Matrix Games Forums

War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Terrorizing the Economy

 
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 >> Terrorizing the Economy Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Terrorizing the Economy - 4/6/2011 5:07:56 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Something Maj Faustini said a while ago just sunk into my thick skull. "Why do I have to keep all the factories running, when I get full-up divisional sets for free?"

Seems many people are turning off factories as unnecessary and using the excess HI points to do more planes and engines, or shipyards, or some such. We worked a lot with Andrew Brown to make all new ship construction arrive with empty fuel tanks, and ships appearing at off-map bases arrive half empty, to keep people from getting a "free fuel" bonus. AndyMac has set many later war arrivals at a reduced establishment, but there's still a gazillion Divisions, Brigades, Rgts and bears, oh my, that appear fully equipped and ready to boogie at absolutely no cost to the pools. So ...

Gonna look at arrival dates for LCUs and tweak the arrival 'device content'. TOEs stay the same, but units will need to suck sustenance from the pools in order to get operational and get to TOE levels. That will force retention of vehicle and armaments factories and reduce the potential for excess HI points for use with more sexy stuff.

Everything, and I do mean everything, gets cut. 1942 arrivals get cut to 50%. 1943 arrivals get cut to 33%. 1944 arrivals get cut to 25%. 1945 arrivals get cut to 20%. Understand that some late-date units (like the tanks) were formed from previously disbanded units, so will have to be careful with the withdraw 1 or 2 thing. If one withdraws a tank unit and dumps the tanks into the pools, the later arriving (reformed/renamed/whatever) tank unit arrives totally empty and must rely on the pool content and intervening production to get fleshed out.

Not sure exactly what effect this will have on the long term econometric model, but do remember Andrew Brown taking this sort of freebie device pool stuff into account when he developed the thing - just like the freebie fuel thing - so don't think this will break anything except gamey JFBs hearts.

What ya'll think?



_____________________________

Home of DaBabes
Post #: 1
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/6/2011 5:22:49 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15107
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
I think hard core IJ players will love it, provided the numbers add up righteously. Fanbois I am not worried about.

Thinking on it a bit, the time to flesh out units in the game engine is a consideration. You might consider advancing the arrival dates of dehydrated units to compensate for that.

I take it you will not touch Allied formations or else you would have to start upping Allied replacement rates?

< Message edited by witpqs -- 4/6/2011 5:23:08 PM >

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 2
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/6/2011 5:23:36 PM   
Pascal


Posts: 1638
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: in New England now after driving across US from CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Something Maj Faustini said a while ago just sunk into my thick skull. "Why do I have to keep all the factories running, when I get full-up divisional sets for free?"

Seems many people are turning off factories as unnecessary and using the excess HI points to do more planes and engines, or shipyards, or some such. We worked a lot with Andrew Brown to make all new ship construction arrive with empty fuel tanks, and ships appearing at off-map bases arrive half empty, to keep people from getting a "free fuel" bonus. AndyMac has set many later war arrivals at a reduced establishment, but there's still a gazillion Divisions, Brigades, Rgts and bears, oh my, that appear fully equipped and ready to boogie at absolutely no cost to the pools. So ...

Gonna look at arrival dates for LCUs and tweak the arrival 'device content'. TOEs stay the same, but units will need to suck sustenance from the pools in order to get operational and get to TOE levels. That will force retention of vehicle and armaments factories and reduce the potential for excess HI points for use with more sexy stuff.

Everything, and I do mean everything, gets cut. 1942 arrivals get cut to 50%. 1943 arrivals get cut to 33%. 1944 arrivals get cut to 25%. 1945 arrivals get cut to 20%. Understand that some late-date units (like the tanks) were formed from previously disbanded units, so will have to be careful with the withdraw 1 or 2 thing. If one withdraws a tank unit and dumps the tanks into the pools, the later arriving (reformed/renamed/whatever) tank unit arrives totally empty and must rely on the pool content and intervening production to get fleshed out.

