game by SPI. I played several games as Japan (Rochester NY team of whackos Japan versus UofR students) The key to the board game was what was known as a "Pipeline" A sting a merchant counters every certain number of hexes. The more merchants in each group and the closer each group was to next group the more supply the pipeline could convey. enemy subs just sat on the pipeline and depending on number of subs and size of pipeline submarine and ASW occured.
I was part of a team that began with 5 Japanese players versus at least 8 Allied players (they were never all present at once) The Japanese team declined over time to just 3 players. I controled production and supply for Japanese and did a lot of the prewar planning. (Operations were a result of my supply predictions and movement)
Japan won the war before 1943 (Japan in that game could "shorten" the war and thus avoid the Allied comeback.

I spent around 40 hours working out the supply details (setting up the pipelines was the hard part) The Japanese team did not need to deviate from this plan before late 1942 (we went farther then we had planned)

In WITP I spend a lot more time on supply because I have to keep the pipelines working by actually sending ships.

In the boardgame aircraft and LCU replacements moved via the pipeline. (So they just appeared where you wanted them a number of turns after you said you were sending them)

[jwilkerson]

But on land we worked out what we called "draglines" ( kind of like land pipelines ) and each turn had to move the supply through the "draglines" ( with pencil and paper ) .. fortunately .. you could set up the draglines so that you only recorded the "changes" in supply at each succeeding depot .. and didn't actually have to "move" the supply. But it was a lot of record keeping. But it did allow control of where - on land - the supply was going and from whence it came ... I miss that ability ... especially given the sometimes suprious movements that happen in the game ( one example of which is in Coral Sea scenario .. when on turn one about 8k of the PM supply rushes north across the Owen Stanley to Buna !!! Not sure how it is supposed to do this - but it does ! )

[mogami]

Hi, Landsupply was just like in WITP. Supply was supply up to the moment it was consumed. (supply consumed to maitain a unit was basic. supply consumed to move was movement and supply consumed by combat was combat supply)

The rule you really needed to understand was this one.

14.3 GROUND SUPPLY SUMMARY: You always need BASIC supply to avoid
attrition. MOVEMENT supply (and the supply allowance) limit your move in
one week (Turn). In effect, every unit has a movement allowance of 7, if
supply is available. As you move, you can draw supply from depots within
a week's march (i.e. Basic Cost of distance 7). If you have spare
movement points, you can use them to 'whistle up' supply from a depot
into your hex.


Notice how static units could "whistle up" supply and thus form a pipeline.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

We already have very high ops losses for whatever reason. LBA not being able to make emergency landings is one culptrit. One of the reasons I think the AA is fine in stock scenarios. But something else is going on. In my PBEM vs Adm Halsey, he has lost 70 Sonias by mid March 42, all to ops losses and I rarely see them in combat. Must be using them vs subs or some such.

Ron..., this time you are totally wrong. Almost 2/3rd's of Japanese A/C losses were "operational"; and close to 3/5th's of US losses were as well. OP Losses should pe plentifull, with modifiers based on A/C transfers, overcrowded bases, lack of maintence crews, lack of supply, and pilot skill. The game doesn't come close to reality. T^ake away things like too many B-17 replacements, too many Tony's arriving far too early, and other such production flaws, and add in a more realistic reflection of OPs Losses, and most of the "over-abundant supply of A/C" in the game will dissappear.

I'm using the CHS and replacement rates are very different from stock and obviously much lower. Aside from the instantaneous appearance of replacements at well stocked bases if aircraft are in the pool, I'm struggling to keep squadrons anywhere near nominal. Perhaps ops losses should be higher but I don't see it being an issue so far in the CHS when compared to other more glaring problems. If we ned higher ops losses, then perhaps having pilots with more realistic skill levels would help. Too many are in the 80s and up. Lots more ops losses occur with lower skilled pilots.

[el cid again]

T^ake away things like too many B-17 replacements, too many Tony's arriving far too early,

It is not unusual for planes to appear a year early. And some planes (notably the B-17) appear in the game out of all proportion to the numbers really sent. [While three dozen started in the Philippines, and a few more in Hawaii, B-17s were mainly sent to Europe. And B-24s do not become available at all until mid-1942 (their first operation was in Europe in June). Players are going to notice that I changed availability rates and dates. But it is not always in the lower/later direction. There were a lot MORE B-24s in the Pacific than the game shows, and you won't believe how many Corsairs were made. I set the first model of Corsair to be land based only - and that puts off for a year when you can use them at sea - but they appear in the pools in numbers so large I doubt they can ever be used. The US set out to make 100,000 combat planes - and basically accomplished that goal. The main restrictions on them were self imposed - or restrictions in terms of WHEN you could make them. I am not sure why B-17s COULD NOT have been sent to the Pacific just because they were not? But if we allowed that, then presumably (if they did anything to Germany) the Germans would do better not having to deal with them - and that is beyond the scope of what we can address.