Replenishment At Sea

[JMS]

Actually, some clever design will aleviate some of the issues. You can restrict bombers to some airbases using runway length, so they won't be able to re-base. You can highlight the importance of supply ships by putting them into the victory conditions.

 

It would be great to have a logistics module, though.

[TonyE]

Hi, I am new here and this is my first post.

 

Welcome SaSi and thank you for sharing your thoughts. Myself and a few others (as you may gather from the early posts in the topic) have an aversion to direct stocking of individual weapons per base, per supply ship, etc. That is mainly due to experience editing databases and scenarios in Harpoon 2/3 where ensuring proper weapons is a major undertaking that scares away many people. There is also the player-side effect of the game growing complex tracking which bases have the right weapons and the concern that such an approach will take too much enjoyment out of the game. Those thoughts lead to my preference for a more abstract points based system like Akula laid out in the first post.

 

All that said I don't want to restrict the conversation, hopefully my comments here help you all refine your ideas rather than abandon them.

[Akula]

Actually, some clever design will aleviate some of the issues. You can restrict bombers to some airbases using runway length, so they won't be able to re-base. You can highlight the importance of supply ships by putting them into the victory conditions.

 

It would be great to have a logistics module, though.

 

Ya know, while just a little more coding intensive, the solution may be something as simple as breaking the ordnance up into 3 different categories...

 

1. Light (Cannon/gun ammo, Sidewinders, rockets, light bombs) etc.
   
2. Medium (500lb Iron Bomb, SAMs, Sparrow/AMRAAM) etc
   
3. Heavy (Guided munitions, ASMs, expensives A2A missiles (like Phoenix or Amos) etc
   

This would allow a lot more control over it without having to track every single munition type. Obviously a carrier would have much more light ordnance storage than heavy etc. Once again I'm trying to find the simplest way to give us the most control.

[Grumble]

I was thinking about my wishlist and logistics is of course part of that so I started to read up on it.

 

So what happened after 2009?

No more posts and no logistics either.

 

I (strangely) hope the point system has not progressed too far, because I’m about to weigh in on the side of direct stocking (as Tony put it). Also, I hate to come empty handed, will lay out few ideas how could the computer handle the tedious work of the initial stocking of units, thus not discourage the majority the scenario editors from using such a system while still retain the option to create the grittiest, down to earth scenarios where one fights with what is at hand, which is what War is about. I assume here that the main problem with direct stocking is that it makes scenario building manual intensive as Tony described in his 23 July 2009 - 03:38 PM post.

 

I’m sure someone said that War is about logistics and indeed (google is your friend) they did:

 

“Bitter experience in war has taught the maxim that the art of war is the art of the logistically feasible.”
-- Admiral Hyman Rickover, USN

“Amateurs think about tactics, but professionals think about logistics.”
-- General Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps)
noted in 1980

“Underway replenishment was the U.S. Navy’s secret weapon of World War II.”
-- Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, USN

Here is more from some kind soul who has collected them.

log_quotes_navsup.pdf

 

The unique strength of computer Harpoon is the minute detail and coherence of the underlying databases that is pretty much unparalleled in non classified systems. If (when) logistics (LOGISTICS!, see above) is introduced it has to be without compromises otherwise it can undo what Harpoon has become.

One of the wish list items is a nice intro video to “pump up noobs” about Harpoon I think this video can only be a missile engagement from acquiring contact to kill, showing parallel a real video footage and a visualization of the GE looking up relevant sensor, speed, range, ECM, ECCM data in the DB then calculating intercept geometries and pH (scrolling tables, flashing cells, maps and triangles) .

Harpoon is surprisingly accurate, true to life for theatre level and uses abstraction only for the last centimeters and split seconds where most everything can be described with probabilities (at least for the rest of the world). If, when, logistics is introduced it should follow the same principle, be accurate and true to scale.

For me, a “point system” logistics is turning away from this philosophy, introduces a logic completely different from reality (as we know it ). Point system feels as if we would add “Mana” to the Cold War or Desert Storm and there are other games for when we feel like using Mana. With a point system we surrender the possibility of ever creating logistically accurate scenarios on the data structure level! So, instead, data structure must retain the potential (at least) for accuracy and the program code should be used to make it humanly enjoyable. For example add simple initializing routines to fill up stocks with generalized quantities for those not interested or not having the time to go into details. Also simple player option to switch logistics on/off can provide easy acess to both worlds.