Not sure exactly what effect this will have on the long term econometric model, but do remember Andrew Brown taking this sort of freebie device pool stuff into account when he developed the thing - just like the freebie fuel thing - so don't think this will break anything except gamey JFBs hearts.

What ya'll think?




This sounds good. It forces a more 'realistic' industrial base structure. What's the debate on Allied units in turn? Start them with reduced effectives also? Add a full-blown Allied industrial base on the map?

_____________________________

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


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 3
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/6/2011 6:00:29 PM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline
Here is a Tracker-derived image showing daily armament gains/losses in my 'Peace in the Pacific' test of Treespider's mod. By definition, no combat is taking place requiring replacement of destroyed devices. As at 7 March 1942, I see that I have 2 base forces, 1 special base force and 1 engineer regiment permitted to draw replacements. All other LCU's are set to 'no replacements'.

In the 1st week of January I reduced armament production by about one third of total capacity - yes, I plead guilty to turning production off and on! The 'usual' effect of this was to reduce the gain in stockpiled armament points from 620 to 390 points per day.

However, note that (leaving aside some anomalous figures possibly related to the monthly HI hit for pilot training) there are some days when the gain is less than the 'usual' figure. And there are also days when the stockpile is actually reduced. When this occurs, it has been my entirely subjective impression that such loss or reduced gain coincides with an influx of reinforcements.

So what is accounting for these fluctuations in the armament stockpile, given the absence of combat and near universal denial of replacements? Could I be right in thinking that it is the consequence of armament devices being drawn from the stockpile in order to equip the reinforcement LCU's? If so, that calls in question the validity of John's premise that such LCU's are arriving at full establishment and at no cost to the pools. If not, what is causing these gain/loss fluctuations in the armament stockpile?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________




(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 4
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/6/2011 6:16:14 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal
This sounds good. It forces a more 'realistic' industrial base structure. What's the debate on Allied units in turn? Start them with reduced effectives also? Add a full-blown Allied industrial base on the map?

There really isn't much of a 'debate' on Allied units, in turn. The thing is:

AE is an adaptation of Gary Grigsby's WiTP game system. The fundamental rule for us was "better, but no worse, than Witp". We could not tweak Gary's game system; we could only tweak the incidentals. That is Life, The Universe, and Everything.

All DaBabes does (and what DaBabes is all about) is tweaking the data so that various outcomes tend to approach a more realistic level, but it's all based on Gary's fundamental system. When all is said and done, the Game is the Game.

Allied units don't have the economy underpinnings, so it's not relevant how they come into-game.

The whole process of devising realistic scenarios means conceptualizing a multitude af factors, and then adaptively judging those factors in terms of play balance: admittedly a highly subjective exercise, but I think the Babes folks are pretty honest on both sides of an issue. All we want to do is provide the most realistic environment possible for players to deal with. Given that the game system is cast in stone, we have to dink with the details and try to tweak the result distributions within the algorithms.

We are basically a refinery, not the oil field. Ciao. J

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Pascal)
Post #: 5
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/6/2011 6:39:44 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3331
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
Love this idea. I am wondering about LY results though. Perhaps an examination of the DB can reveal what if any units arrived on those dates. The large jumps make no sense as the code allows for a unit to add no more than one of each device per game turn. If that is true arriving understrengthed units should not cause a large drop but instead a slow drain on the armament pool. However, if LY is correct and newly arriving units do draw there devices from the armament pool vice the individual device pool then that would explain the drop on the day of arrival. That question does bear out an answer before going forward.

LY, can you look at the device pools directly and see if there were any changes in them on those dates?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 6
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/6/2011 7:08:49 PM   
Local Yokel


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

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Love this idea. I am wondering about LY results though. Perhaps an examination of the DB can reveal what if any units arrived on those dates. The large jumps make no sense as the code allows for a unit to add no more than one of each device per game turn. If that is true arriving understrengthed units should not cause a large drop but instead a slow drain on the armament pool. However, if LY is correct and newly arriving units do draw there devices from the armament pool vice the individual device pool then that would explain the drop on the day of arrival. That question does bear out an answer before going forward.

