Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 1:19:52 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

If their were a limit to the number of points that could be lifted I would be more inclined to buy the free ride to cape town, but theirs not, I can send everyhting I want to Cape town (heck I dont even have to pay PP till I remove them from cape town if their restricted).


Faith and Begorrah, I agree with Brady.

AB is right, insofar as the shipping that carried historical US units to North Africa and beyond to South Africa / India / the Middle East is abstracted. But in game, the US can ship far more forces to the Cape / CBI than they ever did historically. Such a diversion of forces from the PTO should be matched by a diversion of ships.

In general, I'm in favor of any reasonable, logical change, that makes shipping a scarcer resource for both Japan and the Allies. AE wonderfully captures the "flavor" of the Pacific War in so many ways. But, as in WitP, a player never quite seems to have that sense that their historical counterparts often grumbled about -- that there just weren't enough merchants around to do everything that needs doing.

*= and I never realized (never thought to try) that I could ship restricted units to Capetown. Something else to add to the toolbox

< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 2/22/2011 1:20:40 AM >


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 61
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 1:47:51 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4874
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Faith and Begorrah, I agree with Brady.

AB is right, insofar as the shipping that carried historical US units to North Africa and beyond to South Africa / India / the Middle East is abstracted. But in game, the US can ship far more forces to the Cape / CBI than they ever did historically. Such a diversion of forces from the PTO should be matched by a diversion of ships.

In general, I'm in favor of any reasonable, logical change, that makes shipping a scarcer resource for both Japan and the Allies. AE wonderfully captures the "flavor" of the Pacific War in so many ways. But, as in WitP, a player never quite seems to have that sense that their historical counterparts often grumbled about -- that there just weren't enough merchants around to do everything that needs doing.

*= and I never realized (never thought to try) that I could ship restricted units to Capetown. Something else to add to the toolbox


My understanding is that the use of PPs is meant to represent the inability of the Allies to move as many units as they like to the CBI. If PPs are not a limiting factor, then I would see that as a failing of the PP system.

Of course the Allies did not have unlimited shipping available, but neither did they always have to requisition ships from the Pacific to move units across the Atlantic, which was my point. I think some sort of "points system" or limit for trans-Atlantic shipping was discussed at some point, but it was another idea that didn't get far (too many other things to do). And if PP restrictions are working properly the need to have something like that is lessened.

One of interest, how many US units do Allied players move to the CBI, compared to Real Life? Many more? A few more? Less? Keep in mind that the opposite also applies - if a player moves fewer units compared to Real Life, they don't get extra transport ships as a benefit.

Andrew

< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 2/22/2011 1:55:57 AM >

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 62
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 1:56:01 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4874
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

I gues I am and I am not, in the since that my concern is that its enabling an early allied ofensive in part because folks have so many ships they dont nead to do anyhting else but move troops with them to the front.


I was addressing the idea that Australia should be a net importer of supply, which is simply false.

However there is one thing that this discussion does touch on - the net supply level fails to take into account all of the inputs and outputs (that is - the "gross" amount of supply movement). There was war material (aircraft, tanks etc.) imported to Australia, plus a lot of more basic supply material exported. There may have been a net outflow, but since there are only "supply points" in AE, and reinforcement devices don't need to be individually shipped to where units form up - they just appear in the pools - then you really should consider how many ships are moving the "gross" supply around, not just the net supply. Whether that is already taken into consideration in the AE merchant ship OOBs is a question I can't answer though.

Andrew

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 63
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 1:57:45 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4874
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
*= and I never realized (never thought to try) that I could ship restricted units to Capetown. Something else to add to the toolbox


My view is that this should not be allowed.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 64
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 2:22:00 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

One of interest, how many US units do Allied players move to the CBI, compared to Real Life? Many more? A few more? Less? Keep in mind that the opposite also applies - if a player moves fewer units compared to Real Life, they don't get extra transport ships as a benefit.


The number of US 'units' historically assigned to the CBI is fairly small. Starting in late 1942, the US will send the squadrons and base forces of the 10th Air Force, and, later, the 20th Air Force. A healthy number of engineer units were sent to build the air bases in India and the Ledo road (alas, another feature that we could not squeeze into AE), but very few combat units, Merrill's Marauders (a regiment) being the largest.

FWIW, I have not seen much interest by allied players in AARs in diverting large numbers of US units to India early in the war. I like to do it to ease the strain on the low-replacement British air and ground forces, by having US units in-theater to rotate in the front lines and absorb some of the losses.

And I've always paid full PP to do so!



_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 65
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 2:22:11 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10552
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

The Allied player can buy on average about one US divishion or its equilvent about every 30 to 45 days if they switch it to a legitmate comand, faster if they cheata little.

The Big bonious/exploite with shiping stuff to cape town is that you dont nead to pay for them to leave the US if restricted, so their over half way their by the time you nead to cough up the PP coin. This gives them a Jump.

It is also a much safer way to get men to Austraila, as the distance traveld from off map tp Perth is a very short and safer rute than from teh west coast across the pacific.

I generly moved prety much everything this way even stuff that was already free.

A few Big convoys is all thats neaded to moved between cape town and the CBI.

It takes a little over a month to move from Seatle to India or Austraila via the east coast-capetown route.

...............

This is one of the enablers for early Allied ofensive action, I am not nescessarly advocating changings the ships in game in any way hear but these are the seamingly obvious solutions.

1) Make it so a player has to Pay PP to move a restricted unit to cape town (free it up).

