Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: treespider
I agree that in the end the US will be generating more supply than they will need...however in 1943 and 1944 they will still be at a deficit if they elect to to repair the bases...so why repair if you don't receive the benfit and go into the black until nearly 1945.

I guess it depends on when the supplies are needed. If the USA is going to run short of supplies then it is more likely to occur later rather than earlier. Given the choice between 5 supply points before late 1944, and 8 supply points after late 1944, which one is more useful depends on whether the USA will be running short of supplies before late 1944.

If the USA won't face supply problems before late 1944, then the choice is obvious - better to have the 8 supply points after late 1944 when they are actually needed, than 5 points earlier when they are not.

If the USA WILL face supply shortages before late 1944 then the answer is much more difficult. Will they get more benifit from spending 5 supply points earler rather than 8 points later? Hard to answer.

Unfortunately I have no idea when the USA will face supply shortages, and how bad they will be. It may even be that human players can manage the Allies well enough that they never have problems, and it is only the AI that suffers with the current US supply levels.
if that is the case then it doesn't matter what we do, as long as it helps the AI.

We have to do something though, for no other reason than to assist the Allied AI in the second half of the game.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: treespider
I agree that in the end the US will be generating more supply than they will need...however in 1943 and 1944 they will still be at a deficit if they elect to to repair the bases...so why repair if you don't receive the benfit and go into the black until nearly 1945.

I guess it depends on when the supplies are needed. If the USA is going to run short of supplies then it is more likely to occur later rather than earlier. Given the choice between 5 supply points before late 1944, and 8 supply points after late 1944, which one is more useful depends on whether the USA will be running short of supplies before late 1944.

If the USA won't face supply problems before late 1944, then the choice is obvious - better to have the 8 supply points after late 1944 when they are actually needed, than 5 points earlier when they are not.

If the USA WILL face supply shortages before late 1944 then the answer is much more difficult. Will they get more benifit from spending 5 supply points earler rather than 8 points later? Hard to answer.

Unfortunately I have no idea when the USA will face supply shortages, and how bad they will be. It may even be that human players can manage the Allies well enough that they never have problems, and it is only the AI that suffers with the current US supply levels.
if that is the case then it doesn't matter what we do, as long as it helps the AI.

We have to do something though, for no other reason than to assist the Allied AI in the second half of the game.

I'm going to drop back here a moment since I was not involved in the effort to first decrease the amount of supply available to USA.

I assume all this debate is related to an attempt to first reduce the amount of supply availble to USA ( allies ) early in the war ( game ). And that we are down in the details of how to do this and if we cut it back too far, we need a way to increase the allied supply later in the war. Hence the idea of using damaged resource points and having them repaired to generate more supply in the second half of the game. Further the idea of having damaged resource points apparently includes an idea to have "extra repair" supply to fix the damaged resource points. Just ( hopefully ) re-stating all this for clarity.


I do think that that the most historically accurate means of representing what happened in 1941-1945 is to reduce the ability to load, move and unload supply in the forward areas. However, unfortunately 2 of these three items ( loading and unloading ) cannot be corrected without changing the code. We have probaly reduced carrying capacity to the correct point and now, because we cannot correct loading and unloading we are experimenting with the "work around" which involves reducing supply generation in USA but at the same time trying to increase supply generation in the later period of the war to correct represent increased ability to load / unload in the forward areas. A complicated work around .. but a good idea if we want to improve accuracy. But, this is difficult to test as it takes many days to run even an AI versus AI against itself through 1945 ... ( I'd estimate 3 days on most decent machines ).

So good ideas. I support effort to reduce supply availble to allies in forward areas early in the game. I wish this could be done via correct means ( reducing load / unload ) but that is not possible since we do not have access to change the code. Thus artificial reduction of supply available is the only viable alternative. So what remains is to determine how to do this. And I think Andrew's comments are on target.

The only issue with Andew's plan is that the Allies have the option to mortgage the future. This option allows them to bring greater pressure on the Japanese in the first 6 months ( than they could historically ) and would be something that most ( all ? ) Allied players would do. Towards the end of 1942 they would probably relax the mortgage to then begin building up supply. But in the critical first 6 months, they will mortgage. I would say it sounds like we don't have a solution for this issue. Unless we can find a way to decrease the "extra repair" supply in the first six months. If we can keep the "extra repair supply" out of the first 6 months, then we might have a solution.