LY, can you look at the device pools directly and see if there were any changes in them on those dates?


This isn't conclusive, but I think significant.

Here's an extract from the device pool history of the 70mm Type 92 Howitzer in my PinP game. Note that at turn 57 there's a draw of 63 of these howitzers from the pool. The unit highlighted in the Current Device Usage section, 62nd Inf Gp Bde, is one of a number of infantry reinforcements arriving 57 days into the game. In the Reinforcement Arrival Schedule display, it is shown at turn 1 as having 10 active and 2 disabled Type 92's, but (without having checked) I think its full establishment is 18**. It looks as though the 62nd, along with other reinforcements arriving on turn 57, actually drew their full complement of Type 92's from the device pool. This would also be consistent with the big drop in armament pool points occuring on turn 57.

It does seem that there is evidence of arriving Japanese LCU's drawing their equipment from the armament pool.




<edit>** Having checked my 7 March turn, I find that the 62nd does, in fact, have a full complement of 18 Type 92's. It has remained at 'no replacements' since arrival, so I am fairly confident it drew all 18 from the pool when it appeared on turn 57 </edit>

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Local Yokel -- 4/6/2011 7:15:18 PM >


_____________________________




(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 7
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/6/2011 7:21:25 PM   
Pascal


Posts: 1638
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: in New England now after driving across US from CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal
This sounds good. It forces a more 'realistic' industrial base structure. What's the debate on Allied units in turn? Start them with reduced effectives also? Add a full-blown Allied industrial base on the map?

There really isn't much of a 'debate' on Allied units, in turn. The thing is:

AE is an adaptation of Gary Grigsby's WiTP game system. The fundamental rule for us was "better, but no worse, than Witp". We could not tweak Gary's game system; we could only tweak the incidentals. That is Life, The Universe, and Everything.

All DaBabes does (and what DaBabes is all about) is tweaking the data so that various outcomes tend to approach a more realistic level, but it's all based on Gary's fundamental system. When all is said and done, the Game is the Game.

Allied units don't have the economy underpinnings, so it's not relevant how they come into-game.

The whole process of devising realistic scenarios means conceptualizing a multitude af factors, and then adaptively judging those factors in terms of play balance: admittedly a highly subjective exercise, but I think the Babes folks are pretty honest on both sides of an issue. All we want to do is provide the most realistic environment possible for players to deal with. Given that the game system is cast in stone, we have to dink with the details and try to tweak the result distributions within the algorithms.

We are basically a refinery, not the oil field. Ciao. J


Yes, unless the whole system is redesigned from scratch, there is nothing but tweaking the edges that is possible.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 8
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/6/2011 7:47:02 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Considering that even with pools overflowing rebuilding a division that had less than 20% of its combat strength destroyed to full takes, in my experience, over 4 months, I would have preffered other ways to increase Japanese economical strain, assuming that is the main goal of this proposal. Because huge amounts of time necessary to restore the units to full combat strength (meaning, in particular that units from the main wave of wartime IJA expansion, starting in late autumn of 1943 will be fully combat ready only for the final defense of Home Islands, if then) are a much harder kick in the Empire's nuts

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 9
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/6/2011 10:57:41 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
I thnk conceptually, you are on the right track.  I would echo others thoughts that the arrival times will need to be pulled up to allow for the units to be ready for deployment per historical dates.


