Matrix Games Forums

Flashpoint 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!To End All Wars gets its first major patch! Hell is now available!War in the West Wacht am Rhein AAR Deal of the Week Panzer Corps: Allied Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Production

 
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 >> Tech Support >> Production Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Production - 1/8/2013 1:16:19 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8688
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
Michael, a question has come up in my PBEM game concerning base supply production when enemy troops co-occupy the hex. The manual only speaks to resource and oil production being curtailed, and is silent on supplies. Some veteran players were convinced that supply production from HI and LI should continue if resources and fuel are present in the base. This was my impression as well.

At Singapore I have many thousands of each commodity, but there has been no supply production for three turns. A large enemy stack is sieging the base. No other Allied bases are held in Malaysia. I have tried production with stockpiling set both on and off.

Question: what does the current code provide? Are there quantity limit triggers on resources or fuel needed to produce? Are there troop ratio checks? Or have we been incorrect all this time on this mechanism?

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/8/2013 2:40:03 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose
Post #: 1
RE: Production (No 1EyedJacks Please) - 1/8/2013 1:33:14 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9366
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
Code says:
If enemy land unit in hex, no production for -
Resources
Oil
HI
LI
Refinery
Manpower

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 2
RE: Production (No 1EyedJacks Please) - 1/8/2013 1:55:20 PM   
michaelm


Posts: 9366
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
Resources and Oil I can understand as these are usually outside a 'city' and can be interdicted by enemy forces.

I went back to the original AE release code and the enemy unit check was not present there for HI, LI, Refinery or Manpower. All of which could be considered to be 'inside a city'.

It must have been added during one of the patches but I couldn't identify when exactly.
[edit - added in patch 5 or 6]

< Message edited by michaelm -- 1/8/2013 2:03:11 PM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 3
RE: Production - 1/8/2013 2:25:39 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8688
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Code says:
If enemy land unit in hex, no production for -
Resources
Oil
HI
LI
Refinery
Manpower


There it is. Clear.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/8/2013 2:40:21 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 4
RE: Production - 1/8/2013 2:27:03 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8688
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Resources and Oil I can understand as these are usually outside a 'city' and can be interdicted by enemy forces.

I went back to the original AE release code and the enemy unit check was not present there for HI, LI, Refinery or Manpower. All of which could be considered to be 'inside a city'.

It must have been added during one of the patches but I couldn't identify when exactly.
[edit - added in patch 5 or 6]


That's probably the source of the confusion. I looked through the patch notes but didn't find it. Sometimes the descriptions are cryptic, for algorithm and other reasons I suppose. With this hint I'll look again, but the bottom line is I have the answer I need to tactically plan.

Thanks a lot for the quick answer.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/8/2013 2:48:21 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 5
RE: Production - 1/8/2013 2:42:05 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8688
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
I edited the title of this and will e-mail Mike to tell him it's fine for him to read. This is a big code change which significantly affects many types of land battles. Since some of our best players missed it in the patches it's only fair that everyone have access to the info.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/8/2013 2:48:32 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 6
RE: Production - 1/8/2013 10:07:56 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2911
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
This is a big deal Mr. Moose, thanks for posting your findings and getting clarification from michaelm. So I'm clear on this myself, occupy an enemy base and you effectively shut down production of all industry regardless of current stockpiles at the base. Correct?

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 7
RE: Production - 1/8/2013 10:10:31 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8688
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
Yep. Changes in a number of ways certain bases should be approached.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/8/2013 11:38:24 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 8
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 2:31:54 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9366
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
I am thinking of making the code reflect the manual and logic (and what players have generally thought to be the case).
HI and MP are global pools so I think having an enemy unit in the hex should stop them producing.
For LI and Refinery however, they are locally produced and stored at the base (and would be 'in the base') and could be generated with enemy presence in the hex.

It would not be a 'cheat', as damage to LI and REF devices would make it harder to produce supply/fuel.
I would like to add this change for the next weekend beta.

Any comments??

