Hardcore Japanese tester wanted...

[el cid again]

Should we create a house rule against port capacity over a certain size in islands? Or islands not on a short list (e.g. Oahu)? Would it help?

One thing - Japan has interior lines - and it is hard to simulate the inefficiencies imposed by the "tyranny of distance." US ships often came from farther than the West Coast - and UK ships almost always went farther than the Middle East.

[jwilkerson]

you cannot really separate the civil economy and the military one

Maybe I cannot really separate - but the Japanese tried to - that was my point. At least they tell us they did.

====

Here are the CHS tonnage numbers from Don ... Japanese on top .. Allies on the bottom.

[Ron Saueracker]

As you can see we have had these discussions before but actual little time to test the CHS mod for any length of time. Those that have I believe did not experience any real restrictions on the Japanese wild mobility we see in the stock scenarios or shortage of resources/supply/fuel...all of which became an issue rather quickly (ie Yamato was a very impressive station tanker at Truk during 1942.) or with things like the Allies ability to turn historical backwater bases into monstrous fully functional aerodromes housing 4-500 4E bombers.

Hopefully Tony and I can get far enough into this chop job of mine to see if it has any impact on anything in particular or in general. Then we can all hash over what is happening in the test match and suggest approaches for another run with adjustments dictated by the test. This AAR is more of a rundown on how the scenario is holding up rather than some blow by blow.

Unfortunately knowing the technical details such as merchant capacities but having no feel for the limits of the model is fruitless. In case I miffed anybody with the literary limitations I am burdened with I mean no offence by this but not knowing the limits of the logistics model we can't actually make it work with the correct historical specifications of ship capacities etc.

[el cid again]

I looked at "Industry" in the locations file. I think we can add something directly to it. It then is stuck - not mobile - won't load on ships or march. It will eat supplies. Maybe support and/or motorized support?

The problem with your approach is that it is structurally unsound. We need to be entering true data or some meaningful function of it - else we destroy the research and the meaning of the terms. And it will have a structural effect on play - it will not even allow you to do historical task forces - which is busted as far as I am concerned.

But the problem you want to solve is a critical one, one that makes the system as a whole almost worthless if it is not addressed. This is why I am trying to propose mechanisms to address it that have some hope of working and preserving all the work done on resource centers, etc. The more I think about it, the more I like it. We could add supply eating stuff to resource centers to the point they eat ALL the supplies - or any fraction we want - I bet. Then we add supply eathing stuff to industrial centers and other cities too - and suddenly we have a model of the civil economy - one that needs supplies from manufacturing centers to work.

[Ron Saueracker]

The problem with your approach is that it is structurally unsound. We need to be entering true data or some meaningful function of it - else we destroy the research and the meaning of the terms.

What is sound and what isn't? How can we tell given the model? That's why I wanted to fart around with some broad modifcations. Get the feel of the thing seeing as it is such a simplistic and abstract model I think that's the best we can hope for. We can bogg ourselves down with all sorts of research but if we still don't know if or even when "it" can "feel" right, where are we? I'm attempting to "break the model" so Japan is suffering too severely too early. Without roughly knowing where that break point is how can we get the model where we all think it should be?

I don't want to play a game that has Japan outbuilding not just the US but the entire Allied war economy or have 1000 4E bombers on Midway by Aug 42 etc. Pisses me off.[:@][;)] Whats the point? May as well play MOO 3 or Age of Empires. But, look at any AAR and there we are, watching 500 planes chopping each other out of the sky or some such nonsense.

[Ron Saueracker]

But the problem you want to solve is a critical one, one that makes the system as a whole almost worthless if it is not addressed. This is why I am trying to propose mechanisms to address it that have some hope of working and preserving all the work done on resource centers, etc. The more I think about it, the more I like it. We could add supply eating stuff to resource centers to the point they eat ALL the supplies - or any fraction we want - I bet. Then we add supply eathing stuff to industrial centers and other cities too - and suddenly we have a model of the civil economy - one that needs supplies from manufacturing centers to work.

So you think you have a way of simulating a civilian economy through the utilization of Jabba the Hut units?[:D] Be great if it was possible.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I looked at "Industry" in the locations file. I think we can add something directly to it. It then is stuck - not mobile - won't load on ships or march. It will eat supplies. Maybe support and/or motorized support?

Will not help much with outlying resource centers. If conquered, supply eating base forces containing support or motorised support squads will be destroyed. Once conquered, the effect will be gone.

Codewise the desired effect seems to be possible. Just you look at the supply demands of bases located at the US West Coast. They have much higher supply demands than bases of the same size located elsewhere. Seems that they're programmed to have higher supply demands.

