Matrix Games Forums

It seems actually, that AVGAS is NOT represented in game AT ALL. And it is quite possible, that adding it will resolve current problem with far too much supply available at front.

Current planes supply usage is:
1 point for combat mission
1/3rd point for short, or semi-combat mission (CAP, recon etc.)
bombload/1000 for bombers using bombs

It generally seems, that supply usage represents only used ammunition, not fuel.
Since 1 point of supply is equal roughly to 1 ton, upon closer examination:
B-17 takes 1700 gallons of fuel, it should use extra 6 points of supply for longer range mission
B-29 takes 8168 gallons, that gives 30 (!) extra supply, plus probably 2 points for MGs ammo. Try to base them in China now! One plane-strike-mission -50 supply
P-38 take 300-400 gallons, so 1.2-1.5 extra supply
For Japan:
A6M3a 570 litres (5.7 extra supply)
Dinah II 1490 litres (1.5 supply)
Betty 3640 litres (3.64 supply), and 6490 litres (6.49 supply) for G4M2 model

That would need introducing one code line, with smart formula, based probably on plane Durability, number of Engines, range and type.
Or simple overall calculation based on difference between maximum, and initial takeoff weight.

Not going to happen. Live with it.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

It seems actually, that AVGAS is NOT represented in game AT ALL. And it is quite possible, that adding it will resolve current problem with far too much supply available at front.

Current planes supply usage is:
1 point for combat mission
1/3rd point for short, or semi-combat mission (CAP, recon etc.)
bombload/1000 for bombers using bombs

It generally seems, that supply usage represents only used ammunition, not fuel.
Since 1 point of supply is equal roughly to 1 ton, upon closer examination:
B-17 takes 1700 gallons of fuel, it should use extra 6 points of supply for longer range mission
B-29 takes 8168 gallons, that gives 30 (!) extra supply, plus probably 2 points for MGs ammo. Try to base them in China now! One plane-strike-mission -50 supply
P-38 take 300-400 gallons, so 1.2-1.5 extra supply
For Japan:
A6M3a 570 litres (5.7 extra supply)
Dinah II 1490 litres (1.5 supply)
Betty 3640 litres (3.64 supply), and 6490 litres (6.49 supply) for G4M2 model

That would need introducing one code line, with smart formula, based probably on plane Durability, number of Engines, range and type.
Or simple overall calculation based on difference between maximum, and initial takeoff weight.

Ammunition and POL make up a large part of supply. They both required toluene, and total ammo plus POL used by a unit in a day of active combat was about constant. So you can ignore the difference in computing supply usage.

The longer answer is the code just can't support an extra supply/resource type.  The one point of supply generated by refineries represents refined motor fuels and other petro chemicals used.

Bill

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The longer answer is the code just can't support an extra supply/resource type.  The one point of supply generated by refineries represents refined motor fuels and other petro chemicals used.

Bill

There's no need to model both--it comes out in the wash.

I always thought it would be nice to have avgas in the game but a long time ago it was explained why it would not happen. Besides, its hard enough to keep airfields in supply, can you imagine having to ship in avgas too? [;)]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I always thought it would be nice to have avgas in the game but a long time ago it was explained why it would not happen. Besides, its hard enough to keep airfields in supply, can you imagine having to ship in avgas too? [;)]

I can't think of a similar example from the Pacific War, but if you were modelling the Malta Convoys then that's a situation where I'd really like to be able to further break out the type of cargo a tanker or merchantman was carrying. I certainly wouldn't want to inflict that on AE at this point, but for a similar game still at the development stage I think it would be useful. Even when things come out in the wash including them can have considerable value from the flavour side of the equation.

AvGas is supply. If you have to ship supply to places with airgroups, the shipment is AvGas, ammo, food, oil, new props, paint, hooches, toilet paper, and bombs and fuses and similar things. If you have to ship supply to places with LCUs, the shipment is petrol, ammo, food, oil, new tires, paint, hooches, toilet paper and mines and wire and other similar things. Supply models all this very well. It all comes out in the wash.

Mat

ORIGINAL: US87891
AvGas is supply. [snip] It all comes out in the wash.

What makes differentiating supply interesting for Malta is that often only a couple of ships in the convoys made it through, meaning that the loading of individual ships becomes important. At the time of the Pedestal convoy the island had the military supply to defend the island on the ground, but avgas to keep the Malta-based RAF forces was critical, while food for the populace, and the consequent surrender of the island, was down to possibly as little as 10 days. In game terms, if the needed ship doesn't make it through, then you may have to organise another convoy, even though by the AE model there is plenty of supply on the island. Rather than coming out in the wash, the details of supply can potentially dictate major operational requirements.

