RE: Oil and Refineries

Matrix Games Forums

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play video

Lost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!

A sneak peek from Allied Corps!

Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!

All good Deals always come in threes

Distant Worlds: Shadows Approaches!

Lost Battles AAR: Moscow 41

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Oil and Refineries

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: Oil and Refineries

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Oil and Refineries - 4/9/2011 2:10:28 AM

witpqs

Posts: 12397
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I see what you mean, but I think that Fuel in AE is like Supply in AE, insofar as it is a group of things rather than just one very specific commodity.

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 31

RE: Oil and Refineries - 4/9/2011 6:36:43 AM

Andrew Brown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I see what you mean, but I think that Fuel in AE is like Supply in AE, insofar as it is a group of things rather than just one very specific commodity.

It does represent a lot of things. To me at least. In general, what "fuel" represents is in the following two broad categories:

Heavy fuel oil used by ships.
Every other thing - civilian, military and industrial - that products output by refineries were used for.

Some examples of the second part would include: petrol used by the civilian economy and the military (motorised transport etc.);all lubricants; all fuel used for heating etc. Basically, the way that "fuel" is represented in AE is in a "big picture" kind of way. Since the levers we have in AE to represent the economy are very few, and very crude, I chose to think of fuel in a general sense - what a country needs to import in total for ALL of its (non-shipping) needs - NOT in a narrow sense (as in - how much "fuel" is directly consumed by heavy industry itself).

In other words, look at, say, Japan. Look at how much refined oil products it imported in real life. Look at how much of that was heavy ship fuel. ALL of the other refined products still needed to be imported, so that need is represented in-game by giving HI centres a fuel requirement. Why HI? Because, in my view, the "fuel" requirements of an economy were proportional to how industrialised that economy was, and this "industrialisation" is most directly proportional to how many HI centres each country gets. Countries with large populations but which are less industrialised, such as China and the DEI, have much less HI, so needed a lot less fuel as inputs into their economies.

I hope that explains why HI has a fuel input in AE.

Andrew

PS: These comments exclude the avgas issue. As I have commented elsewhere, I added a supply output to refineries to represent avgas production, but I now think that was a mistake as it leads to unrealistic results in the game.

< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 4/9/2011 6:39:08 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 32

RE: Oil and Refineries - 4/9/2011 7:08:33 AM

Pascal

Posts: 1634
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: in 'Haboob' country weekdays; the OC on w/ends
Status: offline

Andrew, could you elaborate on your comment about supply output from refineries and unrealistic results?

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 33

RE: Oil and Refineries - 4/9/2011 8:10:55 AM

inqistor

Posts: 1210
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal
AvGas was never separately modeled in WitP. The original intent was not to turn WitP into 'Quartermaster in the Pacific', though some of us would have wanted a more complex system as an option (whether considering economic inputs or war material outputs).

Indeed, however planes actually use supply, which could indicate, that in-fact, this represents AVGAS. However, in most cases, all supply usage can be explained, as ammunition use. That brings several points during economy modelling:
1) AVGAS is deducted directly from raw materials production, so some of the oilfields output should be decreased by around 20%, according to picture above
2) AVGAS is deducted from refinery output, so they need historical amount of oil, but produce 20% less fuel
3) AVGAS is deducted from industry output, so HI requires fuel, but produces less output, that it gets input (this actually happens in-game currently)

Point is, that it seems, that IRL AVGAS production, should probably dissapear in-game (but raw materials for it, should still be transported), as it is not represented, as commodity, and its use seems to not be simulated either.
So, in the case of picture above, we can cut output by 20 (or even 30%, when including gasoline)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
I am not talking RL or WITP. I wish to know if I go to the Device section in the Editor and reduce the Fuel In for HI to zero will this still produce an HI output using only the Resources IN (even without any Fuel IN)?

