Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 Page: <<   < prev  37 38 39 [40] 41   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/1/2011 3:41:36 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I just got a great idea from GBL's AAR! The B5N1 uses the Nakajima Hikari engine and there are 99 of those engines in the pool, with no use. The B5N2 factory starts at 0. I'm going to change it to B5N1 (no cost to change) and increase it to 50, as I had planned for the B5N2. Once all the engines are used, I'll convert it for free to the B5N2 and continue production. I may have to change one or two of KBs TB daitai to the N1 down the road, but that's no matter. Thanks GBL!


Not a bad idea, Mike. I usually will use up all the Nakajima Hikari engines by producing surplus B5N1s as Kamikazes later in the war. Your approach sounds good too.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1171
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/1/2011 4:14:04 PM   
goodboyladdie


Posts: 3469
Joined: 11/18/2005
From: Rendlesham, Suffolk
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I just got a great idea from GBL's AAR! The B5N1 uses the Nakajima Hikari engine and there are 99 of those engines in the pool, with no use. The B5N2 factory starts at 0. I'm going to change it to B5N1 (no cost to change) and increase it to 50, as I had planned for the B5N2. Once all the engines are used, I'll convert it for free to the B5N2 and continue production. I may have to change one or two of KBs TB daitai to the N1 down the road, but that's no matter. Thanks GBL!


Not a bad idea, Mike. I usually will use up all the Nakajima Hikari engines by producing surplus B5N1s as Kamikazes later in the war. Your approach sounds good too.


Not my idea Mike - somebody suggested it to me in my AAR.


_____________________________



Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1172
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/1/2011 4:24:57 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Doesn't matter, GBL. Your discussion of it in your AAR was the spark. Thanks!

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to goodboyladdie)
Post #: 1173
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/1/2011 5:38:06 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I just got a great idea from GBL's AAR! The B5N1 uses the Nakajima Hikari engine and there are 99 of those engines in the pool, with no use. The B5N2 factory starts at 0. I'm going to change it to B5N1 (no cost to change) and increase it to 50, as I had planned for the B5N2. Once all the engines are used, I'll convert it for free to the B5N2 and continue production. I may have to change one or two of KBs TB daitai to the N1 down the road, but that's no matter. Thanks GBL!

Hi guys!!

The B5N2 isn't in the upgrade path for the B5N1 are you sure the change is of no cost?
I'm building the B5N2 and B5N1 concurrently and when the Nakajima Hikari engines are spent have plans to convert it to something else.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Note that I haven't considered R&D yet.


Do you have any initial thoughts for your R&D? I hate the idea of those '44 and '45 factories sitting around doing nothing waiting complete the trek to 30 R&D . I subscribe to Daimian's theory that the sweet spot is thirty for R&D. I'd like the factories to be more dynamic instead of intial changes and let it play out. My plans are to divide R&D into two segments, pre 1/44 and post 1/44 IIRC I have 77 factories all researching airframes that come into play before 1/44 as airframes come online I'll move along the upgrade path (No damage , gotta love that) or to other airframes I want.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 10/1/2011 5:58:24 PM >


_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1174
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/1/2011 7:40:46 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I just got a great idea from GBL's AAR! The B5N1 uses the Nakajima Hikari engine and there are 99 of those engines in the pool, with no use. The B5N2 factory starts at 0. I'm going to change it to B5N1 (no cost to change) and increase it to 50, as I had planned for the B5N2. Once all the engines are used, I'll convert it for free to the B5N2 and continue production. I may have to change one or two of KBs TB daitai to the N1 down the road, but that's no matter. Thanks GBL!


Not a bad idea, Mike. I usually will use up all the Nakajima Hikari engines by producing surplus B5N1s as Kamikazes later in the war. Your approach sounds good too.


Not my idea Mike - somebody suggested it to me in my AAR.



My idea and now I have trashed parts of 3 virtual Japan's economies(mine, GBL and Mike Solli's) - N1 indeed doesnt upgrade to N2. But they're still 50 half-the-price AC and so worth building, say, 10 or 15 a month, and you can later use that factory to build any plane you don't plan to R&D but want to build, such as the kamikaze-Tsurugi, transport Ki-49 or G4M or something.

