Allied Supply to the Western Map

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Allied Supply to the Western Map

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 >> The War Room >> Allied Supply to the Western Map

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/28/2012 4:15:01 PM

wadail

Posts: 55
Joined: 8/17/2012
Status: offline

Australia is a giant V12 gas guzzler that seems to be all but impossible to keep properly supplied, especially with fuel. Efforts to ferry troops to Port Moresby and beyond stall because the Southwest Pacific transports sit in port with no fuel. South Pacific and Southwest Pacific are constantly at odds for transports and fuel (yes, I know this is historical, but my armchair admiral aim is to perform better than historical ;p).

Are there any supply tips for the allies for the Commonwealth areas? Thus far here are some ideas I've had on my own:

1) Secure a source of oil and dedicate some tankers to hauling it to the refinery in Melbourne.

2) Keep a large number of cargo ships and some tankers (this is eased later in the war when AKs have some fuel storage in addition to cargo) to haul the contents of supply convoys from South Africa to Australia and Ceylon. Resist the temptation to dump too many cargo ships in Columbo and keep enough ships stationed in South Africa, Aden, etc to move those supplies out. Also, be sure to dump supplies at Indian ports near Burma to help with overland supply (and be cautious about telling a base to hoarde supplies as it can interfere with the overland flow).

3) Use an AK ferry convoy system with the CS: Fuel and CS: Supply to move LARGE amounts of supply from the US west coast and Commonwealth supply points to "depots" (I HATE that COLUMBO, as an automatic convoy source must itself be supplied) and then use AKLs to augment the Automatic convoy system. For example, use Automatic Convoys from Columbo to supply SE Asia, but turn it off for the Australian West Map bases and run large convoys from Cape Town to Perth, then smaller CS: convoys to distribute from Perth to other Australian ports as needed. A note: Be sure to build and staff the port to avoid spoilage. Also, there are not enough tankers to do this for fuel. 1-2 ports need to be beefed up enough that there is no spoilage and then used as refueling stations. I like to set up computer controlled, Reaction 6, ASW TFs and station them all along a coastline, so I guess the overland and automatic convoy system will have to see to their needs, which should be minimal. Be sure to put fuel at the destination if the convoy cannot make it out and back on its fuel load and tell it to refuel only enough to make it back to port. If it can make it all the way out, be sure to tell it not to refuel at all in the war area to avoid using up precious fuel that is needed by warships and transports.

< Message edited by wadail -- 8/28/2012 4:24:33 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/28/2012 4:41:02 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

The latest patch added the option to turn off production for the Allies. Turn off heavy industry in the larger cities and you won't have the problem any longer. You also now have the option to stockpile fuel (& supply) in your bases.

Before the patch I just let OZ run dry and stockedpiled fuel in Hobart, Aukland & Vava'u.

_____________________________

(in reply to wadail)

Post #: 2

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/28/2012 5:23:43 PM

jmalter

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline

1) once DEI falls, there's really no source for Oil. although USA has no excess oil production, you'll amass 1 million fuel in San Francisco fairly quickly. when you reach that target, turn off the USA/Canada refineries for 9 days, the oil will pool in Los Angeles, after 9 days you'll amass a quarter-million oil there. this must be tankered to Sydney, but will keep Oz Refineries working for 3 years or so.

2) i use Cape Town as a supply-hub, but there's a danger of running it dry of fuel. on-map convoys arriving at CT should be set to do not refuel, and supply convoys departing CT should be set for minimum refuel, they'll only take on what they need to make the round-trip to their destination (+10%). even w/ this fuel rationing, i'm running 2/3rds of my xAK convoys from East Coast > CT w/ half-loads of fuel.

< Message edited by jmalter -- 8/28/2012 5:26:42 PM >

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 3

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/28/2012 10:41:58 PM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

2) i use Cape Town as a supply-hub, but there's a danger of running it dry of fuel. on-map convoys arriving at CT should be set to do not refuel, and supply convoys departing CT should be set for minimum refuel, they'll only take on what they need to make the round-trip to their destination (+10%). even w/ this fuel rationing, i'm running 2/3rds of my xAK convoys from East Coast > CT w/ half-loads of fuel.

unless a TK or AO appears at an off map port i do not load fuel any where but Abadan or Los Angeles. i only run short of fuel at Aden generaly.

