This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
Here I did a test of a unit with a lot of flak - 100 x 40mm Type 91 AA guns and 100 support squads. The unit with a starting allotment of 1,000 tons of supplies.
I started bombing it on Dec 18th. Until that point supply consumption was all normal.
Note the bombing raids used the "dummy bomb" and did no damage. Raids were conducted at the 8,000 maximum ceiling of the 40mm Type 91 gun.
Note the massive supply consumption on the first day of raids were ammo was plentiful. At roughly 2 lbs per 40mm shell that is a lot of shells. I think the thing that concerns me is that it appears that when attacked, some extra supply consumption routine is called - if one wanted to be gamey you can simply just bomb units with little intention to do damage, but, every intention to draw flak at ineffective altitudes and pile up the supply consumption of the target.
And finally, the target unit on Dec 22. Yes, the unit is curtailing its supply consumption - but this has little effect on its actual AA results. I have run the test out further and drained the unit of supply and then of course, it does not fire. Take a few more days.
I did a test on this a while back and noted the same thing. By the way, you can even draw off supplies with recon missions getting shot at.
I also don't see the problem with this. A rich unit is going to act rich. Notice that once supply drops below the supply required amount, they start to restrain themselves.
Also keep in mind that supply is not in "tons", but rather a generic supply units that doesntap to anything in the real world. Also, firing guns. need more then bullets. They need to replace barrels, fix worn out parts, the troops need potable water, the guns need lubrication, etc.
Sorry to be a bit nit-picky here. I do appriciate the tests and the information you provide us valuable. Thanks.
Yep, I saw your test and modelled mine similarly, just isolated a few things. No problem with your comments and I agree a rich unit will shoot off lots of shells and the whole thing is an abstraction. However, the issue is that it is simply too easy to accelerate supply usage at a target if you want to abuse the system.
However, you should look at the tests using MGs in the attacked unit. Something seems wonk with the AA fire consumption and it must be getting called in a special routine beyond the ordinary supply consumption routine?
Firstly, there are far too many variables which you have not controlled for which invalidate your test results and conclusions.
Secondly, there is no abuse of the game system at play here. The game designers were well aware of what happens in real life. Read any of my posts on this subject since 2014 to see how the game operates.
Alfred
I did a test on this a while back and noted the same thing. By the way, you can even draw off supplies with recon missions getting shot at.
I also don't see the problem with this. A rich unit is going to act rich. Notice that once supply drops below the supply required amount, they start to restrain themselves.
Also keep in mind that supply is not in "tons", but rather a generic supply units that doesntap to anything in the real world. Also, firing guns. need more then bullets. They need to replace barrels, fix worn out parts, the troops need potable water, the guns need lubrication, etc.
Sorry to be a bit nit-picky here. I do appriciate the tests and the information you provide us valuable. Thanks.
The implications are a bit wider when you consider flak organic in large AV combat units. In the event a division is bombed heavily prior to the ground combat phase, the flak gunners will use up the supply. When the ground combat phase rolls around, you'll have a negative supply modifier for the unit in question.
Firstly, there are far too many variables which you have not controlled for which invalidate your test results and conclusions.
Secondly, there is no abuse of the game system at play here. The game designers were well aware of what happens in real life. Read any of my posts on this subject since 2014 to see how the game operates.
Alfred
If you see something here please help us out. I think the OP is trying to figure out how the game works and make sure he can plan for that in games. What should the tests include that is not here?
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
Firstly, there are far too many variables which you have not controlled for which invalidate your test results and conclusions.
Secondly, there is no abuse of the game system at play here. The game designers were well aware of what happens in real life. Read any of my posts on this subject since 2014 to see how the game operates.
Alfred
If you see something here please help us out. I think the OP is trying to figure out how the game works and make sure he can plan for that in games. What should the tests include that is not here?
I mean the OP seems to have fun with his experiments... that is what counts. I doubt if it good to know any small detail how the games works "under the hood" tho - seems boring to know everything (to me [:D])
Firstly, there are far too many variables which you have not controlled for which invalidate your test results and conclusions.
