Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Good points

My idea (I do not speak for CHS) was simply to slow the game down at the beginning and stop the Allies moving their vast level bomber fleets forward too early. This was in response to having faced daily attacks from 200+ 4E bombers out of Darwin in March 1942 using the stock scen.

As you say the problem is fundamentally with the logistics model and probably can't be "fixed" whatever is tried.

Having thought about it more I think the solution might be doable and some of it would be include the following (I am writing a paper to more throughtly document the rational for this that will include sources):
1. Reinstate the Supply and Fuel allocations back to official levels
2. Reduce by at least 20% the endurance of all major vessels
3. Increase the cruising speeds for all major combatants to 18-20 kts that have max speeds over 25kts. Other vessels like liners and such also get a speed boost (the Queens, for instance, consistantly average 25 kts).
4. reduce by 50% the cargo capacity of all AK's at start
5. As the programmed refits kick in increase this value so by late 1944 all vessels are at 90% of their paper capacity (will never reach 100%)
6. Take the large increase in US AK's and TK's that arrive in early Jan 1942 and spread then out over the next 6 months.

This would I hope achieve the following:
1. Greatly increase the fuel consumption of naval units engaged in offensive operations, thus limiting allied abilty for any large scale naval action early on due to inability to move the required fuel.
2. Slow down the the supply pipeline early on when the US logistical apparatus was poorly developed. There was a reason why Guadalcanal was done on a logistical shoestring.
3. Gradually increase the capacity to reflect the US ability to more effeicently handle the logistical challenge as the war progressed.

Richard

Just to let you know, I have been testing an idea that was mentioned a while ago to help simulate the supply situation for the Allies - "reinforcement" bases. It is intended to work as follows: The Allies keep their reduced starting dauly supply/fuel levels as in CHS 1.02. The USA is provided with three "reinforcement" bases that appear on the first day of 1943, 1944 and 1945. Each base has 6000 daily fuel and supplies. This represents the increasing availability of fuel and supplies for the US as the war progresses. The British daily fuel/supply levels stay reduced - no extra bases for them.

So far my testing seems to show that this idea works - in which case I hope to have it included in the next CHS update. This will help prevent the Allies (USA in particular) from running into supply problems later in the war (when they start to get very large numbers of LCU, ships and aircraft).

Andrew

Andrew have you checked to see what happens if you click in the hex where the delayed bases will appear? I have found that delayed bases can be accessed in this way even though they don't show up as icons or on rollover. These bases all had a delay of 9999 though.

--
Warrior those are good ideas which may have an effect but I doubt that it would be enough. The game just does not simulate difficult operating conditions or lack of ordnance and related facilities to the degree required.

As an aside, one thing I was considering doing for a mod I may make was to lower all maximum ship speeds. This is simply because I do not think TFs should be able to whizz about like they do now, nothing to do with logistics.

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Andrew have you checked to see what happens if you click in the hex where the delayed bases will appear? I have found that delayed bases can be accessed in this way even though they don't show up as icons or on rollover. These bases all had a delay of 9999 though.

--
Warrior those are good ideas which may have an effect but I doubt that it would be enough. The game just does not simulate difficult operating conditions or lack of ordnance and related facilities to the degree required.

As an aside, one thing I was considering doing for a mod I may make was to lower all maximum ship speeds. This is simply because I do not think TFs should be able to whizz about like they do now, nothing to do with logistics.

There is an exponetial icrease in horsepower required the faster a vessel travels, roughly 50% more power required for each 2kts speed increase, which also equates to a corresponding decrease in endurance. Slowing task forces will only decrease the need for fuel, making fuel logistics simpler. I would argue that at a minimum combat oriented task forces need to actually have their speeeds increased, forcing them to use more fuel. And yes, task force speed is related to logistics regardless of the intent. Slower taskforces are also historically more vulnerable to submarine interception and engagment.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Just to let you know, I have been testing an idea that was mentioned a while ago to help simulate the supply situation for the Allies - "reinforcement" bases. It is intended to work as follows: The Allies keep their reduced starting dauly supply/fuel levels as in CHS 1.02. The USA is provided with three "reinforcement" bases that appear on the first day of 1943, 1944 and 1945. Each base has 6000 daily fuel and supplies. This represents the increasing availability of fuel and supplies for the US as the war progresses. The British daily fuel/supply levels stay reduced - no extra bases for them.