If we can keep the "extra repair supply" out of the first 6 months, then we might have a solution.

I believe there may be a solution in the idea that AB came up with...my only point was to demonstrate that repairing a large number of resource points at a single base did not generate a positive return until, IMO it was much to late.

Perhaps another solution would be to spread the additional resources around to an even greater extent...I haven't looked at base availability but would it be possible to spread the Resource points around to a few more bases so that the repair time would be quicker but the initial per turn outlay would be greater?

Instead of 9 bases with 460-700 supply points totaling 5220 do we have the potential for 11 bases with 460 supply points and one with 160 totaling 5220? I did a quick computation of this and the break even point would be around turn 1025 (Late September 1944). In addition the supply outlay would stop on Turn 460 or 461 as opposed to a gradual reduction through turns 460-700. (Edit) By adding 3 bases we cut 3 months off of the break even point. Perhaps 14 bases with 365 and one with 110 or some other variation would cut the break even point even further...

I wish I had enough math knowledge to convert my Excel analysis into a simple formula to figure out a good break even point....As it stands now I have a dozen seperate columns with 701 rows....

(EDIT: Just looked at the extended map....currently there are 9 bases in US alone not counting Canada and 3 bases in Panama. Using the Canadian bases as well extends the possibilities....)

Your summary is correct jwilkerson. And sure enough, there doesn't seem to be an easy answer [:(]

Well actually just restoring the original supply levels is the easy answer - I was just trying to come up with a better idea than that.

Maybe it is worth considering the "reinforcement base" idea after all. This idea avoids the problem jwilkerson mentions - "mortaging the future" by not repairing the resources at all (although if the Allied player did that it is basically a one way street - there would be no point in starting the repairs any later as the returns drop away). But it is a clumsy, inelegant solution.

I still think the resource repair idea can work, but it is finely balanced. Increasing the number of bases and reducing the number of resources at each base will help. It could be done with 12-13 bases instead of 9.

Or maybe we just give the USA its original daily supplies and resources and be done with it...

Or maybe we just give the USA its original daily supplies and resources and be done with it...

That's the easy way out...[:-]

The further I looked at your solution the more I like it, IMO smaller numbers at more bases is the solution, In particular if the fulcrum point can be placed sometime in late 1943 - early 1944.... as opposed to late 1944

EDIT: 14 bases with 365 damaged resource points, and 32,000 initial daily supply provides a break even point c. turn 986 (Mid August ,1944). In this example assuming full repair Dec 7 1941 - Dec 6, 1942 Allies receive 18,000 supply points per day (32,000-14,000 supply a day) Then they would receive 32,000 + 6387 a day after Dec 6, 1942. Of course from 1941 through 1942 they would be adding an additional 17.5 supply points per day to the 18000.

I've been experimenting with a variation of Andrew's original idea and I think it has merit.

Instead of adding daily supply to delayed-arrival bases, add on-hand supply to delayed-arrival land units. A unit with large on-hand supply will slowly bleed it to land bases if stationary and will shed it all at once if loaded on ships. Using this method the amount of supply can be more precisely controlled and there does not appear to be a "mortgage" cheat to garner more supply earlier.

Basically, one would calculate the amount of additional supply that is required per period. Using the original idea's values of 6000 daily supply per base and one base per year starting January, 1943:
2,190,000 additional spread throughout 1943
4,380,000 additional spread throughout 1944 (leap year ignored!)
6,570,000 additional spread throughout 1945

It can reasonably be expected that some surplus supply will exist in the U.S. by the end of 1942 so the "spread evenly" can be replaced by "arriving in batches" with no appreciable effect.

One could select a number of arriving units and allocate supply to them so that the totals are in line with the above. Perhaps ten units spread throughout 1943 with 219,000 each, 20 with 109,500, etc. If necessary an individual unit can arrive with up to 999,999 so a minimum of three would be required in 1943, five in 1944, and seven in 1945. The multitude of U.S. Base Forces and/or SeaBee battalions might be good choices.