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 10
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/7/2011 12:40:38 PM   
beppi

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Considering that even with pools overflowing rebuilding a division that had less than 20% of its combat strength destroyed to full takes, in my experience, over 4 months, I would have preffered other ways to increase Japanese economical strain, assuming that is the main goal of this proposal. Because huge amounts of time necessary to restore the units to full combat strength (meaning, in particular that units from the main wave of wartime IJA expansion, starting in late autumn of 1943 will be fully combat ready only for the final defense of Home Islands, if then) are a much harder kick in the Empire's nuts


Problem is that currently in the game it only takes around a month to bring a division to full TOE. Put it in a Base with enough Support, enough HQ, more than enough supply. Split it in 3 parts (A/B/C), put it into rest mode. Have seen up to 4 devices drawn per turn for each part (12 total) and even saw up to 8 devices drawn but only for full divisions. Usually support takes the longest as most of the time it is the devices with the largest number. If you say 450 support, leads to 150 per part. 3 - 4 drawn each day is between 37 and 50 days to rebuild a division.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 11
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/7/2011 3:00:59 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7173
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Just to weigh in with what LY is seeing...

When my pool is too low to supply the units that arrive, I have noticed they will arrive very understrength. I have had units arrive with as few as 4 of a particular device due to my pool being at 0 (armaments and armor). So you either 1. Get a very minimal amount for free (it seems to be around 10%) and the rest is drawn from the pool 2. these units are programmed to come in extremely understrength.

Honestly, changing this will not affect me in any way, since I do not turn off my factories unless I am having HI shortages (I like a large pool for the end game).

I assume you are going to adjust arrival dates so that the unit will be 'combat ready' on its historical activation date? As it is, if you have to draw from the pools, then the units will not be combat ready on arrival.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 12
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/7/2011 7:06:04 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi
Problem is that currently in the game it only takes around a month to bring a division to full TOE. Put it in a Base with enough Support, enough HQ, more than enough supply. Split it in 3 parts (A/B/C), put it into rest mode. Have seen up to 4 devices drawn per turn for each part (12 total) and even saw up to 8 devices drawn but only for full divisions. Usually support takes the longest as most of the time it is the devices with the largest number. If you say 450 support, leads to 150 per part. 3 - 4 drawn each day is between 37 and 50 days to rebuild a division.

In my experience even a garrizon unit won't go from 70% (?) strength to 100% in a month, even in a huge base with a HQ and a lot of supplies. I have garrizon units that arrive in early October of 1942 before me as an example, none of them has full TOE by November 26.

EDIT: Admittedly, they spent slightly under two weeks being transported on ships. But that still leaves over five weeks of recovery.

< Message edited by FatR -- 4/7/2011 7:27:02 PM >

(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 13
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/7/2011 7:42:31 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
If not, what is causing these gain/loss fluctuations in the armament stockpile?

Hi John,

Good stuff. Made me run some tests of my own. Very interesting results. Found some peculiar burps that I'm pushing upstairs. So can't comment just now except to say that I too see a great deal of (unexpected) variability in certain aspects of the algorithm.

What ever comes of this, I must say you will be the fellow that prompted whatever fix comes into being. Very nice work, John. Please keep it up.

Ciao. John

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 14
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/8/2011 12:13:12 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4875
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

We worked a lot with Andrew Brown to make all new ship construction arrive with empty fuel tanks, and ships appearing at off-map bases arrive half empty, to keep people from getting a "free fuel" bonus.


Last time I checked, a lot of that "free fuel" had reappeared in the scenario files, including da Babes (I think). If you like JWE, I can grab the latest da Babes scenario, pull all of that fuel out again, and send you a copy? From memory it was something like 600,000 fuel points.

Andrew

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 15
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/8/2011 3:48:14 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Considering that even with pools overflowing rebuilding a division that had less than 20% of its combat strength destroyed to full takes, in my experience, over 4 months, I would have preffered other ways to increase Japanese economical strain, assuming that is the main goal of this proposal. Because huge amounts of time necessary to restore the units to full combat strength (meaning, in particular that units from the main wave of wartime IJA expansion, starting in late autumn of 1943 will be fully combat ready only for the final defense of Home Islands, if then) are a much harder kick in the Empire's nuts


Problem is that currently in the game it only takes around a month to bring a division to full TOE. Put it in a Base with enough Support, enough HQ, more than enough supply. Split it in 3 parts (A/B/C), put it into rest mode. Have seen up to 4 devices drawn per turn for each part (12 total) and even saw up to 8 devices drawn but only for full divisions. Usually support takes the longest as most of the time it is the devices with the largest number. If you say 450 support, leads to 150 per part. 3 - 4 drawn each day is between 37 and 50 days to rebuild a division.

