Slitherine

quote:

One thing I forgot to mention previously - when moving from off-map base to another off-map base, air and ground units do not need to be provided with ships. It is assumed that other ships, not otherwise represented in the game, perform this "off map transport" function. The units simply move to the other off-map base by a type of strategic movement. However for transport to/from the main map, real transport ships do need to be provided.

Andrew

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr
Perhaps they employ the world wide net of Allied tugboat owner operators and don't use any fuel????

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr
Perhaps they employ the world wide net of Allied tugboat owner operators and don't use any fuel????

There's unlimited fuel in the continental US and Aden/Karachi as it is. The Allies never suffer a global fuel shortage, therefore, they only suffer local shortages when they lack for tankers to ship it to a required location on map.

...so this hardly strikes me as all that relevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr

Since the question is still relevant to me, is it possible to run out of fuel during an off map transit or off map point to point... --> (yes/no) <--- ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr
Is Aden/Karachi available early on?

quote:

If so why include Capetown?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I played the CHS mod for WITP, and off map area for British forces coming into India made sense but, Panama didn't! I mean just have stuff show up on the west cost of the US/Canada a week later.

In the AE manual I see off map areas for the Soviet Union, Eastern Canada, Eastern US, Monbasa, Cap Town, Port Stanley, plus others. I just don't see the reason for most of these and forcing the player to moving troops, ships, supplies, etc. not only across the pacific but, also move them to/from all these other off map places seems like a bit. What the pacific map wasn't big enough, there wasn't enough already for the player to do? What is the purpose of these? What does this add to the game other than waste player time?

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr
Perhaps they employ the world wide net of Allied tugboat owner operators and don't use any fuel????

There's unlimited fuel in the continental US and Aden/Karachi as it is. The Allies never suffer a global fuel shortage, therefore, they only suffer local shortages when they lack for tankers to ship it to a required location on map.

...so this hardly strikes me as all that relevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Abadan and the Eastern USA are the big fuel sources in the game for the Allies. Fuel and supplies will automatically move to the West Coast via the railway network. But to make use of the fuel generated at Abadan you'll have to ship it to wherever you need it on the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Fact is, you're preemptively whining. Must be some kinda issues or agenda lurking there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yup until the Med opens supplies arriving in Capetown are vital

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yup until the Med opens supplies arriving in Capetown are vital

So wait up a second, I'm curious.

Where do the British troops get their supplies from? Abadan? Or is Abadan only a source of unlimited fuel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
Andrew, stated this can be fixed by the player with the editor (removing/disable some of this map movement), I hope that's true. I'm just surprised that this is even in AE, it seems like such an advantage to the allied player. I think both players should be forced to move their forces on the same map.

It really isn't such a huge advantage. The offmap trip the long way around to Australia is very long. In the first year or so the Allies are going to find merchant ships tight. Especially long haul merchant ships. When we were testing moving supplies from Cape Town to India, Allied players found that while doable, it sucked up most of their longest range merchant ships. The haul to Australia from Cape Town is even further than India with very little in the way of bases to stop and get a refill.

Unless the Japanese have occupied the entire South Pacific, it is always much more economical for the Allies to ship supplies to Australia hooking south of Japanese possessions in the Central and South Pacific.

I have played AE as the Allies and I didn't see your concerns as a serious consideration. In the real world the Allies could ship supplies and troops via the southern route around Africa. They did it very little for the same reasons the Allies don't do it much in AE. It's a very long trip and very taxing on your limited resources.

The Allies don't have the bounty of merchies and supplies they had in WitP. At least not in 1942. Tying up all your valuable long range merchant ships on world cruises just to avoid the occasional Japanese sub is a foolish choice and an Allied player who does it will likely end up in worse shape down the line because a lot less supply is getting to Australia than would make it with the on map route.

If it takes twice the time and twice the fuel to go the long way (I haven't counted hexes, but that's a rough guess), you will be delivering half the cargo to Australia than using the on map route. If you want to move something from the eastern Pacific (near or in the US) to the Indian Ocean, it might be reasonable to do, but it's going to be costly in time and effort.

