Matrix Games Forums

Well, I've indicated this before for the standard scenario, but this is also true of CHS. There is too much supply and too much fuel lying around on the map at the start. There is also actually too little fuel in PH and on the West Coast. There are also too many bases with ports of 1 and even airfields. I've listed a large number of modifications in a running document which I've attached. This is a work in progress and based on a number of primary and secondary sources, not least of which "Oil and War" by Goralski and the History of US Naval Administration of World War II along with Rottman's book "World War II Pacific Island Guide". Sorry I haven't worked yet on more detail for the Japanese side.

Didn't Don discover that removal of suppy and fuel across the board made the AI malfunction? I remember initial worries about the AI when CHS was first released. Don did extensive testing on this and I don't know his results. I have a very vague recollection that removal of supply had a lot to do with it.

The modifications may create problems with the AI, but if you're in a PBEM game, there is no effect.

There are also too many bases with ports of 1

This simply cannot be true. There are vast numbers of ports not on the map at all - and not enough slots to add them all. And remember - a place with resources and no port produces NO resources - a level one port is needed in hard code or the resource center NEVER makes ANYTHING. Andrew has done a lot of work on this - and generally added ports when asked to - in every case based on real ports (see Alaska - and what Alaskans asked for). And he also is reviewing supply once again.

Separately, I am doing a more comprehensive supply model review - but not an exhaustive one. I want to see if my separate supply from resource centers concept works? And I hope to get my hands on the code to fix things in a more fundamental sense later in the year.

There is also actually too little fuel in PH and on the West Coast.

Maybe. USN fuel stores on Oahu amount to half of Japan's total strategic reserves.

BUT do you understand what "fuel" is in WITP technical terms? It is NOT crude oil. It is NOT aviation spirit. It is NOT gasoline for vehicles nor lubricants. It is ONLY fuel oil for ship boilers. [Even fuel oil for OTHER purposes is not "fuel" in WITP]. I don't like this definition. I prefer "fuel" to mean "POL" in the military sense. But it does not mean that. So ONLY if you have figured out what SHIP FUEL is (excluding coal and gasoline powered ships) do you know what the "fuel" should be at any given point.
All very complicated and confusing, I know.

There are also too many bases with ports of 1 and even airfields.

Again, maybe. I am more familiar with future release data than with current, but it looks like Andrew did get this pretty good. I am a student of the airfields in the Pacific because I long have believed it was possible for Japan to go a long way BEFORE they were built - for which purpose it created a whole floatplane air force. But there were a lot of contractors building things at the time the war began. And we DID have a B-17 route all the way to the Philippines - obviously since they got there. Are you SURE the airfields are wrong?

Does anybody here know if the rubber plantations in the Port Moresby area were up and running during the war? This might call for a small resource marker to be put there, rather like Andrew did for Noumea.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Does anybody here know if the rubber plantations in the Port Moresby area were up and running during the war? This might call for a small resource marker to be put there, rather like Andrew did for Noumea.

Here is the rub(ber), by putting a rubber plantation at PM, you are also putting an ammunition factory, an aviation fuel factory, a meat packing plant, whatever you need really, there as well due to the add water and stir free supply to resource hard coded ratio.

Yeah, Ron, as if 20 or 30 resource points are going to support the 6th AIF Division, 3 AA battalions, a major base force and 150 aircraft...

el cid again, check the sources I indicated. Rottman's book is the best and easiest to use. The US Naval Administration history has a good amount of detail too (I have the two volumes on yards and bases).

If you're going to think of 'fuel' in terms of POL, then PH should have even more than I indicated in my correction. In WitP, each fuel supply point represents one ton of fuel. PH had 4.5 million barrels available in storage. This number is from the PH hearings (all available online), the Nimitz PacFleet papers and my own analysis of the storage units you can see in photos of PH from 1941 (just to see if that much storage space was available).

The West Coast had 45 million barrels available (this from the Petroleum Administration papers). That is why the West Coast ports of SF, LA and SD should be full at 999'999.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There are also too many bases with ports of 1

This simply cannot be true. There are vast numbers of ports not on the map at all - and not enough slots to add them all. And remember - a place with resources and no port produces NO resources - a level one port is needed in hard code or the resource center NEVER makes ANYTHING. Andrew has done a lot of work on this - and generally added ports when asked to - in every case based on real ports (see Alaska - and what Alaskans asked for). And he also is reviewing supply once again.

Separately, I am doing a more comprehensive supply model review - but not an exhaustive one. I want to see if my separate supply from resource centers concept works? And I hope to get my hands on the code to fix things in a more fundamental sense later in the year.

Most so-called 'ports' in the South Pacific in 1941 were no better than beaches where ships would off load onto smaller boats. Again, check Rottman, etc. This was especially true of many of the islands.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There are also too many bases with ports of 1 and even airfields.

Again, maybe. I am more familiar with future release data than with current, but it looks like Andrew did get this pretty good. I am a student of the airfields in the Pacific because I long have believed it was possible for Japan to go a long way BEFORE they were built - for which purpose it created a whole floatplane air force. But there were a lot of contractors building things at the time the war began. And we DID have a B-17 route all the way to the Philippines - obviously since they got there. Are you SURE the airfields are wrong?