So far my testing seems to show that this idea works - in which case I hope to have it included in the next CHS update. This will help prevent the Allies (USA in particular) from running into supply problems later in the war (when they start to get very large numbers of LCU, ships and aircraft).

Andrew

I was wondering how this idea was working out. Have you tentatively identified just where these bases would be? Will this version be made for both of your maps? If this truely works out then it does mediate most of my logistic arguements as far as supply sources go. However, I still like the idea of adjusting physical cargo capacity of cargo vessels reflecting greater effeciency of cargo handling, which is historically documented. Heck, by mid 1944 even tankers and oilers were carrying deck cargoes.

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
There is an exponetial icrease in horsepower required the faster a vessel travels, roughly 50% more power required for each 2kts speed increase, which also equates to a corresponding decrease in endurance. Slowing task forces will only decrease the need for fuel, making fuel logistics simpler. I would argue that at a minimum combat oriented task forces need to actually have their speeeds increased, forcing them to use more fuel. And yes, task force speed is related to logistics regardless of the intent. Slower taskforces are also historically more vulnerable to submarine interception and engagment.

Yes, in reality that's true. Does the game model it though? Without looking into it I would guess that it uses a linear relationship between speed and fuel/endurance.

Perhaps the CHS team can post a technical bulletin or something Or maybe I should just go and read the editor manual ...

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
There is an exponetial icrease in horsepower required the faster a vessel travels, roughly 50% more power required for each 2kts speed increase, which also equates to a corresponding decrease in endurance. Slowing task forces will only decrease the need for fuel, making fuel logistics simpler. I would argue that at a minimum combat oriented task forces need to actually have their speeeds increased, forcing them to use more fuel. And yes, task force speed is related to logistics regardless of the intent. Slower taskforces are also historically more vulnerable to submarine interception and engagment.

Yes, in reality that's true. Does the game model it though? Without looking into it I would guess that it uses a linear relationship between speed and fuel/endurance.

Perhaps the CHS team can post a technical bulletin or something Or maybe I should just go and read the editor manual ...

Well just take a combat task force in SF, equip it with destroyers, then send it at max speed to PH. If the speed/emdurance is lineal than they will make it no problem. However, I think you will find that the destroyers run out of fuel well before the get to PH.

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
There is an exponetial icrease in horsepower required the faster a vessel travels, roughly 50% more power required for each 2kts speed increase, which also equates to a corresponding decrease in endurance. Slowing task forces will only decrease the need for fuel, making fuel logistics simpler. I would argue that at a minimum combat oriented task forces need to actually have their speeeds increased, forcing them to use more fuel. And yes, task force speed is related to logistics regardless of the intent. Slower taskforces are also historically more vulnerable to submarine interception and engagment.

Yes, in reality that's true. Does the game model it though? Without looking into it I would guess that it uses a linear relationship between speed and fuel/endurance.


Perhaps the CHS team can post a technical bulletin or something Or maybe I should just go and read the editor manual ...

Well just take a combat task force in SF, equip it with destroyers, then send it at max speed to PH. If the speed/emdurance is lineal than they will make it no problem. However, I think you will find that the destroyers run out of fuel well before the get to PH.

Speed Endurance test - both same class DD starting at SF, one max, one cruising, ordered to PH and back, refueling turned off :

DD Cushing Spd 35 Endurance 6500
at 24 hexes: Endurance 2420 - 170 endurance miles per hex
DD Smith Spd 15 Endurance 6500
at 15 hexes: Endurance 5420 - 72 endurance miles per hex
Consumption per hex at 35 kts is ~2.5x that at 15kts - 170 to 72
Expected would be 60 endurance miles per hex

This seems to suggest that the Speed/Endurance difference as speed increases is not linear. So the game must use a non-linear formula to calculate endurance based upon speed.

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Andrew have you checked to see what happens if you click in the hex where the delayed bases will appear? I have found that delayed bases can be accessed in this way even though they don't show up as icons or on rollover. These bases all had a delay of 9999 though.

