The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

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!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

WISH that applied to Bombardment TFs in Dan's game and mine!
Me too! The night air attacks, on the rare occasions they happen are more like a few buzzing flies and don't seem to slow down the ships. And the day attacks can't reach them because they are already out of range! [:D]
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by rustysi »

This game could have been so much more.

Yaab, I have to disagree. Given the game engine and the amount of coding involved to accomplish everything at a reasonable price IMHO this is as good as it gets.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
olorin42
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:25 am
Location: Charlotte NC

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by olorin42 »

I know the US delivered lend lease to Vladivostok by flagging the ships as Soviet so they were not attacked. I wonder how much of that excess capacity would be used in that way if the Allies had to allocate ships for that purpose (or just make them sit idle).
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

Exactly what I was thinking when I saw Matt's stats. Close to 50% (about 8 Mio tons) of the lend-lease supplied to the Soviets went via Vladivostok. I have seen claims that over 900 Soviet-flaged ships went back and forth between Vladivostok and North America. The Western Allies supplied more than 120 merchant ships to the Soviets. No idea if those hulls are in the game or not, I have just found a list with names to compare.
User avatar
Skyros
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Columbia SC

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by Skyros »

One easy step would be to change all the free supply generated off map to LI and force the allies to ship on map Resources to feed the new LI centers. This would require a diversion of aks and akls to feed the supply source. The same could be done for on map center in CONUS.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by Yaab »

Don't know if CONUSA had any resources deficit in RL, but India resources could definitely go to South Africa and UK for supply production.
cardas
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by cardas »

That's simply not a realistic proposition considering how many resource are needed for a single supply point. You'd have to ship in 156 fully loaded EC2 Liberty Cargo ships full of resources every day to feed the equivalent LI of the free supply generation you get from the Easter USA base. Not convinced yet?

Let's then add the travel time of, say, Karachi to Aden (according to the extended map distance) which would already bring you up to requiring 2028 ships to handle all those resources. That's already more merchant shipping, xAKs and xAKLs of any type, than what you will ever have in total using the stock scenario 1. You should then furthermore consider the extra time needed to load and unload all of these ships along with the actual cargo handling/docking capacity of the ports involved. Ultimately it'd mean you would require even more than 2028 Liberty ships to handle all of this.

Even feeding the equivalent LI of the much lower supply generation found in the United Kingdom base would require 156 Liberty ships (with the travel time Karachi -> Aden included, loading time&port capacity not considered) in constant use. You'd also do well to remember that all of this shipping is vulnerable to Japanese attacks if it's on-map. The base(s) with the resources could be captured unless there are special rules/map restrictions/defence forces that protects them.

You may consider the current total supply production on the Allied side to be excessive and that reducing the total would only be a good thing. Then add some LI and require resource shipping to make up for some of shortfall in supply generation. It's not realistic to force an Allied player to rely entirely on that resource shipping for their supply generation though.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by Yaab »

Eastern USA is out of the question as USA was, I guess, self-sufficent. On the other hand, UK and Cape Town ( South Africa) could be stripped of its auto-generated supply so resources could be shipped there from India. What do you do with all this surplus Commonwealth merchant shipping when resources and supplies ping-pong freely across the Indian railway system? Why did the Brits have their Empire in the first place, if they do not need to ship anything from thier colonies? You would think the industrial revolution happened in South Africa and India, and not the UK.
szmike
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:21 am

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by szmike »

It would be easier to take everything from US than hauling resources.
cardas
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by cardas »

Yep, you only ship resources because you have no other choice, as in you'd face a supply deficit otherwise and you have fuel to spare. Let's try to put into perspective;

Let's say Soerabaja had a huge quantity of LI and Timor (Koepang) had a huge quantity of resources. It would still be more efficient to ship supplies all the way from Los Angels to Soerabaja instead of shipping resources from Timor to Soerabaja. I'm not talking about a direct Soerabaja <=> Los Angels route either, nope, I'm talking about a Soerabaja <=> Brisbane <=> Tahiti <=> Los Angels route! That's how extremely inefficient resources are.