---
In original WITP, HI produced fuel and supply regardless of enemy units in hex.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 1/9/2013 2:37:59 AM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 9
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 2:39:42 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 15087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
That makes sense to me. If any one did object, then certainly the strongest case can be made for LI still producing.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 10
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 3:19:06 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3764
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I am thinking of making the code reflect the manual and logic (and what players have generally thought to be the case).
HI and MP are global pools so I think having an enemy unit in the hex should stop them producing.
For LI and Refinery however, they are locally produced and stored at the base (and would be 'in the base') and could be generated with enemy presence in the hex.

It would not be a 'cheat', as damage to LI and REF devices would make it harder to produce supply/fuel.
I would like to add this change for the next weekend beta.

Any comments??

---
In original WITP, HI produced fuel and supply regardless of enemy units in hex.


That would be an acceptable outcome.

I however approach it from a slightly different direction; more a "pure" economic rather than the current game design perspective. As such my personal preferred position is slightly different.

The game calls everything "industry". Using economic terminology we would distinguish between "primary industry" and "secondary industry". There is absolutely no "tertiary industry" facilities in the game, unless one were to view naval/aviation/support squads as falling within that category in abstract terms but as they are not treated as "industry" within the game, we can dismiss them as representing tertiary industry facilities.

Falling within "Primary Industry" are:


  • resource centres
  • oil centres
  • manpower centres


They provide raw materials from the land.

Falling within "Secondary Industry" are:


  • Refineries
  • Light Industry
  • Heavy Industry
  • all the various production facilities which produce elaborately transformed products ie vehicles, aircraft, ships, armaments


Secondary industry uses the output from primary industry as its feedstock.

Therefore, if it were up to me and without proper consideration for the actual game code impact, I would stop primary industry production (ie oil, resources, manpower) when an enemy LCU is present in the same hex, but allow secondary industry (ie supply/fuel/elaborately transformed products) to continue production provided the facility continues to have access to its feedstock, either from local stockpiles or from importation.

But as I said, michaelm's approach is quite valid too. Whichever is the easiest to implement and most consistent with the overall game design philosophy is the one which should be preferred.

Alfred

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 11
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 5:07:22 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9366
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
With proposed changes...
As "primary industry" is already covered (will stop if enemy unit in hex), the only industry from the 'secondary' group that wont get produced when enemy in hex is HI.

Another condition could be: if base is a port>3 and no enemy TFs present, allow HI production under assumption that it exports HI by 'blockade runners'.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 1/9/2013 5:14:47 AM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 12
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 5:29:59 AM   
PaxMondo


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

Your proposals sound good to me.  I like the blockade runner concept ...

Thanks for the ongoing support.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 13
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 6:25:17 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1704
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I am thinking of making the code reflect the manual and logic (and what players have generally thought to be the case).
HI and MP are global pools so I think having an enemy unit in the hex should stop them producing.
For LI and Refinery however, they are locally produced and stored at the base (and would be 'in the base') and could be generated with enemy presence in the hex.

It would not be a 'cheat', as damage to LI and REF devices would make it harder to produce supply/fuel.
I would like to add this change for the next weekend beta.

Any comments??

---
In original WITP, HI produced fuel and supply regardless of enemy units in hex.


That sounds reasonable. HI should not produce if there's enemy unit in the hex.

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 14
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 7:11:58 AM   
obvert


Posts: 7369
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
Before going ahead with changes, what are the considerations for game balance in specific locations based on michaelm's proposal?

In the early game Manila will certainly become a more viable redoubt for last defense of Luzon should LI keep working. I cannot remember the stockpile offhand, but I seem to recall there is a good amount of resources at the base to begin and thus it could continue to produce LI for some time, feeding the Allied troops for an extended period.

Singapore could likewise get a boost for the defense based on these changes, as could any of the other industrial centers like Rangoon, Palembang or the Java bases.

Chinese bases would of course be prime examples for the change in balance, as the whole thread was started with this example in mind.

