AE Map, Base, Economic Issues [OUTDATED]

[jcjordan]

Not sure if it's been reported or not or if it's WAD but on Adelaide, it seems to want to keep 20k of resources at all times. I've loaded resources multiple times to move them to Melbourne & Sydney but Adelaide keeps sucking up to the 20k lvl. One thing, I'm not really sure where all the resources are coming from? Some seems to come from Melbourne & Sydney, not sure if it's production causing drop or xfer but it's not the 20k drop, but other bases closer to Adelaide don't seem to be effected by the drag, like Sale which also seems to stay at 4k regardless of how much I pull out as well.
I've also seen some supply lvls along the same lines at Newcastle & the port base just s of Sydney (I don't have game open right now at work). They seem to want to stay at 30k+ supply even though they need only a few hundred & I've tried to pull them out by transport & adjusting the supply lvl requirements of nearby bases but again it suck up to the 30K+ lvl.
 
Another thing I think the pw hex data for the road travelling n from Alice Springs to Darwin gets off 1 hex to the left for a couple of hexes as far as the way it looks like the troops are traveling on the map. I'm not at home so can't give hexes where it gets off right now but will try to get them the next time I load up game.

[tbridges]

I'm sure this question has been answered before but my searches sure can't find it.

When building up a base does it make a difference if you build up one aspect at a time or all three simultaneously? Should you concentrate on building up one thing at a time, airfield, port, or forts? If you build only one aspect at a time does it concentrate resources on that one and make it go faster? If you start building all three at once will it dilute your efforts and result in each one taking longer? Does it matter?

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: tbridges

I'm sure this question has been answered before but my searches sure can't find it.

When building up a base does it make a difference if you build up one aspect at a time or all three simultaneously? Should you concentrate on building up one thing at a time, airfield, port, or forts? If you build only one aspect at a time does it concentrate resources on that one and make it go faster? If you start building all three at once will it dilute your efforts and result in each one taking longer? Does it matter?

Building all three at the same time will split the resources {building points or whatever} among all three. If you want something built faster, concentrate on that. I usually build only one at a time. Except for Soviet bases which I let build all at once {playing the AI, I don't have to worry about the Japanese steamrolling the Soviets}.

[tbridges]

Ok, thanks rm, that's what I needed to know.

[Jonathan Pollard]

As someone who has been to both Butuan and Cebu, I find it hard to believe that the Butuan port was larger than Cebu's even in 1941. Today Cebu's port facilities are much more extensive than Butuan's (I would estimate that Cebu has at least 5x the capacity of Butuan) and I have a gut feeling that a similar situation existed in 1941. For those who wish to research further, Butuan's port facilities are actually located at Nasipit, over a dozen miles to the west. Here are details of Nasipit's port facilities as they currently exist, along with some photos of what it looked like in the past:

http://www.nasipitsite.com/portofnasipit.htm

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

As someone who has been to both Butuan and Cebu, I find it hard to believe that the Butuan port was larger than Cebu's even in 1941. Today Cebu's port facilities are much more extensive than Butuan's (I would estimate that Cebu has at least 5x the capacity of Butuan) and I have a gut feeling that a similar situation existed in 1941. For those who wish to research further, Butuan's port facilities are actually located at Nasipit, over a dozen miles to the west. Here are details of Nasipit's port facilities as they currently exist, along with some photos of what it looked like in the past:

http://www.nasipitsite.com/portofnasipit.htm

Butuan and Nasipit are two separate ports which would be located in the same hex.

Ports of the Phillippines

Now as to their state in 1941/1942 that is another question.


As to CEBU -
One of the prioritized projects during the
American Regime was port development and
much attention was paid to the development of
the Iloilo and Cebu ports, in addition to the
port in Manila. Prior to the harbor project,
construction of 30 feet wide temporary timber
wharf at Cebu begun in March 1904 and
completed in September 1904, being
conducted by Messrs. Jones & Smith, Manila
(RPC, 1904, 1905).

From 1904 to 1913, port improvement in Cebu
was carried out by the government. One
project included “the construction of a concrete masonry dock and bulkhead about 2600 feet
long, the reclaiming of about 13 acres of land adjacent to the already congested business
portion of the city, and provides for vessels of 23 feet draft and for future extension of
docking facilities when needed” (RPC, 1903). The construction of the port, following to
temporary wharf, mobilized in April 1905, contracted by the J.G. White & Co. of New York
which was also the syndicate member for the railway development in Cebu (RPC, 1904,
1905). The 2,309 feet wharf became available in Cebu on April 15, 1908.