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 4

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/29/2012 4:26:52 AM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

In order to keep Capetown supplied with fuel, I send xAKs on CS missions from CT to one of the major ports in India and set it to return fuel. I usually move 150,000 supply per month to India and 75,000 fuel back to CT.

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 5

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/29/2012 6:10:01 AM

jmalter

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols
In order to keep Capetown supplied with fuel, I send xAKs on CS missions from CT to one of the major ports in India and set it to return fuel. I usually move 150,000 supply per month to India and 75,000 fuel back to CT.

that's a nice scheme, Dan - i'm gonna try it out. Currently i've got Ceylon awash w/ fuel from CS TKs on the short-haul Abadan > Karachi & Madras > Trincomalee routes, it's fairly easy to keep these paths clean of sub activity.

but the long haul (TKs Colombo > Perth) has been problematic, they haveta take a big elbow to the west to avoid enemy air from Sumatra, & several convoys have been thoroughly monstered by roving miniKB action SE of Diego Garcia.

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 6

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/29/2012 2:04:18 PM

hbrsvl

Posts: 1155
Joined: 10/2/2002
Status: offline

mjk428- Just to make sure, what is the latest patch # you refer to?

Thanks, Hugh Browne

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 7

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/29/2012 4:06:35 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

The bit about turning off industry in Australia is the worst suggestion when playing PBM against a human. Against the AI, do what you like. Against a human it's one of the constraints that you should be saddled with overcoming.

Being aware of the need for maybe 70,000 fuel per month in Australia for industry is the biggest part of solving the problem. Lots of options for that presented in this thread already, and of course making certain that Cape Town has enough fuel to keep troop and supply ships moving from there.

(in reply to hbrsvl)

Post #: 8

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/29/2012 6:19:40 PM

Justus2

Posts: 729
Joined: 11/12/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The bit about turning off industry in Australia is the worst suggestion when playing PBM against a human. Against the AI, do what you like. Against a human it's one of the constraints that you should be saddled with overcoming.

Are you saying this from a play balance point of view, or is there some other detriment to shutting off the industry? Just want to make sure I understand. Haven't seen it mentioned in HRs for AARs, but is this an unwritten rule most abide by? Still learning against AI myself, but I don't want to pick up any bad habits that will make it harder to transition to PBEM.

_____________________________

Playing/Learning Shadow Empire

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 9

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/29/2012 7:29:35 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The bit about turning off industry in Australia is the worst suggestion when playing PBM against a human. Against the AI, do what you like. Against a human it's one of the constraints that you should be saddled with overcoming.

Are you saying this from a play balance point of view, or is there some other detriment to shutting off the industry? Just want to make sure I understand. Haven't seen it mentioned in HRs for AARs, but is this an unwritten rule most abide by? Still learning against AI myself, but I don't want to pick up any bad habits that will make it harder to transition to PBEM.

Personal opinion: In a PBM it would be unfair unless your opponent had agreed to it. YMMV.

(in reply to Justus2)

Post #: 10

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/29/2012 7:31:27 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hbrsvl

mjk428- Just to make sure, what is the latest patch # you refer to?

Thanks, Hugh Browne

Official release: 1.0.6.1108r9 Jan 21 2012

Turning off production is a feature added by michaelm during the beta process in 2011 and the feature remains in the latest official release above. I know some folks think it's gamey to turn it off, and they may be right, but if I ship fuel to Brisbane from the West Coast for fleet use the civvies can't just steal it. Without being gamey one can achieve much the same effect by just stockpiling fuel in a base without heavy industry (or shutting it off in just one base like the aforementioned Brisbane. Base stockpiling is another wonderful feature added by the wonderful michaelm. :)

_____________________________

(in reply to hbrsvl)

Post #: 11

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/29/2012 7:36:22 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The bit about turning off industry in Australia is the worst suggestion when playing PBM against a human. Against the AI, do what you like. Against a human it's one of the constraints that you should be saddled with overcoming.

