Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I realize you are trying to get the economy more historic, but TBH, in all of my games I have never had a fuel shortage as Japan. It really comes down to proper management of your merchant fleet (which Japan failed at miserably) and not trying to sail all over the globe looking for fights with massive fleets. Probably need to talk to other IJN players to see if this holds true across the board.

On paper, the numbers are different than in practice in game is what I am saying.

Again the real problem with the merchant fleet sitting idle is two-fold:

1. A player isn't stupid. We aren't going to send out a convoy to a resource area carrying supplies and not utilize it to bring in resources on the return trip. Personally I use a system where small ships are used to bring the resource/oil to a central point, and from there a large convoy hauls it back to the HI.

Example: In the DEI, I might pick up from Singapore and Palembang. Instead of hauling the oil resources from Java all the way to Japan, I send it to Palembang where it is picked up with the Palembang production in a series of large convoys. You set up 4-6 of these large convoys, along with all the other stuff going to the main load point, and you can get a convoy arriving at Tokyo once a week etc. All of these carry suppleis back to their resource load points for the return trip. The Japanese didn't do that, but would have shipped the resource from Java in 2-3 ships going to Japan, and may not load supplies on the return trip etc.

In the above example, it hits on something else...every ship making constant long trips caused maintainence problems. Players don't have that issue either.

2. We also aren't going to send them out in 1s or 2s without escorts, so we don't suffer the losses the IJN did during the war. The end result is lots of tonnage un-used.

I guess what I'm saying is that the real problem isn't that we have too much fuel or too little resource, a lot of it has to do with the playing have 20/20 hindsight and not making the historical shipping decisions.

I think what people forget with the un-utilized tonnage in game is that we are not making the same decisions the IJN did. Still, the idea of trying to get the player to use more of the merchant fleet, and need to leave the merchant build queue on is commendable.

Unfortunately we can't modify the game itself to do what would be best, which is have refineries able to turn a small amount of resource (to represent the bulk coal) into bunker fuel. Your solution may be the best. Since it seems we need to increase the number of resources that need to be hauled back to Japan to get a closer to historic use of the Japanese merchant fleet.

All very true...but why not try and bring Resource aand petroleum transportation into line with historical levels?

Then once that is accomplished you can CHOOSE to address game play style through the mechanism of a House Rule - such as handicapping the Japanese with a simulation of their historic convoy practices or lack thereof. One way to do this would be to limit the Japanese Cargo TF running oil and resources to say 5 ships total.


Of course MOST players don't want to be saddled with historic doctrine or politics.[;)]

ORIGINAL: witpqs


And I should have added that I am lobbying for that early-war USA reduction in supplies available, as it does have a significant impact on the game by constraining early Allied strategic options (in a realistic way IMO).

ORIGINAL: witpqs

As things stand now - the way you all have presented the analysis - very little has to be transported compared to IRL so it really doesn't matter how successful the Allied player is at interdiction.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

BTW, Treespider's proposal for spoilage upon loading/unloading would exempt the loading process in the continental USA. I think it is the act of loading/unloading that gets the spoilage, so loading in the continental USA should not be exempt.

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I realize you are trying to get the economy more historic, but TBH, in all of my games I have never had a fuel shortage as Japan. It really comes down to proper management of your merchant fleet (which Japan failed at miserably) and not trying to sail all over the globe looking for fights with massive fleets. Probably need to talk to other IJN players to see if this holds true across the board.

On paper, the numbers are different than in practice in game is what I am saying.

Again the real problem with the merchant fleet sitting idle is two-fold:

1. A player isn't stupid. We aren't going to send out a convoy to a resource area carrying supplies and not utilize it to bring in resources on the return trip. Personally I use a system where small ships are used to bring the resource/oil to a central point, and from there a large convoy hauls it back to the HI.

Example: In the DEI, I might pick up from Singapore and Palembang. Instead of hauling the oil resources from Java all the way to Japan, I send it to Palembang where it is picked up with the Palembang production in a series of large convoys. You set up 4-6 of these large convoys, along with all the other stuff going to the main load point, and you can get a convoy arriving at Tokyo once a week etc. All of these carry suppleis back to their resource load points for the return trip. The Japanese didn't do that, but would have shipped the resource from Java in 2-3 ships going to Japan, and may not load supplies on the return trip etc.