2) creat a limiting code that tracks Load Values and asigne a number limiting shipsments to the equilvent of 1,5 Divishions a month from the east Coast.

3) Just make it so you have to use ships to go and get the men and material from the east coast like you do from other off map ports, a player can already move ships off map to th east coast, just toss the free ride. its not like their are not enough ships around.

(If you used ships a player would have to free up the unit before he could load it.)

The present British system is fine imo.

_____________________________



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depends on our point of view

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 66
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 2:53:14 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4874
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady
3) Just make it so you have to use ships to go and get the men and material from the east coast like you do from other off map ports, a player can already move ships off map to th east coast, just toss the free ride. its not like their are not enough ships around.


Does this mean you still think that the Allied player should be taking ships from the Pacific to move stuff across the Atlantic, instead of doing what they did historically? I don't get why you are suggesting this? Am I misunderstanding something?

Andrew

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 67
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 3:20:03 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10552
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady
3) Just make it so you have to use ships to go and get the men and material from the east coast like you do from other off map ports, a player can already move ships off map to th east coast, just toss the free ride. its not like their are not enough ships around.


Does this mean you still think that the Allied player should be taking ships from the Pacific to move stuff across the Atlantic, instead of doing what they did historically? I don't get why you are suggesting this? Am I misunderstanding something?

Andrew


What they did historicaly was move very few US units to the CBI, as Blackhorse pointed out above.

Heck you could just have these few US units that are asigned to the proper comands spawn in in Cape Town or in India instead of on the US west Coast or East Coast.

As for any other US units that wanted to go to the CBI from the east cost if they have to take a ship they will have to pull it from the Pacific, if they were to get to the front from the US west coast they would have to take the same ship anyway.

It will make players have to realy make a choice.

Sorta, preposationing ships is very easy, for example to get the most out the present East Coast cape town exploite, I sift all the Big and fast ships from Austraila, the DEI and India and send them to cpae town on day one, that way by the time the Us units start ariving from the east coast they have a ride waiting.

Thier is a tremendious glut of lift also Andrew so this is all easly doable with ships to spare.

The same could be done to the east coast, just move some ships their and your ready to load.






_____________________________



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depends on our point of view

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 68
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 3:37:17 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14133
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
*= and I never realized (never thought to try) that I could ship restricted units to Capetown. Something else to add to the toolbox


My view is that this should not be allowed.


I had no idea that you could, but it is completely irrelevant. What are you going to do with the restricted units in Cape Town - get them drunk?



Regarding PP's, the Allies absolutely can NOT free up an average of a division per month. 50 PP/day x 30 days = 1,500 PP most months. Even if it were the only use for Allied PP's that is still not enough for a division. Only for severely understrength divisions, and how many are there when you actually have that many PP's?

The fact is that there are tremendous strains on the Allied PP's for air units, base units, and on and on including combat units large and small. It is also true that a whole lot of USMC and USN LBA groups must be paid for multiple times because after you pay for them they withdraw and come back under a restricted command again.

The impression that the Allies can sit back and get a division a month is baloney.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 69
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 3:45:16 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
I didn't realize you could rail LCU's off map. I've always loaded them up on ships. Thanks Brady, for letting me know about this feature.

IMO, Brady, eliminating the strategic "free" off map movement because the Allied player could send a ton of stuff to Capetown is not necessary. If the player chooses to send a lot of units to India, let them. As it's been said, the player still needs to buy them if they are restricted. If not, then why complain (bitch?) about what a player chooses to do? If they're in India, then they're not somewhere else.

Yes, it's safer to ship units to Australia this way, but it also takes longer. It's probably twice as long if you ship from San Fran to Sydney than if you rail it to Capetown and then ship to Sydney. It's a trade off the player has to make.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents..... Thanks again for letting me know about this time saving feature. :)

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 70
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 3:50:41 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3251
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
I am with Brady and the others about the PP issue with shipping to Capetown. Surprised the game will let you do that in the first place. As to limiting it, I think that is a Tempest in a Tea Pot.

The Non-permanently restricted ID's the USA gets in 1942 are

24th 2/3 Oahu, 1/3 WCUSA
25th 2/3 Oahu, 1/3 WCUSA
Americal (2/3 on New Caledonia by end of March, last RGT arrived 19 April 1942)
27th HI by May 1942
32nd in Oz on 15 May 1942
37th in Fuji by June 1942
40th in Hawaian Islands by Sept 1942
41st arrived Oz between 6 April and 13 May 1942
43rd in NZ by October 1942

So this concept that the Allies shouldn't be able to deploy InfDiv's forward early in the game is just not based in reality. By June, the USA had thre ID in the HI, one in fiji, one on New Caledonia, and two in Oz. The game makes you but out 1/3 of both the 24th and 25th ID even though they are already forward deployed at game's start. You have to buy the last RGT of Americal, all of the 40th, 41st, 27th, and 43rd. In order to meet the above timetable, you have to buy

41st ID by 5 March
164th Inf RGT by 15 March
27th ID by 15 April
40th ID by 15 August
43rd ID by 1 September (except you can't because it doesn't arrive until 9/30)

As to where they go, that is up to the Allied player is it not? Why is the Allied player supposed to play the historical timeline when the Japan player can do whatever he/she wants? The Allied player gets those nine InfDiv in '41 and 42' and only three more in 1943 total!!!!!! If he dumps more than one or two into CBI, he is going to be very thin elsewhere.