But at what exp level? Probably not suitable for combat for another 3 - 4 months at least ... or more ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 16
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/8/2011 3:52:45 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
If not, what is causing these gain/loss fluctuations in the armament stockpile?

Hi John,

Good stuff. Made me run some tests of my own. Very interesting results. Found some peculiar burps that I'm pushing upstairs. So can't comment just now except to say that I too see a great deal of (unexpected) variability in certain aspects of the algorithm.

What ever comes of this, I must say you will be the fellow that prompted whatever fix comes into being. Very nice work, John. Please keep it up.

Ciao. John


I'm seeing similar issues with VEH points taking steep dives that I haven't fully accounted for. I hadn't looked at armaments yet as there is a bigger pool ...


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 17
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/8/2011 10:07:04 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1927
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal
This sounds good. It forces a more 'realistic' industrial base structure. What's the debate on Allied units in turn? Start them with reduced effectives also? Add a full-blown Allied industrial base on the map?

There really isn't much of a 'debate' on Allied units, in turn. The thing is:

AE is an adaptation of Gary Grigsby's WiTP game system. The fundamental rule for us was "better, but no worse, than Witp". We could not tweak Gary's game system; we could only tweak the incidentals. That is Life, The Universe, and Everything.

All DaBabes does (and what DaBabes is all about) is tweaking the data so that various outcomes tend to approach a more realistic level, but it's all based on Gary's fundamental system. When all is said and done, the Game is the Game.

Allied units don't have the economy underpinnings, so it's not relevant how they come into-game.

The whole process of devising realistic scenarios means conceptualizing a multitude af factors, and then adaptively judging those factors in terms of play balance: admittedly a highly subjective exercise, but I think the Babes folks are pretty honest on both sides of an issue. All we want to do is provide the most realistic environment possible for players to deal with. Given that the game system is cast in stone, we have to dink with the details and try to tweak the result distributions within the algorithms.

We are basically a refinery, not the oil field. Ciao. J


For the U.S. forces, at least, the "build up" time is already accounted for. Early-war units that started / arrived significantly under-equipped IRL, are similarly shorthanded in the game (e.g. most 1942 AAA regiments arrive at 1/3 strength, and don't have the pools to fill out until after July).

Later war, U.S. ground forces appear on-map around their historic deployment date -- by which time they were fully- (and by the standards of other nations, lavishly-) equipped.



_____________________________

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 JWE)
Post #: 18
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/8/2011 11:29:48 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5803
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline
Has anyone given some thought on the possibility of removing Japan's ability to control its economic output, putting Japan on par with the Allies? I assume it can be done by simply removing all factories from any bases in the editor and replacing them with monthly build rates. Just give Japan a static monthly output on engines, devices, and planes that match the historical output. It sounds like giving the Japanese the ability to manage their economy leads to more headaches and problems than it may be worth.



_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 19
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/8/2011 12:36:47 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9784
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Has anyone given some thought on the possibility of removing Japan's ability to control its economic output, putting Japan on par with the Allies? I assume it can be done by simply removing all factories from any bases in the editor and replacing them with monthly build rates. Just give Japan a static monthly output on engines, devices, and planes that match the historical output. It sounds like giving the Japanese the ability to manage their economy leads to more headaches and problems than it may be worth.





Ummm.... then what purpose is reserved for the merchant fleet?

