Matrix Games Forums

I totally agree that this is a valid issue, but, absolutely hate the solution of trashing the ships supply capacities (sorry JWE no disrespect intended) to solve it.

Can there possibly be another data tweak resolving of the issue? How about just to address the Allied problem apart from the Japanese (if necessary)? Why couldn't/wouldn't supply sinks set up at non-combat locations (but not US continental bases) at New Zealand, Australia, India, Pearl or elsewhere (?) to eat supplies delivered at those areas be advisable. In that way the supplies are required to be produced (fully adjustable to taste) and need to be transported, but are not available to expand bases.

I know there have been two answers to this question, "No" and "Hell No!!", but the facts (I think) remain, the ships in the data base are real and the tonnage they carried is based upon historical information.

Not trying to beat the dead horse but don't want to grind it in to dog food either.

Buck

I truly expect to hear the crickets in response to this post and/or a slew of "eye-rolling & Zzzz" messages. However, in the chance . . .

Buck, can u bring me up to speed on this a bit more?

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Buck, can u bring me up to speed on this a bit more?

Well I am not sure I can do the subject just with a summery and I am not very good at writing anyway. Not even sure I can state the grand problem but simply there is too much supply that reaches the fronts that effects base and unit growth and combat abilities over what was possible in RL.

The issue has been bounced around for quite some while and it was an issue back in WITP. There were a couple approaches back then. If I recall right, one was adjust the number and capacities down of the supply ships and the RHS, developed the supply sink solution. The supply sink never caught on with the majority and even the developer of the idea recognized some problems with it.

We have come full circle to WITPAE. Most/all seem together in the opinion that the code should provide for more spoilage in line with history, but know that the code is now in stone and a change there won't happen.

Several threads representing the various mods have taken a stab at analyzing the problem. JWE has provided the service for the community by going in an recreating an alternate wpc file that reduces the amount of supply as a solution.

To get a more complete feel (and more accurate than my BS here) you need to search out the subject in the other threads. Sorry I can't provide you links to them.

Buck

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
I totally agree that this is a valid issue, but, absolutely hate the solution of trashing the ships supply capacities (sorry JWE no disrespect intended) to solve it.

Can there possibly be another data tweak resolving of the issue? How about just to address the Allied problem apart from the Japanese (if necessary)? Why couldn't/wouldn't supply sinks set up at non-combat locations (but not US continental bases) at New Zealand, Australia, India, Pearl or elsewhere (?) to eat supplies delivered at those areas be advisable. In that way the supplies are required to be produced (fully adjustable to taste) and need to be transported, but are not available to expand bases.

Buck

There are some issues floating around here, but not quite what is implied. The issues is not too much supply, it is too much ship capacity. The basis is multi variant. The fundamental problem is that EVERYTHING (Resources, Oil, Supply, Fuel) can be either shipped, or used in place, utilizing a fraction of the "JAPANESE" merchant fleet, thereby allowing the excess ships (damn near half the total) to be used as monster invasion TFs, and make the merchant fleet substantially imune to sinkings.

The idea is not to reduce supply. Supply is only one small part of the equation. The idea is to require greater utilization of the merchant fleet in the functions for which it was built, and force decisions as to allocation of assets between economic and operational transport, to be meaningful.

Treespider has devised a model that addresses the issue in one way. It is quite valid in that it involves a conceptual view of a cargo Point as representing 1.5 metric tons instead of 1.0 metric tons (as well as several other things).

Don Bowen has devised another model in which certain production values are doubled (or halved), i.e., certain things are defined as having 2.0 metric tons per Point instead of 1.0 metric tons.

Both models require more ships to move exactly the same amount of stuff; which is the point of the whole exercise. DaBabes doesn't care which is the most desirable. That's why the files that can implement either or both of these are offered as alternatives.

Why not just reduce the size of resource centers? So that Japan have to ship resources all over the SRA? [&:]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
I totally agree that this is a valid issue, but, absolutely hate the solution of trashing the ships supply capacities (sorry JWE no disrespect intended) to solve it.

Can there possibly be another data tweak resolving of the issue? How about just to address the Allied problem apart from the Japanese (if necessary)? Why couldn't/wouldn't supply sinks set up at non-combat locations (but not US continental bases) at New Zealand, Australia, India, Pearl or elsewhere (?) to eat supplies delivered at those areas be advisable. In that way the supplies are required to be produced (fully adjustable to taste) and need to be transported, but are not available to expand bases.