Rather than keep asking about whether I'm sure, why don't you just go to the sources I cite.

The B-17's that were in the Philippines routed through PH, Wake, Port Moresby, etc. Later, the B-17's to Australia routed through Palmyra, Fiji, etc.

If you want to study the timetables of airfield and base construction which involved the US, read Rottman and the US Naval Administration history.

ORIGINAL: Pascal

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There are also too many bases with ports of 1

This simply cannot be true. There are vast numbers of ports not on the map at all - and not enough slots to add them all. And remember - a place with resources and no port produces NO resources - a level one port is needed in hard code or the resource center NEVER makes ANYTHING. Andrew has done a lot of work on this - and generally added ports when asked to - in every case based on real ports (see Alaska - and what Alaskans asked for). And he also is reviewing supply once again.

Separately, I am doing a more comprehensive supply model review - but not an exhaustive one. I want to see if my separate supply from resource centers concept works? And I hope to get my hands on the code to fix things in a more fundamental sense later in the year.

Most so-called 'ports' in the South Pacific in 1941 were no better than beaches where ships would off load onto smaller boats. Again, check Rottman, etc. This was especially true of many of the islands.

I think that true ports and mere anchorages (like Truk) should be differentiated. Too many ports are too darn big in the game. Truk to me should be a size 0 port but be developed to size 3 at games start for example. Truk is not the equal to a dedicated port like Pearl Harbor in terms of facilities.

Same can be said of airfields and any overall reduction would help reduce the overstacking of airbases and ability to rearm in just about any port.

Another big problem which may have been touched upon before is the excessive number of tankers available. Because of losses to U-boats on the East Coast, a number of tankers were moved from the Pacific back to the Atlantic.

It would have been a worthwhile addition to have not only the British have to withdraw warships, or pay PPs, but the US to do this too, and also include tankers and transport ships. For the moment, the only way to cover this is the perennial 'house rule'.

According to Eric Bergerud in Fire in the Sky:

By October of 1940 the War Department ordered the construction of at least one 5,000 ft runway on Christmas Is., Canton Is., Suva, New Caledonia and Townsville by January 15th. By 12/28/41 a rudimentry route was opened for B17s. Christmas Is. was ready by end of January. See pages 49-55.

Another fuel problem is the capability of offloading from tankers into ports of small size. Storage tanks were not available everywhere and certainly not easily for the quantities a tanker could provide until major construction was done, and this was not a quick process. Any port smaller than size 3, even 4, in the game should not allow fuel storage. Again see my sources, especially the US Naval Administration history, on these problems.

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Another fuel problem is the capability of offloading from tankers into ports of small size. Storage tanks were not available everywhere and certainly not easily for the quantities a tanker could provide until major construction was done, and this was not a quick process. Any port smaller than size 3, even 4, in the game should not allow fuel storage. Again see my sources, especially the US Naval Administration history, on these problems.

You identified the problem....how do you suggest that this be corrected given the current code?

ORIGINAL: treespider



You identified the problem....how do you suggest that this be corrected given the current code?

I would have hoped a patch, since the capability to unload is hard-coded, could correct this by adding a routine that tests the size of the port and if it is smaller than, say, size 4, a TK or AO will not unload. On the other hand, TKs should be able to fuel other ships in port like an AO can at sea. This was regularly done in the South Pacific, at Tongatabu, for example.

Otherwise, another House Rule [:)]

Hi, while tankers may unload fuel at a size 1 port they only off load 100 or 200 points per day and the fuel begins getting wasted . A size 3 port can only have 5000 points before waste begins. To get 5000 points you'd need 25 tankers unloading all at once. In effect any TF refueling there is really refueling from the tankers and not the port since once it gets more the 5000 points it goes to waste. Ports smaller then 3 waste at lower levels and unload slower. I don't think this is the real problem. I don't have enough fuel to waste it. A replenish TF in the hex is better. Japan can't use Tankers in replenishment TF and they only have a limited number of AO. The point is that if they need fuel they will plan in advance and send a replenshment TF.

They do have that monster replenshment TF at start. If the Japanese player does not disband it after the PH raid he can have 1 TF containing Tankers but then a lot of lift points he will need for oil are already commited. If your the Allied player I'd ask the Japanese player not to use this TF except to refuel the CV after PH and then disband it without unloading it before it returns to Japan. (make him return to Japan change to transport rather then replenish and then move to off load the remaing fuel) This is what I always do with this TF.

This 1 TF can provide the fuel for the entire Japanese expansion into South/Central Pacific make the Japanese player break it up and use normal replenishment TF or unload the fuel where the above problems are encountered. As is Japan can refuel TF directly from this TF. (it starts with more then 100,000 fuel loaded)


I think this beast is the monster Ron S has been trying to track down.

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Another big problem which may have been touched upon before is the excessive number of tankers available. Because of losses to U-boats on the East Coast, a number of tankers were moved from the Pacific back to the Atlantic.

It would have been a worthwhile addition to have not only the British have to withdraw warships, or pay PPs, but the US to do this too, and also include tankers and transport ships. For the moment, the only way to cover this is the perennial 'house rule'.

Hmmm...brings back more memories of things I suggested during development. Oh well...[8|]