_____________________________


(in reply to goodboyladdie)
Post #: 1175
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/1/2011 9:01:14 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Nope, you didn't trash mine yet. I was going to convert the size 10 Nate factory to the C5M2 but maybe I'll convert it to the B5N1 for awhile. Gotta think about it for a bit.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 1176
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 12:33:54 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
I think I'm going to convert the 10x Nate factory to ~12-15x B5N1 for awhile. I'd like to use up all 99 engines if possible. I'll convert to C5M2 when needed.

Anyway, I've been thinking a bit about merchant convoys. The initial plan used ~250 hulls, but that was done before we learned a lot about movement of resources and oil by the AI. We learned that everything produced and dropped off in Kyushu flows on its own to Honshu. That's frees up all the shipping initially used to move it to Honshu. Also, All the stuff produced and dropped off in Hokkaido flows to Hakodate. Because it all flows to Hakodate (must be downhill), all the stuff from Sakhalin can be dropped off at Sapporo, saving a lot of travel time and fuel. Here's the rough estimate I have so far:






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1177
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 12:46:35 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Once the beta becomes official, we'll use that. When it does, I'll try to get the excess resources to go to Pusan (not sure it works that way though). If it does, then I'll change the convoys around for C/M/K.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1178
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 1:11:24 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
Pretty sure that Shikoku resources do not need independent pickup, Mike. They are magically transported across the water, IIRC. Hey, it frees up a bunch of your shipping!

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1179
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 1:56:14 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
I never checked that island. I'll do that first few turns of the game to confirm. Thanks. Turns out it really doesn't take much shipping to manage the Home Islands.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1180
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 3:08:30 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Pretty sure that Shikoku resources do not need independent pickup, Mike. They are magically transported across the water, IIRC. Hey, it frees up a bunch of your shipping!


Do we have confirmation of this ?

Xargun

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1181
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 3:10:08 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
I don't. But it would be simple to check. Stop your convoys from this island for a couple of days and keep track of all the resources in every base. There aren't that many. If it levels off and remains constant, you have your proof!

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 1182
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 3:14:54 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I don't. But it would be simple to check. Stop your convoys from this island for a couple of days and keep track of all the resources in every base. There aren't that many. If it levels off and remains constant, you have your proof!


Yep. There are 3 bases on Shikoku: Matsuyama, Takamatsu and Kochi. They produce 8900+900+300=10100 of resource surplus per day, but on turn 89 I they only have 26304+6906+14902=48112, only 4½ day's surplus, so resources must be flowing to Honshu via Takamatsu and Matsuyama.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1183
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 3:29:14 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
The key is to see if those numbers remain constant over a period of turns. Due to the weird AI calculations, there is usually some constant number of resources at bases. Look at Nagasaki. There is always a constant 131k there no matter how much you dump or remove each day.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 1184
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 3:35:07 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

The key is to see if those numbers remain constant over a period of turns. Due to the weird AI calculations, there is usually some constant number of resources at bases. Look at Nagasaki. There is always a constant 131k there no matter how much you dump or remove each day.


I would have 800,000+ resources on Shikoku if it didn't move out by itself. I only have 48,000, 4½ day's surplus production and I'm not shipping it anywhere... Similarly it seems there are just the minimum amount of supplies, the the surplus resources and supplies must be flowing to Honshu and Kyushu. No need to use ships!

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1185
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 3:44:25 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

I would have 800,000+ resources on Shikoku if it didn't move out by itself. I only have 48,000, 4½ day's surplus production and I'm not shipping it anywhere... Similarly it seems there are just the minimum amount of supplies, the the surplus resources and supplies must be flowing to Honshu and Kyushu. No need to use ships!


Looks like that's the evidence we need guys! Thanks Erkki!

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 1186
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 3:49:16 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Looks like that's the evidence we need guys! Thanks Erkki!


Great - I have a large convoy there loading and once it leaves I will stop all transport from there and watch it for a week - but it does sound like it should move by itself. The only problem I see is that I have like 800k resources in the northern base and it seems to stay there in large numbers. Maybe I messed up and expanded the port so it all goes there instead of the southern base - which would allow the free transport. I will definitely need to watch it and maybe build up the southern port too.