So the problem is in the EC to CT transport system especially as the PP apply. I don't think the problem in CBI is too many units, it should be limited by other factors that are not in play and perhaps they can be put in play.

I appreciate your comments and input, Brady, but I have noticed that a lot of what you want to see involves code changes. That is not likely going to happen. My focus is modifying the database to achieve my objectives

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 71
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 4:00:57 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1912
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Part of the reasion that the Allies can get going so early is the availabality of Troops and the means with which to move them. From what I can tell the US did not ship troops in bulk cargo ships or on Pasanger ships that had not been taken into service (normaly). When the US 41 st Infentry Divishion shiped out from Washington for example part of it went to the East Coast to load up on Transports to sail for Austraila via the panama canal...

In game every ship can be used to move Allied troops, this is a great enabler.

3) Make it so US formations nead to ride an "A" rated ship (AP, AK, APA, exc...)



A casual review of the record does not reinforce this opinion. It seems the merchant liners taken up into Army or Navy service were indeed used to move troops

SS President Coolidge
SS Chaumont
SS Hermitage



These reports are very cool! Where did you get them and are there any more. I purchased a CD of a book called Troopships of World War II published April 1947, from Merriiam Press, that had a pot full of info on the American Troop Ships but the details in these reports are tremendous of a book published right after the war.

Please share how I might get them if there are more.

Buck

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 72
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 4:26:02 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10552
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline


Well the 41st is 1198 PP to buy out on day one, and my personal average was again about one US divishion or its equilvent in every 30 to 45 days.

If you buy Indian Divishions you can get them realy ceap, then just stick them somplce warn and fead them and they grow quiet nicely. 343 PP for the Indian 19th Divishion.

Chinese Divishions are my favorate though 60 PP.

The allies can realy get several divishion a month.

I never buy stufff thats going to go away so I dont lose the points.

This talk is realy not about how cheap you can get a divishion its about how easy it is to move them.

............................

Its been my experance that it realy does not take any longer, asuming you cant short cut to Aus and have to swing south to avoid Japanese interdiction.

.................

Its not realy about denying the Allied player flexabality its about how they presently can go on the ofensive very early, one of the key enablers is the glut of lift, the cape town exploit excerbates that isue.









_____________________________



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depends on our point of view

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 73
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 4:32:24 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3251
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Part of the reasion that the Allies can get going so early is the availabality of Troops and the means with which to move them. From what I can tell the US did not ship troops in bulk cargo ships or on Pasanger ships that had not been taken into service (normaly). When the US 41 st Infentry Divishion shiped out from Washington for example part of it went to the East Coast to load up on Transports to sail for Austraila via the panama canal...

In game every ship can be used to move Allied troops, this is a great enabler.

3) Make it so US formations nead to ride an "A" rated ship (AP, AK, APA, exc...)



A casual review of the record does not reinforce this opinion. It seems the merchant liners taken up into Army or Navy service were indeed used to move troops

SS President Coolidge
SS Chaumont
SS Hermitage



These reports are very cool! Where did you get them and are there any more. I purchased a CD of a book called Troopships of World War II published April 1947, from Merriiam Press, that had a pot full of info on the American Troop Ships but the details in these reports are tremendous of a book published right after the war.

Please share how I might get them if there are more.

Buck


To be honest I opened up the editor, slid down to the xAP section and started Googleing the names. A lot of the named ships in the game for the Allies have info on them on the web. Surprisingly so do a lot of the IJN ships.

Oh I forgot:

quote:

After eight days waiting for transit, the division returned to San Francisco and boarded a convoy of seven Matson Line ships, including the S.S. Lurline and USS Hugh L. Scott at Pier 42


That is from the 32nd InfDiv history. Odd, those sure sound like xAP's to me. I think what Brady does not realize is that most if not all of the xAP in the game were already "taken up" prior to 7 December 1941.

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 74
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 4:40:12 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1912
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
I got too excited after looking at the report you have on the President Coolidge. It would be great if this type of info was available for all of the troopships.

Buck

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 75
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 5:14:29 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3251
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady



Well the 41st is 1198 PP to buy out on day one, and my personal average was again about one US divishion or its equilvent in every 30 to 45 days.

You can't buy the 41st for 1198 on day one because you only have 100 PP. By the time you accumulate the additional 1100, it won't const 1198 any more because the disablements will go down by 29 Dec 1941. Oh, and you can't spend more than 2 PP for anything else for those 22 days either.

If you buy Indian Divishions you can get them realy ceap, then just stick them somplce warn and fead them and they grow quiet nicely. 343 PP for the Indian 19th Divishion.

Brady, they're cheap because they're about useless. It wouldn't surprise me that is you bought the 19th Indian for 343 it would take longer to rebuild the unit than the amount of time it would take to accumulate the PP's. I don't know the full price for that unit but let's just say it 1900 plus like USA InfDiv. It would take 32 days to accumulate the difference in points. You gonna now try to convince that the device pools are so over the top for the Allies that that division will be at 100% of its TO&E in 34 days?

Chinese Divishions are my favorate though 60 PP.

What you gonna do with that bad boy? Take back Singapore?

The allies can realy get several divishion a month.

Not ones you can do anything with

I never buy stufff thats going to go away so I dont lose the points.

This talk is realy not about how cheap you can get a divishion its about how easy it is to move them.

............................

Its been my experance that it realy does not take any longer, asuming you cant short cut to Aus and have to swing south to avoid Japanese interdiction.