 

I hope one day we will replay those boring NACV convoy runs biting our nails that if CONT Sealand Economy is sunk then the Keflavik F-15s will be guns only in the next battle (yeah, campaign mode too) and if TANK Anco Challenger is lost then they will be grounded out of JP-5.

Or that in Desert Storm sparrows and bombs only will not be a matter of player-self-discipline but a crude fact of logistics.

 

Before going on to suggestions how to address the difficulties here is an important advantage:

Obviously, with direct stocking, the code and logic to handle stock and rearmament is very simple, what you get is what you got, the supplies are exactly what is in the stock and there is no need to write code converting points to smart and dumb weapons and fuel and so on. No need for constant tweaking the conversion rules and “point weights” of different type of supplies trying to match reality with the point system.

 

The initialization of supplies could indeed be wearisome task (obvious ... after Tony pointed this out) but the computer should be able to help with the repetitive and boring tasks for general use and then the manual adjustments are for connoisseurs.

For example, here are some “templates” (methods) for initializing stocks for units and bases. By no means comprehensive, just demonstration of the idea.

I’m thinking that the scenario designer could select from these methods when adding new bases and units. Also, would select a red and blue default for the whole scenario.

 

• Blank. For fanatics. Add all supplies, quantities manually starting from scratch.
• No logistics. Fall back to the old method. No limits on a/c, etc.
• Loadout x N. For an airbase (or carrier) you specify that there are supplies enough for N sorties. This would be a routine that for each a/c would calculate the “bag”. The “bag” is the minimum set supplies enough to ready the a/c for any of it’s loadouts once. Then the routine would increase the base’s stock with N x a/c_quantity x Bag supplies for each type of a/c present at the base.
  >> The home base can rearm each of it’s own a/c at least N times, all a/c-s maximum N times. Remote bases can probably refuel but rearm only if the a/c is using compatible systems and only at the price of faster depleting their supplies.
• National templates. Create a typical list of supplies and the ratio of them for each country, perhaps for each army for large countries, e.g. Navy, Airforce, Marines, Army. The routine would populate the base’s stock according to the selected national template up to the size of available stock space. Here is a raw example for a French template. stockratio-FRA.pdf
  This is A/Cs only for this example. 40 or 50 national templates could probably cover 90% of the bases and scenarios.
• Filters Add code to apply filters to these templates
  • Service Year Filter for weapons available in a service year selected by the scenario designer. This would require extending the DB with service years, but that is still only one time DB task and the needed information is available.
  • DB fields Filter based on fields available in the DB, e.g. Type: gun/missile/ordnance/ASW/... or Code:IR/Semi Active/Terminal guidance/....
• Logical operations Allow AND/OR/NOT combination of the above. E.g. scenario designer can select H3 airbase to be populated with template
  (French OR Soviet) AND 1975=Service Year.

While these methods certainly require good amount of coding they are not overly complex, need to code them just once, would offload scenario designers and still allow them to create comprehensive stocks with few clicks.

 

 

[broncepulido]

I doubt very much the GE can support this changes.

A very interesting book with data about US carriers ammo and other stuff carring capacity is "US Aircraft Carriers, An Illustrated Design History", by Norman Friedman, Naval Institute Press (1983).

http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Aircraft-Carriers-Illustrated-History/dp/0870217399

[mavfin]

While these methods certainly require good amount of coding they are not overly complex, need to code them just once, would offload scenario designers and still allow them to create comprehensive stocks with few clicks.

That all sounds great, till you realize we have *one* volunteer coder who has other obligations, including a new baby, not a team of well-paid coders working full-time.

 

For a team, that would be simple, as you say, but, Tony's done wonders with things as it is, but there's a reason this is in Pipe Dreams.

 

I'm also with Tony that if implemented, it would need to be optional. Logistics in H2/3 *still* doesn't necessarily work correctly all the time, and afaik, you still can't reload ship's magazines, afaik. To me, it doesn't make sense to limit the aircraft coming off the carrier to what's in the carrier's magazines for the whole scenario, when there's an AOE or other ordnance-carrying ship right there in the task group.

 

Now, (and here's even MORE pipe dream) if you could integrate the whole thing, to where you could reload ship's magazines from the supply ships via UNREP, or whatever, and some system to replenish airbases, that would be nice. However, having said that, having to do *that much* logistics in Harpoon would bore me. If I want to play quartermaster, there are other games more suited to it, IMO.