There appears to be at least one unit arriving at U.S. bases every month between January, 1943 and September, 1945. Perhaps a few late-arriving British units as well to simulate the transfer of supply from the Atlantic theatre in mid-1945.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I've been experimenting with a variation of Andrew's original idea and I think it has merit.

Instead of adding daily supply to delayed-arrival bases, add on-hand supply to delayed-arrival land units. A unit with large on-hand supply will slowly bleed it to land bases if stationary and will shed it all at once if loaded on ships. Using this method the amount of supply can be more precisely controlled and there does not appear to be a "mortgage" cheat to garner more supply earlier.

Basically, one would calculate the amount of additional supply that is required per period. Using the original idea's values of 6000 daily supply per base and one base per year starting January, 1943:
2,190,000 additional spread throughout 1943
4,380,000 additional spread throughout 1944 (leap year ignored!)
6,570,000 additional spread throughout 1945

It can reasonably be expected that some surplus supply will exist in the U.S. by the end of 1942 so the "spread evenly" can be replaced by "arriving in batches" with no appreciable effect.

One could select a number of arriving units and allocate supply to them so that the totals are in line with the above. Perhaps ten units spread throughout 1943 with 219,000 each, 20 with 109,500, etc. If necessary an individual unit can arrive with up to 999,999 so a minimum of three would be required in 1943, five in 1944, and seven in 1945. The multitude of U.S. Base Forces and/or SeaBee battalions might be good choices.

There appears to be at least one unit arriving at U.S. bases every month between January, 1943 and September, 1945. Perhaps a few late-arriving British units as well to simulate the transfer of supply from the Atlantic theatre in mid-1945.

Have you tested the part where if the unit is moved or loaded the supply gets dumped into the land base? If this is true then this seems to be the solution...And my next question is can units arrive with extra supply? Just curious.

Have you tested the part where if the unit is moved or loaded the supply gets dumped into the land base?

Yes, but only for a couple of turns:

• If the unit is stationary the supply bleeds to the base. In my test a unit with 999,999 supply at a base with <1000 supply dumped about 17,000 per turn (for two turns - all I ran).
• If the unit moves overland the supply moves with it (with some slight comsumption)
• If the unit is load onto a ship all of the supply is dumped to the base.

Now there is thinking outside the box!

Rather than encumbering a subset of LCUs with the extra supply why not simply treble or quadruple the supplies for all reinforcement units? Or use some other factor which can be worked out. That way the increase is smoother and more closely aligned with actual needs. I would also be reticent to use large supply values due to the small possibility of bugs or whatever sending it all somewhere strange and/or losing it totally.

If this works you could lose the auto-supply totally. Yeehaa

P.S. For treespider - since they are "locations" each LCU may have a starting amount of supply specified in the editor. By convention reinforcements get zero but there is no reason they cannot have X instead.

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Now there is thinking outside the box!

Rather than encumbering a subset of LCUs with the extra supply why not simply treble or quadruple the supplies for all reinforcement units? Or use some other factor which can be worked out. That way the increase is smoother and more closely aligned with actual needs. I would also be reticent to use large supply values due to the small possibility of bugs or whatever sending it all somewhere strange and/or losing it totally.

If this works you could lose the auto-supply totally. Yeehaa

P.S. For treespider - since they are "locations" each LCU may have a starting amount of supply specified in the editor. By convention reinforcements get zero but there is no reason they cannot have X instead.

It sounds like Don's idea could be just the thing we are looking for. I agree with Captain Cruft regarding the evening out of the extra supplies, as long as the "bleeding" of supplies to the bases etc. doesn't cease when the level gets below a vertain value. Even that isn't necessarily a problem, though, as long as the units do dump their excess supplies when loaded onto a ship.

AlaskanWarrior's idea of increasing the load capacity of AK's/AP's during the game also has merit, although it will need quite a bit of work to set up.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I've been experimenting with a variation of Andrew's original idea and I think it has merit.

Instead of adding daily supply to delayed-arrival bases, add on-hand supply to delayed-arrival land units. A unit with large on-hand supply will slowly bleed it to land bases if stationary and will shed it all at once if loaded on ships. Using this method the amount of supply can be more precisely controlled and there does not appear to be a "mortgage" cheat to garner more supply earlier.