Yeah because Japanese PBEM players don't alter their production at all.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 12

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/29/2012 7:48:51 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

Are you saying this from a play balance point of view, or is there some other detriment to shutting off the industry? Just want to make sure I understand. Haven't seen it mentioned in HRs for AARs, but is this an unwritten rule most abide by? Still learning against AI myself, but I don't want to pick up any bad habits that will make it harder to transition to PBEM.

There's no reason to believe that OZ sucking up all the fuel for phantom production was intentionally added to AE as a problem to overcome (this didn't happen in the original WitP). If it was intentional then letting OZ run dry should have severe negative consequences. It doesn't. So the obvious solution before the patch was just to just put the fuel in other places like Hobart & Aukland. Also, if this was meant to be why was the ability added to turn off production for the Allies? It's purely a convenience and doesn't give the Allies any unfair advantages IMO. Others obviously disagree.

< Message edited by mjk428 -- 8/29/2012 7:49:24 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Justus2)

Post #: 13

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/29/2012 8:32:41 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

It's not too difficult to keep Oz supplied with fuel. Can run TK convoys from both Cape Town to Perth and LA to Sydney. Just have to keep an eye not to dry Cape Town.

Just that if KB gets to those big fuel convoys....

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 14

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/29/2012 8:38:09 PM

Mundy

Posts: 2869
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline

Unless you lose your USN CVs early and have an opponent obsessed with distributing KB everywhere for anti-commerce missions.

Oz is burning cow dung for cooking meals right now.

Ed-

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 15

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/29/2012 8:54:06 PM

aphrochine

Posts: 189
Joined: 3/24/2008
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline

I've not had many issues keeping Australia supplied with fuel. I do not bother with Oil, just fuel.

Without going into too great of detail, just put together a series of large convoys. From the west coast, you need 3-4 large 100K capacity fuel convoys as a minimum. If you bring in more from CT, you can suffer fewer convoys from the West Coast.

Also, I'd recommend you not use Australian bases as major transport hubs if possible. That's what large islands are for, where you dont have to worry about industry siphoning fuel away from your fleet operations if you stockpile fuel at Pago or other appropriately safe island.

_____________________________

VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy

(in reply to Mundy)

Post #: 16

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/30/2012 9:09:17 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Remember that you can also transport fuel with xAKs, just that they don't load fully. Allies have shortage of tankers/oilers until 1943, but plenty of xAKs.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to aphrochine)

Post #: 17

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 8/30/2012 12:20:17 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The bit about turning off industry in Australia is the worst suggestion when playing PBM against a human. Against the AI, do what you like. Against a human it's one of the constraints that you should be saddled with overcoming.

Are you saying this from a play balance point of view, or is there some other detriment to shutting off the industry? Just want to make sure I understand. Haven't seen it mentioned in HRs for AARs, but is this an unwritten rule most abide by? Still learning against AI myself, but I don't want to pick up any bad habits that will make it harder to transition to PBEM.

Personal opinion: In a PBM it would be unfair unless your opponent had agreed to it. YMMV.

it would only be unfair if the Japanese would have to supply their non military economy, which they don't have to. HI isn't needed as the Allied so feeding the HI in Australia can only be seen as non military. Neither can the Allied change any replacement rates while the Japanese can literally do whatever they want. Economy wise there is so much in favour of the Japanese already that speaking of being "unfair" when turning off Australia's HI seems a bit too much to me.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 8/30/2012 12:22:48 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 18

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/3/2012 2:37:45 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

it would only be unfair if the Japanese would have to supply their non military economy, which they don't have to. HI isn't needed as the Allied so feeding the HI in Australia can only be seen as non military. Neither can the Allied change any replacement rates while the Japanese can literally do whatever they want. Economy wise there is so much in favour of the Japanese already that speaking of being "unfair" when turning off Australia's HI seems a bit too much to me.