Just to note: in this example you could of course ship the resources to the eastern tip of Java (Banjoewangi) and let the overland route move resources into Soerabaja. At that point hauling resources would start to win out in the efficiency calculations. There are some others considerations such as ship endurance which comes into effect as well and the fact you'd start getting supplies faster with the shorter resource route to Timor. So in this specific example you'd use short ranged xAKLs to move the resources around, ships that would be liabilites on the Los Angeles route anyway. As Java has local fuel production the fuel efficiency wouldn't really matter either. But I'm getting sidetracked...

The overall point is clear. If you have a choice and the time then shipping supplies long distances is more efficient than even relatively short resource routes. It's almost humorous how worthless resources are in the game if you use ships to move them around for anything but extremely short jaunts.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Eastern USA is out of the question as USA was, I guess, self-sufficent. On the other hand, UK and Cape Town ( South Africa) could be stripped of its auto-generated supply so resources could be shipped there from India. What do you do with all this surplus Commonwealth merchant shipping when resources and supplies ping-pong freely across the Indian railway system? Why did the Brits have their Empire in the first place, if they do not need to ship anything from thier colonies? You would think the industrial revolution happened in South Africa and India, and not the UK.

The USA was not self-sufficient but most of what we didn't have came from South America, off map. Resources in CONUS largely went by train, although there was some coastwise shipping.

You should play the Allies. Nothing produced in either the UK or CT is needed.

But I'd be fine with shipping Resources and using LI. Just as soon as Japan can't move crude oil on mules across thousands of miles of Asian wilderness on magic highways.
The Moose
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: szmike

It would be easier to take everything from US than hauling resources.

Possibly the most elegant solution is the reduced cargo thing in Babes mod. The screenshot above is basically telling us that AKs transported in 1942 8M of non-military cargo vs 6,7M military cargo (our on game supplies and fuel). 10M vs 8,7M in 1943. 60% non military cargo (too lazy to calculate). Well, then reduce cargo capacity to make sure this 60% disappears.

If the proportion changes in let's say 1944 and/or 1945, upgrades could give more capacity to AKs. Problem more or less solved. The players experience the famous shipping shortages, as it should be IMHO.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: szmike

It would be easier to take everything from US than hauling resources.

Possibly the most elegant solution is the reduced cargo thing in Babes mod. The screenshot above is basically telling us that AKs transported in 1942 8M of non-military cargo vs 6,7M military cargo (our on game supplies and fuel). 10M vs 8,7M in 1943. 60% non military cargo (too lazy to calculate). Well, then reduce cargo capacity to make sure this 60% disappears.

If the proportion changes in let's say 1944 and/or 1945, upgrades could give more capacity to AKs. Problem more or less solved. The players experience the famous shipping shortages, as it should be IMHO.

Port Hueneme alone shipped over 20 million tons of materiel. It's not in the game per se.
The Moose
User avatar
PizzaMan
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:40 am

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by PizzaMan »

For the Platinum Edition, I'm hoping to see Supply broken out in to four different types: Air Supply (fuel, bombs, and ammo), Naval Supply (Ammo, lubricants, etc, but not fuel), and Ground Unit Supply (weapons, ammo, etc), and Food & Medical (for all unit types - Air, Nava, and Ground). Transport/cargo TFs in port would have a % option for each type to load. Penalties would be applied for shortages of supply by type to units requiring a specific supply type. So forward bases with no Naval forces, or rear bases with no combat GCUs might require a different supply mixes. Of course, resources and fuel would remain the same.
User avatar
RogerJNeilson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:21 am
Location: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by RogerJNeilson »

But I'd be fine with shipping Resources and using LI. Just as soon as Japan can't move crude oil on mules across thousands of miles of Asian wilderness on magic highways.



Seconded..... or drive their armoured formations through China stopping at convenient gas stations to fill up. The game is the way it is...


Roger
An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released
Ian R
Posts: 3426
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by Ian R »

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
But I'd be fine with shipping Resources and using LI. Just as soon as Japan can't move crude oil on mules across thousands of miles of Asian wilderness on magic highways.



Seconded..... or drive their armoured formations through China stopping at convenient gas stations to fill up. The game is the way it is...


Roger

I've had fun doing the same thing the 6th Gds tank army heading south. Those 500 L.L. diesel engined Shermans they sent over in '45 are rather useful - seems they run on bio-diesel.
"I am Alfred"
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by m10bob »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I think the biggest impact is still the "benevolent dictator" effect. Meaning, players can plan and use the merchant marine far more effectively on both sides simply because they can see exactly where each ship is, plan for them to be where they need to be and ensure they get there. further, players use them far more harshly, use them as they do their combat naval ships. While there are plenty of real life examples where this was true, those examples were not the norm.