Secondly, there is no abuse of the game system at play here. The game designers were well aware of what happens in real life. Read any of my posts on this subject since 2014 to see how the game operates.
Alfred
If you see something here please help us out. I think the OP is trying to figure out how the game works and make sure he can plan for that in games. What should the tests include that is not here?
I mean the OP seems to have fun with his experiments... that is what counts. I doubt if it good to know any small detail how the games works "under the hood" tho - seems boring to know everything (to me [:D])
This one could help a lot actually. As pointed out, some things here might be used to run units out of supply and there would be no way to combat that, since you can't for instance put a unit in rest while an enemy is in the same hex. So the AA will fire, and if that is causing all of the supply to go, it's breaking the abstraction a bit (since some of that supply should be ammo for all of the other kinds of arty as well as the other things it abstracts like chow for troops).
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
I am not saying it may not help.... actually I think it can be interesting. But regardless of that OP has fun with trying things out and the game should be fun. Also in this way, if it will yield any important insights is questionable. I remember I made such experiments myself a lot when I was doing OOB stuff for SPWAW and TOAW. It was fun, but in the end doubtful if a eg. a Tiger needs 1 more armor point or not or a T34 needs one more point of AP etc. [:D] But there can be pages of pages discussing such stuff, that is amazing [;)]
All good discussions. Here is what clued me in actually to look deeper. I was playing a head to head game, just dabbling with opening strategies. As the Allies, I bombed a Japanese invasion force right after the landing - not the ships, but the troops. The troops - a broken down, happened to have organic AA MGs.
As is often the case in an amphibious landing, the units, if the unload capability is high enough, get inundated with supplies well beyond the normal 1-2X basic requirement.
I almost always in the past would target the invasion TF itself, just tried something different. The result I noted was a lot of supplies being used by the invaders as AA. An interesting defense strategy and one a few people have advocated of hitting the troops - but perhaps not for the reason of causing a lot of supply loss. Also, the troops generally have less AA than a well protected invasion TF and as well where your planes have a preference to target hard to hit warships as opposed to transports anyway. Not many folks in my experience use sometimes precious assault capacity to land AA units in the first wave also so you are killing off supplies in the combat units.
I will post the test conditions a little later - I think I have things pretty well isolated. I suppose Alfred disagrees, but, I have read all the posts in the past and I don't think I am missing much.
The test results are what they are - whether an abstraction or not, how much should be used or not, or whether there is some consumption of supply somewhere that simply cannot be tested due to how the turn processes is what it is.
I did a test on this a while back and noted the same thing. By the way, you can even draw off supplies with recon missions getting shot at.
I also don't see the problem with this. A rich unit is going to act rich. Notice that once supply drops below the supply required amount, they start to restrain themselves.
Also keep in mind that supply is not in "tons", but rather a generic supply units that doesntap to anything in the real world. Also, firing guns. need more then bullets. They need to replace barrels, fix worn out parts, the troops need potable water, the guns need lubrication, etc.
Sorry to be a bit nit-picky here. I do appriciate the tests and the information you provide us valuable. Thanks.
The implications are a bit wider when you consider flak organic in large AV combat units. In the event a division is bombed heavily prior to the ground combat phase, the flak gunners will use up the supply. When the ground combat phase rolls around, you'll have a negative supply modifier for the unit in question.
Remember though, that both the supply consumption and negative modifier are both scaled. Once you get yellow in supply, consumption drops, and drops more and more as you get lower. So it would take an awful lot of A/C to run him out (assuming he can get supplied). The negative modifier is also scaled, so just a bit below max is just a small penalty down to 0 supply (which I believe is 25%).
Actually, not entirely true. I monkeyed around with a similar test of the unit with just the 10 MGs, 800 devices total and 2,000 start supplies. Started bombing runs at 3,000 feet with just about 70 a/c average per turn. In 13 days, the unit went straight to 0 supplies...