OK - now I am confused about the role of HI in Australia. Isn't Aussie HI needed to produce Aussie reinforcements (new and replacement devices, aircraft, vehicles)? Does a surplus of HI elsewhere on the map somehow find its way to Oz and keep their war industry going?? Just walking away from the fuel/HI/production issues in Oz seems a bit too simplistic for a PacWar simulator. Surely there is some consequence to not supplying fuel to Oz?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 19

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/3/2012 4:00:54 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

it would only be unfair if the Japanese would have to supply their non military economy, which they don't have to. HI isn't needed as the Allied so feeding the HI in Australia can only be seen as non military. Neither can the Allied change any replacement rates while the Japanese can literally do whatever they want. Economy wise there is so much in favour of the Japanese already that speaking of being "unfair" when turning off Australia's HI seems a bit too much to me.

OK - now I am confused about the role of HI in Australia. Isn't Aussie HI needed to produce Aussie reinforcements (new and replacement devices, aircraft, vehicles)? Does a surplus of HI elsewhere on the map somehow find its way to Oz and keep their war industry going?? Just walking away from the fuel/HI/production issues in Oz seems a bit too simplistic for a PacWar simulator. Surely there is some consequence to not supplying fuel to Oz?

nope, you do not need Allied HI for anything, all replacements are fixed and come regardless of HI. All your HI does in Australia is using up precious fuel to produce some HI points (which you don't need) and supply which you should be swimming in anyway. Someone mentioned you "only" need 70,000 fuel for your Aussie HI per month. Now if we go with roughly 300,000 tanker capacity in 42 that should be available on the West Coast (without any losses) and it takes a convoy 1 month to get from LA to Sydney if you use somewhat safe shipping lanes, then Australia's HI drains 50% of the USN tanker capacity non stop.

Why? Because a 150,000 ton tanker convoy needs roughly two months to do the trip from the West Coast and back (plus loading/unloading/repairs/upgrades). I got no real life numbers but I seriously doubt that 50% of the US tankers were used to supply Australia's economy with fuel.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 9/3/2012 4:02:24 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 20

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/3/2012 5:10:12 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

it would only be unfair if the Japanese would have to supply their non military economy, which they don't have to. HI isn't needed as the Allied so feeding the HI in Australia can only be seen as non military. Neither can the Allied change any replacement rates while the Japanese can literally do whatever they want. Economy wise there is so much in favour of the Japanese already that speaking of being "unfair" when turning off Australia's HI seems a bit too much to me.

OK - now I am confused about the role of HI in Australia. Isn't Aussie HI needed to produce Aussie reinforcements (new and replacement devices, aircraft, vehicles)? Does a surplus of HI elsewhere on the map somehow find its way to Oz and keep their war industry going?? Just walking away from the fuel/HI/production issues in Oz seems a bit too simplistic for a PacWar simulator. Surely there is some consequence to not supplying fuel to Oz?

nope, you do not need Allied HI for anything, all replacements are fixed and come regardless of HI. All your HI does in Australia is using up precious fuel to produce some HI points (which you don't need) and supply which you should be swimming in anyway. Someone mentioned you "only" need 70,000 fuel for your Aussie HI per month. Now if we go with roughly 300,000 tanker capacity in 42 that should be available on the West Coast (without any losses) and it takes a convoy 1 month to get from LA to Sydney if you use somewhat safe shipping lanes, then Australia's HI drains 50% of the USN tanker capacity non stop.

Why? Because a 150,000 ton tanker convoy needs roughly two months to do the trip from the West Coast and back (plus loading/unloading/repairs/upgrades). I got no real life numbers but I seriously doubt that 50% of the US tankers were used to supply Australia's economy with fuel.

Thus, begs to question, why bother to ship any fuel to OZ at all? Just ship supply when needed and forgot about Australian industry. You simply do not need it. Fuel shiped to OZ to run industry is just a wasted resource. Ship fuel to OZ to gas up your carriers and BBs. So store it in bases that are isolated. Allied fanboys, why would you want to complicate your "easy" life?