You have the disadvantage of not having played the game. It really isn't as bad as you think.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).

quote:

2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).

quote:

3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
Andrew, stated this can be fixed by the player with the editor (removing/disable some of this map movement), I hope that's true. I'm just surprised that this is even in AE, it seems like such an advantage to the allied player. I think both players should be forced to move their forces on the same map.

It really isn't such a huge advantage. The offmap trip the long way around to Australia is very long. In the first year or so the Allies are going to find merchant ships tight. Especially long haul merchant ships. When we were testing moving supplies from Cape Town to India, Allied players found that while doable, it sucked up most of their longest range merchant ships. The haul to Australia from Cape Town is even further than India with very little in the way of bases to stop and get a refill.

Unless the Japanese have occupied the entire South Pacific, it is always much more economical for the Allies to ship supplies to Australia hooking south of Japanese possessions in the Central and South Pacific.

I have played AE as the Allies and I didn't see your concerns as a serious consideration. In the real world the Allies could ship supplies and troops via the southern route around Africa. They did it very little for the same reasons the Allies don't do it much in AE. It's a very long trip and very taxing on your limited resources.

The Allies don't have the bounty of merchies and supplies they had in WitP. At least not in 1942. Tying up all your valuable long range merchant ships on world cruises just to avoid the occasional Japanese sub is a foolish choice and an Allied player who does it will likely end up in worse shape down the line because a lot less supply is getting to Australia than would make it with the on map route.

If it takes twice the time and twice the fuel to go the long way (I haven't counted hexes, but that's a rough guess), you will be delivering half the cargo to Australia than using the on map route. If you want to move something from the eastern Pacific (near or in the US) to the Indian Ocean, it might be reasonable to do, but it's going to be costly in time and effort.

You have the disadvantage of not having played the game. It really isn't as bad as you think.

Bill

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

How can this not, be a big advantage to the allies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Pad I don't think anything I can say will convince you I guess you will need to wait and see what others report on the game before making your decision.

I honestly do not believe its the issue you think it is but I suspect nothing I say will convince you of that (nor should it you think its an issue you are entitled to that view) wait for the game form your own view from everyone else's experience and in 6 months after due reflection of the AAR's and feedback you can make your call to buy or not to buy.

Can't say fairer than that.

Andy

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
Andrew, stated this can be fixed by the player with the editor (removing/disable some of this map movement), I hope that's true. I'm just surprised that this is even in AE, it seems like such an advantage to the allied player. I think both players should be forced to move their forces on the same map.

It really isn't such a huge advantage. The offmap trip the long way around to Australia is very long. In the first year or so the Allies are going to find merchant ships tight. Especially long haul merchant ships. When we were testing moving supplies from Cape Town to India, Allied players found that while doable, it sucked up most of their longest range merchant ships. The haul to Australia from Cape Town is even further than India with very little in the way of bases to stop and get a refill.

Unless the Japanese have occupied the entire South Pacific, it is always much more economical for the Allies to ship supplies to Australia hooking south of Japanese possessions in the Central and South Pacific.

I have played AE as the Allies and I didn't see your concerns as a serious consideration. In the real world the Allies could ship supplies and troops via the southern route around Africa. They did it very little for the same reasons the Allies don't do it much in AE. It's a very long trip and very taxing on your limited resources.

The Allies don't have the bounty of merchies and supplies they had in WitP. At least not in 1942. Tying up all your valuable long range merchant ships on world cruises just to avoid the occasional Japanese sub is a foolish choice and an Allied player who does it will likely end up in worse shape down the line because a lot less supply is getting to Australia than would make it with the on map route.

If it takes twice the time and twice the fuel to go the long way (I haven't counted hexes, but that's a rough guess), you will be delivering half the cargo to Australia than using the on map route. If you want to move something from the eastern Pacific (near or in the US) to the Indian Ocean, it might be reasonable to do, but it's going to be costly in time and effort.

You have the disadvantage of not having played the game. It really isn't as bad as you think.

Bill

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

How can this not, be a big advantage to the allies?

These are all done by ships that did not see action in the Pacific theatre - they were just used to get the stuff to the Middle East or South Africa. Now if you want to track all that stuff, then you need to give the allies ALL the shipping that was used in the Atlantic as well. Is this what you want?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

How can this not, be a big advantage to the allies?



Every argument you've made has been refuted. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.