.................

Its not realy about denying the Allied player flexabality its about how they presently can go on the ofensive very early, one of the key enablers is the glut of lift, the cape town exploit excerbates that isue.




I see your point but I still don't think the issue is with too many units. The issue is based in a number of things. As this is an economy thread, lets try to keep it to the economy. As JWE pointed out, there is just too much supply flowing from the western map edge. This needs to be changed. Perhaps he is right about removing industry from those areas not likely to be conquered by the Japanese (southern Oz, Western India, Hawaii, Alaska, etc.) Yes, there were resources available there and some industry but it wasn't industry that would produce war materials. Thinking about it, I am going to stop there because that is a very big thought.

But if supply becomes a true limiter, than moving the AIF or US InfDiv to CBI will lose a lot of its appeal as there won't be enough to support them. A second issue that rarely gets discussed is that Monsoon is horribly underrepresented in the game. It actaully stopped all action from 1 May until roughly 31 October. Yes the rains didn't start on 1 May but you better be getting yourself some place warm and dry by then 'cause you don't wanna get caught out in da rain, mahn. Yes the rains ended by late September but the road network, jungle trails, and airfields needed a month to dry out. That's it then - you get six months to fight your war in Burma. If I can find some one to play a historical game some time that will be an area for some HR to cover. Say: no movement except by strat move in Burma and India East of the Ganges. Some sort of limitations on air operations that would be very harsh. But I digress....

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 76
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 5:31:45 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I am with Brady and the others about the PP issue with shipping to Capetown. Surprised the game will let you do that in the first place. As to limiting it, I think that is a Tempest in a Tea Pot.




Guys, this is the same exact issue with any unit crossing a national border. Manchuria to China - India to Burma - Dutch to Australia (via base change and air transfer), Thai - Burma, etc etc. From Brady's information, you can 'rail' LCU's to Capetown. It's still a national border. The vast majority of you have house ruled against this kind of action, and the EC - CT should be no exception. IF the code prevented crossing national boundaries, then this would be a moot point.

The only issue from my perspective is the 'free' shipping the LCU's get. AB has already given a good reason for the shipping being free.

Like Vettim said in his last post, let's move this thread back to industry...

BTW, I'm loving this thread. It's full of awesome thought and discussion. Not much in the way of mean words.... Lots of ideas.... I hope some of them can get implemented in mods or stock....

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 77
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 6:41:20 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10552
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline


quote:

That is from the 32nd InfDiv history. Odd, those sure sound like xAP's to me. I think what Brady does not realize is that most if not all of the xAP in the game were already "taken up" prior to 7 December 1941



Right after the war the S.S. Lurline and other Matson line ships were taken into service under controle of the US Army

"Those under other arrangements continued operating as SS NAME"

At which point she was no longer a Civilian ship.

.............

quote:

You can't buy the 41st for 1198 on day one because you only have 100 PP. By the time you accumulate the additional 1100, it won't const 1198 any more because the disablements will go down by 29 Dec 1941. Oh, and you can't spend more than 2 PP for anything else for those 22 days either


Unless you move it to a place with not much in the way of suport, even still its not going to more points than you can save in a month.

Realy just depends on what your priourites are, After freeing up a few high value units in the SRA I generly just buy Divishions.

quote:

Brady, they're cheap because they're about useless. It wouldn't surprise me that is you bought the 19th Indian for 343 it would take longer to rebuild the unit than the amount of time it would take to accumulate the PP's. I don't know the full price for that unit but let's just say it 1900 plus like USA InfDiv. It would take 32 days to accumulate the difference in points. You gonna now try to convince that the device pools are so over the top for the Allies that that division will be at 100% of its TO&E in 34 days?


The reasion I buy cheap Indian divishions is that if you set them up with some suport and turn replacements on in a month or two their in prety good shape and can be very usefull.

quote:

What you gonna do with that bad boy? Take back Singapore?


I buy all the Chinese units that I can get, move them to Burma or back into India and turn replacements on and they fill up very nicely their a very good investment.

Not ones you can do anything with

In time, and not realy all that much time you will be able to. Buy buying the Cheap Indian and chinese Divishions (realy the Chinese should be free as they served in Burma, at least the ones that did serve their should imo be free) and letting them build up, by Spring you can have a substantial force thats deployable, For the price on the 41st you can have All the chinese divishion and two or theee Indian divishions by mid January and some PP to blow on Suport units, or the 41st and wait another 20 to 30 days and get the others...

Again this is a bit off topic.

.......................

The enabelemt of the allies to go on the ofensive early is a complex isue, as noted above their are many contributers to this.

1) Suply is part of the problem. (to much)

2) Not having to realy move it is another (to the CBI or Austraila)

3) The shiping model is another problem, that is that ships of all types can move men and material, whearas historicaly only a limited type did, particularly for the US.

4) The PP value of a LCU should be based on its potential AV not its disabled value.

5) The AIF is part of this problem.

6) The cape town exploit is another enabler.

..............

4- might have the single bigest impact and be the simplest to implement

5- will never be agread apon, house rule

6- could realy help if sorted, tun it off.

1,2,3- might cause more problems than its worth to fix as these are so interrelated to other isues.