_____________________________

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 Gary Childress)
Post #: 20
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/8/2011 12:52:46 PM   
Local Yokel


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Has anyone given some thought on the possibility of removing Japan's ability to control its economic output, putting Japan on par with the Allies? I assume it can be done by simply removing all factories from any bases in the editor and replacing them with monthly build rates. Just give Japan a static monthly output on engines, devices, and planes that match the historical output. It sounds like giving the Japanese the ability to manage their economy leads to more headaches and problems than it may be worth.





Ummm.... then what purpose is reserved for the merchant fleet?


Or strategic air attack upon Japanese cities? Notwithstanding the shortcomings attributed to the in-game Japanese economy, I still think it is an impressive achievement, and one that is essential to represent the economic warfare that took place in the Pacific.

_____________________________




(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 21
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/8/2011 1:15:08 PM   
Local Yokel


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
If not, what is causing these gain/loss fluctuations in the armament stockpile?

Hi John,

Good stuff. Made me run some tests of my own. Very interesting results. Found some peculiar burps that I'm pushing upstairs. So can't comment just now except to say that I too see a great deal of (unexpected) variability in certain aspects of the algorithm.

What ever comes of this, I must say you will be the fellow that prompted whatever fix comes into being. Very nice work, John. Please keep it up.

Ciao. John


Not knowing the detailed design behind the code, all I can ever do is go where I think the evidence is taking me.

The impression I have formed of both armament and vehicle production is that the Japanese economy operates largely on a 'Just in Time' basis. Although pool points get accumulated from turn to turn, arriving reinforcements that have only modest equipment needs seem to get outfitted direct from production on the day of their arrival. Such a diversion of daily production into a small unit's needs apparently serves to reduce the amount of points that would otherwise be added to the pool.

The example I posted of the Type 92 Howitzers suggests to me that if the armament draw is big enough on any given day, there is an expenditure of pool points to satisfy it, and the armament devices representing that draw are treated as having come from the pool, even though they were withdrawn from it the moment they were manufactured. In the particular example posted, 4 howitzers were produced in excess of requirements, and consequently remained in the pool.

I've seen more extreme examples of this in vehicle production. In my WitP PBEM last year I was engaging in a thoroughly ahistoric roll-out of Type 3 Chi-Nu to my tank units in 1943. Each time a tank unit upgraded, the factories burped out enough Type 3's fill the unit's TOE to full establishment AND add another 59 Type 3's to the pool!

Have an idea that any change to this behaviour is going to require a code change. If that happens, my personal preference would be for the player to be given some tools for managing the way in which LCU's get fleshed out.

_____________________________




(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 22
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/8/2011 5:06:51 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
Not knowing the detailed design behind the code, all I can ever do is go where I think the evidence is taking me.

Yep, yep, yep. I too have seen some anomalous behavior.

Built a single-screen test bed with everything set inactive. Put a limited number of tailored units on spaced-apart arrival schedules at a base with a (similarly tailored) command HQ and 200,000 supply. All devices were turned off except for 1 Squad, 1 Vehicle, and 1 Gun (armament) type, and all LCs were set to 10, all device content was set to a multiple of 10. Manpower, vehicle, and armament pools were the variable. All pools of everything else were set to 0 (no build, and no device pools).

Response variables were pool (virtual pool) decrement upon introduction of a unit at full TOE and at a reduced TOE and the time rate for nominal rebuild to full establishment. Also evaluated unit/item virtual pool decrements against nominal cost (in so far as they are understood).

Lots of cool stuff came out. Also some not-so-cool stuff. Am working with Andrew and Michael on the observed anomalys. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, don't know; but they are there and occasionally ugly, so need to get a good grip.

Haven't seen the double dipping that you are getting with the Type 3 Chi-Nu tanks, but there is a possible explanation. Michael has been doing a lot of tweaking on the upgrade, and recombine, and bears, oh my, part of the game, particularly with regard to the device upgrades within a combination of LCUs at respectively different upgrade levels. It is "possible" that what you are seeing is the "virtual" pool, of vehicle points, producing your Type 3s, and your "previous" vehicles being returned to the "actual" pools and then being automatically upgraded within the pool space, according to code consultation of the particular Device Data upgrade schedule (another of those nasty glitches that bite what-if stuff in unexpected places).