In the above example, it hits on something else...every ship making constant long trips caused maintainence problems. Players don't have that issue either.

2. We also aren't going to send them out in 1s or 2s without escorts, so we don't suffer the losses the IJN did during the war. The end result is lots of tonnage un-used.

I guess what I'm saying is that the real problem isn't that we have too much fuel or too little resource, a lot of it has to do with the playing have 20/20 hindsight and not making the historical shipping decisions.

I think what people forget with the un-utilized tonnage in game is that we are not making the same decisions the IJN did. Still, the idea of trying to get the player to use more of the merchant fleet, and need to leave the merchant build queue on is commendable.

Unfortunately we can't modify the game itself to do what would be best, which is have refineries able to turn a small amount of resource (to represent the bulk coal) into bunker fuel. Your solution may be the best. Since it seems we need to increase the number of resources that need to be hauled back to Japan to get a closer to historic use of the Japanese merchant fleet.

All very true...but why not try and bring Resource aand petroleum transportation into line with historical levels?

Then once that is accomplished you can CHOOSE to address game play style through the mechanism of a House Rule - such as handicapping the Japanese with a simulation of their historic convoy practices or lack thereof. One way to do this would be to limit the Japanese Cargo TF running oil and resources to say 5 ships total.


Of course MOST players don't want to be saddled with historic doctrine or politics.[;)]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: witpqs

BTW, Treespider's proposal for spoilage upon loading/unloading would exempt the loading process in the continental USA. I think it is the act of loading/unloading that gets the spoilage, so loading in the continental USA should not be exempt.

Actually I was thinking of spoilage at both load/unload and while enroute. AE introduced troop disruption for long voyages on poor shipping. A similar function for supplies seems ideal. But any supply spoilage would require code changes, so we are just theorizing here.

1. Load spoilage (accidents) during load/unload based on port size. Random chance, near zero once port size reaches "X", higher chance for little ports.
2. Spoilage enroute based on type of ship and perhaps tropical zone. Really weak here as heat-related spoilage was mainly food items and supply is not that specific. Also, there is no way to specify attributes (refrigeration, ammo ships, etc). Detail could easily explode here!

Flatulence into the prevailing breeze as code changes are not reasonable at this time. Even the most simple change would require extensive testing for it's affect on the game.

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: witpqs

And I should have added that I am lobbying for that early-war USA reduction in supplies available, as it does have a significant impact on the game by constraining early Allied strategic options (in a realistic way IMO).

Do you know if that is in DBB's?
Ni, it isn't. I'm playing a PBM as Allies with what I believe is the latest.

One thing to keep in mind as previously discussed...India has taken a cut (with this Mod) and Australia now has issues that need to be addressed - most likely from the US.

In the case of Australia IIRC from looking at Tracker -

Stock AE -
Australia Produces 64200 RP but only uses 63950 RP and as a result produces 5065 Supply per day. Assuming it gets a modicum of fuel it will continue to produce this supply.

In this Mod
Australia produces 64200 RP but uses 72,200 RP and as a result would produce 5,540 Supply per day. HOWEVER they are running a RP deficit so the Allied player either has to bring in 8,000 RP per day or transport in supply to make good the lost industry.

Not sure how the industry would function when it has partial RP production to meet needs ...maybe some Industry would continue producing on some days and some not on others... not sure what happens when needless to say Australia will need to be supplemented.
From what I have seen, a base needs to have all of what it needs for a given industry type at that base for that industry type to run. In other words, if LI needs 10,000RP but there are only 9,999 then it will not run. It would make more sense if as much would run as could be fed by 9,999 but it doesn't happen. There is a small chance I am wrong because I haven't looked at an example in a while but I am pretty sure of it. The easiest place to see this with Resources is Pearl Harbor, because it can only get them by ship. I assume it works the same way for all industries and all inputs (oil, fuel, etc.).

Keep in mind these RP's would represent things like sheet metal, tin tobacco etc that OZ historically imported during the war.
I'm cool with that. Are there extra RP produced in USA/Canada? Is that a proper source for the additional RP that Australia needs?

ORIGINAL: witpqs


I'm cool with that. Are there extra RP produced in USA/Canada? Is that a proper source for the additional RP that Australia needs?

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: witpqs

BTW, Treespider's proposal for spoilage upon loading/unloading would exempt the loading process in the continental USA. I think it is the act of loading/unloading that gets the spoilage, so loading in the continental USA should not be exempt.