Yes you can access them that way, although I don't know if that is necessarily a problem. Another problem is that the bases accumulate supply and fuel from their daily supply, even if they are not visible on the map yet. I am still trying to determine whether these supplies will leak to nearby bases. If they do, then this idea doesn't work. If they don't, then it is still possible to use this idea, but it is not a perfect solution by any means.

Having AKs etc. gain increased capacity through upgrades is a very interesting idea. I didn't know that was possible.

There is another possibility for representing increasing supply levels for the US - put 1000 or so disabled resource points in evey mainland US base. It will take 3 years or so for these to repair (at 1 point per day). As they come online, each will generate 1.25 supply points. They generate resources as well, which will become surplus, but that shouldn't be a problem.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Andrew have you checked to see what happens if you click in the hex where the delayed bases will appear? I have found that delayed bases can be accessed in this way even though they don't show up as icons or on rollover. These bases all had a delay of 9999 though.

Yes you can access them that way, although I don't know if that is necessarily a problem. Another problem is that the bases accumulate supply and fuel from their daily supply, even if they are not visible on the map yet. I am still trying to determine whether these supplies will leak to nearby bases. If they do, then this idea doesn't work. If they don't, then it is still possible to use this idea, but it is not a perfect solution by any means.

I suspect the supplies will leak. Good luck with testing

Having AKs etc. gain increased capacity through upgrades is a very interesting idea. I didn't know that was possible.

Well a ship can upgrade to any class. You could upgrade MSWs to BBs if you wanted ... How full is the ship class table?

There is another possibility for representing increasing supply levels for the US - put 1000 or so disabled resource points in evey mainland US base. It will take 3 years or so for these to repair (at 1 point per day). As they come online, each will generate 1.25 supply points. They generate resources as well, which will become surplus, but that shouldn't be a problem.

The repairing of each Resource will eat 1,000 supply, costing 1,000,000 supplies in total. So it will take another 3 years to get your money back.

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Andrew have you checked to see what happens if you click in the hex where the delayed bases will appear? I have found that delayed bases can be accessed in this way even though they don't show up as icons or on rollover. These bases all had a delay of 9999 though.

Yes you can access them that way, although I don't know if that is necessarily a problem. Another problem is that the bases accumulate supply and fuel from their daily supply, even if they are not visible on the map yet. I am still trying to determine whether these supplies will leak to nearby bases. If they do, then this idea doesn't work. If they don't, then it is still possible to use this idea, but it is not a perfect solution by any means.

I suspect the supplies will leak. Good luck with testing

I ran a test - the supplies do not leak (surprisingly).

Having AKs etc. gain increased capacity through upgrades is a very interesting idea. I didn't know that was possible.

Well a ship can upgrade to any class. You could upgrade MSWs to BBs if you wanted ... How full is the ship class table?

There is another possibility for representing increasing supply levels for the US - put 1000 or so disabled resource points in evey mainland US base. It will take 3 years or so for these to repair (at 1 point per day). As they come online, each will generate 1.25 supply points. They generate resources as well, which will become surplus, but that shouldn't be a problem.

The repairing of each Resource will eat 1,000 supply, costing 1,000,000 supplies in total. So it will take another 3 years to get your money back.

See my "Question regarding supply levels in the USA" thread for a change to this idea which gets around this problem.

Andrew

where is it for download?[&:]

link does not work.

The download is at Spooky's here: http://mathubert.free.fr/witp_files/ironstorm101.zip

With the readme here: http://mathubert.free.fr/witp_files/Rea ... nstorm.txt

And the site/manual here: http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~tgh4635/manual/

[:)]

Thank you[&o]


GREAT MOD!!!!![&o]

Thanks! [:D] Version 2 will be coming soon.

hm.. the link does not work

I will send an email to Spooky, or I can mail it to you

still thinking of it...
Don't even think I'll forget about your promise (before-Christmas-gift?)

i am planning to make some major change to the usa on your 155 scenario and i have some questions. i have noticed a number of respawn area for cl,ca,msw and cv. the open slots will be the number of ships that can be rebuild? what ship class will be the rebuild?

Hi daniel.

This is the wrong thread for scen 155 questions. It is about scen 50.

You would be best addressing your question to the CHS team e.g. Don Bowen. They have all the gen on the respawn areas. Me, I am clueless