I'm not at all saying these changes will not be more 'realistic' or beneficial to both sides, or advocating that they should not be made. It just seems the since this is a major alteration that was once changed in the early stages of the game patches, what were the considerations then that led to the first decision and patch turning off all of these industries during occupation? What should be considered now based on greater knowledge and experience of playing the game through many different iterations?

< Message edited by obvert -- 1/9/2013 7:13:56 AM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 15
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 7:24:55 AM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 3735
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

With proposed changes...
As "primary industry" is already covered (will stop if enemy unit in hex), the only industry from the 'secondary' group that wont get produced when enemy in hex is HI.

Another condition could be: if base is a port>3 and no enemy TFs present, allow HI production under assumption that it exports HI by 'blockade runners'.


All looks good to me. Having read obvert comments it is a concern that it might alter play balance but that's what a beta is for, testing so I'd go ahead and do it. One question, how much damage is done to industry in a land attack?

< Message edited by Chris H -- 1/9/2013 7:29:46 AM >

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 16
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 7:47:36 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9366
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
The change was made to the code but I can't find anything in the release notes or comments to say why this was changed. It could have been made to make the industry production code consistent - I just can't recall.

For scenario balance, there was no restriction on HI, LI, Refinery or Manpower production until patch 5 or 6. So if anything, I would expect that the current code would have more unbalancing effect than going back to what was properly used to set up the stock scenarios originally.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Chris H)
Post #: 17
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 9:14:16 AM   
kjnoel

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 3/10/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

HI and MP are global pools so I think having an enemy unit in the hex should stop them producing.
For LI and Refinery however, they are locally produced and stored at the base (and would be 'in the base') and could be generated with enemy presence in the hex.



Just to clarify, does this mean that HI wouldn't produce anything at all or just not HI points? HI also produces supply which is stored locally as LI does.

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 18
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 9:40:29 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9366
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: kjnoel


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

HI and MP are global pools so I think having an enemy unit in the hex should stop them producing.
For LI and Refinery however, they are locally produced and stored at the base (and would be 'in the base') and could be generated with enemy presence in the hex.



Just to clarify, does this mean that HI wouldn't produce anything at all or just not HI points? HI also produces supply which is stored locally as LI does.

Wont produce at all. If HI and LI in same hex, then the lack of HI production would enable LI to be produced, thus still giving supply.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to kjnoel)
Post #: 19
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 10:33:33 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6385
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Considering the fact that we're exchanging ideas about this possible changement, i'd modestly suggest to keep in consideration that the present code is being working well and it seems to me that nobody mentioned in these months any balance problem with it.
I'd also offer another thought: many many ongoing games (both pbem and AI games) seems to have recently adopted the map with stacking limits (not only many mods, among them DBB, RA etc, but also stock games adopting the stacking limits map). Well, with stacking limits sieges of major bases or cities are already a challenge for the attacker. Even if out of supplies, the base may be able to hold for a looong time cause the attacker would never be able to get a numerical advantage. With stacking limits the present code works perfectly imho, cause it gives the chance to the attacker to actually be able to conquer a major city.
If the LI would keep on producing supplies i see many problems arising in a stacking limits map.

Manila is a good example. Singapore too obviously. But also in China... i don't see any possible chance to conquer Chungking, for example, if the LI would keep on producing supplies....
And if it's true that resources production would stop anyway, it's also true that very often the bases with LI have huge stockpiles of resources...

just my 0.000002 cents

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 20
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 1:05:44 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Considering the fact that we're exchanging ideas about this possible changement, i'd modestly suggest to keep in consideration that the present code is being working well and it seems to me that nobody mentioned in these months any balance problem with it.
I'd also offer another thought: many many ongoing games (both pbem and AI games) seems to have recently adopted the map with stacking limits (not only many mods, among them DBB, RA etc, but also stock games adopting the stacking limits map). Well, with stacking limits sieges of major bases or cities are already a challenge for the attacker. Even if out of supplies, the base may be able to hold for a looong time cause the attacker would never be able to get a numerical advantage. With stacking limits the present code works perfectly imho, cause it gives the chance to the attacker to actually be able to conquer a major city.
If the LI would keep on producing supplies i see many problems arising in a stacking limits map.

