I think you are missing the larger point: real combat units are going to be a lot tougher in this hex than the supply sink is.
Well, let's see what has actually happened. Combat unit in base with 40 to 100 AV. Combat AV generated in hex anywhere between 2000 and 3000+. Let's be generous and give double the AV for Level 2 or 3 forts and triple that again for woods. 100 AV would end up at around 600 AV. Where's the other 2400+ AV coming from? The supply sink.
So, as I've stated again and again and again and again ( but as seems to have been missed occasionally) these supply sinks end up having the combat power of several divisions. Overall I've played about a game year's worth of turns in this game and conducted a lot of attacks. The ONLY time I saw a unit being as badly shredded as I have had 2 divisions and a Bde shredded by separate supply sinks is when I launched an amphibious attack on an atoll which unloaded over 4 days
. I had one division end up with 11 functional squads out of over 300 after just ONE day's attacks.
As to what I would do "better"... Well I don't know a perfect solution but I will try to create something better than the current system cause the supply sink solution is deeply flawed IMO. Basically my current thinking revolves around disabling a lot of the resource points so that only a little "free supply" gets created at these places while sufficient resources are made ( JUST) to feed the factories in nearby areas. Later, if the Japanese capture them they can expand resource production at a cost of 1000 tons of supply per resource point improved.
It has the effect of not flooding India in massive amounts of over-supply from turn 1 but gives the Japanese the ability to ramp up resource and supply production significantly.
Theoretically it is an imperfect solution but in terms of gameplay I expect it to work relatively well since it is focussed on the EFFECT in-game as opposed to what the books say should be there.
I also intend the following:
1. The ship fixes I mentioned to yourself in the other RHS thread.
2. Putting a DISABLED factory in a lot of bases in DEI, Malaysia etc so that the Japanese can follow the strategy of building up small HI centres closer to the sources of oil and resource. I think this is logical.
3. Removal of R&D factories throughout Japan and their replacement by 1 x DISABLED A6M2 factories. Thus Jap players can do R&D but must pay the full cost for it ( as opposed to getting a lot for free as occurs in the current game). I found Mogami's arguments on this to be persuasive.
4. Where there are no supply sinks I'm happy to leave the free supply or whatever the same in most cases except that I see no reason for mainland bases to receive this free supply. If they are to receive supply let them have resource centres to produce it. This would mean removin free supply from Indian and Chinese bases... The farthest Soviet base would still receive the supply in order to simulate stuff arriving from western Soviet Union.
So, essentially the goal will be to make as much supply and resource production on-map as possible whilst avoiding supply sinks but to prevent the "loads of free supply" problem by making much of those resources being damaged. A simple equation will give me the correct mix between disabled and enabled resource centres on Turn 1 by comparing output over 3 years.
E.g. 365 resources would produce about 500 tons of supply per day or 180,000 per year. Over 3 years that is 540,000 tons of supply. If we assume this is a supply sink area which is set up so that no supplies are produced in RHS ( 0 supply over 3 years) then we can see that so long as we ensure that over the 3 years the cost in repair PLUS shortfall in production is 540,000 tons then we have the exact same situation as in RHS except we no longer need these hugely unbalancing supply sinks. Do I think it is perfect? No but it is greatly superior to supply sinks without a single combat troop present massing 3000 AV.
E.g. with 0 resources (365 disabled) on Turn 1 the shortfall in production in Year 1, assuming repair of 1 resource point per day, would be about 90,0000 tons of supply with another 365,000 tons having been spent on repair. So we start off with a debt of 455,0000 tons of supply. Years 2 and 3 would each see a surplus of 180,000 tons and no need for supply to be spent on further repairs ( we are ignoring the effects of allied bombing as we're just running a really simple statistical model here to compare supply output over the course of the war using two different methods of representing/limiting its production). End result over the course of 3 years disabling 0 resources and assuming 1 point of resources are repaired per day we would end up with a debt of 95,000 relative to RHS supply production.
In the end even if the supply sink were captured on 7th December 1941 it would take until, roughly, the end of mid-45 for the total number of supplies PRODUCED by the supply sink to equal the number of supplies sunk into it to repair it.
So, over the course of the war we have ended up with equivalent supply levels. Resource numbers would be lower but as we all know the limiters of Japanese industrial and military expansion are HI and Oil and not really so much resources.
So, mathematically speaking over the course of the way ( or at least until end of May 1945) it is equivalent, in supply terms, to put a huge supply sink there which grossly unbalances ground combat OR to put 0 able resources and 365 disabled resources in a base. Sure the second option messes up resource production somewhat but IMO low resource levels are not nearly as unbalancing to the game as these huge supply sinks.
What, pray tell, is this other method you've come across. It might be interesting to consider as all I'm interested in is a fix which gets rids of these ridiculously over-powered supply sinks which shred elite combat formations left, right and centre.