Actually I was thinking of spoilage at both load/unload and while enroute. AE introduced troop disruption for long voyages on poor shipping. A similar function for supplies seems ideal. But any supply spoilage would require code changes, so we are just theorizing here.

1. Load spoilage (accidents) during load/unload based on port size. Random chance, near zero once port size reaches "X", higher chance for little ports.
2. Spoilage enroute based on type of ship and perhaps tropical zone. Really weak here as heat-related spoilage was mainly food items and supply is not that specific. Also, there is no way to specify attributes (refrigeration, ammo ships, etc). Detail could easily explode here!

Flatulence into the prevailing breeze as code changes are not reasonable at this time. Even the most simple change would require extensive testing for it's affect on the game.

• Spoilage at bases. {Currently only if above base limit.}
• Spoilage on board ships. {None currently.}

• Spoilage during supply movement on land (or any movement during the supply phase of turn resolution). {Currently based on hexes of supply movement.}
• Spoilage during loading/unloading of ships. {None currently.}
• Spoilage during air transport of supply. {None currently.}

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: witpqs

BTW, Treespider's proposal for spoilage upon loading/unloading would exempt the loading process in the continental USA. I think it is the act of loading/unloading that gets the spoilage, so loading in the continental USA should not be exempt.

Actually I was thinking of spoilage at both load/unload and while enroute. AE introduced troop disruption for long voyages on poor shipping. A similar function for supplies seems ideal. But any supply spoilage would require code changes, so we are just theorizing here.

1. Load spoilage (accidents) during load/unload based on port size. Random chance, near zero once port size reaches "X", higher chance for little ports.
2. Spoilage enroute based on type of ship and perhaps tropical zone. Really weak here as heat-related spoilage was mainly food items and supply is not that specific. Also, there is no way to specify attributes (refrigeration, ammo ships, etc). Detail could easily explode here!

Flatulence into the prevailing breeze as code changes are not reasonable at this time. Even the most simple change would require extensive testing for it's affect on the game.

I might have you beat on the flatulence, but back to AE:

I was wondering about the load/unload spoilage being a code change but I figured Treespider might have a trick up his sleeve. In-transit spoilage is a decent idea too. Of course (cue sound of can-of-worms opening), the concept is at odds with how supply spoilage at bases is handled. If you are under the limit, there is no spoilage. On the other hand, supply movement by land does have spoilage built in (IIRC) and more is lost for every hex the supply has to travel.

So, we have two types of spoilage. To be fancy about it, lets call them static and dynamic.

Supply Spoilage

Static Supply Spoilage

• Spoilage at bases. {Currently only if above base limit.}
• Spoilage on board ships. {None currently.}

Dynamic Supply Spoilage

• Spoilage during supply movement on land (or any movement during the supply phase of turn resolution). {Currently based on hexes of supply movement.}
• Spoilage during loading/unloading of ships. {None currently.}
• Spoilage during air transport of supply. {None currently.}

Did I miss anything or get anything wrong?

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I realize you are trying to get the economy more historic, but TBH, in all of my games I have never had a fuel shortage as Japan. It really comes down to proper management of your merchant fleet (which Japan failed at miserably) and not trying to sail all over the globe looking for fights with massive fleets. Probably need to talk to other IJN players to see if this holds true across the board.

On paper, the numbers are different than in practice in game is what I am saying.

Again the real problem with the merchant fleet sitting idle is two-fold:

1. A player isn't stupid. We aren't going to send out a convoy to a resource area carrying supplies and not utilize it to bring in resources on the return trip. Personally I use a system where small ships are used to bring the resource/oil to a central point, and from there a large convoy hauls it back to the HI.

Example: In the DEI, I might pick up from Singapore and Palembang. Instead of hauling the oil resources from Java all the way to Japan, I send it to Palembang where it is picked up with the Palembang production in a series of large convoys. You set up 4-6 of these large convoys, along with all the other stuff going to the main load point, and you can get a convoy arriving at Tokyo once a week etc. All of these carry suppleis back to their resource load points for the return trip. The Japanese didn't do that, but would have shipped the resource from Java in 2-3 ships going to Japan, and may not load supplies on the return trip etc.

In the above example, it hits on something else...every ship making constant long trips caused maintainence problems. Players don't have that issue either.