That is, what I am (indirectly) talking about. In previous version there was different input (and also output, because IIRC HI also produced fuel), so probably you can safely change that. But remember, that theoretical model represent lots of things, not only raw material supply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
PS: These comments exclude the avgas issue. As I have commented elsewhere, I added a supply output to refineries to represent avgas production, but I now think that was a mistake as it leads to unrealistic results in the game.

Well, it could also represent car gasoline, which usage is actually represented, during automatic supply movement. It seems to be sometimes less, than 10% of output, but it is in the margin of error.

(in reply to Pascal)

Post #: 34

RE: Oil and Refineries - 4/9/2011 1:37:35 PM

JWE

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal
Andrew, could you elaborate on your comment about supply output from refineries and unrealistic results?

Can't speak directly for Andrew, but think what he is refering to is the ability of both the DEI and Burma to produce enough supply from their refineries to be effectively self-sustaining regions. Both areas can support large numbers of troops without requiring any infusions of supply from eslewhere.

Refineries don't make anything beyond POLs, so having them produce supply might be a misnomer. However, since some aspects of "supply" also represent certain types of POLs, it made sense in the beginning, conceptually, to have a small proportion of "supply" be an output. However, this led to the Fortress Java and Fortress Burma thingys. This is Treespider's conclusion and I agree with it.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Pascal)

Post #: 35

RE: Oil and Refineries - 4/9/2011 2:29:28 PM

treespider

Posts: 9735
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Knoxville
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Andrew, could you elaborate on your comment about supply output from refineries and unrealistic results?

I believe he is refering to the ability of a place like Palembang to generate "Supply" which can then be used to "feed" units.

In Treespider Mod I removed supply production from refineries.

_____________________________

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 Pascal)

Post #: 36

RE: Oil and Refineries - 4/9/2011 2:49:35 PM

vettim89

Posts: 3234
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I see what you mean, but I think that Fuel in AE is like Supply in AE, insofar as it is a group of things rather than just one very specific commodity.

It does represent a lot of things. To me at least. In general, what "fuel" represents is in the following two broad categories:

Heavy fuel oil used by ships.

Every other thing - civilian, military and industrial - that products output by refineries were used for.

Some examples of the second part would include: petrol used by the civilian economy and the military (motorised transport etc.);all lubricants; all fuel used for heating etc. Basically, the way that "fuel" is represented in AE is in a "big picture" kind of way. Since the levers we have in AE to represent the economy are very few, and very crude, I chose to think of fuel in a general sense - what a country needs to import in total for ALL of its (non-shipping) needs - NOT in a narrow sense (as in - how much "fuel" is directly consumed by heavy industry itself).

In other words, look at, say, Japan. Look at how much refined oil products it imported in real life. Look at how much of that was heavy ship fuel. ALL of the other refined products still needed to be imported, so that need is represented in-game by giving HI centres a fuel requirement. Why HI? Because, in my view, the "fuel" requirements of an economy were proportional to how industrialised that economy was, and this "industrialisation" is most directly proportional to how many HI centres each country gets. Countries with large populations but which are less industrialised, such as China and the DEI, have much less HI, so needed a lot less fuel as inputs into their economies.

I hope that explains why HI has a fuel input in AE.

Andrew

PS: These comments exclude the avgas issue. As I have commented elsewhere, I added a supply output to refineries to represent avgas production, but I now think that was a mistake as it leads to unrealistic results in the game.

The more I thought about this, the more I had come to this same conclusion. AE works in big picture mode as far as economic inputs/outputs go; trying to make it perform in a level of granularity beyond what the original model allowed is likely going to mean DOOM! I would add one caveat. I think either refinery efficiency should be toned down (Andrews 10 oil in 6 fuel out model) or the amount of refineries in the SRA should be 60% of the RL amount to represent Japan's inability to run those refineries efficiently. I think I like the second better than the first as it does two things. First it still allows Japan's HI refineries to produce at efficient levels and second (this one's for you JWE) Japan would then have to move OIL from the SRA back to Japan.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 37

RE: Oil and Refineries - 4/9/2011 6:22:03 PM

JWE

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

That's a reasonable approach. I hesitated to do any of that because I really don't know what I'm doing and I didn't want to screw up Andrew's model.