Xargun

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1187
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 4:59:55 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Haven't needed convoys to Shikoku for a long time ... the abstraction is that they are using the tunnel/numerous ferries that are present. Don't recall when this was implemented .... but waaaay back.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 1188
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 5:03:40 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Looks like that's the evidence we need guys! Thanks Erkki!


Great - I have a large convoy there loading and once it leaves I will stop all transport from there and watch it for a week - but it does sound like it should move by itself. The only problem I see is that I have like 800k resources in the northern base and it seems to stay there in large numbers. Maybe I messed up and expanded the port so it all goes there instead of the southern base - which would allow the free transport. I will definitely need to watch it and maybe build up the southern port too.

Xargun


It might go there and stay there because you've been removing it by ship from there. Just as I metion below about HI in Manchuria, if I took too much fuel out of Port Arthur, it would never pass some back inland to those other bases, even though there was surplus.

As a new player I never knew I had to move resources from Shikoku, and so I never did! I only discovered one used to have to move them reading one of Mike's start-up TF charts, and thought what a pain that must have been.

So I've never had a problem with them flowing out.

I did start late moving resources from Hokkaido to Honshu through Ominato and a few other ports on the north. This is SCEN 2. I was very casual about it all until my LI in Tokyo shut down. I got it up in two days and it never quit again, but it's been a constant struggle to refill Tokyo's basket after that. For the past two months, 7-9/42, I kept seeing resources in the red at Osaka, Yokohama, Tokyo, and Kobe.

Only after much effort and extra from China and the DEI moving DIRECT into these ports did it go up to surplus levels in those cities. I was using a patch from about 6 months ago, and now I'm current and have the resources controls.

So my question is about those controls. Will they always assure that I have resources moving around to keep the right amount in each place if I set them to 'yes' store said item?

I also had problems not having enough fuel at inland cities in Manchuria to run the HI, so they periodically shut down. In my new game I've just set them all immediately to store fuel at Harbin and the others there.

One more thing. Do resources that are brought in at Ominato but make their way to Tokyo have losses due to transport overland?

< Message edited by obvert -- 10/5/2011 5:05:21 PM >

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 1189
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 5:08:40 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
-PS

The reason I'd like to know this for sure is that I would like to establish steady convoys based in Port Arthur, but don't want to use it as their home if that means the fuel will try to build up there o fuel the ships and not go to the factories it needs to feed.

Sorry if this is all very basic. Just want to get it straight.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1190
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 5:14:59 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
So my question is about those controls. Will they always assure that I have resources moving around to keep the right amount in each place if I set them to 'yes' store said item?

I also had problems not having enough fuel at inland cities in Manchuria to run the HI, so they periodically shut down. In my new game I've just set them all immediately to store fuel at Harbin and the others there.

One more thing. Do resources that are brought in at Ominato but make their way to Tokyo have losses due to transport overland?

The controls only help HOLD the material that has flowed to the base there, it does not direct it to flow there. The logic behind the movement of resources/oil is based upon usage (including ship loading). It is possible to get resources/oil to move to Fusan, however it takes patience and effort do so. They want to move to Shanghai/PA because of port size and/or factory usage. You have to patiently build up your shipping efforts from Fusan to get it to move there. Can take many weeks of effort, but the results are MUCH shorter convoys resulting in a HUGE surplus of shipping and the ability to lock out the USN SS's. Pretty big pay back, so worth the effort.

This isn't gamey at all, although some say it is. First, IJ did end up doing a lot of transport out of Fusan for the above reasons late in the war. Second, the rail connections and port facilities at Fusan were more than adequate to the task. Fusan has a good, natural, deep water harbor, not as large as some, but still an 8/9 size by game standards easily. Anyone who has ever been there would validate this assessment. I was first there in '78, well before the economic miracle really kicked in. Most everything there was still WWII/Korean war era. Old, but nothing wrong with the quantity. Now, it is like going to San Diego ... very modern, very large.

I think IJ didn't shift more there earlier simply due to internal politics. Different commands with the PA commander not wanting to lose the assets/prestige having the shipping shift to Fusan. Just my opinion here ...

