ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
Getting back to what (at least i think) should be in a new improved WITP (let's call it WITP2 for brevity). This is probably pie in the sky, but here goes:
1. A switch for game playability/balance vs. historical - throwing said switch changes the parameters to make the game more evenly balanced on one option, vs. an historical model. Such a switch would broaden the appeal of the game immensely (i think).
2. Logistics - i think most people agree it needs to be slowed up (at least for the historical option). So:
A. Ports - ports are limited to number of ships that can be loaded at one time by port size (or maybe port size x 2). Any Ships up to port size x 3 can be unloaded using port facilities. Above that, ships can still unload, but rate would be limited to "over the beach" rates. Maybe this could be simplified by using OPS points for port facilities, with larger ports having more OPS points.
B. Rail lines - rolling stock implemented. No rolling stock = no rail movement of units, no supply movement. Also stops the strange ability of IJ to rapidly overrun India, China as we have seen in some AAR threads (again slowing the pace of the game).
C. Ability to turn off repairs to runway, port facilities. Why would you want to turn over nice pristine air base to the enemy, forgoing building fortifications to allow the enemy to occupy the newly repaired runway which you used up your supplies for?
D. Ability to destroy additional base facilities, supplies using PPs. Why leave 250000 tons of fuel for the enemy to capture when one road flare can prevent it?
3. Special ops - you can allocate supplies, troops, money for special ops (mini-sub attacks, canoe attacks, speed boat attacks, etc.) Results on random table - and if using historical model option, most likely to fail.
Just a few thoughts for discussion (or not)...[;)]
One shouldn't have to consume PPs to waste military stores and fuel. That confuses the purpose of PPs.
Were supply divided into two separate entities, though, Organic Supply, which is basically food and clothing, and Military Supply, ammo and whatnot, then it might be reasonable to limit "free" destruction to Military Supply stockpiles. A rule should then be required to always maintain a certain level of OS to keep the local population fed and clothed and happy. If this stockpile falls below that arbitrary level, then the local population would certainly "revolt" and cause the necessity of higher garrison levels and perhaps the expenditure of PPs as well.
Garrisons would be for the Japanese. The Americans needed garrisons, too, but the guarding of their facilities was of a different nature--call it more "casual" guarding. Destroying OS would not be a good thing, though. Leaving innocent civilians without food and clothing would cause an uproar back in the States and Great Britain and Australia, so maybe this should cost the Allies five- or six-times the PPs it would cost the Japanese.
These are
suggestions to make supply something useful, necessary, valuable, to make supply difficult to obtain, slow to ship in and costly to get rid of.
I'd think fuel stocks would go up like a ruptured duck, but these should still cost some Military Supply to destroy. It should probably require greater amounts of Military Supply to destroy Military Supply itself, but maybe that's getting too detailed. It would, however, require time. Everything in a simulation which models supply should require 1) supply to do everything and 2) time to affect these activities. Otherwise, why model supply in the first place? Why model the system on what essentially are 8-hour phases?
It would be good to publish a formula that states:
[
a engineer units +
b supply] * [
c time] = [
x fuel/supply] or [
y airbase/port facilities] or [
z HI/Oil/Resource/Manpower] destroyed
In such a manner players could reasonably plan for these activities, bring in extra engineers for the job if necessary, etc. The way the game handles this now is almost mystic, with no thought at all to the destruction of anything other than HI/Oil/Resource/Manpower.
If the present port sizes/construction schedule remain the same (1-9) then a port probably shouldn't be able to offload more ships than its own size (i.e. ships that could find dock space), with 2x the dock-rate number of ships off-loading at the beach rate. (So, a level-0 port could only offload 1 ship at the beach rate, a level-1 port could offload 1 ship at a dock and 2 ships at the beach rate, etc.) After you get a port up to, say, level-6, then allow 2x port-level number of ships to offload at docks, with the rest at the beach rate. After a port reaches level-9, throw in a multiplier such as 4 or 5 for the number of ships which could find dock space and worker availability for fast off-loading, the rest (2x dock rate) using the beach rate. This system would require a hard and reasonable cap on the levels of ports in any given hex. Lunga, for example, would have a cap of 0 (that's zero). There was no "port" there, there is still no port there today. There is fast-shoaling beach in front of Lunga. With dangerous mosquitoes. That's all for Lunga. Over in Tulagi there was a small sheltered area suitable for a small-sized port. So Tulagi might be given a hard cap of 3. And so on.
For anyone unaware: the beach rate I mention above refers to the use of lighters (barges, whale boats) to load and offload cargo. It is hard and slow labor. The present beach rate in the game for the disembarkation of troops is probably okay, at least in the ballpark; it is too high for cargo. Drop the latter to 100 points per turn, maybe even to 50. Now we're cooking with gas.