Buck

There are some issues floating around here, but not quite what is implied. The issues is not too much supply, it is too much ship capacity. The basis is multi variant. The fundamental problem is that EVERYTHING (Resources, Oil, Supply, Fuel) can be either shipped, or used in place, utilizing a fraction of the "JAPANESE" merchant fleet, thereby allowing the excess ships (damn near half the total) to be used as monster invasion TFs, and make the merchant fleet substantially imune to sinkings.

The idea is not to reduce supply. Supply is only one small part of the equation. The idea is to require greater utilization of the merchant fleet in the functions for which it was built, and force decisions as to allocation of assets between economic and operational transport, to be meaningful.

Treespider has devised a model that addresses the issue in one way. It is quite valid in that it involves a conceptual view of a cargo Point as representing 1.5 metric tons instead of 1.0 metric tons (as well as several other things).

Don Bowen has devised another model in which certain production values are doubled (or halved), i.e., certain things are defined as having 2.0 metric tons per Point instead of 1.0 metric tons.

Both models require more ships to move exactly the same amount of stuff; which is the point of the whole exercise. DaBabes doesn't care which is the most desirable. That's why the files that can implement either or both of these are offered as alternatives.

I know I am not seeing the whole picture and it is damn confusing. Which is Dan Bowen model? I know where to find Treespider (I think). I suspect that the controlling data for these models are in the locations (wpl) file for each city effected or is it part of the device data? Have they been update for both Japan and the Allied?


Buck

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Why not just reduce the size of resource centers? So that Japan have to ship resources all over the SRA? [&:]

Because the paradigm works with 6 or 7 different things, in concert, in order to function correctly.

If one dinks with just one of these things (like resources or supply), the other 5 or 6 are skewed out of concert, and one will spend the same number of man-years trying to catch up, as was spent developing the model in the first place; good luck.

It's a 7 way matrix, and one must define exactly which of the vectors need to adjusted and adjust those specific vectors on a uniformly universal basis. Otherwise, it's nothing but drool; pretty, but useless.

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
I know I am not seeing the whole picture and it is damn confusing. Which is Dan Bowen model? I know where to find Treespider (I think). I suspect that the controlling data for these models are in the locations (wpl) file for each city effected or is it part of the device data? Have they been update for both Japan and the Allied?

Buck

Don doesn't have a formal model or mod, just another way of looking at increasing merchant ship utilization without breaking anything else. His approach is very straight forward, and doesn't require messing with industry devices or stuff like that. I think his basic phillosophy is: You have Inputs and Outputs. Fortunately they are relatively independent; i.e., Supply is only an Output, Resource is only an Input. Outputs are the things the game uses in a thousand different ways (supply, fuel, rearm, replacements, etc..) so messing with Outputs is a major headache; especially don't want to mess with Fuel because it is both an Output and an Input and is also used in game for other things.

So, maintain all Outputs at their standard levels, and uniformly increase all similar Inputs (i.e., Resource) by an equal fraction. So Resource Production might go from 20 to 40, LI Res In from 15 to 30, HI Res In 20 to 40. Instead of "make 20, eat 20" it might be "make 40, eat 40"; same, same, and it produces exactly the same amount of Supply, HI Points, etc. All that happens is that more ships are required to move the 40 than would be necessary to move the 20.

In effect, it's equivalent to saying that 1 Resource Point = 0.5 metric tons. But it must be consistent over every Resource factor in the model. Nice thing is, it can be easily tweaked and tested; it could be uniformly doubled, trippled, multiplied by 1.5, etc.. Elegant.

This only impacts the Japanese merchant fleet; Allies don't need to move things around that much. To equalize the penalties, one might initially damage Allied industry devices so that their stockpiles grow much more slowly, but allows the Allies to reach full potential eventually. Forget who came up with that one (Spidey?, LST?, vettim?, somebody smart) but it's a doozey, and I like it.

Anyway, lots of different approaches. All of them work. Some work better here, some better there. Only thing that's important is to separate the variables as much as humanly possible, and apply the modifications to every variable item on a uniform basis.