Basically, one would calculate the amount of additional supply that is required per period. Using the original idea's values of 6000 daily supply per base and one base per year starting January, 1943:
2,190,000 additional spread throughout 1943
4,380,000 additional spread throughout 1944 (leap year ignored!)
6,570,000 additional spread throughout 1945

It can reasonably be expected that some surplus supply will exist in the U.S. by the end of 1942 so the "spread evenly" can be replaced by "arriving in batches" with no appreciable effect.

One could select a number of arriving units and allocate supply to them so that the totals are in line with the above. Perhaps ten units spread throughout 1943 with 219,000 each, 20 with 109,500, etc. If necessary an individual unit can arrive with up to 999,999 so a minimum of three would be required in 1943, five in 1944, and seven in 1945. The multitude of U.S. Base Forces and/or SeaBee battalions might be good choices.

There appears to be at least one unit arriving at U.S. bases every month between January, 1943 and September, 1945. Perhaps a few late-arriving British units as well to simulate the transfer of supply from the Atlantic theatre in mid-1945.

That would "replicate" the building of forward area supply dumps.......[:D]
Suggest New Caledonia, Fiji, one of the Hawaiian islands, and Alaska ?
Might give "purpose" to a couple of those spots and also give reason for the Japanese to attempt to capture, (or the Allies to defend)?
Is that another can "o" worms ?

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Now there is thinking outside the box!

Rather than encumbering a subset of LCUs with the extra supply why not simply treble or quadruple the supplies for all reinforcement units? Or use some other factor which can be worked out. That way the increase is smoother and more closely aligned with actual needs. I would also be reticent to use large supply values due to the small possibility of bugs or whatever sending it all somewhere strange and/or losing it totally.

If this works you could lose the auto-supply totally. Yeehaa

P.S. For treespider - since they are "locations" each LCU may have a starting amount of supply specified in the editor. By convention reinforcements get zero but there is no reason they cannot have X instead.

It sounds like Don's idea could be just the thing we are looking for. I agree with Captain Cruft regarding the evening out of the extra supplies, as long as the "bleeding" of supplies to the bases etc. doesn't cease when the level gets below a vertain value. Even that isn't necessarily a problem, though, as long as the units do dump their excess supplies when loaded onto a ship.

AlaskanWarrior's idea of increasing the load capacity of AK's/AP's during the game also has merit, although it will need quite a bit of work to set up.

Andrew

Yeah, it can be a pain in the @$$ to "refresh" the ships each time a stat changes for its class. However, I do not think that every Class of AK would need adjusting, and definitely not the AP's. But I will back burner this to see if the LCU reenforcement - supply concept has merit. The concept of having reinforcements show up with supplies has some merit, since most of LCU's will be shipping out anyhow. Could be the "elegant" solution we are looking for?!?!

Yeah, it can be a pain in the @$$ to "refresh" the ships each time a stat changes for its class. However, I do not think that every Class of AK would need adjusting, and definitely not the AP's. But I will back burner this to see if the LCU reenforcement

I would like to try this concept out + there is a new tool out that may take the pain out of refreshing each ship - question though how many upgrades would be needed and what increments
of capacity to use for each upgrade you would haveto have a sliding scale for size of AK (small medium large)

Cobra Aus

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

Yeah, it can be a pain in the @$$ to "refresh" the ships each time a stat changes for its class. However, I do not think that every Class of AK would need adjusting, and definitely not the AP's. But I will back burner this to see if the LCU reenforcement

I would like to try this concept out + there is a new tool out that may take the pain out of refreshing each ship - question though how many upgrades would be needed and what increments
of capacity to use for each upgrade you would haveto have a sliding scale for size of AK (small medium large)

Cobra Aus

Minimal of two uprades, one in late 42 and one in late 43/early 44. Since most of the AK's go through at least two AA and some 3 upgrades during the war, this should be a simple change.
All existing AK class over 2000 get reduced to 50% of current values.