Take it from me and heed Caster Troy's words. I have three years of campaiging as the Allies and know for certain that unless you have managed to lose the entire West Coast of the US then you need never look at Australian industry. Never...... No seriously, never....

< Message edited by crsutton -- 9/3/2012 5:12:42 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 21

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/3/2012 8:10:53 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

it would only be unfair if the Japanese would have to supply their non military economy, which they don't have to. HI isn't needed as the Allied so feeding the HI in Australia can only be seen as non military. Neither can the Allied change any replacement rates while the Japanese can literally do whatever they want. Economy wise there is so much in favour of the Japanese already that speaking of being "unfair" when turning off Australia's HI seems a bit too much to me.

OK - now I am confused about the role of HI in Australia. Isn't Aussie HI needed to produce Aussie reinforcements (new and replacement devices, aircraft, vehicles)? Does a surplus of HI elsewhere on the map somehow find its way to Oz and keep their war industry going?? Just walking away from the fuel/HI/production issues in Oz seems a bit too simplistic for a PacWar simulator. Surely there is some consequence to not supplying fuel to Oz?

Allied on map industry follows the same rules as Japanese on map production. The only difference is that the Allied player Allied player can not

expand a secondary industry facility
convert a secondary industry facility to another use
produce some secondary industry products at all

and therefore the ability to fine tune Allied industry is severely limited.

Just as it is for Japan, it therefore follows that all surplus Allied Heavy Industry points are stored in a general pool which is not location specific. More importantly, all Allied on map aircraft production consumes Heavy Industry points. Run out of Heavy Industry points and no more on map production of Allied planes will occur.

There is no on map production of Allied devices. Allied device production is therefore not dependent on the production output of Allied on map secondary industry.

Alfred

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 22

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/3/2012 10:38:53 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Agree with the stockpiling fuel outside of Oz

I run a lot of ships running between Eastern USA to Capetown (suggestion by Bullwinkle?) and as long as you keep an eye on it, you can run keep a reasonable amount coming in that way. I think you've got to run the West coast to Oz as well, but I've not really got enough experience to say that for sure.

One thing is for sure, you have to do a fair bit of micro management, and you've got to keep an eye on the refuel status. Having a massive fuel convoy refuel completely in Sydney or Perth really, really, really can cheese you off!

Oh, and turning off Oz heavy industry strikes me as gamey as hell, and I wouldn't do it

< Message edited by Encircled -- 9/3/2012 10:39:39 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 23

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/4/2012 1:40:13 AM

Justus2

Posts: 729
Joined: 11/12/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Agree with the stockpiling fuel outside of Oz

I run a lot of ships running between Eastern USA to Capetown (suggestion by Bullwinkle?) and as long as you keep an eye on it, you can run keep a reasonable amount coming in that way. I think you've got to run the West coast to Oz as well, but I've not really got enough experience to say that for sure.

One thing is for sure, you have to do a fair bit of micro management, and you've got to keep an eye on the refuel status. Having a massive fuel convoy refuel completely in Sydney or Perth really, really, really can cheese you off!

Oh, and turning off Oz heavy industry strikes me as gamey as hell, and I wouldn't do it

But what's the difference between turning off the HI (allowing the fuel to be used for naval instead of industry) and stockpiling fuel outside of Oz (allowing the fuel to be used for naval instead of industry). Seems like a difference without a difference. If you ship enough to Oz to fuel all the industry, then you may as well stockpile the naval fuel there too, since you have enough to run the industry, the rest won't get sucked in. If you are just going to starve it of fuel, then why not save the trouble and just turn it off?

Not trying to be argumentative, I haven't gotten that far in a game to really experience how much of a difference it makes, so I really want to understand better. And I know I read all the time about Japan turning off armament production, adjusting industry expansion, etc, so I don't see how it's so much gamier (gameyer? new word) for the Allies to adjust their industry based on how much HI they need or don't need at a given point. Unless the HR would be that neither Japan or Allies could shut off industry/production centers.