Manila is a good example. Singapore too obviously. But also in China... i don't see any possible chance to conquer Chungking, for example, if the LI would keep on producing supplies....
And if it's true that resources production would stop anyway, it's also true that very often the bases with LI have huge stockpiles of resources...

just my 0.000002 cents


I would agree that the current paradigm prevents a Fortress Palenbang and producing supples under seige from refineries .. and the cities/bases you mention brings about a more serious seige situation.

My current opponent noted the behavior when the Allies occupied Hong Kong and then again when I occupied Shanghai ... needless to say the loss of HI once I occupied these cities/bases was quite alaming. Now the kicker .. occupy a IJ held production center with something that can keep a toe hold but not enough to take the base. One has accompished the mission so to speak of depriving the IJ of the production center with the minimal force. Which in the game can be pretty minimal due to the defense bonus in an urban center.

Of course one solution for LI enabled in an occupied hex is a strat bomb LI. as a part of the seige. Something the IJ are very reluntant to do in the early war while it makes no difference to the Allies.

But .. I might suggest a focus on gameplay as Greyjoy is proposing than some false belief this game is a similation .. otherwise I would propose we will ruin the game with our suggestions ..

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 21
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 1:35:49 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8688
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I am thinking of making the code reflect the manual and logic (and what players have generally thought to be the case).
HI and MP are global pools so I think having an enemy unit in the hex should stop them producing.
For LI and Refinery however, they are locally produced and stored at the base (and would be 'in the base') and could be generated with enemy presence in the hex.

It would not be a 'cheat', as damage to LI and REF devices would make it harder to produce supply/fuel.
I would like to add this change for the next weekend beta.

Any comments??

---
In original WITP, HI produced fuel and supply regardless of enemy units in hex.


That would be an acceptable outcome.

I however approach it from a slightly different direction; more a "pure" economic rather than the current game design perspective. As such my personal preferred position is slightly different.

The game calls everything "industry". Using economic terminology we would distinguish between "primary industry" and "secondary industry". There is absolutely no "tertiary industry" facilities in the game, unless one were to view naval/aviation/support squads as falling within that category in abstract terms but as they are not treated as "industry" within the game, we can dismiss them as representing tertiary industry facilities.

Falling within "Primary Industry" are:


  • resource centres
  • oil centres
  • manpower centres


They provide raw materials from the land.

Falling within "Secondary Industry" are:


  • Refineries
  • Light Industry
  • Heavy Industry
  • all the various production facilities which produce elaborately transformed products ie vehicles, aircraft, ships, armaments


Secondary industry uses the output from primary industry as its feedstock.

Therefore, if it were up to me and without proper consideration for the actual game code impact, I would stop primary industry production (ie oil, resources, manpower) when an enemy LCU is present in the same hex, but allow secondary industry (ie supply/fuel/elaborately transformed products) to continue production provided the facility continues to have access to its feedstock, either from local stockpiles or from importation.

But as I said, michaelm's approach is quite valid too. Whichever is the easiest to implement and most consistent with the overall game design philosophy is the one which should be preferred.

Alfred


Hitchhiking on Alfred's excellent analysis, I would come at this from a slightly diffeent perspective, but arrive at about the same place.

Rather than pure economics, consider history and geography. Many cities in WWII continued industrial production until quite late in a siege and while under sustained air attack. While mines (resources) and petroleum (oil) are generally in the countryside and accessable to enemy troops (and should be shut down on occupation, as per the manual) all industry is generally in the urban core. This includes, in this era, both HI-type and LI-type industry. The reasons are economic: access to labor and tansport hubs. A steel mill making heavy castings was in the same general industrial zone as a factory making ammunition, in both Japanese and Allied cities. Again, generally speaking; there are exceptions. While it is commonly said that Japanese LI-type production was on a cottage industry model, even in residential areas, this is only true at the margins. Mass produciton of packaged food, clothing, medical supplies, and ammunition were mass production activities conducted in factories, not living rooms. While it is true that much civilian-focused production was in small batch shops, war production was largely, but not exclusively, done in factories found in the same zones as heavy primary industry like steel and rubber. For that reason I believe a siege should leave both HI and LI in production so long as stockpiles of inputs are also present in the base.