Those with three upgrades:
First upgrade- 75%
Second Upgrade- 85%
Third upgrade- 90%

Two upgrades:
First upgrade- 80%
Second upgrade- 90%


What this should do is effectively stifle any chance of a serious Allied offensive action till Mid to Late 1942, as was it was historically, but providing enough for an adequate defence. What I am trying to prevent from happening is for the main bases on the West Coast to be depleted, which historically was never a concern. There was some issue of fuel shortage in Seattle during the early part of the war: during the Aleutians campaign oilers had to go to Los Angeles and San Francisco for fuel because there was a shortage in Seattle. But supply should never be a concern.

The other part of this is the need to stretch out the large number of AK's and TK's reinfrocement arriving in a single day Jan42 in San Francisco. I still have a hard time dealing with the fact that suddenly very large numbers of vessels became available in a literally snap of a finger!? Where the heck did these ships come from? Where they actually present in San Francisco and not used till then?

All existing AK class over 2000 get reduced to 50% of current values.

I think this needs discussion, by using the above figures there would not be any AK's available for ship upgrades until at least late 42 + a number of AK's are just over 2000 which will bring them down to 1000 capacity + a number between 2500 and 3500 wich will also bring them down to between 1250 and 1500. I think we also need a sliding scale here
I can,t find AK's with more than 1 upgrade so I could set upgrades for all Ak's on a yearly
basis this would have a twofold effect, the return of ak's for upgrades taking them out of the transport chain while it takes place and achieving the increase in capacity over the course of the war
70+ Ak's arrive San Fran on the 15-01-42 ???
"I need input said 5 alive"
Cobe Aus

All existing AK class over 2000 get reduced to 50% of current values.

Those with three upgrades:
First upgrade- 75%
Second Upgrade- 85%
Third upgrade- 90%

Two upgrades:
First upgrade- 80%
Second upgrade- 90%

I need an interpretation of what you are after here - there are 2 ways that this can be applied
example 1
using class 419 Aus AK 1941 capacity is 4250 -50% = 2125 capacity in 1941
1942 upgrade = 75% increase in capacity = 3719 capacity in 1942
1943 upgrade can go 2 ways 85% increase applied to 1942 result = 6880 capacity
or 85% increase applied to 1941 start point = 3931 capacity
1944 upgrade can also go 2 ways
90% increase applied to 1942 result = 13071 capacity
or 90% increase applied to 1941 start point = 4037 capacity

which way are you looking to go to get result you are after
+ have another look at the 50% reduction on ships between 2000 and 5000
+ I would not come below 5000 for those ships above that mark you will upset the Large AK
upgrade section of game ie AK to MLE upgrade

Cobra Aus

Personally I'm OK with the supply levels as is. It slows things down by forcing the player to husband supply as opposed to fattening every base with oodles of it. The varied capacities of AK now allows some control over how much supply is shipped where...why send 10,000 supply to a back water base with only a base unit there? Know what I mean? Please don't let the acustomed sense of supply, thanks to the poor WITP original model, colour the issue...just because we were used to massive supply levels does not mean it was right to begin with.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Personally I'm OK with the supply levels as is. It slows things down by forcing the player to husband supply as opposed to fattening every base with oodles of it. The varied capacities of AK now allows some control over how much supply is shipped where...why send 10,000 supply to a back water base with only a base unit there? Know what I mean? Please don't let the acustomed sense of supply, thanks to the poor WITP original model, colour the issue...just because we were used to massive supply levels does not mean it was right to begin with.

This is about mid to late war supply - not supply at the start of the war. We are trying to ensure that there is enough supply for the USA later in the game without them having a huge excess early on.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Personally I'm OK with the supply levels as is. It slows things down by forcing the player to husband supply as opposed to fattening every base with oodles of it. The varied capacities of AK now allows some control over how much supply is shipped where...why send 10,000 supply to a back water base with only a base unit there? Know what I mean? Please don't let the acustomed sense of supply, thanks to the poor WITP original model, colour the issue...just because we were used to massive supply levels does not mean it was right to begin with.

This is about mid to late war supply - not supply at the start of the war. We are trying to ensure that there is enough supply for the USA later in the game without them having a huge excess early on.

I realize this, but if the Allied player does not bust a nut throwing supply around early, there will be oodles later. Anyway, big operations should require much time and effort to get off the ground...the stock game makes it too easy, just add water, stir and voila, supplies!

Your option three is doable?

Dehydrated 16" shells, avgas and bootlaces. Gotta love 'em![8D]