 

What I think would be a much better/more plausible to code aid would perhaps be something implemented to let you see how much you would usually have available on that size of airfield, or on a carrier, or how many torps/missiles that ship usually carries for its helos, and then let you know how much is on ready/readying aircraft, how much has launched, and can count 'landed' ordnance against the 'used up' count. This is informational only, but, if you want to restrict your play in that way, this can be a help, but, it doesn't take near the coding that anything binding does. Then it's player choice to change loadouts to reflect the supply situation, or not.

[broncepulido]

Yes, some scenarios orders say about not change loadouts in the planes, as example.

[Wrench Turner]

A few months ago, I researched Integrated Combat Turnarounds and NATO Cross Servicing.

To summarize and paraphrase the many sources.

 

Basic: Each NATO base was supposed to be able to provide suitable fuel, oil and other fluids to any type of plane from any member nation. The intent was if a plane had to divert, it could eventually get back to home station on its own.

 

Enhanced: Bases with compatible munitions should be able to load any plane that could accept and use them.

The minimum I was able to find was AIM-9 air to air missiles and BL-755 cluster bombs - anything else was more luck than good planning.

 

Keeping track of an airplane's home station would add even more coding, and I am not sure if it would enhance game-play.

 

Also, how do you simulate the delays and friction involved with getting a Base Commander to authorize the loading of weapons 'his' planes need onto someone else's jets, especially if his munitions bunkers are getting close to empty.

[CV32]

A few months ago, I researched Integrated Combat Turnarounds and NATO Cross Servicing. To summarize and paraphrase the many sources.

 

Basic: Each NATO base was supposed to be able to provide suitable fuel, oil and other fluids to any type of plane from any member nation. The intent was if a plane had to divert, it could eventually get back to home station on its own.

 

Enhanced: Bases with compatible munitions should be able to load any plane that could accept and use them. The minimum I was able to find was AIM-9 air to air missiles and BL-755 cluster bombs - anything else was more luck than good planning.

The STANAG standards were supposed to help deal with a lot of this, sometimes better on paper than in reality, no doubt.

Keeping track of an airplane's home station would add even more coding, and I am not sure if it would enhance game-play.

The 'basic' level of logistics modeling is probably the best we can ever hope for in HCE, to be realistic.

Also, how do you simulate the delays and friction involved with getting a Base Commander to authorize the loading of weapons 'his' planes need onto someone else's jets, especially if his munitions bunkers are getting close to empty.

The chain of command has its own way of deciding those kinds of priorities.

[mavfin]

Also, how do you simulate the delays and friction involved with getting a Base Commander to authorize the loading of weapons 'his' planes need onto someone else's jets, especially if his munitions bunkers are getting close to empty.

 

In Harpoon, you are the Theater Commander. If you tell him to load those planes, he will see it done, or you'll get someone else who will.

[Mgellis]

 

Hi, I am new here and this is my first post.

Welcome SaSi and thank you for sharing your thoughts. Myself and a few others (as you may gather from the early posts in the topic) have an aversion to direct stocking of individual weapons per base, per supply ship, etc. That is mainly due to experience editing databases and scenarios in Harpoon 2/3 where ensuring proper weapons is a major undertaking that scares away many people. There is also the player-side effect of the game growing complex tracking which bases have the right weapons and the concern that such an approach will take too much enjoyment out of the game. Those thoughts lead to my preference for a more abstract points based system like Akula laid out in the first post.

 

All that said I don't want to restrict the conversation, hopefully my comments here help you all refine your ideas rather than abandon them.

 

I agree to an extent...while I like the logistics aspects of H3/ANW, because it really lets you tweak some details, I can definitely see it being a headache for people. Some advantages, if it could be added to HC...

 

* Lets you tweak individual ships for the kind of loadouts they might have had in a certain year, if a year-specific platform is not already in the database

 

* Lets you limit munitions for aircraft on ships and at air bases, which can affect tactical choices. If you know you only have 20 Harpoons...well, that's different than knowing you have as many as you need.

 

* If a particular weapon is buggy (Gunny has squashed most of these, but there are still four or five weapons--not too shabby, considering there are hundreds in the HUD4--still giving him grief), you can remove it as an option and only leave munitions that work so people don't select the buggy weapon and botch a scenario because of it.

 

There are some shortcuts one can use while editing scenarios that make most of it pretty simple but there is definitely a bit of a learning curve when it comes to using the logistics function.