There also needs to be distinction drawn between Japanese capabilities in this area and American capabilities. The Japanese didn't have the tools or savvy to move a lot of cargo in backwater areas, whereas the Americans had the wherewithal and know-how to do so as the war ground on. So, let's say that beginning in 1943 the Allies will have twice the offload capability of the Japanese at beach rates, in 1944 four times the capability, in 1945 six times that capability. Or something similar.
The expenditure of Operation Points for the use of airbases and ports might be doable; however, I have previously recommended changing the spread of port sizes to 1-100, which would be the easiest and probably most elegant solution. This change would:
1. more reasonably delineate between large (San Francisco) and minuscule (Noumea) ports
2. enable ports to unload ships based on size (100-level port unloads 100 ships at a time)
3. preclude a less intuitive system with OPs use or 1-10 port sizes with port build-rates based on a diminishing-returns formula.
For the case is construction in the game, especially port construction, is too fast along with everything else. Airbases, yes, the Allies built those almost overnight--assuming level solid ground. It took the Allies longer, probably three or four times as long, to fill in unsuitable land, but they
were capable of doing so when the occasion demanded. The Japanese has no such capability anywhere except in the home islands.
The problem is twofold:
Engineers in the game are generic (with no fundamental difference between a Japanese engineer battalion and a Seabees unit)
Engineers can build ports at the same rate as airbases
This issue is compounded by a very poor map study. Sites such as Lunga, where no port was possible, are given unbelievable port potentials. It's similar with locations like Noumea, though at least at Noumea there was a cove to work with. So, a new map is needed, and this map needs to be drawn conservatively. A good place to start in that search would be with Andrew Brown, who has done remarkable work for the CHS project. His present map stands head and shoulders above the stock version, and the only thing holding it back seems to be the rather odd method chosen of making changes to it--that is, a sort of consensus is required of project workers for changes to be affected.
Well, I've said this before and it needs saying again: a consensus sounds like a good deal, but decision by committee is not the way to go with certain work. Some people simply don't have the capacity for such work, others don't care, still more entertain strange agendas, and like that. Cartography is both an art and a science. It is specialized work and suitable only to disciplined minds.
Anyway, what's needed is a cap on ultimate sizes of ports in any given hex, then make ports five- or six-times more difficult to build than airfields--and more costly to build, too, so it would take five- or six-times as much time
and supply to construct a port as it would to an airfield. Then we'd be headed in the right direction with regard to the current abuses of the system (e.g. 60-ship convoys off-loading at Noumea in December of 1941 or January of 1942 or whenever it is).
That should give you an idea of where I stand conceptually. The game system
runs too fast and it is not difficult to see why it runs too fast. And the game doesn't just run two-times or three-times too fast, but
many times too fast.
There's a lot more to look at, of course. What I've offered above is a mere
outline of ideas which would at least
begin to address the
worst problems with only the logistic model in mind. But other areas also need change. For instance, the air model doesn't function well in some respects, and one reason for this is because no intelligent use is presently made of airbases vis-a-vis their support roles in maintaining aircraft. Mike Scholl's idea of basing aircraft support on the number of engines makes good sense, for instance.
Ports don't have good game functionality. Loading up Bombardment TFs in backwater sites is a joke. Loading them up overnight is another joke.
Stacking in general needs to addressed. Does anyone believe it would be possible to put three full divisions on Tarawa in defense? And why is there no rule for hex-density to affect the outcome of artillery barrages? For that matter why are artillery barrages so weak?
If one wants to model the historical "tunneling in" or "spider hole" mentality of the Japanese, fine, but don't allow the Japanese to build these defenses at the same rate as airfields and ports. Ports take a long time to build, airfields much less time to build. I don't know exactly how long it takes to build a complex of spider holes, much less the cave complexes found on Iwo Jima after the battle, but it would take awhile and consume no few supplies. Men can only work so many hours per day, men get hungry, men get sick, and whatnot.
There's no reason in the world not to model the true function of rail roads in at least a rudimentary manner. Hell, Gary already had the formulas for this from his
Second Front game. Also, there ought to be a build capability for these rail lines. Why isn't there? All this "detail" is provided but then there is no connecting of the detail dots. Why not? With the bad result that the game
moves too fast.
Something needs to be done about garrisons. Garrisons are required everywhere. The Americans moved forward and did push their combat units to the front as time wore on, but their rear areas were not forgotten. For the Japanese, it was necessary to strongly garrison everything they took. Sure, there was unrest in India at the time, and the Dutch were not exactly loved in the East Indies, but the fact remains that the Japanese made enemies everywhere they went. The Japanese were cruel, the Japanese exploited everyone, and so the Japanese needed to garrison their new holdings. Without garrisons, these new holdings would have dried up, just that fast.