_____________________________

Playing/Learning Shadow Empire

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 24

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/4/2012 5:21:52 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Agree with the stockpiling fuel outside of Oz

I run a lot of ships running between Eastern USA to Capetown (suggestion by Bullwinkle?) and as long as you keep an eye on it, you can run keep a reasonable amount coming in that way. I think you've got to run the West coast to Oz as well, but I've not really got enough experience to say that for sure.

One thing is for sure, you have to do a fair bit of micro management, and you've got to keep an eye on the refuel status. Having a massive fuel convoy refuel completely in Sydney or Perth really, really, really can cheese you off!

Oh, and turning off Oz heavy industry strikes me as gamey as hell, and I wouldn't do it

No need to turn it off. There is a shortage of oil and you will not produce supply to your maximum level but you still produce supply in OZ. Unless the fighting is very heavy it is more than you will need. As I said, just leave it alone.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 25

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/4/2012 5:26:49 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justus2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Agree with the stockpiling fuel outside of Oz

I run a lot of ships running between Eastern USA to Capetown (suggestion by Bullwinkle?) and as long as you keep an eye on it, you can run keep a reasonable amount coming in that way. I think you've got to run the West coast to Oz as well, but I've not really got enough experience to say that for sure.

One thing is for sure, you have to do a fair bit of micro management, and you've got to keep an eye on the refuel status. Having a massive fuel convoy refuel completely in Sydney or Perth really, really, really can cheese you off!

Oh, and turning off Oz heavy industry strikes me as gamey as hell, and I wouldn't do it

But what's the difference between turning off the HI (allowing the fuel to be used for naval instead of industry) and stockpiling fuel outside of Oz (allowing the fuel to be used for naval instead of industry). Seems like a difference without a difference. If you ship enough to Oz to fuel all the industry, then you may as well stockpile the naval fuel there too, since you have enough to run the industry, the rest won't get sucked in. If you are just going to starve it of fuel, then why not save the trouble and just turn it off?

Not trying to be argumentative, I haven't gotten that far in a game to really experience how much of a difference it makes, so I really want to understand better. And I know I read all the time about Japan turning off armament production, adjusting industry expansion, etc, so I don't see how it's so much gamier (gameyer? new word) for the Allies to adjust their industry based on how much HI they need or don't need at a given point. Unless the HR would be that neither Japan or Allies could shut off industry/production centers.

The Allies have a shortage of tankers in 1942. Trying to keep OZ fueled and enough fuel in the SoPac for your naval needs if very tough. It just is very hard to move enough fuel and you will want to be building stockpiles for your navy. I actually ran some fuel to OZ to run the industry but don't think it really matters. You have plenty of AKs. Just run supply. That is what you will need. Alfred is right about HI but the Allies produce such a surplus of HI that unless you have lost India and some of the US, you don't really need to produce HI in OZ. And if you are at the point where you do not have enough HI, don't worry. You have already lost the game...

< Message edited by crsutton -- 9/4/2012 5:27:48 AM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Justus2)

Post #: 26

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/4/2012 3:15:05 PM

Dobey455

Posts: 445
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

While I have never had too much trouble supplying fuel to Oz without turning off HI, the truth is it is a PIA and i'd rather not bother.

Can anyone give me any historical reason to leave HI on and keep the fuel burn going in Aus considering that:

a) Australia remained a net exporter during the second world war (in fact her highest ever trade surplus was 1942 - 1943). The only product Australia needed to import in mass was manufactured military hardware (tanks, A\C, etc). Why? Because she lacked the HI to produce it herself.

b) Australia had little in the way of heavy industry in the 1940's (and not much even today). Most Australian industry was light industry.

c) Industries run, in most cases, on electricity or by burning coal. I have yet to hear of someone finishing work half a day early because the factory ran out of fuel.

As to being gamey, well the simplest test, to my mind, is that if both sides can do exactly the same thing then it seems fair enough.
In any case when Japans oil imports run dry late in the war and the Japanese player starts turning off industry to save fuel I have never heard accusations of gameyness.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 27

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/4/2012 5:33:41 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

While I have never had too much trouble supplying fuel to Oz without turning off HI, the truth is it is a PIA and i'd rather not bother.