However, like Alfred, I would also stand with the idea that the code rules. If a change would significantly increase the chance of bugs, I would leave things alone, or do a minimum as Michael suggests.

To Greyjoy's point about stacking limits, and to the general idea that this is a MAJOR change, I agree with both. Stacking limit games would be affected, although the points about strat bombing are relevant too. But as a policy patches have always focused on stock games and not on mods. Trying to make one EXE file work with all mods equally well is a fool's errand. It may be that such an EXE change would require the mod to be adjusted, but that seems to me the direction from which to to approach.

Finally, everyone should recognize that this change back is a big deal for both sides. Yes, it affects the Allies early at places like Singers and Palembang. But to the Allies HI production is an afterthought. The supplies generated in HI centers are important early, but in 1943 and later the Allies are awash in CONUS supply. In China LI is always relevant to the Allies, but the game can be won without China. But for Japan HI is lifesblood. And from mid-game on the Allies have so many LCUs it's not hard to park a small stack on top of many core HI-producing cities, using the urban or light-urban terrain bonus to hang on and deny the Japanese economy its "food." For that main reason I would go with the idea of having HI and LI continue to operate in an enemy-occupied hex, but only from stored raw materials. With stockpiling those can be planned for ahead and a prudent Japanese economy manager will see Allied sieges and prepare for them on the Asian landmass. If HI can be strangled without actually taking Japanese cities many Allied players will focus on that and the game changes in a very major way.

If the re-code choice comes down to a binary choice between leaving things as they are or activating LI but stopping HI on occupation I would vote to leave things as they are. But my preference would be to leave LI AND HI AND Refineries AND Manpower AND Shipyards operating, while stopping resources and oil production until the hex is clear of enemy troops.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/9/2013 2:18:10 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 22
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 1:54:47 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8688
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The change was made to the code but I can't find anything in the release notes or comments to say why this was changed. It could have been made to make the industry production code consistent - I just can't recall.

For scenario balance, there was no restriction on HI, LI, Refinery or Manpower production until patch 5 or 6. So if anything, I would expect that the current code would have more unbalancing effect than going back to what was properly used to set up the stock scenarios originally.


I wonder if this was done in the era when the strong debates about refineries throwing off supplies (Fortress Palembang era) were underway?

Regardless, it appears from comments here, in other threads, and in my PMs that many/most players did not realize this change had been made and thus had not changed their gameplay style to leverage it. Now that the cat is out of the bag I can see Allied players significantly changing their land war habits to strangle the Home Island industries which need HI, but do so from afar by camping on HI producers like Saigon.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 23
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 2:01:03 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 1943
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I am thinking of making the code reflect the manual and logic (and what players have generally thought to be the case).
HI and MP are global pools so I think having an enemy unit in the hex should stop them producing.
For LI and Refinery however, they are locally produced and stored at the base (and would be 'in the base') and could be generated with enemy presence in the hex.

It would not be a 'cheat', as damage to LI and REF devices would make it harder to produce supply/fuel.
I would like to add this change for the next weekend beta.

Any comments??

---
In original WITP, HI produced fuel and supply regardless of enemy units in hex.


Part of the occupation strategy, from an invading army perspective, should be the reduction or elimination of the opponent's supplies and war materials...

Is there a way to impact base production output (saying there are resources available at the base) based on something like the percentage of base + port damage? Invaders need to bomb the airfields and ports (if there is a port hex) to reduce the defender's ability to create supplies and fuel.