But yeah, here's some numbers. They are probably different from numbers other people have, but they all come from the same source, so they are ok relatively, if not absolutely. Calcs done using 7.7 bbls/ton.

Japan Refinery capacity, 1941 (from a range of sources, min to max)
~ 70 - 90,000 bbls/day in 28 refinery complexes
--> 25,550,000 � 32,850,000 bbls annually
--> 3,320,000 � 4,266,000 tons annually

DEI Well and Refinery capacity, 1940
8,000,000 tons oil field output in 1940 (DEI)
61,600,000 bbls oil field output in 1940 (DEI)
6,300,000 tons refinery output in 1940 (DEI)
48,510,000 bbls refinery output in 1940 (DEI)
1,000,000 tons oil field output in 1940 (Br.Borneo)
7,700,000 bbls oil field output in 1940 (Br.Borneo)
900,000 tons refinery output in 1940 (Br.Borneo)
6,930,000 bbls refinery output in 1940 (Br.Borneo)

So the SRA had 7.2M tons of refinery capacity vs Japan's 4.3M tons. But, Japan got the oil fields producing at near pre-war levels, but refinery efficiency bit the mighty wazoo. In 1943 the Dutch refineries (in Borneo/Java?Sumatra) were operating (peak opperational efficiency) at between 30% to 50% of pre-war levels. Japan spent most of its repair resources on the biggie at Lutong/Miri, which peaked out at an effective capacity of 12,000 bbls per day in 1943. That�s 4,380,000 bbls compared to 6,930,000 bbls pre-war (63%).

So, yes, in a perfect system, I would rape the refineries outside Japan. But Andrew has calculated fuel production and consumption pretty well. Cutting fuel production totals would probably cause comsumption to push things off the cliff way earlier than expected. It's a hard one to figure out.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 38

RE: Oil and Refineries - 4/9/2011 7:49:06 PM

JWE

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

Setting capturable refineries to 40-50-60% of game values does make a certain amount of sense. Japan has a game refinery capacity of about 900 points (1030 with Korea and China); the DEI has a game refinery capacity of about 1950 points. So that�s about right; currently the DEI has roughly 2x Japan�s refinery capacity.

One problem is dealing with the Allied ability to blow things up. That shouldn�t be too bad since it doesn�t take an inordinate amount of time to rebuild/repair them, and they would rebuild/repair to IRL levels (40-50-60& of pre-war IRL levels).

Other problem (and it�s the real biggie), is that nobody really knows what the long-term fuel utilization is (should be) and therefore, what the fuel production targets should be (long-term, month by month, year by year) except perhaps Andrew. So, what exactly would happen, in game terms, if Japanese fuel production were cut by 33%? That�s what would happen if the DEI refinery capacity (2/3 of totals) was cut to/by 50%.

Is this total fuel production metric sufficient for, at least, nominal consumption, operations, expansions? The necessary min is the amount required to fuel HI. Transporting that stuff requires a ship-gas-tank delta, and there has to be some excess that allows for naval operations. Woof !!!!!

It�s a ton load of bitches
Brewed up by ten witches
With tight naughty britches
Along roadside ditches
That make great big glitches
Or other sad hitches
In vast unknown niches
For poop without riches
Like minor-league pitches
Requiring stitches.

Ciao. J

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 39

RE: Oil and Refineries - 4/9/2011 8:25:47 PM

Bradley7735

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Setting capturable refineries to 40-50-60% of game values does make a certain amount of sense. Japan has a game refinery capacity of about 900 points (1030 with Korea and China); the DEI has a game refinery capacity of about 1950 points. So that�s about right; currently the DEI has roughly 2x Japan�s refinery capacity.

One problem is dealing with the Allied ability to blow things up. That shouldn�t be too bad since it doesn�t take an inordinate amount of time to rebuild/repair them, and they would rebuild/repair to IRL levels (40-50-60& of pre-war IRL levels).