Implications, implications, implications. Woof !! Damn you John, for making me do this. Thank you John, for making me do this.

Ciao. J

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 23
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/8/2011 5:53:36 PM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline
In haste, as I'm about to leave for the airport.

I dug into my old records to check what happened on Chi-Nu upgrades. The last upgrade that occurred seems to have drawn from accumulated Chi-Nu stocks in the pool rather than taking up production-of-the-day. This was at turn 576, and I show the device pool record for both Type 3 Chi-Nu, and the Type 1, from which model the upgrade to Chi-Nu took place.

So far as I can tell, the Type 1's replaced have gone into the pool, and all that has been drawn down is the total of Type 3 that were already available in the pool.

Of course, this is WitP rather than AE, though I'm not aware of production routines having changed much betyween the two games.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________




(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 24
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/8/2011 6:32:54 PM   
Pascal


Posts: 1638
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: in New England now after driving across US from CA
Status: offline
For anyone who wants to test the economic/production system, I've created a Scenario 75 (from Scenario 1) with all LCU, Naval, and Air units DELAYED till Jan. 1, 1945. Even better, keep a few merchies on map for economic transport set to Dec. 6, 1941.

I did this using witploadae.exe . Quite easy, just set the delay date in the ship and group file for all to 450101. In the location file, be careful. Only change the delay date for actual LCUs and HQs, not bases, industry, or OOB structures.

Procedure is to first use the AE Editor. Load the scenario you want to modify (here I used Scenario 1). Save the scenario in slot 75 (in my case). Take all the files ending in '075' in the filename and put it in a separate folder where you should also have witploadae.exe .

You extract the scenario files to .CSV files by running witploadae (in a DOS command prompt window pointing to the proper sub-directory). You can use the line 'witploadae /?' to see all the command line options. '/e' extracts the files.

Modify the three .CSV files that concern ships, air groups, and locations accordingly. I just changed the entry in the 'Delay' column to '450101' and copied it all the way down for the ships and air groups files. In the locations file, ONLY change the HQs and LCUs delay figure.

Regenerate the scenario files using witploadae.exe . Be careful, witploadae ONLY sends these files to the subdirectory 'C:\Matrix Games\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition\SCEN'. Make sure it exists (my game is located elsewhere).

< Message edited by Pascal -- 4/8/2011 6:40:32 PM >


_____________________________

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


(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 25
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/8/2011 11:13:31 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5803
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Has anyone given some thought on the possibility of removing Japan's ability to control its economic output, putting Japan on par with the Allies? I assume it can be done by simply removing all factories from any bases in the editor and replacing them with monthly build rates. Just give Japan a static monthly output on engines, devices, and planes that match the historical output. It sounds like giving the Japanese the ability to manage their economy leads to more headaches and problems than it may be worth.





Ummm.... then what purpose is reserved for the merchant fleet?


Or strategic air attack upon Japanese cities? Notwithstanding the shortcomings attributed to the in-game Japanese economy, I still think it is an impressive achievement, and one that is essential to represent the economic warfare that took place in the Pacific.


Same purpose as the Allied merchant fleet. Same purpose as bombing Allied cities.

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 4/9/2011 3:21:51 AM >


_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 26
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/9/2011 1:47:35 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Last time I checked, a lot of that "free fuel" had reappeared in the scenario files, including da Babes (I think). If you like JWE, I can grab the latest da Babes scenario, pull all of that fuel out again, and send you a copy? From memory it was something like 600,000 fuel points.

Andrew

Yes indeed. It's like weeds. Checked and it's not bad for Japan; only a couple score ships and a couple of the late arrival class additions (CHa, CH, etc..). Fixed all those. Allies were a pita. Fixed everything except Aden and Cape Town arrivals.