_____________________________



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depends on our point of view

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 78
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 6:46:05 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3251
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
So JWE's post on the last page and my musings above created a light bulb moment for me. We need to think about the Economic Centers presently on the map. The can be divided into two portions: that that was already under Japan's control on 7/8 December 1941 and that part that was availble for capture (at least potentially)

That portion that is already part of the GEACS was largely intergrated into the Japanese economy. Manchuko certainly was as was Shanghai and Port Arthur. Formosa obviously would be considered fully intergrated. The only area you could make a point was not fully intergrated was IndoChina because it was newer to the gang. The more I think about it the more I think the in game Japanese economy represents an amalgam of almost all of the war output and the vast majority of the civilian economy. How the inputs/outputs are balanced is beyond me (and probably most other forumites too). That said, I think we are coming to the mutual conclusion that supply from oil must go. So big picture, Japan puts all the stuff the get from home sources, occupied territories, and (pre-war) buys overseas into the giant econ-o-matic and spews out ships, planes, guns, fuel, supply, etc plus meets its civilian needs. In game terms we only worry about the stuff that's built, fuel, and supply. As JWE, pointed out: supply is not petticoats, Toro (sushi reference - yum), and parisols; its bullets, spare parts, uniforms, medical supplies, etc, etc, etc (hear Yul Brenner there). What small portion of supply that corresponds to normal consumer goods like food and clothing is likely a very small percentage. Do we all agree that supply in game refers specifically to war making materials? If we do then ......

The second portion of the Economic Centers is in the part of the map that falls into the Tenth Commandment territory (they shall not covet thy neighbor's house, wife, oil centers, etc). For the sake of this argument, let's divide them into two categories: those that produce something Japan needs (oil) or could use (resources) and those that convert the first two into something else (HI and LI). The first category are very appealing to Japan and easily go into their econ-o-matic to spit out more good stuff they can use to do nefarious things to the nearest AFB. The second group is not so appealing and may in fact be useless to Japan militarily. While there definitely were factories, work shops, and other processing plants in Malaya, the DEI, India, and yes Oz/NZ, very few of them were making munitions, weapons, etc. Oz did have a small military-industrial complex but it mostly produced a few models of aircraft. Even if Japan captured the CAS plant at Melbourne, they were not going to ship all the jigs, dies, and rigs necessary to build A6M's in it. Same thing with the HI, it was Aussie HI building Aussie things. Not that it couldn't be retooled to start making Japnese things but probably not in the timeframe of the game. In WWII, Oz was still using English units and Japan was metric. That alone would be a problem.

Remember even though the Econ-o-matic does consider the civilian economy as far as inputs but the only measurable outputs are war materials. Even though captured plants might be able to make stuff it would be the wrong stuff. Oh, and who is going to work in these captured plants? The locals? Okay you might let you slave labor dig ditches and make clothes, but are you really going to trust conquered people to make bullets, bombs, and spare parts for your army?

So the light bulb moment: most of the HI and LI outside of the 1941 Japan sphere of influence does not belong there. It wasn't making war materials for the most part. It would not have been able to be converted to Japanese stuff very easily. The labor force was not likely reliable enough to get anything meaningful out of it any way. Perhaps a small portion of the LI could be left in Oz, NZ, and maybe India to represent munition factories that were in existence. That would be worth researching. This does two things to the game

1. The Allies have to import almost all of their supply from the US and UK.
2. The stuff from the areas that Japan conquers has to be taken back to Japan to be put into the Japanese Econ-o-matic. You see the Allied Econ-o-matic produces green widgets and we need red widgets like the ones our Econ-o-matic makes.

Thoughts?

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 79
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 6:55:34 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14133
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady



Well the 41st is 1198 PP to buy out on day one, and my personal average was again about one US divishion or its equilvent in every 30 to 45 days.

If you buy Indian Divishions you can get them realy ceap, then just stick them somplce warn and fead them and they grow quiet nicely. 343 PP for the Indian 19th Divishion.

Chinese Divishions are my favorate though 60 PP.

The allies can realy get several divishion a month.

I never buy stufff thats going to go away so I dont lose the points.

This talk is realy not about how cheap you can get a divishion its about how easy it is to move them.

............................

Its been my experance that it realy does not take any longer, asuming you cant short cut to Aus and have to swing south to avoid Japanese interdiction.

.................

Its not realy about denying the Allied player flexabality its about how they presently can go on the ofensive very early, one of the key enablers is the glut of lift, the cape town exploit excerbates that isue.


By your math Allied players would all have 12 divisions bought by the end of '42. You cite only the exceptions to the general truth when you mention those very early understrength divisions. Indian divisions at something like 1/3 strength and 20 - twenty - experience level and you say you are addressing the problem of how early the Allies can go on the offensive. Not to mention you leave out the other myriad things that the Allies use PP's for, like leadership changes.

If you never buy stuff that's going away (i.e. withdrawing) you give up a lot of your LBA fight in the Pacific, not to mention search. All those USN search groups that arrive restricted and withdraw later - you just leave them on the west coast (a couple arrive at Pearl).

You buy Chinese divisions! I'm not interested in hobbling the game for everybody just to keep you from doing something unrealistic. "The allies can realy get several divishion a month." Now you are talking nonsense. Bye!

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 80
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 7:08:14 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14133
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I am with Brady and the others about the PP issue with shipping to Capetown. Surprised the game will let you do that in the first place.



I think you alarmed over nothing. First, even if you ship restricted units to Cape Town without paying for them, they are then stuck in Cape Town. Unless you send them back where they came from. They can't load on board ship unless they are released with PP's.