Other problem (and it�s the real biggie), is that nobody really knows what the long-term fuel utilization is (should be) and therefore, what the fuel production targets should be (long-term, month by month, year by year) except perhaps Andrew. So, what exactly would happen, in game terms, if Japanese fuel production were cut by 33%? That�s what would happen if the DEI refinery capacity (2/3 of totals) was cut to/by 50%.

Is this total fuel production metric sufficient for, at least, nominal consumption, operations, expansions? The necessary min is the amount required to fuel HI. Transporting that stuff requires a ship-gas-tank delta, and there has to be some excess that allows for naval operations. Woof !!!!!

It�s a ton load of bitches
Brewed up by ten witches
With tight naughty britches
Along roadside ditches
That make great big glitches
Or other sad hitches
In vast unknown niches
For poop without riches
Like minor-league pitches
Requiring stitches.

Ciao. J

Here's an option that could be considered safe. Lets say you reduce refinery capacity in the DEI by 700 devices. Just increase Home Island refinery capacity by 700 devices.

There are drawbacks and benefits to my suggestion. But, it eliminates the unknown issue of whether there would be too little fuel as the game progresses.

drawbacks: more than historical refinery capacity in the HI. 700 devices now can be used for strategic points (more than stock)
Benefits: Japan has to ship oil a lot more. Japan has to ship fuel more (less in the DEI, more in the HI.) Japan has to use fuel to ship oil and fuel.

Anyway, it's a thought.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 40

RE: Oil and Refineries - 4/9/2011 10:21:16 PM

vettim89

Posts: 3234
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

That was my thinking too as far as increasing the refinery capacity in the HI. It is a tit for tat thing but would start causing the problems seen in RL where the IJN was so desperate for fuel in the Southern Area that they resorted to putting raw crude into their bunkers. So enough oil/fuel to keep Japan going but once the SRA was cut off by geogrpahic captures by the Allies or sub operations (which never happens in AE), Japan would be hurting for fuel

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 41

RE: Oil and Refineries - 4/15/2011 5:37:57 PM

inqistor

Posts: 1210
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
Here's an option that could be considered safe. Lets say you reduce refinery capacity in the DEI by 700 devices. Just increase Home Island refinery capacity by 700 devices.

There are drawbacks and benefits to my suggestion. But, it eliminates the unknown issue of whether there would be too little fuel as the game progresses.

drawbacks: more than historical refinery capacity in the HI. 700 devices now can be used for strategic points (more than stock)
Benefits: Japan has to ship oil a lot more. Japan has to ship fuel more (less in the DEI, more in the HI.) Japan has to use fuel to ship oil and fuel.

Actually there is also possibility to change refinery output to be bigger, than input (so, for example 12 fuel for 10 oil). That way there is no need to increase refineries in Japan, and it is clear, that transporting oil will be more efficient.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 42

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/14/2011 10:39:51 PM

AlaskanWarrior

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline

I found a 1948 study most helpful as it gave a concise picture of the prewar status of oil production the region:

http://www.akdreemer.com/oil_1948_pacific.pdf

_____________________________

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 43

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/15/2011 2:57:34 AM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

Very interesting document; thank you for posting it. I see that it even gives details of the type of refineries in the NEI.

_____________________________

(in reply to AlaskanWarrior)

Post #: 44

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/15/2011 6:44:50 AM

vettim89

Posts: 3234
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

I found a 1948 study most helpful as it gave a concise picture of the prewar status of oil production the region:

http://www.akdreemer.com/oil_1948_pacific.pdf

That, my friend is a find indeed. Going to take a while to digest this one

_____________________________

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

(in reply to AlaskanWarrior)

Post #: 45

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/16/2011 12:06:29 AM

el cid again

Posts: 14601
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

Strategically, the SRA produces more than enough oil for Japan (IRL) - and there is also oil production in other places - including
Japan itself - Manchuria - and China - and a bit of shale oil (enough to get Carter administration interest in one of the processes used).
This is documented in some historical commentaries. However, PRODUCING the oil and MOVING
the oil - not to mention refining the oil in many cases - is a very different kettle of fish. Japan has lots of problems getting oil where it
is needed, when it is needed, in sufficient quantities - and losing it en route.