I think another point that JWE brought up in the economic thread was it has always been accepted that a "point" equals a ton as far as ship capacities. That goes whether it be a resource point or a supply point. The question is: is that model correct. It has been suggested that perhaps that is being a little overly generous. So when ships capacilites are being adjusted downward, it is not their tonnage that is being changed but instead what the game unit "weighs". Considering that cargo densities vary so entremely and that ships capacities are as much related to there cubic capacity as much as tonnage capacity, this seems reasonable. If your filled a break/bulk carrier to the rim with taconite, you would likely sink it. If you filled it with rice, it likely would be riding high. So the game uses averages and abstractions to get to usable values. It was merely suggested that the abstraction was off a bit.

A for the original topic, what do you mean by "too much supply"? By mid-war the ALlies were notoriously wasteful as far as supplies go. The issue was never not having enough supply but only having it in the right locale

The problem of modelling production, supplies, shipping capabilities etc. close to history is really mind-boggling, and I cannot claim to grasp even half of it...

But as everybody knows, the Allied- or more precisely the US - production of war necessities in Dec 41 was comparatively low but geared up to produce prodigious quantities of everything by 1944. Yet in the game, the industrial output of the Allies is the same from start to finish. This creates an overabundance of supplies in the first part of the game and should be addressed.

The obvious way to solve this issue would be tinkering with Allied production and to damage Allied factories at the start (I think several forum members have had this idea at more or less the same time).

The first problem here is finding the proper values so that production reaches its maximum only in 1944, yet having enough supply points production to support the repairs of the factories (which consumes lots of supplies) as well as the early war operations at more or less historic "shoe-string" levels.

The second problem is that tinkering with supplies production will actually increase another issue - the abundance of shipping (which concerns the Allied side as well, not just the Japanese). Less supplies produced means less ammount of shipping required to move around what is available. One approach to fix this would be the reduction of cargo capacities of ships . But this is deviation from the "as close to historic capabilities as possible" dogma (for which we may end in hell, or worse - in Wisconsin [;)]) and could also lead to side-effects later when abundant supplies will be available.

So somehow the available shipping must be kept occupied. Just some brainstorming about this:
- no teleporting of units to avoid freeing shipping
- importing ressources from Australia / South America (Canal Zone) / Africa (Capetown) / Asia (India via Capetown) mandatory for US economy (ressources in CONUS should be lower than industry requirements > requires ressource imports for maximum supplies output)
- lowering merchantmen cruise speeds
- lowering port sizes to slow loading/unloading

This can be done via the editor. I was also thinking about supply sinkholes, e.g. LCUs composed of "civilian population" squads which do nothing but eat supplies (and provide big VP values). In that case, the production levels would need adjustment in order to produce the supplies for this "civilian economy" (Question: Do manpower "factories" require supplies?)

Other ideas which would cannot be done via editor:
- the Treespider and Don Bowen methods
- notching up the sys damage accumulation a bit in order to force more days in port for repairs
- lowering the preset port loading/unloading speeds and limits
- increasing the supply demands of military units (requirements for Allied forces should be higher than for Japanese forces)
- increasing spoilage levels (esp. in the tropics)

Ok, coming almost full circle with that last point, I'll break off - time for my medication... [;)]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
I know I am not seeing the whole picture and it is damn confusing. Which is Dan Bowen model? I know where to find Treespider (I think). I suspect that the controlling data for these models are in the locations (wpl) file for each city effected or is it part of the device data? Have they been update for both Japan and the Allied?

Buck

Don doesn't have a formal model or mod, just another way of looking at increasing merchant ship utilization without breaking anything else. His approach is very straight forward, and doesn't require messing with industry devices or stuff like that. I think his basic phillosophy is: You have Inputs and Outputs. Fortunately they are relatively independent; i.e., Supply is only an Output, Resource is only an Input. Outputs are the things the game uses in a thousand different ways (supply, fuel, rearm, replacements, etc..) so messing with Outputs is a major headache; especially don't want to mess with Fuel because it is both an Output and an Input and is also used in game for other things.

So, maintain all Outputs at their standard levels, and uniformly increase all similar Inputs (i.e., Resource) by an equal fraction. So Resource Production might go from 20 to 40, LI Res In from 15 to 30, HI Res In 20 to 40. Instead of "make 20, eat 20" it might be "make 40, eat 40"; same, same, and it produces exactly the same amount of Supply, HI Points, etc. All that happens is that more ships are required to move the 40 than would be necessary to move the 20.