It's too bad we can't give arty another mission - "targets of opportunity" - which would have an impact on a defender's industry, resources, or supplies...

Unless there's a way to blockade a port, I'm not in favor of the blockade runner concept if port > 3... I think that supply and movement are already a bear for the attacker forces just to get to an enemy base (especially over land in malaria zones)... I'm not in favor of anything that adds to a base defense that the attacking force has no ability to counter.

Just my 2 cents.


TTFN,

Mike


_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 24
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 2:26:07 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1704
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
Maybe devs should take time out and figure out why patch 5 or 6 changed that? I don't see any point that patches change some things back and forth.

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 25
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 2:27:37 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8688
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks



Part of the occupation strategy, from an invading army perspective, should be the reduction or elimination of the opponent's supplies and war materials...

Is there a way to impact base production output (saying there are resources available at the base) based on something like the percentage of base + port damage? Invaders need to bomb the airfields and ports (if there is a port hex) to reduce the defender's ability to create supplies and fuel.



It seems to me that bombing air fields and ports shouldn't have any impact on industrial production when using stored/stockpiled raw materials. If you want to stop HI/LI supply production bomb them instead of the AF/port. The City attack option is there for that purpose.

Japanese players never seem to want to do this because they will shortly own the base and will be left to rebuild the HI/LI. All I can say is war is full of choices. Not all of them are easy.

But the mechanism is already in the game to do long-term supply denial if HI/LI production is turned back on.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/9/2013 2:28:34 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 26
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 3:25:07 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Regarding the concerns about major sieges being impossible for the attacker to win under this proposal when it is combined with optional stacking limits: I disagree.

- First off, get rid of any HR that prohibits strategic bombing of such targets. Then LI, HI, or whatever you want at the target can be bombed and production shut down that way.

- Second, heavy bombing of the port/airfield complex usually produces a good number of supply hits. Supply hits will oppose supply production by industry, daily supply allotments, and whittle down supply stocks.

- Third, even bombing base/industry targets will produce some troop casualties. If repaired/enabled that uses supply, if not the defense is diminished. If enough bombers are available then some can be detailed to attack troops directly. The casualties are affected by fortifications and terrain in addition to variable factors like weather.

Major sieges in this game almost always go along with a great degree of air superiority. I suggest that should be part of the equation.

As far as examples like Manila, IRL Bataan was besieged while Manila got a pass. How long would Manila have lasted if the USA chose that as the last redoubt? Would these changes really make it possible for Manila to outlast the Empire's endurance for the siege? Would the Empire have to use strategic bombing to help things along? It seems to me that the stronger a defense force is the more likely that industry should be wrecked by the assault anyway. If Manila is the last redoubt, how difficult should it be to capture? Should the IJA be able to capture it with the same forces that were able to capture Bataan?

Specifically regarding China with optional stacking limits, in my PBM (Babes 28-C) this change would make no difference at all. Many mods, such as Babes, have already concerted a portion of Chinese LI to daily supply (so that it can not be bombed) to simulate the very wide dispersal of major portions of it. We have no HR against strat bombing in China, so almost the only supply generation left is from those daily supply allotments here and there (which are not overly large anyway). Major sieges are difficult but not impossible at all.



_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 27
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 3:42:35 PM   
Andav

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline

I would tend to agree with Greyjoy on this (probably because I play Japan on a stacking limit map against witpqs). It seems to have been working for a while so I am not sure a change is really necessary.

That being said, if LI is allowed to produce, I do not think it will be a big deal. We also play a minimal house rule game so I have been happily bombing LI and HI as part of my strategy to take China (and other places). I know I will have to rebuild them once I take the city so I have to plan accordingly. That or I can let them keep feeding the Chinese. It is my choice.

If the change is made, I would think leaving LI running is OK (I will just bomb it and expect it to be bombed so it can't produce). The rest should probably not produce if occupied.

Wa

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 28
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 7:09:02 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8688
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Regarding the concerns about major sieges being impossible for the attacker to win under this proposal when it is combined with optional stacking limits: I disagree.