Can anyone give me any historical reason to leave HI on and keep the fuel burn going in Aus considering that:

a) Australia remained a net exporter during the second world war (in fact her highest ever trade surplus was 1942 - 1943). The only product Australia needed to import in mass was manufactured military hardware (tanks, A\C, etc). Why? Because she lacked the HI to produce it herself.

b) Australia had little in the way of heavy industry in the 1940's (and not much even today). Most Australian industry was light industry.

c) Industries run, in most cases, on electricity or by burning coal. I have yet to hear of someone finishing work half a day early because the factory ran out of fuel.

As to being gamey, well the simplest test, to my mind, is that if both sides can do exactly the same thing then it seems fair enough.
In any case when Japans oil imports run dry late in the war and the Japanese player starts turning off industry to save fuel I have never heard accusations of gameyness.

Historically in FY 1938-39 Australia imported 600,040,188 gallons of oils/petroleum products, in FY 1943-1944 this value had risen to 859,217,333 gallons.

Assuming 55 gallons to the barrel and 6.29 barrels to the ton, Australia would have imported 4750 fuel points per day in 1938-39 now lets assume about half of the oils/petroleum products are actually "supply" Australia would still have imported something over a 2000 fuel points per day....in 1938-1939. By FY 1943-44 the value should be somewhere north of 3000 fuel points per day.

Source: Official Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia No. 37 - 1946 and 1947 page 414.

Players should never have been given the abilitity to turn Industry off...and yes I was part of the design team for the economic model in AE.

< Message edited by treespider -- 9/4/2012 7:59:08 PM >

_____________________________

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 Dobey455)

Post #: 28

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/5/2012 4:45:43 AM

Dobey455

Posts: 445
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

Well, you've sold me.

I'll leave industry and learn to live with it.

With regards to not letting players turn industry off, how do you see that feature changing the dynamic of the game, as opposed to, as others have mentioned, simply moving fuel to islands or non industry bases where it won't be consumed? (ie Tasmania, Auckland, etc)

The effects are essentially the same, no? With the exception of higher spoilage rates than if it were kept in major bases.

< Message edited by Dobey -- 9/5/2012 4:46:22 AM >

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 29

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/5/2012 8:21:56 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

Well, you've sold me.
I'll leave industry and learn to live with it.

With regards to not letting players turn industry off, how do you see that feature changing the dynamic of the game, as opposed to, as others have mentioned, simply moving fuel to islands or non industry bases where it won't be consumed? (ie Tasmania, Auckland, etc)

The effects are essentially the same, no? With the exception of higher spoilage rates than if it were kept in major bases.

There are consequences of doing so.

1. Auckland (and the rest of New Zealand too) does have Heavy Industry. The difference is that unlike Australia, there is no local fuel production. If the Allied player can manage their NZ fuel stocks, they should be able to do so equally with Australia.

2. The "dry" bases are usually further away from the combat zone. Players are therefore going to consume additional fuel just in transiting the extra distance.

3. The extra transit distance provides (a) more opportunity for enemy subs to interdict the vessels, and (b) creates more wear and tear on Allied ships.

4. Besides potential spoilage from the smaller "dry" ports, refueling and rearming operations are inhibited in time. In some instances the bigger ships will have to expend additional fuel to then travel to a port where they can be rearmed.

5. Depending on the location of the specific "dry" port, there will be reduced Allied flexibility in sourcing fuel imports. Besides the effect on Allied logistics, it also can make it easier for the enemy to raid the SLOCs.

As always, there are costs associated with any particular course of action. Too often players here seem to think themselves smarter than the real life commanders. Players are no where subjected to the same extent of the real world pressures which the historical commanders were but the players are provided with just enough for them to understand that the real historical commanders had sound reasons for the way they conducted the war.

Alfred

(in reply to Dobey455)

Post #: 30