Game "oil" is not the same thing as real world oil. AVGAS, as someone said, is supply - never mind it comes from petroleum. Vehicle
oil and gasoline is similar. Coal is indeed ships fuel in some cases, as well as industrial fuel, and a vital part of making steel - yet it is present as a part of "resources" - and not accounted for as a fuel at all - never mind Japan actually made oil products from coal. Most of the weight of resources
moved by Japanese shipping was in fact coal. It is very hard to reconcile what should be done in terms of resource production, or even merchant ship
allocation, in this system? There are simply not enough kinds of resources, or the kinds of ways to use them, to permit a good model. But some
efforts have been made in the past to address some of the issues. For example, coal fired ships were made more fuel efficient (demanding less oil),
but less cargo efficient (less cargo for a given size).

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 46

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/16/2011 2:39:52 AM

treespider

Posts: 9735
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Knoxville
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Strategically, the SRA produces more than enough oil for Japan (IRL) - and there is also oil production in other places - including
Japan itself - Manchuria - and China - and a bit of shale oil (enough to get Carter administration interest in one of the processes used).
This is documented in some historical commentaries. However, PRODUCING the oil and MOVING
the oil - not to mention refining the oil in many cases - is a very different kettle of fish. Japan has lots of problems getting oil where it
is needed, when it is needed, in sufficient quantities - and losing it en route.

Game "oil" is not the same thing as real world oil. AVGAS, as someone said, is supply - never mind it comes from petroleum. Vehicle
oil and gasoline is similar. Coal is indeed ships fuel in some cases, as well as industrial fuel, and a vital part of making steel - yet it is present as a part of "resources" - and not accounted for as a fuel at all - never mind Japan actually made oil products from coal. Most of the weight of resources
moved by Japanese shipping was in fact coal. It is very hard to reconcile what should be done in terms of resource production, or even merchant ship
allocation, in this system? There are simply not enough kinds of resources, or the kinds of ways to use them, to permit a good model. But some
efforts have been made in the past to address some of the issues. For example, coal fired ships were made more fuel efficient (demanding less oil),
but less cargo efficient (less cargo for a given size).

In my mod I replaced some of the resources in Manchuria with a modest Fuel allotment...with the proviso that the Japanese should not use tankers to retrieve this fuel....rather they should simply allow ships to use it to refuel.... utilze xAK's to carry it. The purpose being to represent bunker coal.

< Message edited by treespider -- 5/16/2011 2:40:16 AM >

_____________________________

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 el cid again)

Post #: 47

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/18/2011 11:05:43 PM

el cid again

Posts: 14601
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

That is a fine simplification. But IRL tankers went to Manchuria to get oil. A famous trip by a gigantic submarine was made to get fuel for the First Submarine Flotilla - entirely composed of sub aircraft carriers - in 1945. One sister ship of that sub was actually under construction AS a tanker too!

It is in Manchuria the shale oil project existed. It got to a pretty good level early - but was not able to be expanded as hoped or planned.
Manchuria was long after regarded as a proper source of oil by China too - although the fields eventually were depleted so it isn't any more.

Oil production in Manchuria shoud be limited - but probably not restricted from tanker transport. Few players will be aware of such a rule down the road,
even if everyone was when you made it.

Oil production shiould also exist in China. Standard oil even ran river tankers - see the Panay incident - involving one of the three more famous ones.

And of course there is oil on Sakhalin Island - properly modeled even in ancient editions of the game.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 48

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/18/2011 11:26:17 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12397
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

A misunderstanding, Cid. The oil that he put there is meant to stand in for coal. As such, he is only using AKs to get it and/or use it for fuel, simulating those that used coal. Stretches the scenario just a little bit past which resources are accounted for in the game engine.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 49

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/18/2011 11:49:17 PM

treespider

Posts: 9735
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Knoxville
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

A misunderstanding, Cid. The oil that he put there is meant to stand in for coal. As such, he is only using AKs to get it and/or use it for fuel, simulating those that used coal. Stretches the scenario just a little bit past which resources are accounted for in the game engine.