So the end is that the devs have all the right ships, their research was impeccable. however, the players do not use them accurately, and thus the apparent excess of capacity that did not really exist because they weren't put in all the high risk uses that players do every turn ...

Just my take on it. ....


I sure agree with this!


If the player establishes forward depots and assigns shorter ranged cargo ships to them, you can keep further bases in constant supply and risk at a minimum.You can also use those smaller CVE's to patrol the longer range and assigned supply lanes.
Image

Alpha77
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by Alpha77 »

Yup TULIUS, I had noted similar problems like you while playing Allies (scen2 vs. AI ie. the same scen as my PBM as IJ)... you might be interested in this thread from some weeks ago:


tm.asp?m=4259526

(but I not only refer to the Allied side there)

I copy my OP:
What do you mean, Alpha?

a) How much stuff the Allied side has on stockpile is insane (I mean supplies and fuel mostly), make it more rare and not have 3 Mio. supplies at SF and 2 Mio liter fuel at LA already in mid 42. Perhaps in 45 yup.

b) Make smaller ships more worthwile, higher VP count. Also AKLs, but mostly AM, SC, other small specialized vessels. It seems the game only counts material to build small craft but does not account for the crews.. ie. a minesweeper needs also a trained crew to operate good in its task. And this crew is worth more than the material to build the ship imho. Double the VPs for these craft. Than also players might think twice to send them out in harms way or even as sacrifices or bait.

c) Make cargo shipping more worthwhile, rare and less capable. I know in one of the mods this was already done. Means less capacity and perhaps also range. Many ormost of these ships were perhaps also employed for civilian matters stills and not in the war effort - so just distract 20-30% of numbers the players get, esp. on the Allied side. In mid 42 there is already so much shipping you do not really care about them. But the families of the crews might care....

d) Also slow down building a bit or make engs a bit more rare. As Allies I have maxed out airfields at Suva, Luganville in mid 42. As IJ at Rabaul, Soerabaya in late summer. It is imho too early to have such massive facilities so early.

Thanks for considering...i have 3-4 more points but these were already named longer ago in the forum. Perhaps I write them later but above seem to be the most pressing issues.

A small EDIT, as for 1. June 42, the numbers are even much higher than I wrote above, it is more close to 8 Mio supplies and 4 mio fuel at the WC plus 1,2 mio supplies at Sidney and 0,5 Mio at Capetown and 1,5 Mio+ sup+fuel in India This is stock scen2, when I checked SF this turn, I thought (hoped) my eyes would deceive me by 1 digit, but in fact it is MIO not hundred-thousand...
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Interesting thoughts, ideas Alpha77 [:)]
d) Also slow down building a bit or make engs a bit more rare.

This idea was already mentioned above: increase x20 or x100 [X(] times the construction time. I will disagree on this one, and here's why IMO.

The inmediate problem I see (taken from the real conflict). I had read the Espiritu Santo (Luganville) airfield was ready, in time when Guadalcanal was assaulted the 7 august. We're talking about the 11st Bombardment Group (B-17s). So I assume in game terms this means a 5 level airfield or 4 (reduced load, penalties).

It's not like engineers were sent 5 or 6 months earlier, to start an epic construction. When did they start? 2 months before Watchtower? The x20 thing would make the construction impossible. And yet the airfield was ready.

Besides, all the toys should be there (the construction engineers). So how to simulate this really fast construction? Perhaps huge -and I really mean huge- amounts of supplies should be needed. The shipping is already there, doing nothing -well, the crews are depleting San Francisco beer stocks- I started this thread because I think it's er ridiculous [:D]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: The US logistical problem (reality vs game)

Post by rustysi »

But I'd be fine with shipping Resources and using LI. Just as soon as Japan can't move crude oil on mules across thousands of miles of Asian wilderness on magic highways.

Since I don't attempt to use the 'magic highway', if we ever play you must ship resources.[:D]

The reason I don't use it is the game provides no way to interdict such transfer, not that I don't think it couldn't be done. Although I doubt it could be done to the extent necessary. Not enough infrastructure in the region to accommodate everything.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”