More importantly, an honest PBM opponent will not do that. If your PBM opponent is dishonest then all the restrictions that people can dream up about supposed "exploits" will not help you. You simply must have an honest PBM opponent.

Look on the west coast. There are LBA units assigned to (IIRC) Eleventh AF HQ. They are unrestricted. But look deeper and you see that the HQ is assigned to the West Coast HQ, which is restricted. The point is that those LBA units are free to move among the US-Canada-Alaska(including Aleutians). If you want to move one to Hawaii, you are supposed to pay PP.

These situations exist throughout the game. The notion of a lock-down that is realistic in terms of the scenario intent is simply beyond the capability of the game engine. All of the talk about the Allies buying "several divisions a month" and about some fictitious "Cape Town exploit" are just nonsense that is distracting you from discussing the issue that you set out to discuss with this thread.

I think you started out with a valid issue to discuss and I hope you get somewhere in spite of the smoke screen being thrown at you.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 81
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 7:24:17 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10552
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
quote:

1. The Allies have to import almost all of their supply from the US and UK.
2. The stuff from the areas that Japan conquers has to be taken back to Japan to be put into the Japanese Econ-o-matic. You see the Allied Econ-o-matic produces green widgets and we need red widgets like the ones our Econ-o-matic makes


I apricate the notion of simplfying it all, but the captured production centers did not go unused, Japan used everything it captured and even made made munatins for captured guns so it keep on using them.

Shisp were built in captured yards throught the empire, granted many of them were woden hulled ships.

Captured production centers the world over continued to build for enemy armys, look at french factories that retooled for German neads as an example.

Suply is a problem, but my fear is tweaking it now migh cause more problems and their apear to be other simpler means with which to efect a change.

.........................

quote:

By your math Allied players would all have 12 divisions bought by the end of '42. You cite only the exceptions to the general truth when you mention those very early understrength divisions. Indian divisions at something like 1/3 strength and 20 - twenty - experience level and you say you are addressing the problem of how early the Allies can go on the offensive. Not to mention you leave out the other myriad things that the Allies use PP's for, like leadership changes


It realy depends on what your priouritys are, what you think neads doing, Suport units are realitevly cheap, you dont nead much in the way of PP to take care of normal day to day stuff, but I have a plan and that involves getting the best fighting untis I can for best buy as soon as I can and freeing up a half a dozen Divishions is easy to do in the first 60 days.


quote:

If you never buy stuff that's going away (i.e. withdrawing) you give up a lot of your LBA fight in the Pacific, not to mention search. All those USN search groups that arrive restricted and withdraw later - you just leave them on the west coast (a couple arrive at Pearl).


You dont nead all that go away junk, Japan cant realy field all that much at the tip of the spear anyway, and you get points for returning it, that you can use to buy units that are not going to leave.

quote:

You buy Chinese divisions! I'm not interested in hobbling the game for everybody just to keep you from doing something unrealistic. "The allies can realy get several divishion a month." Now you are talking nonsense. Bye!


I buy the ones that faught in Burma historicaly and let them build.



_____________________________



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depends on our point of view

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 82
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 9:31:03 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1774
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I see your point but I still don't think the issue is with too many units. The issue is based in a number of things. As this is an economy thread, lets try to keep it to the economy. As JWE pointed out, there is just too much supply flowing from the western map edge. This needs to be changed. Perhaps he is right about removing industry from those areas not likely to be conquered by the Japanese (southern Oz, Western India, Hawaii, Alaska, etc.) Yes, there were resources available there and some industry but it wasn't industry that would produce war materials. Thinking about it, I am going to stop there because that is a very big thought.



Australia produced a sizeable amount of war material (among other things: 3.7in AA guns, 25pdr QF guns, Bren Carriers, Armoured Cars, trucks, airplanes, rifles) as did India (among other things: trucks, wheeled carriers, armoured cars, rifles - India alone did produce more trucks than Japan, btw.). Austalia and India did not produce tanks and only a low number of planes mainly because the war economy of the British Empire worked differently (it would not have been very efficient to produce everything everywhere). The fact remains that Australia and India (and to some degree even NZ) produced sizeable amounts of war material. Btw., Tata Steel Works at Jamshedpur was one of the biggest steel manufacturers of the world even in the 1940s and the ingot-steel output of India was about 1.4 million tons in 1942, finished steel slightly less than 1.0 million tons.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 83
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 10:37:57 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I see your point but I still don't think the issue is with too many units. The issue is based in a number of things. As this is an economy thread, lets try to keep it to the economy. As JWE pointed out, there is just too much supply flowing from the western map edge. This needs to be changed. Perhaps he is right about removing industry from those areas not likely to be conquered by the Japanese (southern Oz, Western India, Hawaii, Alaska, etc.) Yes, there were resources available there and some industry but it wasn't industry that would produce war materials. Thinking about it, I am going to stop there because that is a very big thought.



Australia produced a sizeable amount of war material (among other things: 3.7in AA guns, 25pdr QF guns, Bren Carriers, Armoured Cars, trucks, airplanes, rifles) as did India (among other things: trucks, wheeled carriers, armoured cars, rifles - India alone did produce more trucks than Japan, btw.). Austalia and India did not produce tanks and only a low number of planes mainly because the war economy of the British Empire worked differently (it would not have been very efficient to produce everything everywhere). The fact remains that Australia and India (and to some degree even NZ) produced sizeable amounts of war material. Btw., Tata Steel Works at Jamshedpur was one of the biggest steel manufacturers of the world even in the 1940s and the ingot-steel output of India was about 1.4 million tons in 1942, finished steel slightly less than 1.0 million tons.