In effect, it's equivalent to saying that 1 Resource Point = 0.5 metric tons. But it must be consistent over every Resource factor in the model. Nice thing is, it can be easily tweaked and tested; it could be uniformly doubled, trippled, multiplied by 1.5, etc.. Elegant.

This only impacts the Japanese merchant fleet; Allies don't need to move things around that much. To equalize the penalties, one might initially damage Allied industry devices so that their stockpiles grow much more slowly, but allows the Allies to reach full potential eventually. Forget who came up with that one (Spidey?, LST?, vettim?, somebody smart) but it's a doozey, and I like it. I think it was ElCid!

Anyway, lots of different approaches. All of them work. Some work better here, some better there. Only thing that's important is to separate the variables as much as humanly possible, and apply the modifications to every variable item on a uniform basis.

First of all a big thanks for this explaination.

I see I need to go back and review some game mechanics, but, too apply this concept would I need to go to each resource base double their respective productions?

Another question, if too much supply is not the biggy point of the equation, then why is the issue of more spoilage so prevalent? Not not going to happen aside, one of the effects of this would be to reduce the supplies available at the consumption points.

Buck

AS a BTW, I love the concept of coal production fuel source albeit a little confused how to build it in.

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Another question, if too much supply is not the biggy point of the equation, then why is the issue of more spoilage so prevalent? Not not going to happen aside, one of the effects of this would be to reduce the supplies available at the consumption points.

Buck

AS a BTW, I love the concept of coal production fuel source albeit a little confused how to build it in.

There is no spoilage issue. People on the main forum have no idea about what's going on and are furiously pursuing everything they can think of, irrespective of it's actual content or effect.

Coal as fuel is fun to speculate about, but not relevant in game terms. I mean, even avgas is an abstraction represented as supply, so where would coal fall in the greater scheme of things? So, no, don't think it's worthwhile to try and figure out how to build it in; there isn't a realistic way to get there from here.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Another question, if too much supply is not the biggy point of the equation, then why is the issue of more spoilage so prevalent? Not not going to happen aside, one of the effects of this would be to reduce the supplies available at the consumption points.

Buck

AS a BTW, I love the concept of coal production fuel source albeit a little confused how to build it in.

There is no spoilage issue. People on the main forum have no idea about what's going on and are furiously pursuing everything they can think of, irrespective of it's actual content or effect.

Coal as fuel is fun to speculate about, but not relevant in game terms. I mean, even avgas is an abstraction represented as supply, so where would coal fall in the greater scheme of things? So, no, don't think it's worthwhile to try and figure out how to build it in; there isn't a realistic way to get there from here.

So much abstraction creates conumdrums within the game system. That said, I don't think we appreciate how hard it is to model economies and the fact that we have a system that works at all should be applauded by GG and the AE mod team. Point being that you have to accept a certain level of abstraction or the game would quickly become unplayable. You want to try to wrap yourself around a thought? Consider this: as was pointed out in the economic thread a while back RL refineries had outputs that will make your head spin. In AE terms, the Palembang refineries produced 70% "supply" and 30% "fuel". Now if you changed that little bugger you would turn the economic system on its ear.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Another question, if too much supply is not the biggy point of the equation, then why is the issue of more spoilage so prevalent? Not not going to happen aside, one of the effects of this would be to reduce the supplies available at the consumption points.

Buck

AS a BTW, I love the concept of coal production fuel source albeit a little confused how to build it in.

There is no spoilage issue. People on the main forum have no idea about what's going on and are furiously pursuing everything they can think of, irrespective of it's actual content or effect.

Coal as fuel is fun to speculate about, but not relevant in game terms. I mean, even avgas is an abstraction represented as supply, so where would coal fall in the greater scheme of things? So, no, don't think it's worthwhile to try and figure out how to build it in; there isn't a realistic way to get there from here.

Obviously I am all wet as usual. Tried to search the issue to see where I could have come up with my "chest beating" comment, however, spoilage is not recognized and supply spoilage didn't even provide my comments on the subject. Sooo, I will meekly back off into some corner admitting I don't know "WTF" I'm talking about.

JWE, if you care to, will you comment on my other question regarding the increase of the bases resource production. My seem obvious but the more time I spend here the more I know that nothing should be obvious to me.