Correct ...the fuel allotment to which I refer is over and above what already exists in the standard scenario.

_____________________________

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 #: 50

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/19/2011 10:29:38 AM

el cid again

Posts: 14601
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

A misunderstanding, Cid. The oil that he put there is meant to stand in for coal. As such, he is only using AKs to get it and/or use it for fuel, simulating those that used coal. Stretches the scenario just a little bit past which resources are accounted for in the game engine.

In this system, coal probably ought to be represented in more than one way. Coking coal, used to produce steel, and coal used to fuel factories, probably ought to be classified as a resource. That should be most of the coal by weight. Coal as a source of petrochemmicals could be represented as fuel I suppose - but there isn't really much of it. What was it - 200,000 or 300,000 tons a year? That is to say - not very many fuel points per day! It probably mainly comes from Manchukuo. And some of that should be supply points - to the extent it is used as avgas or vehicle fuel or lubricants or pharmasuitical items. It is so little it may be better ignored.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 51

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/19/2011 1:13:15 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12397
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

A misunderstanding, Cid. The oil that he put there is meant to stand in for coal. As such, he is only using AKs to get it and/or use it for fuel, simulating those that used coal. Stretches the scenario just a little bit past which resources are accounted for in the game engine.

In this system, coal probably ought to be represented in more than one way. Coking coal, used to produce steel, and coal used to fuel factories, probably ought to be classified as a resource. That should be most of the coal by weight. Coal as a source of petrochemmicals could be represented as fuel I suppose - but there isn't really much of it. What was it - 200,000 or 300,000 tons a year? That is to say - not very many fuel points per day! It probably mainly comes from Manchukuo. And some of that should be supply points - to the extent it is used as avgas or vehicle fuel or lubricants or pharmasuitical items. It is so little it may be better ignored.

As you know we get certain types of resources in the game and that's it. Making a scenario so complicated that almost no one would bother playing it would serve no point and I am certain that Treespider is not interested in doing that.

The coal that he is representing using the added fuel is 1) bunkerage for some xAK/xAKL (those which refuel where it's picked up); and 2) input to industries in Japan which use it once it is unloaded in Japan. It is an abstraction to cover "all the stuff" that coal is used for. The real point of the exercise is to make Japan's merchant fleet actually have to go and get the stuff.

Go have a look at Treespider's thread on his mod (link in his signature in one of the posts above) and you will get a clearer picture of what he has done.

BTW, I saw elsewhere someone recommend that you use DaBabes scenarios that JWE, Don Bowen, and others have authored as the basis for any mod that you make. I second that recommendation. In fact, there are so many well-researched changes and refinements in that group of scenarios that failing to use them as a starting point would be a serious blunder. JWE and Don are both on the AE development team and had access to see the code internals, a fact which allowed them to harmonize as much as possible the data with the code. Use Babes as a starting point for your mod and whatever you produce will be far better than it would be otherwise.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 52

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/19/2011 4:23:02 PM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1869
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Covina,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

A misunderstanding, Cid. The oil that he put there is meant to stand in for coal. As such, he is only using AKs to get it and/or use it for fuel, simulating those that used coal. Stretches the scenario just a little bit past which resources are accounted for in the game engine.

In this system, coal probably ought to be represented in more than one way. Coking coal, used to produce steel, and coal used to fuel factories, probably ought to be classified as a resource. That should be most of the coal by weight. Coal as a source of petrochemmicals could be represented as fuel I suppose - but there isn't really much of it. What was it - 200,000 or 300,000 tons a year? That is to say - not very many fuel points per day! It probably mainly comes from Manchukuo. And some of that should be supply points - to the extent it is used as avgas or vehicle fuel or lubricants or pharmasuitical items. It is so little it may be better ignored.