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 10/5/2011 5:15:12 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1191
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 5:15:41 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



I've found myself training a large number of IJAAF pilots for LowNav bombing skills-those used for Kamikaze attacks later in the war. My goal is to be able to keep Kamikaze skills in the 55-65 range-it should translate into more damage later in the war.

Agree on IJAAF ASW training. It takes a long time for them to get up to 70 skill, but once they do, they're effective.



Hi Chickenboy and anyone else that wants to contribute..... I was thinking about starting a thread on the very same subject... The IJAAF in regards to Low Nav training I was thinking after the intial crop of IJAAF trained ASW recruits graduate , delegate one group of bombers to LowNav training... Do you all think 90 to 110 days in is too early to start training pilots for kamikazee duty?

Thanks..


Hasn't the group determined that you can get pilots trained in a single skill to ~70 in ~3 months? Some who have timed it indicate that you can get a group to circa 60 in about half (!) that time. So, figure LowNav at 1.5-2 months per recruit for a basic trained kamikaze pilot, right?

As far as when to *start* training for Kamikaze duty in the grand scheme of things? Tough question. When can Allied and Japanese players start using the benefits of hindsight and game mechanics? From day one. I can see the argument that it's unrealistically early for the Jap player to train Kamis on day one, but it's shades of gray. I'd be interested in hearing the arguments.

ETA: I suspect a reason this hasn't been a major issue has been the lack of AAR-reported games in mid-44 or later. Precious few have seen / discussed their kamikaze experiences for debate or HR development.



AFB sticking his nose in - Alert!

Hey guys, just catching up, so I don't know if anyone has really addressed this question yet or not. In my humble, Allied opinion, there is no issue with starting to train pilots to be used as Kami's on Dec 8, '41. It's really a decision for the Jap player how he wants to allocate his available training resources. As Sulu mentioned, any LowNav training is at the expense of ASW training, or something else. There doesn't seem to be any "trick the game mechanics" at work here to gain an advantage. Hence, no worries.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1192
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 5:17:25 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Doesn't matter, GBL. Your discussion of it in your AAR was the spark. Thanks!


This is exactly why I love reading your AAR, Mike! Nothing you specifically discuss can be directly applied to the Allied side, but the ideas, planning, and organization sure can!

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1193
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 5:49:25 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

The controls only help HOLD the material that has flowed to the base there, it does not direct it to flow there. The logic behind the movement of resources/oil is based upon usage (including ship loading). It is possible to get resources/oil to move to Fusan, however it takes patience and effort do so. They want to move to Shanghai/PA because of port size and/or factory usage. You have to patiently build up your shipping efforts from Fusan to get it to move there. Can take many weeks of effort, but the results are MUCH shorter convoys resulting in a HUGE surplus of shipping and the ability to lock out the USN SS's. Pretty big pay back, so worth the effort.


I'll try Fusan.

The manual says this about adjacent hexes-

"A base may transfer supplies, oil, and resources to an adjacent base regardless of the terrain the separates the two hexes (allows inland sea movement of resources and oil)."

Wouldn't this also mean that everything should move between Hakodote and Ominato? I see at the end it mentions inland seas, but it seems to also indicate earlier that ANY two BASES can move supplies without shipping as long as they are adjacent.

(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 1194
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 5:58:26 PM   
hkbhsi

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 4/22/2007
From: Rome, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I'll try Fusan.

The manual says this about adjacent hexes-

"A base may transfer supplies, oil, and resources to an adjacent base regardless of the terrain the separates the two hexes (allows inland sea movement of resources and oil)."

Wouldn't this also mean that everything should move between Hakodote and Ominato? I see at the end it mentions inland seas, but it seems to also indicate earlier that ANY two BASES can move supplies without shipping as long as they are adjacent.



Resources do not move automatically between Hokkaido and Honshu because the hexside that divides Hakodate from Ominato is impassable (you can check it by using the F6 key) and therefore the 2 bases are not technically adjacent. You have to use ships to move resources and supply.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1195
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 6:01:54 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I'll try Fusan.

The manual says this about adjacent hexes-

"A base may transfer supplies, oil, and resources to an adjacent base regardless of the terrain the separates the two hexes (allows inland sea movement of resources and oil)."