[Grumble]

 

While these methods certainly require good amount of coding they are not overly complex, need to code them just once, would offload scenario designers and still allow them to create comprehensive stocks with few clicks.

That all sounds great, till you realize we have *one* volunteer coder who has other obligations, including a new baby, not a team of well-paid coders working full-time.

 

No, my arguments were about the advantages of direct stocking over a point based. Whether and when either of these is going to happen is a different question, but we are here to dream, right?

 

(BTW. I did not realize, I did not know. Any way we can help?)

 

I'm also with Tony that if implemented, it would need to be optional. Logistics in H2/3 *still* doesn't necessarily work correctly all the time, and afaik, you still can't reload ship's magazines, afaik. To me, it doesn't make sense to limit the aircraft coming off the carrier to what's in the carrier's magazines for the whole scenario, when there's an AOE or other ordnance-carrying ship right there in the task group.

 

Optional, yes.

And yes, you would need a functional UNREP before logistics can be let loose to restrict a carrier to her magazines.

But it would be interesting to start, even without UNREP, by just giving each airbase/carrier stock enough for 100 or 1000 (not restricting) sorties for the aircrafts present at the start. It would have effects like, for example

• F14s could only rearm Phoenixes on the carrier. E.g. no longer winning (cheating ) GIUK by flying F14s from Keflavik. (If you opt to switch logistics On.)
• Also, you could track usage of armament, as you suggested, by simply checking remaining stocks at the end of the game.

Later, when more of the replenishment code are in place, you could allow logistics be more restrictive and have more advanced and realistic effects.

 

Now, (and here's even MORE pipe dream) if you could integrate the whole thing, to where you could reload ship's magazines from the supply ships via UNREP, or whatever, and some system to replenish airbases, that would be nice. However, having said that, having to do *that much* logistics in Harpoon would bore me. If I want to play quartermaster, there are other games more suited to it, IMO.

 

No, no, no. I do not dream about logistics for the sake of quartermastering and loadsmanship. I do believe it would add lot of thrill and realism to the game. It would force me to take decisions real commanders have to take. It would add value to currently weightless aspects of the game.

 

What do you use the AOR Wichita for now? Honestly I post her down the ASW threat axis (in the main body) to swallow up torpedos. This would have a completely different taste seeing the UNREP ship go under seriously restricting airops for the rest of the scenario, probably a decisive loss.

 

Do you remember HARM-ing Kirovs to death before Harpoon v1.32a when ARMs were doing impact damage regardless if the target was radiating or not? So much more satisfying having to carefully time the HARM launch with the Harpoon wave so they meet on the target. But before the ARM restriction I was just HARMing them even knowing it's not the real thing.

 

I think those who play Harpoon find pleasure in having to do what real commanders have to do, those who just want to outsmart any game are already playing something else.

[TonyE]

Great discussion guys, yes, do dream!

[CV32]

I do not dream about logistics for the sake of quartermastering and loadsmanship. I do believe it would add lot of thrill and realism to the game. It would force me to take decisions real commanders have to take. It would add value to currently weightless aspects of the game. ...

 

I think those who play Harpoon find pleasure in having to do what real commanders have to do, those who just want to outsmart any game are already playing something else.

That's pretty much my own view of it. I want logistics because it reflects reality, and I want my game to strive for that.

[mavfin]

 

I do not dream about logistics for the sake of quartermastering and loadsmanship. I do believe it would add lot of thrill and realism to the game. It would force me to take decisions real commanders have to take. It would add value to currently weightless aspects of the game. ...

 

I think those who play Harpoon find pleasure in having to do what real commanders have to do, those who just want to outsmart any game are already playing something else.

That's pretty much my own view of it. I want logistics because it reflects reality, and I want my game to strive for that.

I would be perfectly glad to to do that...if you could guarantee it worked all the time, unlike H2/3's system, that only works for one aspect, and is very sensitive to how it's set up, and like so many things in that GE, works seemingly when it wants, and also depends on the DB author a lot. I would want AoE's and UNREP to work reliably, not just air weapon magazines. If I want to get into that, I want it all.

 

Otoh, I can also limit myself to X number of Harpoons taking off from the airfield or carrier, w/o in-game restrictions, if I wish. And I've actually never HARMed a cruiser to death, even in the old days. If I want to 'cheat' I'm only hurting my own experience. I've never felt like I 'won' when I did that. I always hated that the sub hunting AI would drop a buoy right on top of the real location as soon as it lost contact. (No longer happens.)