As you know we get certain types of resources in the game and that's it. Making a scenario so complicated that almost no one would bother playing it would serve no point and I am certain that Treespider is not interested in doing that.

The coal that he is representing using the added fuel is 1) bunkerage for some xAK/xAKL (those which refuel where it's picked up); and 2) input to industries in Japan which use it once it is unloaded in Japan. It is an abstraction to cover "all the stuff" that coal is used for. The real point of the exercise is to make Japan's merchant fleet actually have to go and get the stuff.

Go have a look at Treespider's thread on his mod (link in his signature in one of the posts above) and you will get a clearer picture of what he has done.

BTW, I saw elsewhere someone recommend that you use DaBabes scenarios that JWE, Don Bowen, and others have authored as the basis for any mod that you make. I second that recommendation. In fact, there are so many well-researched changes and refinements in that group of scenarios that failing to use them as a starting point would be a serious blunder. JWE and Don are both on the AE development team and had access to see the code internals, a fact which allowed them to harmonize as much as possible the data with the code. Use Babes as a starting point for your mod and whatever you produce will be far better than it would be otherwise.

I support your recommendation here witpqs and I welcome Ed Cid back into the arena. I expect we will see some additional fresh ideas with his return.

I have collaborated a little with mifune on his work and I am almost positive that he uses DaBabes as a base.

OK, here is what I am more than a little worried about. This has the potential of becoming a big political firestorm that will cause problems here on the boards and especially with any ongoing support of DaBabes.

I think I will just leave it at that without further comment on the subject. I hope cool minds prevail.

Buck

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 53

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/19/2011 5:07:51 PM

JWE

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
OK, here is what I am more than a little worried about. This has the potential of becoming a big political firestorm that will cause problems here on the boards and especially with any ongoing support of DaBabes.

Buck

Not from anyone on the Babes team. We appreciate the support Babes has received, very much. We just do our thing and provide our data with as much explanation as to the why's and wherefore's as possible. People tweak, twonk, twist, and torque it up to suit their own purposes (or ignore it entirely) already. We simply do not mind.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 54

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/19/2011 5:36:55 PM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1869
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Covina,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
OK, here is what I am more than a little worried about. This has the potential of becoming a big political firestorm that will cause problems here on the boards and especially with any ongoing support of DaBabes.

Buck

Not from anyone on the Babes team. We appreciate the support Babes has received, very much. We just do our thing and provide our data with as much explanation as to the why's and wherefore's as possible. People tweak, twonk, twist, and torque it up to suit their own purposes (or ignore it entirely) already. We simply do not mind.

That's very cool!!

Buck

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 55

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/20/2011 2:36:29 AM

el cid again

Posts: 14601
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

A misunderstanding, Cid. The oil that he put there is meant to stand in for coal. As such, he is only using AKs to get it and/or use it for fuel, simulating those that used coal. Stretches the scenario just a little bit past which resources are accounted for in the game engine.

In this system, coal probably ought to be represented in more than one way. Coking coal, used to produce steel, and coal used to fuel factories, probably ought to be classified as a resource. That should be most of the coal by weight. Coal as a source of petrochemmicals could be represented as fuel I suppose - but there isn't really much of it. What was it - 200,000 or 300,000 tons a year? That is to say - not very many fuel points per day! It probably mainly comes from Manchukuo. And some of that should be supply points - to the extent it is used as avgas or vehicle fuel or lubricants or pharmasuitical items. It is so little it may be better ignored.

As you know we get certain types of resources in the game and that's it. Making a scenario so complicated that almost no one would bother playing it would serve no point and I am certain that Treespider is not interested in doing that.

The coal that he is representing using the added fuel is 1) bunkerage for some xAK/xAKL (those which refuel where it's picked up); and 2) input to industries in Japan which use it once it is unloaded in Japan. It is an abstraction to cover "all the stuff" that coal is used for. The real point of the exercise is to make Japan's merchant fleet actually have to go and get the stuff.