Just as a comment--I believe most steel production went to commercial ship-building, with major end items (tanks, trucks, etc.) next. A British division had about 3000 vehicles. Allowing 50% wastage during manufacturing and estimating the steel required per vehicle at 5 tons, you find a division probably equated to a couple of large xAKs in steel. 50 tons per tank meant an armoured division was more like four xAKs. So most xAK production went to produce xAKs for the resources needed for xAK production... JWE probably understands this a lot better than I do.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 84
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 12:39:44 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9768
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I am with Brady and the others about the PP issue with shipping to Capetown. Surprised the game will let you do that in the first place.



I think you alarmed over nothing. First, even if you ship restricted units to Cape Town without paying for them, they are then stuck in Cape Town. Unless you send them back where they came from. They can't load on board ship unless they are released with PP's.

More importantly, an honest PBM opponent will not do that. If your PBM opponent is dishonest then all the restrictions that people can dream up about supposed "exploits" will not help you. You simply must have an honest PBM opponent.

Look on the west coast. There are LBA units assigned to (IIRC) Eleventh AF HQ. They are unrestricted. But look deeper and you see that the HQ is assigned to the West Coast HQ, which is restricted. The point is that those LBA units are free to move among the US-Canada-Alaska(including Aleutians). If you want to move one to Hawaii, you are supposed to pay PP.

These situations exist throughout the game. The notion of a lock-down that is realistic in terms of the scenario intent is simply beyond the capability of the game engine. All of the talk about the Allies buying "several divisions a month" and about some fictitious "Cape Town exploit" are just nonsense that is distracting you from discussing the issue that you set out to discuss with this thread.

I think you started out with a valid issue to discuss and I hope you get somewhere in spite of the smoke screen being thrown at you.



+1

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 85
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 1:56:44 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3251
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I see your point but I still don't think the issue is with too many units. The issue is based in a number of things. As this is an economy thread, lets try to keep it to the economy. As JWE pointed out, there is just too much supply flowing from the western map edge. This needs to be changed. Perhaps he is right about removing industry from those areas not likely to be conquered by the Japanese (southern Oz, Western India, Hawaii, Alaska, etc.) Yes, there were resources available there and some industry but it wasn't industry that would produce war materials. Thinking about it, I am going to stop there because that is a very big thought.



Australia produced a sizeable amount of war material (among other things: 3.7in AA guns, 25pdr QF guns, Bren Carriers, Armoured Cars, trucks, airplanes, rifles) as did India (among other things: trucks, wheeled carriers, armoured cars, rifles - India alone did produce more trucks than Japan, btw.). Austalia and India did not produce tanks and only a low number of planes mainly because the war economy of the British Empire worked differently (it would not have been very efficient to produce everything everywhere). The fact remains that Australia and India (and to some degree even NZ) produced sizeable amounts of war material. Btw., Tata Steel Works at Jamshedpur was one of the biggest steel manufacturers of the world even in the 1940s and the ingot-steel output of India was about 1.4 million tons in 1942, finished steel slightly less than 1.0 million tons.



Any pool type items produced in India, Australia, or New Zealand are in the game but the are not "built" per se. Being as the Allies don't have an in game economy, the Allied player doesn't have to use Armament or Vehicle factories to make them like Japan does. Same is true of shipping. We could put the plants and Merchant Shipyards on the map so Japan could capture them if the struck deep into the Allied rear areas.

What is relevant is how much of the expendable materials were produced in those locations. I am sure there were some munitions plants, pharmaceutical plants, etc that need to be represented but my guess is that it is no where near what is on the map now. Even a smal size 20 LI center produces 600 tons of supply a month. I know there must be some supply manufacturing accounted for in the Allied areas but I am saying there is too much. Figuring out how much is the problem

Again large HI complexes like the Tata Steel Mill would be enticing for the JFB to capture. The problem is that HI is pooled not delivered. So if Japan captures that mill, all the steel gets put into the Japanese Economy without having to actually be delivered to Japan. Thats an awful long way to deliver that material at no cost to Japan. Steel mills are some of the easiest things to sabtoage. Many blast furnaces need to be "on" all the time. Having the workers simply not show up to work for a day would probably have destroyed most if not all of the Tata works.

I am very interested in figuring how much expendable war material was produced in the areas in question

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 86
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 3:53:27 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89
I see your point but I still don't think the issue is with too many units. The issue is based in a number of things. As this is an economy thread, lets try to keep it to the economy. As JWE pointed out, there is just too much supply flowing from the western map edge. This needs to be changed. Perhaps he is right about removing industry from those areas not likely to be conquered by the Japanese (southern Oz, Western India, Hawaii, Alaska, etc.) Yes, there were resources available there and some industry but it wasn't industry that would produce war materials. Thinking about it, I am going to stop there because that is a very big thought.

Australia produced a sizeable amount of war material (among other things: 3.7in AA guns, 25pdr QF guns, Bren Carriers, Armoured Cars, trucks, airplanes, rifles) as did India (among other things: trucks, wheeled carriers, armoured cars, rifles - India alone did produce more trucks than Japan, btw.). Austalia and India did not produce tanks and only a low number of planes mainly because the war economy of the British Empire worked differently (it would not have been very efficient to produce everything everywhere). The fact remains that Australia and India (and to some degree even NZ) produced sizeable amounts of war material. Btw., Tata Steel Works at Jamshedpur was one of the biggest steel manufacturers of the world even in the 1940s and the ingot-steel output of India was about 1.4 million tons in 1942, finished steel slightly less than 1.0 million tons.