The completion of the port expected to bring more business and industrial development as
well as better sanitation and beauty in the City. Since Cebu was the trade center of not only
Visayas but also the country, improvement of its facilities would gain economic value not
only in Cebu but throughout the country. In fact, as we can see in the Plate 5, the Port of Cebu
had the significant advantage of direct access to the railway.

According to Gwekoh (1937) the following big international trading companies located their
firms in the City of Cebu by 1937: Pacific Commercial Company, Smith, Bell and Co., Ltd,
Ker and Co., W.F. Stevenson and Co., Procter and Gamble Trading, Philippine Refining,
Warner Barnes & Co., Madrigal and Co., Compana General de Tabacoe de Filipinas,
International Harvester, Daido Boeki Kaisha, Ltd., Mitsui Bussan Kaisha., etc.
With the improvement of port facilities, the port of Cebu became the second biggest in terms
of size and significance in the trading of the country. Though data during 1910s to 1920s were
not found, the data of exports volume from the port of Cebu to U.S.A and foreign countries
during 1930s are presented in Table 2. It is enough to understand that the port of Cebu had
increased its significance in the trading industry. Also, U.K., Japan, China, Spain, Netherlands,
Norway and Sweden maintained vice-consulates in the City of Cebu (Gwekoh, 1937).

Table 2 Export Volume from Cebu Port
Year Volume (PhP)
1932 - 20,678,225.12
1933 - 28,484,818.74
1934 - 28,208,644.55
1935 - 32,818,517.44
1936 - 43,692,898.08
Source: S.H. Gwekoh The Golden Book of Cebu, 1937

[LargeSlowTarget]

I believe the potential airbase sizes should be toned down at bit at certain locations. A few examples:[/align] [/align]Tulagi can be overbuilt into a size 5 airbase, able to operate B-17s. Looking at photos and maps of that island I cannot imagine how.[/align] [/align]Wau is rated as SPS 3, so it can be overbuilt to size 6. I have trouble believing that Wau with its inclined airstrip airbase was able to accomodate and operate heavy bombers.[/align] [/align]Waigeo Is. is rated at SPS 5. But MacArthur had to cancel the occupation of this island because no suitable airbase locations could be found. [/align]

[erstad]

Here's a feature request that I think more and more people might start asking for.

Currently, the overland movement of resources to ports is a little chaotic. It seems that some ports are preferred, but resources can pop into other ports, plus it doesn't look like resources move every day and so it's very difficult to maintain a consistent transport network, particularly from the Asian mainland to Japan. You can pick up resources somewhere, and when the TF returns there's still nothing there. Although it might show up later. In some quantity.

It would be nice if on the base screen we could identify a port as a resource hub. When the overland movement is deciding how to flow resources to a port, it could prioritize sending them to a resource hub. There might be a limit on the range over which a hub helps so that something from Burma doesn't think it needs to go to Fusan.

If this is not doable or doesn't make the cut, it would be nice to have some description of how the resources move to ports from inland sites to allow us to plan better. I have not detected any clear pattern, although in fairness I haven't tried keeping detailed records and reverse engineering the pattern. (Has anyone?)

Any other JFBs finding this frustrating as well? It's nowhere near a game stopper, but it's annoying to send a TF to a port, find out it's still empty, so you send it to another nearby port that has resources, but a few days latter the first port fills up!

[Empire101]

Can anyone point me in the right direction of the best build strategy for the Japanese? What I'm after is what are the engine factories/ airframe factories you can afford to switch over.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Empire101

Can anyone point me in the right direction of the best build strategy for the Japanese? What I'm after is what are the engine factories/ airframe factories you can afford to switch over.

Empire, we're all learning as we go. In my AAR I'm discussing a lot of economics and talk about airframe & engine expansion as well as the supply cost in post 23:

tm.asp?m=2280485

I'm not saying it's right, or even good, but it's what I'm attempting. I always try to err on the low side. You can always increase production. If you overexpand, you just spent a lot of supply that you desparately need on the front line.

