Page 1 of 2
What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:37 am
by viberpol
What is wrong with Urumchi that the resources (mainly oil is the problem) is not transferred where it's needed?
I've got an info of oil storage maxed for months.
AFAIK no enemy is cutting my supply roads (at least this is what he says),
and still the oil is being unecessary wasted there. What's the problem?
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:40 am
by viberpol
Save attached:
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:48 am
by viberpol
Also the fuel/resources doesn't seem to be pulled from Urumchi because there's a spoilage reported
- due to the limit of 19 000. However, there is no info of a failure of production on the industry screen.
The base behaves just as it wasn't mine. [&:]
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:30 pm
by vonTirpitz
I've also noticed that Urumchi appears to behave differently than other bases.
It took several turns to build up supplies and repair factories but now, several turns after reducing the supply requirement, I have noticed that the base continues to maintain or increase supplies, fuel as well as resources and oil.
The stockpile levels appear to be greatly in excess of what is required for both LCU's and industry. This behavior appears to be unchanged running the turn under both v1108 and k8 beta.
Attaching my save as well if it will help.
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 11:54 pm
by michaelm75au
I suspect that the supply path to/from that base is low.
It might not have any industry outside its own hex/supply path that is requesting resources.
The base it self is generating resources/supply.
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:24 am
by viberpol
ORIGINAL: michaelm
I suspect that the supply path to/from that base is low.
That's true. The supply route is long,
but its the main road. Should not limit the transfer.
ORIGINAL: michaelm
It might not have any industry outside its own hex/supply path that is requesting resources.
That's not true.
Port Artur/Changsha etc. lack the oil/resources being stockpiled and wasted at Urumchi. See below.
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:11 pm
by michaelm75au
To move resources, the bases need to be within a supply path of each other and need materials. There is no base currently within the supplypath of Urumchi that needs materials.
The next build of beta will actually allow you to see where the supply path is from the current base by a hotkey.
The supply path is out of 100 taking off points for terrain. For material movement it needs to be within 10-49 points left.
This has not changed.
Currently as there is no industry within range of Urumchi, no base is requesting resources.
However, I need to think about this as I spotted code last week that had been removed at some stage that could impact this; by seeming to require 'virtual' resources at bases which generated resources.
That is, it marked the base as 'requiring' resources even though there was no industry to process said resources. The downside could be that this might cause resources to sit at a base and not be fed in to the pipeline. As I said, it needs to some thought as it is no good to fix this one isolated base by breaking the normal flow of materials.
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:38 pm
by PaxMondo
Michael,
Oh, way cool hot key. THANKS!!!
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 2:27 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: michaelm
To move resources, the bases need to be within a supply path of each other and need materials. There is no base currently within the supplypath of Urumchi that needs materials.
The next build of beta will actually allow you to see where the supply path is from the current base by a hotkey.
The supply path is out of 100 taking off points for terrain. For material movement it needs to be within 10-49 points left.
This has not changed.
Currently as there is no industry within range of Urumchi, no base is requesting resources.
However, I need to think about this as I spotted code last week that had been removed at some stage that could impact this; by seeming to require 'virtual' resources at bases which generated resources.
That is, it marked the base as 'requiring' resources even though there was no industry to process said resources. The downside could be that this might cause resources to sit at a base and not be fed in to the pipeline. As I said, it needs to some thought as it is no good to fix this one isolated base by breaking the normal flow of materials.
Without knowing how that removed code was supposed to work, it makes some sense that there would be an accommodation for stop-overs (think of the Pony Express, where they used to stop to change horses), because of the need to transport things from, say, that off-map base for example. The player can put a unit there to affect supplies pumping through, but that won't affect the other commodities.
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 2:59 pm
by hunchback77
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Michael,
Oh, way cool hot key. THANKS!!!
Yes indeed, very nice new feature. Thank you Michael.
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:27 pm
by USSAmerica
ORIGINAL: michaelm
The next build of beta will actually allow you to see where the supply path is from the current base by a hotkey.
The supply path is out of 100 taking off points for terrain. For material movement it needs to be within 10-49 points left.
Michael, you are THE MAN!!! [&o]
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:02 am
by michaelm75au
I have been successful in getting some of the oil to move from Urumchi by using the 'excess to coastal port' and extending the supply line to minimum.
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:04 am
by CaptBeefheart
That's a great feature. Any additional transparency and control of the movement of supplies, fuel, oil and resources is quite welcome. Thanks again for your great work.
Cheers,
CC
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:10 pm
by ChickenOfTheSea
Historically, the oil at Urumqi was refined for use in regional industry and to refuel trucks moving supplies along the silk road. It is almost 1200 miles along the silk road from Urumqi to Lanzhou. No rail connection existed until 1966 and a pipeline was not completed until 2006. A further complication was that the area around Urumqi was under the control of local warlords with closer relations with the Soviets than to either Chiang or Mao.
Thus, in real world terms, the oil at Urumqi was not available to fuel industry in China. I know it is frustrating to see that oil go unused, but the treatment seems historically accurate. I think Andrew Brown has said that it was intended to be this way in setting up the map.
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:40 pm
by witpqs
I didn't know that. However, I notice resources seem to be accumulating at Cloncurry, so maybe the issue needs to be addressed for places other than Urumchi.
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:58 am
by michaelm75au
ORIGINAL: witpqs
I didn't know that. However, I notice resources seem to be accumulating at Cloncurry, so maybe the issue needs to be addressed for places other than Urumchi.
Cloncurry should be in range of the coastal ports to take the excess at sometime.
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:29 am
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: michaelm
ORIGINAL: witpqs
I didn't know that. However, I notice resources seem to be accumulating at Cloncurry, so maybe the issue needs to be addressed for places other than Urumchi.
Cloncurry should be in range of the coastal ports to take the excess at sometime.
I'll keep watching and see if it goes down as I pull resources out. (That game is on hold pending the unit combo fix.)
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:23 pm
by ChickenOfTheSea
The fuel production at Lanzhou in game is actually a best case scenario. Disastrous infrastructural problems, political instability, and war in every direction made real world production much, much lower (see my sig quote).
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:10 am
by viberpol
ORIGINAL: michaelm
I have been successful in getting some of the oil to move from Urumchi by using the 'excess to coastal port' and extending the supply line to minimum.
Well... How did you do it actually? [&:]
Is this "excess to coastal port" a more virtual function and a metaphore
or should I see a button with such a description under it? [;)]
After almost a hundred new turns the oil level is still stuck at 38840 at Urumchi even if I set on "stockpile oil" in the nearest town(s).
ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea
Thus, in real world terms, the oil at Urumqi was not available to fuel industry in China. I know it is frustrating to see that oil go unused, but the treatment seems historically accurate. I think Andrew Brown has said that it was intended to be this way in setting up the map.
If that's the case and it is WAD, OK be it.
Not a big deal just an interesting nuisance for always oil hungry Japanese economy. [;)]
RE: What is wrong with Urumchi?
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:48 am
by michaelm75au
I don't think any base is supplying oil to Urumchi.
The only time I got some to move was when the supply at its lowest; which is random. Something like every 7 days, the path could get to a minimum, but it seemed to be a low chance.
Originally the minimum path did not include any of the coastal bases, which meant that the excess needed to go to a land base.
I'll have another look at this as it was sometime back.