Quite right, K. However, the Allies don’t really need HI and LI. All their armaments and vehicles and ships and planes and bears, oh my, are done by the build rates and pool numbers and just appear (poof! et voila! – non?).

So it seems that HI and LI (and refineries) are there as capture prizes; but that begs another question. Could Japan have used any of the armament factories, steel mills, etc.. if they were captured? Refineries, sure; and some LI, too. But they would have needed the technical/industrial infrastructure of the captured place, or exported its own technical and industrial means, to get any kind of service out of a captured industrial center.

So, what does all this vaporing really mean? Well, it means that, in certain circumstances, Japan can capture a self contained, self sustaining, economy that does not require much in-coming transport. Burma has oil, resources, refineries and LI. It can make as much fuel as it has oil, so it’s a monster gas station for any IJN ops west of Singers. It also makes 340 supply points per day (from refineries and LI).

The DEI is even more self sustaining, since they have more refineries, more LI and even HI. The DEI produces over 2000 supply, per day (refineries and LI) and contributes ~ 80 HI points to the pool, which is enough to run a 12 point vehicle assembly plant in Maizuru, without requiring any transport. And the gas stations are more than monstrous.

So there is a, basically, freeby, side-bar economy running in the captured areas, which actually reduces the “marginal” transportation components necessary to support them. Since they are, in large measure, self sustaining, what happens is they become the local source “from which all things flow”. The only requirements on the transport fleet is to schlep in enuf EXCESS fuel to keep the Home Islands HI factories running, and enuf EXCESS oil to keep the Home Islands refineries running.

But keeping the Home Islands refineries running don’t mean much because of the refinery capacity in the captured areas. Don’t matter where the fuel is made, if you utilize all the refinery capacity in the DEI to make gas, you need only ship the EXCESS oil to Japan, and let their refineries suck hind teat (as it were). Similarly, only EXCESS supply requirements need to be shipped into the conquered areas, but certain of the conquered areas produce supply in excess of their requirements and can therefore short-haul their excess to a near neighbor, consequently reducing the stress on the transport fleet.

The more Japan conquers, the “marginally” fewer merchies it needs. It’s a monster Ponzi scheme – the more they get, the more they “can” get, until of course the cliff (poof!, et voila, she is naked, non?).


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 87
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 4:14:42 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25219
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

One of interest, how many US units do Allied players move to the CBI, compared to Real Life? Many more? A few more? Less? Keep in mind that the opposite also applies - if a player moves fewer units compared to Real Life, they don't get extra transport ships as a benefit.


In the joe Nik game vs. Rob and Tony, i think we house ruled against too much transporting of US units....but enough were allowed to once more allow a quick SB campaign to be started had we not also house ruled that. Instead....they used the 4E's to bomb airfields and gain air superiority in Burma very quickly (before mid 42)

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 88
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 4:44:53 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
So what does all that crap mean? I really don’t know. I haven’t looked at this aspect very hard, any one of a dozen Tracker-Heads could blow some doors off my assumptions, but here’s my thoughts, anyway.

(1) I would remove LI and HI from anywhere that is not a base in a contiguous technical nation. So keep India and OZ but schtupp the rest.

(2) Refineries don’t make Supply. Yes, I know, avgas and motor fuel is part of supply, but your general, run-of-the-mill Pacific Rim refinery didn’t really make that stuff. They basically cracked-80 and sent the product home, to petro-chemical plants, where chemists and petro engineers did the voo-doo on the doo-doo. Nobody, but a specialty shop was gonna make iso-octane.

(3) Reduce Refinery Fuel Out from 9 to 5 (comes right out of my butt). Even though the local refineries can still gas up the IJN, there still has to be some transport required to provide fuel to Japan’s HI. (wish to gosh HI required Oil as an input, rather than Fuel, but we work with what we gots).

(4) Increase HI Fuel In from 2 to 10. If you ain’t having to schlep Oil from the SRA, you should be forced to be schlepping something, and fuel is all that’s left, so …

(5) Seriously reduce refinery (device) capacity everywhere except Japan, US, maybe a couple places in OZ or India, and off-map. The whole idea of the game is to get the oil and transport it home. That is the whole point of the tanker fleet. If one can do all that stuff elsewhere, what is the purpose of a tanker fleet?

These are scen mod, and scen mod only, suggestions. These are suggestions for changes to data files, only. No code changes will ever happen (fun to talk about, and I have a few thoughts of my own, but irrelevant in the context of what we have to work with).


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 89
RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies - 2/22/2011 5:57:37 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6744
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
I liked some of the innovations that El Sid and others did in RHS back in WITP days. One that could be used would be a series of huge "Supply Sinks" (static units) stationed at major Allied bases (India, Australia, and USA). At game start they would be very large and eat up huge amounts of supply. At certain points throughout the game they would be 'withdrawn' and replaced with slightly smaller "Supply Sinks" to simulate the growing Allied economy.

The same could be done in Japan's Home Islands and if there is a greater draw on supplies by them, it could slow down the Japanese from expanding their airframes to such an extent that a player will give some thought into producing 300 plus Zeros and Tojo per month by mid to late '42. Too much of a drain on limited supply.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Tweaking the Japanese/Allied Economies Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.121