Wouldn't this also mean that everything should move between Hakodote and Ominato? I see at the end it mentions inland seas, but it seems to also indicate earlier that ANY two BASES can move supplies without shipping as long as they are adjacent.



Resources do not move automatically between Hokkaido and Honshu because the hexside that divides Hakodate from Ominato is impassable (you can check it by using the F6 key) and therefore the 2 bases are not technically adjacent. You have to use ships to move resources and supply.


Thanks. That clarifies it.

< Message edited by obvert -- 10/5/2011 6:02:37 PM >

(in reply to hkbhsi)
Post #: 1196
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 6:57:19 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hkbhsi


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I'll try Fusan.

The manual says this about adjacent hexes-

"A base may transfer supplies, oil, and resources to an adjacent base regardless of the terrain the separates the two hexes (allows inland sea movement of resources and oil)."

Wouldn't this also mean that everything should move between Hakodote and Ominato? I see at the end it mentions inland seas, but it seems to also indicate earlier that ANY two BASES can move supplies without shipping as long as they are adjacent.



Resources do not move automatically between Hokkaido and Honshu because the hexside that divides Hakodate from Ominato is impassable (you can check it by using the F6 key) and therefore the 2 bases are not technically adjacent. You have to use ships to move resources and supply.


That's correct. If you set a convoy to move from one of those ports to the other, the distance travelled is 2 hexes.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to hkbhsi)
Post #: 1197
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 6:59:03 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

The controls only help HOLD the material that has flowed to the base there, it does not direct it to flow there. The logic behind the movement of resources/oil is based upon usage (including ship loading). It is possible to get resources/oil to move to Fusan, however it takes patience and effort do so. They want to move to Shanghai/PA because of port size and/or factory usage. You have to patiently build up your shipping efforts from Fusan to get it to move there. Can take many weeks of effort, but the results are MUCH shorter convoys resulting in a HUGE surplus of shipping and the ability to lock out the USN SS's. Pretty big pay back, so worth the effort.

This isn't gamey at all, although some say it is. First, IJ did end up doing a lot of transport out of Fusan for the above reasons late in the war. Second, the rail connections and port facilities at Fusan were more than adequate to the task. Fusan has a good, natural, deep water harbor, not as large as some, but still an 8/9 size by game standards easily. Anyone who has ever been there would validate this assessment. I was first there in '78, well before the economic miracle really kicked in. Most everything there was still WWII/Korean war era. Old, but nothing wrong with the quantity. Now, it is like going to San Diego ... very modern, very large.

I think IJ didn't shift more there earlier simply due to internal politics. Different commands with the PA commander not wanting to lose the assets/prestige having the shipping shift to Fusan. Just my opinion here ...


Good to read those thoughts and great avatar Pax!!

_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1198
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/5/2011 9:14:37 PM   
crsutton


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Haven't needed convoys to Shikoku for a long time ... the abstraction is that they are using the tunnel/numerous ferries that are present. Don't recall when this was implemented .... but waaaay back.


The Japanese relied an extensive train ferry service from Shikoku to Honshu-since most transport in the home islands was via rail. And relied on train ferrys for transport between the other main islands. Late in the war the Allied bombing campaign sunk most of the ferry ships in Japan which essentially cut the islands off from each other. In an ideal game situation the flow of supply would lessen as the war progressed. We will have to save that for AE2.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1199
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/6/2011 1:53:59 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Haven't needed convoys to Shikoku for a long time ... the abstraction is that they are using the tunnel/numerous ferries that are present. Don't recall when this was implemented .... but waaaay back.


The Japanese relied an extensive train ferry service from Shikoku to Honshu-since most transport in the home islands was via rail. And relied on train ferrys for transport between the other main islands. Late in the war the Allied bombing campaign sunk most of the ferry ships in Japan which essentially cut the islands off from each other. In an ideal game situation the flow of supply would lessen as the war progressed. We will have to save that for AE2.

When were the tunnels built? Were they pre or post war?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 1200
Page:   <<   < prev  37 38 39 [40] 41   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 Page: <<   < prev  37 38 39 [40] 41   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

1.779