ORIGINAL: Alfred
ORIGINAL: michaelm
I am thinking of making the code reflect the manual and logic (and what players have generally thought to be the case).
HI and MP are global pools so I think having an enemy unit in the hex should stop them producing.
For LI and Refinery however, they are locally produced and stored at the base (and would be 'in the base') and could be generated with enemy presence in the hex.
It would not be a 'cheat', as damage to LI and REF devices would make it harder to produce supply/fuel.
I would like to add this change for the next weekend beta.
Any comments??
---
In original WITP, HI produced fuel and supply regardless of enemy units in hex.
That would be an acceptable outcome.
I however approach it from a slightly different direction; more a "pure" economic rather than the current game design perspective. As such my personal preferred position is slightly different.
The game calls everything "industry". Using economic terminology we would distinguish between "primary industry" and "secondary industry". There is absolutely no "tertiary industry" facilities in the game, unless one were to view naval/aviation/support squads as falling within that category in abstract terms but as they are not treated as "industry" within the game, we can dismiss them as representing tertiary industry facilities.
Falling within "Primary Industry" are:
- resource centres
- oil centres
- manpower centres
They provide raw materials from the land.
Falling within "Secondary Industry" are:
- Refineries
- Light Industry
- Heavy Industry
- all the various production facilities which produce elaborately transformed products ie vehicles, aircraft, ships, armaments
Secondary industry uses the output from primary industry as its feedstock.
Therefore, if it were up to me and without proper consideration for the actual game code impact, I would stop primary industry production (ie oil, resources, manpower) when an enemy LCU is present in the same hex, but allow secondary industry (ie supply/fuel/elaborately transformed products) to continue production provided the facility continues to have access to its feedstock, either from local stockpiles or from importation.
But as I said, michaelm's approach is quite valid too. Whichever is the easiest to implement and most consistent with the overall game design philosophy is the one which should be preferred.
Alfred
Hitchhiking on Alfred's excellent analysis, I would come at this from a slightly diffeent perspective, but arrive at about the same place.
Rather than pure economics, consider history and geography. Many cities in WWII continued industrial production until quite late in a siege and while under sustained air attack. While mines (resources) and petroleum (oil) are generally in the countryside and accessable to enemy troops (and should be shut down on occupation, as per the manual) all industry is generally in the urban core. This includes, in this era, both HI-type and LI-type industry. The reasons are economic: access to labor and tansport hubs. A steel mill making heavy castings was in the same general industrial zone as a factory making ammunition, in both Japanese and Allied cities. Again, generally speaking; there are exceptions. While it is commonly said that Japanese LI-type production was on a cottage industry model, even in residential areas, this is only true at the margins. Mass produciton of packaged food, clothing, medical supplies, and ammunition were mass production activities conducted in factories, not living rooms. While it is true that much civilian-focused production was in small batch shops, war production was largely, but not exclusively, done in factories found in the same zones as heavy primary industry like steel and rubber. For that reason I believe a siege should leave both HI and LI in production so long as stockpiles of inputs are also present in the base.
However, like Alfred, I would also stand with the idea that the code rules. If a change would significantly increase the chance of bugs, I would leave things alone, or do a minimum as Michael suggests.
To Greyjoy's point about stacking limits, and to the general idea that this is a MAJOR change, I agree with both. Stacking limit games would be affected, although the points about strat bombing are relevant too. But as a policy patches have always focused on stock games and not on mods. Trying to make one EXE file work with all mods equally well is a fool's errand. It may be that such an EXE change would require the mod to be adjusted, but that seems to me the direction from which to to approach.
Finally, everyone should recognize that this change back is a big deal for both sides. Yes, it affects the Allies early at places like Singers and Palembang. But to the Allies HI production is an afterthought. The supplies generated in HI centers are important early, but in 1943 and later the Allies are awash in CONUS supply. In China LI is always relevant to the Allies, but the game can be won without China. But for Japan HI is lifesblood. And from mid-game on the Allies have so many LCUs it's not hard to park a small stack on top of many core HI-producing cities, using the urban or light-urban terrain bonus to hang on and deny the Japanese economy its "food." For that main reason I would go with the idea of having HI and LI continue to operate in an enemy-occupied hex, but only from stored raw materials. With stockpiling those can be planned for ahead and a prudent Japanese economy manager will see Allied sieges and prepare for them on the Asian landmass. If HI can be strangled without actually taking Japanese cities many Allied players will focus on that and the game changes in a very major way.
If the re-code choice comes down to a binary choice between leaving things as they are or activating LI but stopping HI on occupation I would vote to leave things as they are. But my preference would be to leave LI AND HI AND Refineries AND Manpower AND Shipyards operating, while stopping resources and oil production until the hex is clear of enemy troops.