- First off, get rid of any HR that prohibits strategic bombing of such targets. Then LI, HI, or whatever you want at the target can be bombed and production shut down that way.

- Second, heavy bombing of the port/airfield complex usually produces a good number of supply hits. Supply hits will oppose supply production by industry, daily supply allotments, and whittle down supply stocks.

- Third, even bombing base/industry targets will produce some troop casualties. If repaired/enabled that uses supply, if not the defense is diminished. If enough bombers are available then some can be detailed to attack troops directly. The casualties are affected by fortifications and terrain in addition to variable factors like weather.

Major sieges in this game almost always go along with a great degree of air superiority. I suggest that should be part of the equation.

As far as examples like Manila, IRL Bataan was besieged while Manila got a pass. How long would Manila have lasted if the USA chose that as the last redoubt? Would these changes really make it possible for Manila to outlast the Empire's endurance for the siege? Would the Empire have to use strategic bombing to help things along? It seems to me that the stronger a defense force is the more likely that industry should be wrecked by the assault anyway. If Manila is the last redoubt, how difficult should it be to capture? Should the IJA be able to capture it with the same forces that were able to capture Bataan?

Specifically regarding China with optional stacking limits, in my PBM (Babes 28-C) this change would make no difference at all. Many mods, such as Babes, have already concerted a portion of Chinese LI to daily supply (so that it can not be bombed) to simulate the very wide dispersal of major portions of it. We have no HR against strat bombing in China, so almost the only supply generation left is from those daily supply allotments here and there (which are not overly large anyway). Major sieges are difficult but not impossible at all.




All good points that partly line up with the points I made above: if you want to stop supply generation, stop supply generation by bombing LI/HI. In a siege situation it would be extremely rare that the defender could spare 1000 supply per point to rebuild. OTOH, trying to work down supply by bombing AFs results in a couple of supply hits per attack, and unless every hex side is controlled that is often replaced.

However, I would guard against doing any analysis on this issue from the perspective of stacking limits mods. While I recognize that many old timers and forum regulars are playing these now, they are still mods. Matrix has always had a policy of supporting stock games, especially stock AI games, and letting mods work around the borders of that. It's very possible that the optimal answer to this question is opposite for stacking versus non-stacking games. In that case the stock game should control.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/9/2013 7:18:13 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 29
RE: Production - 1/9/2013 7:16:36 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8688
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andav


I would tend to agree with Greyjoy on this (probably because I play Japan on a stacking limit map against witpqs). It seems to have been working for a while so I am not sure a change is really necessary.

That being said, if LI is allowed to produce, I do not think it will be a big deal. We also play a minimal house rule game so I have been happily bombing LI and HI as part of my strategy to take China (and other places). I know I will have to rebuild them once I take the city so I have to plan accordingly. That or I can let them keep feeding the Chinese. It is my choice.

If the change is made, I would think leaving LI running is OK (I will just bomb it and expect it to be bombed so it can't produce). The rest should probably not produce if occupied.

Wa



The question is different everywhere. At Manila, for example, LI is 100 per day and there is no HI. Not enough to matter in a siege. But take a look at Chungking. Right now all Japan has to do is camp a stack in the hex and that core city is reduced to organic "slash supply" of 400 per day. But full HI/LI gives 540 more per day so long as stockpiles are present, and that depends a bit on Japan closing all hex sides, a much harder tactical problem. Nearly 1000 supply per day is a whole different situation for a siege, and I believe the original devs made the slash supply level be 400 based on an assumption that HI/LI would be available.

I reiterate: Japanese players playing a stacking game also need to be very careful what they wish for. Leaving the situation as it is now will result in potentially severely curtailed HI banks in the late war. For the Allies it is far, far easier to camp on a hex and use the terrain bonus to defend than it is to fully capture the HI-producing city and face losses of devices and most importantly time.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/9/2013 7:20:31 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Andav)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> Production Page: [1] 2   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

0.137