[Nomad]

Ron, I remember something from one of the CHS people about it being possible to have factories and/or resource/oil locations that had a delay time. He was workinig on it to simulate the ramp up of USA supplies. I do also remember that there was a problem but maybe it would work with a house rule( the Allied player could do something to circumvent ). I wish I could remember more about this.

[jwilkerson]

i bet dealy time = delay time [:D]

at least it makes more sesne !

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I looked at "Industry" in the locations file. I think we can add something directly to it. It then is stuck - not mobile - won't load on ships or march. It will eat supplies. Maybe support and/or motorized support?

Will not help much with outlying resource centers. If conquered, supply eating base forces containing support or motorised support squads will be destroyed. Once conquered, the effect will be gone.

Codewise the desired effect seems to be possible. Just you look at the supply demands of bases located at the US West Coast. They have much higher supply demands than bases of the same size located elsewhere. Seems that they're programmed to have higher supply demands.

IIRC, the WC bases are hard coded to have more supply demands.

[Andrew Brown]

I have been reviewing the Japanese economy as part of the work being done for the next CHS update. As far as I can tell, there is an oversupply of resources and HI in Japanese occupied China, and I am looking at reducing these. The Japanese also start with too much oil production, as well as starting fuel reserves that are too large, and oil reserves that are too small. I want to correct all of these. The overall effect would be a reduction in Japanese supply production, especially in China, and a small reduction in overall HI output. In addition fuel production will be lower over the course of the entire war, so the Japanese player will need to be a bit more careful with fuel expenditure.

I will provide some detailed figures when I get the time to write them up. And before Japanese fanboys complain, these are only proposals, they have yet to be tested, and I believe that they make the game more accurate (but if you prefer balance over accuracy, remember that the Allies have already have suffered large unilateral cuts in supply production, fuel production, supply and fuel stockpiles and base sizes in CHS).

Andrew

[Ron Saueracker]

Hey Andrew. Sounds good. As Joe pointed out earlier, if we were to cut the resources in the regions where Japan historically expands into (in order to get around all that bogus bonus supply at the front) we will have to be careful not to go after too much on the mainland. At least the Japanese have to ship supply and resources from the mainland to Home Island industry.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hey Andrew. Sounds good. As Joe pointed out earlier, if we were to cut the resources in the regions where Japan historically expands into (in order to get around all that bogus bonus supply at the front) we will have to be careful not to go after too much on the mainland. At least the Japanese have to ship supply and resources from the mainland to Home Island industry.

I don't think that we should cut too many resources out of the SRA (it was called "SRA" after all). The thing I would really like to change is the coupling of resource generation with supply generation. If they were separated things could be set up a lot more realistically, in my opinion.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hey Andrew. Sounds good. As Joe pointed out earlier, if we were to cut the resources in the regions where Japan historically expands into (in order to get around all that bogus bonus supply at the front) we will have to be careful not to go after too much on the mainland. At least the Japanese have to ship supply and resources from the mainland to Home Island industry.

I don't think that we should cut too many resources out of the SRA (it was called "SRA" after all). The thing I would really like to change is the coupling of resource generation with supply generation. If they were separated things could be set up a lot more realistically, in my opinion.

The thing I would really like to change is the coupling of resource generation with supply generation. If they were separated things could be set up a lot more realistically, in my opinion.

Yeah but I asked and no way is this going to happen. I even suggested having a version for PBEM and one for AI... basically it would be toggled. Chose to play vs AI or AI vs AI you get the resource/supply dynamic...choose PBEM or head to head and the straight resouce (more resource?)/no supply dynamic is loaded. I suspect the ratio between resources and supply is there to prop up the AI. Could be the fact that I asked, however...never know!?[:'(] Maybe if someone else who has been more PC and not so critical asked nicely, eh?

I don't think that we should cut too many resources out of the SRA (it was called "SRA" after all).

That's why I replaced it with oil. Does not help certain aspects of production but the bogus supply generation (bogus because it is generic and basically military) is more serious an issue.

[Aawulf]

Aawulf...I'm completely baffled now, say again when off the mushrooms.

I'm not sure how I would know when you off the mushrooms or not.

Before one can begin to understand the implications of tinkering with the load costs of the device types, one must recognize that the load costs of the "squads" are as vital to the combat system as they are to logistics.