2. We also aren't going to send them out in 1s or 2s without escorts, so we don't suffer the losses the IJN did during the war. The end result is lots of tonnage un-used.

I guess what I'm saying is that the real problem isn't that we have too much fuel or too little resource, a lot of it has to do with the playing have 20/20 hindsight and not making the historical shipping decisions.

I think what people forget with the un-utilized tonnage in game is that we are not making the same decisions the IJN did. Still, the idea of trying to get the player to use more of the merchant fleet, and need to leave the merchant build queue on is commendable.

Unfortunately we can't modify the game itself to do what would be best, which is have refineries able to turn a small amount of resource (to represent the bulk coal) into bunker fuel. Your solution may be the best. Since it seems we need to increase the number of resources that need to be hauled back to Japan to get a closer to historic use of the Japanese merchant fleet.

All very true...but why not try and bring Resource aand petroleum transportation into line with historical levels?

Then once that is accomplished you can CHOOSE to address game play style through the mechanism of a House Rule - such as handicapping the Japanese with a simulation of their historic convoy practices or lack thereof. One way to do this would be to limit the Japanese Cargo TF running oil and resources to say 5 ships total.


Of course MOST players don't want to be saddled with historic doctrine or politics.[;)]

I can't imagine why... [;)]

I agree that a tweaking of the resource/oil inputs is probably called for, its just a matter of how much is too much. Right now its on the low extreme, you'll just need to do lots of testing to make sure that its not taken to the other extreme and make the game unplayable for the Japanese player. Balancing is always the hardest part of it.

Just pointing out as it stands, fuel is not the limiting factor for me in my games. Then again, other players who are more agressive than I am might have a different point of view on this issue.

ORIGINAL: oldman45

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: treespider




All very true...but why not try and bring Resource aand petroleum transportation into line with historical levels?

Then once that is accomplished you can CHOOSE to address game play style through the mechanism of a House Rule - such as handicapping the Japanese with a simulation of their historic convoy practices or lack thereof. One way to do this would be to limit the Japanese Cargo TF running oil and resources to say 5 ships total.


Of course MOST players don't want to be saddled with historic doctrine or politics.[;)]

I can't imagine why... [;)]

I agree that a tweaking of the resource/oil inputs is probably called for, its just a matter of how much is too much. Right now its on the low extreme, you'll just need to do lots of testing to make sure that its not taken to the other extreme and make the game unplayable for the Japanese player. Balancing is always the hardest part of it.

Just pointing out as it stands, fuel is not the limiting factor for me in my games. Then again, other players who are more agressive than I am might have a different point of view on this issue.

Is balance what we are really looking for? I understand what your saying Shark, but WWII was never balanced at all. The cry for balance is what made some early changes that I have never liked but here we are. A game has to have a level of playablity but in this case, the Allied player can't hurt the Japanese industry with his subs. As you are aware in 44 the IJN was getting its fuel right from the NEI because;
1) it was sweet crude and they could run it in their boilers with some acceptable problems.
2) the US subs were sinking all the tankers they could find, and the Japanese were suffering for it.

The changes may just make it so the Japanese players will have to balance invasion needs with shipping needs and also think about how to protect its limited shipping. It will also cause the US player to rethink logistics and I like that. You see I don't want a balanced game, I want to feel the struggle as the Allies in 41/42, see light at the end of the tunnel in 43 but still have to juggle ships to meet my needs. I agree we need to make sure it doesn't make it unplayable for the Japanese, but balance should not play into the equation.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Reducing port sizes will also have an effect on Repairs and on Rearming. [&:]

ORIGINAL: Shark7


Its the problem with a historical game. In order to make it fun for both players, you can't make it strictly by the book historical.

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: witpqs
And I should have added that I am lobbying for that early-war USA reduction in supplies available, as it does have a significant impact on the game by constraining early Allied strategic options (in a realistic way IMO).

Do you know if that is in DBB's?

ORIGINAL: JWE


I was fostering a Springer for the past month, ....

ORIGINAL: dereck

I've been following this thread and looking into modifying the scenario I play against the AI but I'm trying to get my head around determining requirements/outputs.

If there are 890 refinery points and 2,270 oil points would the calculation of output be:

890 * ( (2,270/10) * 9 ) = 1,818,270 fuel and
890 * ( (2,270/10) * 1 ) = 202,030 supply

Thanks