ORIGINAL: dwg

ORIGINAL: US87891
AvGas is supply. [snip] It all comes out in the wash.

What makes differentiating supply interesting for Malta is that often only a couple of ships in the convoys made it through, meaning that the loading of individual ships becomes important. At the time of the Pedestal convoy the island had the military supply to defend the island on the ground, but avgas to keep the Malta-based RAF forces was critical, while food for the populace, and the consequent surrender of the island, was down to possibly as little as 10 days. In game terms, if the needed ship doesn't make it through, then you may have to organise another convoy, even though by the AE model there is plenty of supply on the island. Rather than coming out in the wash, the details of supply can potentially dictate major operational requirements.

The entire AE logistical show is an abstraction. You make a case for differentiating AVGAS - so what, just about every item could be similarly differentiated. How about water? Once the Japanese cross over the Johore Straits onto Singapore island itself just how long do you think the Allied forces should be allowed to survive without water even though in the game they could have several months of "supplies" still on hand. In the game it is common for Japanese forces to spend weeks on Singapore island before they can "starve" out the defenders.

Adding AVGAS as a third separate item for unit consumption in addition to the existing "supply" and "fuel" merely introduces considerable additional complexity without improving the existing logistical abstraction. Rather than introducing such a big change, it would be better to make aircraft operations consume both "supply" and "fuel". That would introduce its own game mechanic balance issues but would be safer than introducing AVGAS as a new and separate consumption item.

The bottom line is that players will always find ways to frontload their combat operations (which are thought of as being sexy)at the expense of rear area logistic concerns, which are not sexy. 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

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: 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]

What makes you think you weren't already included in Alfred's "17"? [:D]

OK, now I am suspicious...
No, seriously. I was talking EXCLUSIVELY about supply. It is CLEARLY stated in all examples.

ORIGINAL: herwin
Ammunition and POL make up a large part of supply. They both required toluene, and total ammo plus POL used by a unit in a day of active combat was about constant. So you can ignore the difference in computing supply usage.

But the sum, THE SUM IS TOO SMALL!
If 1 point of supply, represents 1 ton of "goods", planes should use 1 SUPPLY point, for every ammo ton used (bomb, or ammo), PLUS 1 SUPPLY point for every 1000 litres of fuel used.

Another examples:
P47B - 305 gallons of fuel. That is pretty close to 1000 litres, so 1 used supply point, for combat mission, is pretty close.
PETE (ok, this seems to be from GURPS RPG, so I do not know about quality of this data) - 147 gallons. Well, again pretty close to 0.33 supply point (for search mission).

However, taking large Patrol Planes, flying long distances:
PBY Catalina - fuel capacity 5900 litres. When it goes on long patrol, plane should use 6 points of SUPPLY, currently it uses 0.33

MAVIS - 2950 gallons, so it should use 10-11 supply, again, not 0.33


And whoops (first post), ZERO takes 0.57, not 5.7

ORIGINAL: inqistor

OK, now I am suspicious...
No, seriously. I was talking EXCLUSIVELY about supply. It is CLEARLY stated in all examples.

ORIGINAL: herwin
Ammunition and POL make up a large part of supply. They both required toluene, and total ammo plus POL used by a unit in a day of active combat was about constant. So you can ignore the difference in computing supply usage.

But the sum, THE SUM IS TOO SMALL!
If 1 point of supply, represents 1 ton of "goods", planes should use 1 SUPPLY point, for every ammo ton used (bomb, or ammo), PLUS 1 SUPPLY point for every 1000 litres of fuel used.

Another examples:
P47B - 305 gallons of fuel. That is pretty close to 1000 litres, so 1 used supply point, for combat mission, is pretty close.
PETE (ok, this seems to be from GURPS RPG, so I do not know about quality of this data) - 147 gallons. Well, again pretty close to 0.33 supply point (for search mission).

However, taking large Patrol Planes, flying long distances:
PBY Catalina - fuel capacity 5900 litres. When it goes on long patrol, plane should use 6 points of SUPPLY, currently it uses 0.33

MAVIS - 2950 gallons, so it should use 10-11 supply, again, not 0.33


And whoops (first post), ZERO takes 0.57, not 5.7

Your points make a lot of sense. Take a look at the staff officer's logistics manuals--they probably provide the data you need.