Buck

For my Mod I approached from several angles at once -

Tweaks include:

ECONOMIC:
- Resource Center Output,
- Refinery Output,
- LI Input & Output,
- HI Input & Output
- I ramp up US Supply production "grossly" based on IIRC Yearly Munitions expenditures through damaged LI Centers.

SHIPPING:
- JWE graciously down-sized shipping capacity "POINTS" ---as someone above "pointed" (no pun intended) out - is a POINT of Coal the same as a POINT of Rice. The Point is a homgenized averaged accounting of what a ship might carry.

SPOILAGE:
- Down-sized SPS of Airfields based on terrain type of hex...Among other effects smaller bases mean less supply can be stored at any given base before spoilage takes effect.

BUNKER COAL:
- Added additional FUEL production to Manchukuo. To be played with a House Rule this FUEL should not be transported to Japan via Tankers and is more or less intended to serve as a source of Bunker Coal.


A more in depth explanation about the system I am using can be found in the thread about my mod HERE and the Economic Thread HERE

Local Yokel has done some sandbox testing of the mod and has some good analysis of the economic model in the thread about my mod...

ORIGINAL: treespider

For my Mod I approached from several angles at once -

Tweaks include:

ECONOMIC:
- Resource Center Output,
- Refinery Output,
- LI Input & Output,
- HI Input & Output
- I ramp up US Supply production "grossly" based on IIRC Yearly Munitions expenditures through damaged LI Centers.

SHIPPING:
- JWE graciously down-sized shipping capacity "POINTS" ---as someone above "pointed" (no pun intended) out - is a POINT of Coal the same as a POINT of Rice. The Point is a homgenized averaged accounting of what a ship might carry.

SPOILAGE:
- Down-sized SPS of Airfields based on terrain type of hex...Among other effects smaller bases mean less supply can be stored at any given base before spoilage takes effect.

BUNKER COAL:
- Added additional FUEL production to Manchukuo. To be played with a House Rule this FUEL should not be transported to Japan via Tankers and is more or less intended to serve as a source of Bunker Coal.


A more in depth explanation about the system I am using can be found in the thread about my mod HERE and the Economic Thread HERE

Local Yokel has done some sandbox testing of the mod and has some good analysis of the economic model in the thread about my mod...

Thank you very much. I am trying to use a little here and a lot there. I probably will never finish but I keep plugging away.

Thanks again

Thanks.

I cant say I have put nearly as much time and effort as many of you into this issue, but I agree on many points. In fact, in the mods I created and am playing, I significantly cut the allied airfield and port starting sizes (and many SPS's). I also cut allied auto awards of supply, added a bit more booty scattered strategically throughout the potential expanded empire, etc. I hadnt attacked the Empire transport 'bonus'. I've always looked at that as a good thing (not bad). In fact, it never really occured to me to change that. IMHO, it is the spice that facilitates the agressive exapansion of the empire in competant hands and leads to very exciting gaming throughout the war. Within 18 months, any competant allied sub campaigning will eliminate that 'problem' even if it is not mitigated another way.

Based upon my impression that it is too easy on average for the allies to win too quickly, my focus has been on place 'net' slowing factors on the allies both to improve mid / late game enjoyment and force a bit more of the historical flavor of tradeoffs on early allied strategy that IMHO dont exist in stock.

Anyway, I do appreciate the intellectual capital on this - Thanks.

Yet in the game, the industrial output of the Allies is the same from start to finish. This creates an overabundance of supplies in the first part of the game and should be addressed.

The obvious way to solve this issue would be tinkering with Allied production and to damage Allied factories at the start (I think several forum members have had this idea at more or less the same time).

Can't the issue with too much early Allied supply be addressed by drastically reducing native supply generation and industry in the US, and simply using convoys to provide the desired amount of supply with the desired timing?

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
JWE, if you care to, will you comment on my other question regarding the increase of the bases resource production. My seem obvious but the more time I spend here the more I know that nothing should be obvious to me.

Buck

Hi Buck,

Don't think you need to mess with bases to increase resource production and consumption. On the Device page, just change Resource Out to some other (say, to 30) number, and then change LI Res In by the same scale (say, to 23 or 24), and HI Res In by the same scale (say, to 30). That should do it and keep the industry devices at the bases the same; just make 1/3 more and 1/3 eat more, and have to move 1/3 more. [;)]

Thank you John.

Buck