[Empire101]

Thanks for your help!!

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: Empire101

Thanks for your help!! Every bit of info is great as this is so vast!!

[Empire101]

Thanks for your help!! Every bit of info is great as this is so vast

[bsq]

The AI appears to be able to run a supply 'budget' in the same way UK politicians seem to be able to run our country.

I found the following after getting extremely frustrated by the heavy losses I was taking in assault ships whilst trying to take the Marianas. I prepared the assaults for months, training troops, conducting bombardments, setting a 40+ submarine picket line to prevent re-supply and stationing the FCTF off the islands for 6 weeks, rotating the various TG's in and out of Enitewok for resupply (which had standing replenishment groups in to keep the TG's topped up).

So getting my Amphib groups 'creamed' during the unload ops was not an immediate consideration, nor was the the thought of overly stubborn resistance from the defenders, after all - the prep work was very thorough.

So when I saw this (having rolled back to a previous save to take a 'peak' because I suspected something was awry), I was amazed.




As you can see the Japanese are running a deficit supply budget, indeed the CD units that knocked hell out of my amphibs all have a minus supply number - so what did they shoot me with?? Then after that, what did they reload with to shoot me again??

[bsq]

Now if the above wasn't enough, this is the situation on Saipan where once again the CD units shot up the Amphibs and the ground units are putting up the mother of all fights. This is now 12 weeks after my 'siege' began:





There is clearly no supply on the island and no units are supplied, indeed all but 2 are running on negative supply.

Fine the AI needs an advantage, but this appears to be outright 'cheating'. Unless this is WAD and if it is, can the developers tell us how to run a deficit supply with minimal affects to our units. Every time I have run out of supplies on my side, my units have quickly succumbed to the negative effects.

[Barb]

What difficulty you are playing on? If its hard or very hard AI never runs out of supply...

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: Barb

What difficulty you are playing on? If its hard or very hard AI never runs out of supply...

Historical, but in the context of the views above this is surely irrelevant. You can model not running out of supply by either reducing or eliminating consumption based on difficultly settings. The views show that having used all of its supply the AI continues to draw on non-existent stocks - how is this right and under what penalties is it now. If it can do this with impunity then even the best crafted campaign will fail and the AI will only be overcome by shear weight of numbers. This is sledgehammer approach is surely not what was designed to happen?
Supply is supposed to be the abstracting of all things that are not fuel - run out and you're toast (unless you are the AI). Contrast this to what happens to poorly supplied units during the Japanese expansion.

The bottom line is due to these anomalies to the supply system, the Allies simply do not have enough ships or troops for this type of war and the game will peter out to a draw as the ability to conduct amphibious assaults diminishes because the AI is not bound by the same supply rules as the player.

I currently have enough specialist ships to lift 4 divisions plus tank and artillery support (mid 44), Tinian cost me 20% of my lifting ability to an almost un-supplied island. Saipan cost me another 20% to a completely un-supplied island.

[Barb]

I just put the question to help the Devs to answere you. I would not like to lost 40% of lift capacity in 1944 [:)]

[BigJ62]

Post a save in tech support.

ORIGINAL: bsq

The AI appears to be able to run a supply 'budget' in the same way UK politicians seem to be able to run our country.

I found the following after getting extremely frustrated by the heavy losses I was taking in assault ships whilst trying to take the Marianas. I prepared the assaults for months, training troops, conducting bombardments, setting a 40+ submarine picket line to prevent re-supply and stationing the FCTF off the islands for 6 weeks, rotating the various TG's in and out of Enitewok for resupply (which had standing replenishment groups in to keep the TG's topped up).

So getting my Amphib groups 'creamed' during the unload ops was not an immediate consideration, nor was the the thought of overly stubborn resistance from the defenders, after all - the prep work was very thorough.

So when I saw this (having rolled back to a previous save to take a 'peak' because I suspected something was awry), I was amazed.




As you can see the Japanese are running a deficit supply budget, indeed the CD units that knocked hell out of my amphibs all have a minus supply number - so what did they shoot me with?? Then after that, what did they reload with to shoot me again??

[Rainer79]

This is for the new beta patch / scenario 2. While it is stated in the readme that the road network for the "Terrace" base has been reworked, that doesn't actually seem to be the case.