Go have a look at Treespider's thread on his mod (link in his signature in one of the posts above) and you will get a clearer picture of what he has done.

BTW, I saw elsewhere someone recommend that you use DaBabes scenarios that JWE, Don Bowen, and others have authored as the basis for any mod that you make. I second that recommendation. In fact, there are so many well-researched changes and refinements in that group of scenarios that failing to use them as a starting point would be a serious blunder. JWE and Don are both on the AE development team and had access to see the code internals, a fact which allowed them to harmonize as much as possible the data with the code. Use Babes as a starting point for your mod and whatever you produce will be far better than it would be otherwise.

I recommend having a theory about how your change will work in the system - how they better model events. I certainly agree that ships can use coal fuel - but I don't see how this actually simulates that? Real simulation of it would make coal fueled ships DIFFERENT in some way from oil fueled ones - something I have experimented with. It is true that resources should need to go to Japan by ship - and also that coal is MOST of that (by tonnage) - about 2/3. So coal probably needs to be "resources" mostly - or the merchant fleet is vastly too big (which seems to be the case - players can use it as invasion fodder).
As for data bases, it depends on the quality of the data. Was not a lot of work done on AE data in the first place? If it is any good, only selective changes - r additions - are required. Anyway - I am possibly the fastest database builder on the planet. If need be, I will make new ones. But for cause - and using definitions that model something.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 56

RE: Oil and Refineries - 5/20/2011 2:38:47 AM

el cid again

Posts: 14601
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

A misunderstanding, Cid. The oil that he put there is meant to stand in for coal. As such, he is only using AKs to get it and/or use it for fuel, simulating those that used coal. Stretches the scenario just a little bit past which resources are accounted for in the game engine.

In this system, coal probably ought to be represented in more than one way. Coking coal, used to produce steel, and coal used to fuel factories, probably ought to be classified as a resource. That should be most of the coal by weight. Coal as a source of petrochemmicals could be represented as fuel I suppose - but there isn't really much of it. What was it - 200,000 or 300,000 tons a year? That is to say - not very many fuel points per day! It probably mainly comes from Manchukuo. And some of that should be supply points - to the extent it is used as avgas or vehicle fuel or lubricants or pharmasuitical items. It is so little it may be better ignored.

As you know we get certain types of resources in the game and that's it. Making a scenario so complicated that almost no one would bother playing it would serve no point and I am certain that Treespider is not interested in doing that.

The coal that he is representing using the added fuel is 1) bunkerage for some xAK/xAKL (those which refuel where it's picked up); and 2) input to industries in Japan which use it once it is unloaded in Japan. It is an abstraction to cover "all the stuff" that coal is used for. The real point of the exercise is to make Japan's merchant fleet actually have to go and get the stuff.

Go have a look at Treespider's thread on his mod (link in his signature in one of the posts above) and you will get a clearer picture of what he has done.

BTW, I saw elsewhere someone recommend that you use DaBabes scenarios that JWE, Don Bowen, and others have authored as the basis for any mod that you make. I second that recommendation. In fact, there are so many well-researched changes and refinements in that group of scenarios that failing to use them as a starting point would be a serious blunder. JWE and Don are both on the AE development team and had access to see the code internals, a fact which allowed them to harmonize as much as possible the data with the code. Use Babes as a starting point for your mod and whatever you produce will be far better than it would be otherwise.

I support your recommendation here witpqs and I welcome Ed Cid back into the arena. I expect we will see some additional fresh ideas with his return.

I have collaborated a little with mifune on his work and I am almost positive that he uses DaBabes as a base.

OK, here is what I am more than a little worried about. This has the potential of becoming a big political firestorm that will cause problems here on the boards and especially with any ongoing support of DaBabes.

I think I will just leave it at that without further comment on the subject. I hope cool minds prevail.

Buck

I will ignore any fireworks. Life is too short. The comment that they don't care if anyone uses, changes or modifies the data applies equally to me. I believe in freedom. I think choices are wonderful.

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 57