Doubling the load cost of an infantry "squad" from ten to twenty results in twice the load cost, but also doubles the number of men sent into combat. Because you would then have to cut the number of "squads" to half what exists in order to reflect no actual change to the balance of power in terms of combat infantry, you would also need to reduce the number of support squads unless the desired effect includes having far more support than the units require.

x=load cost
y=number of men in squads
For "squads", x=y

If the load cost is currently 10 for a particular "squad" and that load cost is changed to 20, then a unit with 500 of those "squads" would be raised from 5000 men to 10000 men. Since it seems the intent is not to alter the combat capability of that unit, the number of "squads" would have to be cut to 250. The unit would no longer require support units for the 250 "squads" reduction and the supplies needed and consumed by the beefed up 250 "squads" is less than that for 500 "squads", resulting in a net decrease in the transport cost of the unit.

I can appreciate that it is a bit complicated to understand and I have always been willing to share what I have learned. But I must admit that the sarcastic "mushrooms" comment was nearly enough motivation for me to allow you to piss against the wind and learn the hard way. [:-]

[Ron Saueracker]

I can appreciate that it is a bit complicated to understand and I have always been willing to share what I have learned. But I must admit that the sarcastic "mushrooms" comment was nearly enough motivation for me to allow you to piss against the wind and learn the hard way.

Believe me, it was not meant to be sarcastic towards you. Your statement caught me so off guard that I said it to highlight my complete surprise. I had no idea it was this complex, hence my need to be on mushrooms to grasp it. Man I need to use emoticons properly! My apologies.

Dang the manual is confusing and wanting for information.

[Ron Saueracker]

Oh, so adjusting the load cost of squads is the only problem? Having altered the TOEs as done in the CHS does not muck up anything? Say I increase the load cost of a vehicle, does this increase the number of vehicles?

Boy, what IS in the manual?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hey Andrew. Sounds good. As Joe pointed out earlier, if we were to cut the resources in the regions where Japan historically expands into (in order to get around all that bogus bonus supply at the front) we will have to be careful not to go after too much on the mainland. At least the Japanese have to ship supply and resources from the mainland to Home Island industry.

I don't think that we should cut too many resources out of the SRA (it was called "SRA" after all). The thing I would really like to change is the coupling of resource generation with supply generation. If they were separated things could be set up a lot more realistically, in my opinion.

I guess we could rename it the SNRA ( Southern Nada-Resource-Area ) [:D]

I'd suggest adding your suggestion to the wish list ( decoupling resource and supply generation ) in those areas where we wind up convincing ourselves that the resource being generated is food we may wind up splitting the allocation between supply and resource ( after all the "resource" part has to go feed those hungary factory workers back in Japan ! ). But where the resource is "tin" .. then it is just resource and no supply ( can't eat tin and be healthy for long nor shoot it outta your rifle ! )

[Aawulf]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I can appreciate that it is a bit complicated to understand and I have always been willing to share what I have learned. But I must admit that the sarcastic "mushrooms" comment was nearly enough motivation for me to allow you to piss against the wind and learn the hard way.

Believe me, it was not meant to be sarcastic towards you. Your statement caught me so off guard that I said it to highlight my complete surprise. I had no idea it was this complex, hence my need to be on mushrooms to grasp it. Man I need to use emoticons properly! My apologies.

Dang the manual is confusing and wanting for information.

Under the circumstances, I should be the one apologizing. I misunderstood your comment as sarcasm even though it seemed terribly out of character for you. Shame on me.

[Aawulf]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Oh, so adjusting the load cost of squads is the only problem? Having altered the TOEs as done in the CHS does not muck up anything? Say I increase the load cost of a vehicle, does this increase the number of vehicles?

Boy, what IS in the manual?

Load costs for vehicles doesn't change the number of vehicles in combat as it does with the men in the "squads", so I believe vehicle load costs do only affect logistical concerns such as cargo capacity used and air transportability.

I actually believe that the load costs of the squads is a very important area for improvement in terms of making the game more historically representative. It would be a major undertaking, but I would bet that the ratio of combat troops to support personnel has already been researched for the forces in the Pacific theatre. I recall having read that 28% of US forces in the Vietnam War were combat troops, so I suspect that information is as pertinent to military historians as it should be in a war simulation game.

Once the the ratios are determined, converting the the number of squads and number of support squads for all of the units would be a relatively easy task for a spreadsheet. The big problem created would be to what outcome the increase in secondary troops from increasing the support for some forces and the decrease in secondary troops for the others would be. Assuming all other factors remain as they are, I suspect the overall net effect would be a more mobile yet weaker Japan, more mobile and better supplied China and Russia and a more cumbersome and less abundantly supplied US and UK.

I believe the differences in support required, transport capacity used by units and supply consumption can be modeled better in this game by modifying the load costs of the squads and properly adjusting the number of "squads", but it would require a great deal of work and may result in consequences that outweigh the improvement because of the game constraints such as the generic support unit slot and the combat value benchmarks in China and Manchuria (combat value accounts for the number of "squads" regardless of whether they have 10 men or 250 men in each).