Matrix Games Forums

A true zombie thread. There are actual dead people in it. And I say that with all due respect.

I was thinking that myself.... [:(]

I am number 19. Only logistics makes strategic sense out of the context. Jim Dunnigan (SPI) used to say
"nobody wants a logistics game" - but then he himself designed one - wait for it - called "War in the Pacific"!
Joe Wilkerson once described playing as "a long, tedious game with occasional combat, after which you go back
to the real business of the game - routing convoys." Logistics can be better modeled. Fuel is much easier to
fix than adding another kind of supply (to oil, fuel, resources and supply points): the template is present -
simply make LCU and air units consume the existing fuel. No one is limited to one point of supply per refinery:
you can make it whatever number makes sense in your conception of the output. If we are to add a new kind
of supply - it should be ordnance - something they DID do for torpedoes (which, in fact, might permit a solution
inside the current structure - redefine torpedoes or mines as ordnance).

A bigger issue is that a campaign designed to model the entire war should not have constant supply generation
for the Allies at the map edge. Either you must start with numbers that work in 1944 - which indeed is "too much"
in 1941 - or you start with 1941 numbers - which is dismally too few - or you "compromise" with too much
for 1941 and too little for even 1943. One also might make LCU consume on a realistic basis - adding the logistic
tail - so a pack division costs more to feed and lift than a draft division does, and a draft division costs
more than a motorized one does - never mind the artillery tends to yield more firepower in reverse order.
One CAN also increase the cost of air operations by increasing the size of base forces - abstract but on the
average not a bad solution (although I have seen proposals to make them smaller, that only makes supply consumption
requirements go down). Experiments with both concepts (divisions with added non-combat elements so they consume
more and require more lift) and with base forces with realistic amounts of things they really had (not just
aircraft support squads) as well as non-combat elements kind of work - but indicate even more of this sort of
thing would be better simulation.

For those who argue "this is a game" - please read the opening of the logistics section of the game manual -
which claims it is "an accurate simulation." If only that promise were implemented in greater detail.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The market for a true "Logistics in the Pacific" or "Micro Economic Development in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" game probably only amounts to 17 people in the entire world.

Alfred

Oh Oh Oh!! Where can I download it!??! I'm number 18! [:D]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Testing indicates remarkably little supply is consumed by air units, bombers in particular.
The exception is that drop tanks (mainly for fighters) do appear to demand supplies. But
before and after data indicates that a heavy bomber squadron actually bombing (any mission)
increases supply consumption in the base hex by zero over what it is if the same planes
are resting.

I have trouble believing your conclusion. The base might show with the same supply before and after, but there is supply movement during the turn.

Did you perform your test on an island with only one base?

Actually, I merely repeated tests by others described - for years - in the Forums. However, there is one
thing which is omitted from the list at the start of this thread: it appears that drop tanks do consume
supplies, so aircraft which have them, and which perform longer range missions, do end up consuming "avgas"
(if it is fair to assume that drop tanks consume avgas!). I model very long range aircraft with "internal
drop tanks" called "bomb bay tanks" - which was common for some types that might surprise you (see an LB-30
used as a transport, or several bombers used in ultra long range recon forms, or some medium bombers which
typically carried fewer bombs in favor of adding a fuel tank for PTO operations). So here is a way anyone
may add "fuel consumption" if they want to - at least where drop tanks are reasonable.

You are correct that it is hard to measure precise before and after values at many locations. So one
should do so at an oaisis (a literal one or a de facto one due to lack of roads or railroads or other
ways to get automatic movement of supply) or a remote island NOT adjacent to another one. Also you should
get rid of LCU in the hex or nearby which might "feed" the base force - or else track their supply usage
and inventory in your test. And you need to run the test for a statistical number of days (that is, 30
or more - nothing run less is ever valid in statistical theory). That turns out to matter in AE - code
has many branches - conditional 'tests' - and it is possible the results of these might have different
outcomes depending on "die rolls" - so you cannot be sure with single day data you have the average
result.

I think AE is actually a pretty good logistical computer for supply movement. The trick is to get supply
generation and supply consumption modeled better - in the data for each location and unit. And this is
possible without code changes. Many features of code are remarkably well conceived. Someone asked about
water above - that is in there! Units in a formal desert have higher supply requirements - modeling water.