Everything arriving at its construction port arrives empty. Everything arriving at Eastern US and UK arrives empty. Everything arriving at an off-map base (Panama, Aden, Cape Town, etc..) arrives half-full (or half-empty ). Almost done. Will send you a copy so you can check and make sure it's ok.

Thanks. Ciao. J

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 27
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/9/2011 7:13:52 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1288
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Something Maj Faustini said a while ago just sunk into my thick skull. "Why do I have to keep all the factories running, when I get full-up divisional sets for free?"

Seems many people are turning off factories as unnecessary and using the excess HI points to do more planes and engines, or shipyards, or some such. We worked a lot with Andrew Brown to make all new ship construction arrive with empty fuel tanks, and ships appearing at off-map bases arrive half empty, to keep people from getting a "free fuel" bonus. AndyMac has set many later war arrivals at a reduced establishment, but there's still a gazillion Divisions, Brigades, Rgts and bears, oh my, that appear fully equipped and ready to boogie at absolutely no cost to the pools. So ...

Gonna look at arrival dates for LCUs and tweak the arrival 'device content'. TOEs stay the same, but units will need to suck sustenance from the pools in order to get operational and get to TOE levels. That will force retention of vehicle and armaments factories and reduce the potential for excess HI points for use with more sexy stuff.

Everything, and I do mean everything, gets cut. 1942 arrivals get cut to 50%. 1943 arrivals get cut to 33%. 1944 arrivals get cut to 25%. 1945 arrivals get cut to 20%. Understand that some late-date units (like the tanks) were formed from previously disbanded units, so will have to be careful with the withdraw 1 or 2 thing. If one withdraws a tank unit and dumps the tanks into the pools, the later arriving (reformed/renamed/whatever) tank unit arrives totally empty and must rely on the pool content and intervening production to get fleshed out.

Not sure exactly what effect this will have on the long term econometric model, but do remember Andrew Brown taking this sort of freebie device pool stuff into account when he developed the thing - just like the freebie fuel thing - so don't think this will break anything except gamey JFBs hearts.

What ya'll think?




JWE -

Was reading the above very late last night, and it just came to me:

Babes Lite

The Big Bad Babes

The Killer Babes (most recent), and -

The Rabid Babes (TM The Babes Team)

Just my take <grin>

Mac

< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 4/9/2011 10:18:15 PM >


_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 28
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/12/2011 5:41:30 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Well, Mr Palmer, can't speak to the Chi-Nu thing yet.

But yepperino, every time a Japanese unit enters the game, after opening day, it decrements the pools to the extent of its editor devices. I haven't determined just which pools are accessed in what order, but if there are no specific devices in the pools then the newly arriving unit will "attempt" to establish itself, according to the cost rules, from manpower, armament, vehicle points. If there ain't enuf of any one of these on arrival day (all other pools being 0), the unit does not arrive till there are.

Couple more things to look at; the relative draw down of 'device' pools vs 'econ' pools when a new boy hits town; the relative effect of different device upgrade status; and the time-rate of build-to-toe given 'device' or 'econ' pool numbers.

Woof !! Ciao. John

Actually John, you are quite correct, I was working under a false assumption. Since everybody pays the pool piper to arrive in-game, no matter how well fleshed out, it doesn't make sense to tweak/decrement the unit content vis a vis the TOE. A full toe unit will pay full toe costs, a reduced toe unit will pay reduced toe costs but have a build-time penalty and incur pay-as-you-go costs. This is beginning to make sense to me.

God help us all, though, if Kristian inserts his 'toe' into the equation.

< Message edited by JWE -- 4/12/2011 6:27:12 PM >


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 29
RE: Terrorizing the Economy - 4/14/2011 8:13:02 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41361
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Aw, why'd you have to go there, Homie?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Terrorizing the Economy Page: [1]
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

1.531