ORIGINAL: herwin
Your points make a lot of sense. Take a look at the staff officer's logistics manuals--they probably provide the data you need.

Well, there is nothing I can do with only editor [:)]

Change would have to be made in game code.


Speaking of logistics manual, I have found one for transporting air units by sea, but more interesting is evaluation of Japanese transport routines. It lists, that ONE soldier needed 3 cargo tons for short trip, and 5, for longer trip.
Also, 15000 strong Division needed over 122000 cargo tons, to be fully transported.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: herwin
Your points make a lot of sense. Take a look at the staff officer's logistics manuals--they probably provide the data you need.

Well, there is nothing I can do with only editor [:)]

Change would have to be made in game code.


Speaking of logistics manual, I have found one for transporting air units by sea, but more interesting is evaluation of Japanese transport routines. It lists, that ONE soldier needed 3 cargo tons for short trip, and 5, for longer trip.
Also, 15000 strong Division needed over 122000 cargo tons, to be fully transported.

Ask JWE what that translates into.

ORIGINAL: inqistor
But the sum, THE SUM IS TOO SMALL!
If 1 point of supply, represents 1 ton of "goods", planes should use 1 SUPPLY point, for every ammo ton used (bomb, or ammo), PLUS 1 SUPPLY point for every 1000 litres of fuel used.

Another examples:
P47B - 305 gallons of fuel. That is pretty close to 1000 litres, so 1 used supply point, for combat mission, is pretty close.
PETE (ok, this seems to be from GURPS RPG, so I do not know about quality of this data) - 147 gallons. Well, again pretty close to 0.33 supply point (for search mission).

However, taking large Patrol Planes, flying long distances:
PBY Catalina - fuel capacity 5900 litres. When it goes on long patrol, plane should use 6 points of SUPPLY, currently it uses 0.33

MAVIS - 2950 gallons, so it should use 10-11 supply, again, not 0.33


And whoops (first post), ZERO takes 0.57, not 5.7

Interesting figures. It does look like supply usage by air units is too small in the game. Are the quoted supply consumption figures for air missions in the game confirmed by experimentation however?

I guess what would be needed, if a better supply consumption rate were to be used (assuming it is incorrect in the first place), would be a simple formula to calculate "fuel" (supply) usage for a mission. Something proportional to number of engines and mission range, I guess.

However the likelihood of something like this being changed in the game is very small, I admit.

Andrew

Supply requirements would have been an interesting item to put in the unit databases, which would probably have simplified programming any modifications of the game. All this stuff that is 'hard coded' never helps.

So, as others have said, won't happen in WitP AE. Maybe in WitP III as an optional complication? (wishful thinking from someone who is part of the '17')....

It could be handled (though maybe not in WITPAE) by a field similar to the Durability field, which provides a multiplier for various aircraft and another multiplier for extended range.

We could then get another field for .................................

PS I hope the devs look at the odeas brought up by the original poster et al, hopefully something might click and be possible. Just like all those ideas picked up since WITP vanilla.

Keep enquiring Inquisitor, and ignore the Danish Earsling comments.

Supply usage in the game has always been too small. This was true all the way back to UV. I think this is due to the game's origins from PacWar days in part, where jungle warfare was stressed and units could last a long time even in out of supply situations, leading to the Island hopping strategy.

Another reason is because, as mentioned, the model is an abstraction. While mathematically speaking the calculations are true in representing a "ton" of supply via the supply point, there is a loss in translation effect due to the simple fact that a supply point can be anything and everything at the same time. A can of beans, an ammo clip, an arty shell, or a gallon of AVGAS.

This is why players have always been able to do so much more, especially with air transport in Grigsby based games. (And why i eliminated transport planes from Scenario 4 despite their historical presence)

Future wargames can take two courses of action. They can either delve even deeper into details, representing all sorts of different supplies which IMO based on my experiences as a dev for this game, impractical for a game of this scale, or one can attempt to improve the abstraction by compensating for it when calculating what a supply point does for certain functions.

AE improved things alot supply wise, but ultimately it had to use the same code so there's only so much change that could be done...and yes, Terminus is right, there will be no major code changes along the lines of trying to introduce new concepts like specific AVGAS. Maybe in the next game. Be careful what you wish for. This game already could be considered too much management for players to complete in one lifetime.